To NOT a few the Christian life seems a hard and laborious one. Discipleship is almost a spiritual bondage rather than a joyous, excellent freedom. The difficulty is they have not yet learned by experience what the Christian life really is. They attempt to follow Christ, goaded to it by an active and unsatisfied conscience, or perhaps by fears of the consequences to themselves if they do not. Such a life cannot but be one of wearisome struggle and frequent defeat.
The Christian life is one inspired by a very different spirit from this. It looks not merely to one's own conscience and will, but to Christ, both for impulse and power. Its aim is so to appreciate his own wonderful love to us that a personal love to him, as the best and dearest of all friends, shall become the supreme affection of the soul. It tries to regard every duty and accept every trial, as assigned us by him and to be done or borne for him, as an expression of our love. In proportion as we live such a life, not one of mere duty, but of personal and outflowing love to Christ, we shall find the Christian life to be the happiest life that can be lived.
It is a most pernicious mistake to suppose, as many do, that Paul, in the latter part of the seventh chapter of Romans, is describing the life of a true disciple. The picture he so vividly paints is that of one who is striving in his own strength and by the power of his own resolution, to fight successfully the battle with temptation. The writer uses the first person singular, just as he does in the thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians, for the sake of vivacity and impressiveness. Perhaps he was describing his own experience before he learned of Christ how to live the Christian life. But that he was not describing this life is very clear from the fact, not only that the struggler is constantly vanquished, as the true Christian is not, but that when the despairing cry has been wrung from him, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" the apostle at once holds up Christ as the source of power and victory. "I thank God [deliverance is to be had] through Jesus Christ our Lord." And he then goes on in the eighth chapter to sing the glad song of victory which Christ has taught us: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus."—Advance.
Obedience Always Possible.
By S. S. Times
CAN a man always live a Christian life, in spite of any and all adverse circumstances? Yes; he either can do that, or die a Christian's death. No man need sin. If Elisha could stand fast in spite of Jezebel; and the son of Ahaz (Hezekiah), and, later on, the son and grandson of Amon and Manasseh (Josiah), could be godly men; and if even the Ninevites could repent after only one sermon,—surely we cannot say that repentance and godliness are ever impossible to men. The Bible is full of instances where even boys and girls, amidst very adverse circumstances, have lived glorious lives for God. (For example, Joseph, the Syrian maid, Samuel, David, Esther, Ruth, Jonathan, Daniel and his friends, and others.) And is it impossible to do this any longer? Surely not.
Immortality in the Old Testament.
By C. P. Bollman
THE assertion is made in a recent editorial article in the New England Evangelist, that "until the divine demonstration of invincible power in the victory of Christ over the grave, there was no knowledge of immortality beyond the gates of death." That any professed Christian should make such a statement is a matter of no little surprise, since it is a denial, not only of the Old Testament, but of the New as well, and even contradicts the teaching of Christ himself, who silenced the skeptical Sadducees by proving from the writings of Moses, the resurrection of the dead. See Matt. 22: 23-32.
The apostle Paul says (2 Tim. 1: 9, 10), that the "purpose and grace" of God were "made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel;" but he does not say that "there was no knowledge of immortality" until after Christ arose from the dead. He could not have said that; for he elsewhere proves the contrary. In his defense before Agrippa he said: "And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers" (Acts 26: 6); and from verse 8, and also chapter 23: 6 we learn that that hope was the hope of immortality through a resurrection from the dead. Indeed, the apostle repeatedly argues at length to show the identity of his faith and the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
The promise to Abraham was that he should be heir of the world (Rom. 4: 13); but we know, and Paul knew, that he did not receive it. And it was from this very fact that Stephen (Acts 7) argued the resurrection and Messiahship of Christ. The promise was not fulfilled to Abraham; therefore, he and all who are heirs with him, and who have died, or may yet die, must be raised from the dead that the promise may be fulfilled. In the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, Paul shows that all the ancient worthies had that same faith. He speaks especially of Abraham, proving positively that his faith was in the resurrection. He says: "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac; and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure." Heb. 11: 17-19.
Elsewhere we read, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Or, as James says: "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the Friend of God." James 2: 21-23.
Thus we see that Abraham was justified by faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. But Abraham's faith was different in no wise from that of Abel, Enoch, and Noah, nor from that of the many who died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city." Heb. 11: 13-16.
Life and immortality are indeed brought to light "through the gospel," but the gospel is as old as the promise of a Saviour. The doctrine that the gospel belongs only to the new covenant is false and misleading. The Scriptures testify (Gal. 3: 8) that "God preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." And again we read of the Jews in the days of Moses that they had the gospel. Heb. 4: 2. The Old Testament is full of immortality through a resurrection. When under sore affliction the patriarch Job exclaimed:—
"Oh that my words were now written! oh that they were printed in a book! that they were graven with an iron pen and lead in the rock forever! for I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Job 19: 23-26.
David, too, spoke of the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2: 30, 31); Isaiah spoke of the resurrection of all the righteous, saying: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust; for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead;" and the same thing was shown to Ezekiel in vision. Eze. 37. "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthah; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets; who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, . . . out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens. Women received their dead raised to life again; and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection." "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise: God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Heb. 11: 32-35, 39, 40.
But why pursue this subject further? for "if they believe not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead." If they reject the words of Christ (Luke 20: 37), neither have they any real faith in his resurrection or in his ability to raise those who believe in him. C. P. BOLLMAN.
Venerable Day of the Sun.
THE Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, of New York, says in his late book:—
"The ancient nations all about the Jews devoted the first day of the week to what was at first the chief symbol of god, the sun, calling it Sunday. . . . which the missionaries of the cross would find was already regarded sacred as the 'venerable day of the sun' in the Roman empire and among other nations to whom they were sent."—The Sabbath for Man, pp. 375, 376.
Mr. Crafts gives much evidence in support of his remark, and enough more can be given to remove all doubt of its truth.
Considering, then, that all the Gentile people, to whom the early missionaries of the cross went, were keeping the Sunday as a festival day and for the worship of the sun-god, and had for years before the time of Christ been so observing it, we are prepared to see that no command of Christ or example of the apostles is needed to induce the Gentile converts to keep this day. They were already keeping it, and with scores of other pagan rites and festivals, continued this as a festival day after coming into the church. The Jewish converts and all their descendants, always continued to keep the seventh day, and for the first three hundred years the Gentile converts observed the seventh day as the Sabbath, and after the second century also continued to observe the Sunday as a festival day as well as for religious worship. Finding, after a long time, that Christian worship on two successive days of the week required more time than could be spared from their daily labors, the Gentile converts, who had become much the more numerous in Europe, and who hated all Jews and Jewish observances, ceased to observe the seventh day, but continued to observe their old Sunday custom.—Light of Home.
Heaven Without My Saviour
By Helen L. Parmlee
Oh, Heaven without my Saviour
Would be no Heaven to me;
Dim were the walls of jasper,
Rayless the crystal sea.
He gilds earth’s darkest valleys
With light and joy and peace;
What then must be the radiance,
When night and death shall cease?
—Helen L. Parmlee.
"Against Thee Have I Sinned."
It is to be regretted that sin is so seldom regarded as something against God. Not thus was it with David. "Against thee, and thee only, have I sinned," was his penitential cry.
This is the view of sin, and the only view, that will lead to salvation. Our misdeeds may result in discomfort to others; they may bring bitter penalties upon ourselves in the loss of self-respect or in forfeiting the confidence of our friends. But sorrow from such considerations is not sufficient. It is only when we see how we have slighted our best Friend, our loving heavenly Father, that we come to any just measurement of the turpitude of our transgressions.—Sel.
Wisdom of This World.
By Judson Taylor
I TELL you the "wisdom of this world" always was a rival of God, standing over in the kingdom of Satan; for it is the most important organ of a heart totally depraved. This world has been digging against the throne of God, to undermine the same, ever since it heard the Lord claim to know more than men. To stop this mad-wise riot, the Lord came down and confused Babel, sent the flood of old, opened up the Dead Sea, and ground Jerusalem utterly to powder, just to stop the rage of the "world's wisdom!"
The earth is to-day reeling and staggering under its load of human traditions piled to the skies, by minds that meddle with God rather than obey his heavenly mandates. "Is the world getting worse or better?" The world never was in such a condition as it is this very moment. And well do I know all the pulpits of this age have in them a set of religious puffs that "pull all the stops," to pour with full force on the organ of human speech, when they come to compliment the attainments of the human family. Secular editors, scientific would-bes, and literary primps, all clamor to tell us, "man is morally good, and the world is getting better every day." "Narrow and few" describes the upper route; but "broad and many," the lower route.
There may be more education, but education is not Christianity. Greece was full of colleges, but, after all, rotted out with moral corruption. Ancient Egypt devised learned arts this insufficient age cannot reproduce, but, after all, she worshiped frogs for gods. All the religion in America to-day can scarcely keep some of our colleges in the bounds of the Bible; for our literary chairs are often filled by learned infidelity.—Judson Taylor, in Baptist Flag.
Christianity Unselfish.
By Northwestern Christian Advocate
If anything more were needed to show the supreme absurdity of the accusation that the Christian religion is selfish, it is that we are taught that we can only be saved ourselves by laboring to save others, and that we are saved from sin only in proportion as we are saved from selfishness. One object of our salvation is that we may be fitted to win men to Christ. We are blessed that we may be a blessing to others. "Freely ye have received, freely give."
"WHEREFORE then serveth the law?" This is a very pertinent question, and several points need to be borne in mind in reading it. First, the word "serveth" seems to convey to many minds the idea that the law was subservient, or secondary, to something else. There was really no necessity for the insertion of the word by the translators, for it is not expressed in the original. The text reads, Ti oun ho nomos? "Why then the law?" This conveys the exact meaning. It may also be more freely rendered, "Of what use, then, is the law?" Second, it must be remembered that questions of this sort are very common in Paul's writings. After having stated a proposition, he puts himself in the place of a supposed objector, in order that, by answering the question, he may bring out an additional thought. By so doing he anticipates every objection that might be brought against his argument.
Now recall the argument of verses 16-18, and you will readily see the force of this question. He has shown that the works of the law will not suffice to gain the promised inheritance for anybody. Faith in Christ is the only condition of salvation. Then the objector speaks up, and says, "Then what is the use of the law? If the inheritance is only by promise, what do men gain by having the law? Is it not rather a detriment to them?" There was need of asking and answering this question; for, notwithstanding Paul's answer, thousands are to-day asking the same question, and in so doing they imagine that they are making an unanswerable objection against the law. They say, "If we are saved by grace, what need have we of the law?" And what is the answer?—"It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Verse 19.
This is a very short answer, but it is full of meaning. Let us examine it candidly and carefully, giving due weight to every word. "It was added." Here the casual reader is liable to be misled into supposing that some mathematical process is referred to. It is true that the word (prostithami) is most commonly used in the sense of "add," but every word must be rendered in accordance with its connection. When used in connection with the law, it does not have the sense of "add." The only other instance in the New Testament where this word is used with reference to the law is Heb. 12:19, where it is rendered "spoken." Paul says that when the people heard the voice of God proclaiming the law from Sinai, "they that heard entreated that the word should not be spoken unto them any more." This makes the meaning more clear than if it had been rendered, "They that heard entreated that the word might not be added to them any more." In fact, that rendering would not bring out any idea at all. The "Emphatic Diaglott" uses "added" in this place, thus: "The hearers of which entreated that not another word should be added to them;" but by the change of construction the expression is equivalent to that in the regular version. So if in Gal. 3:19 it were rendered "spoken," the meaning would be brought out more clearly. "It was spoken because of transgressions." Now when the antinomian asks: "What was the use of the law, if the inheritance was only by promise?" Paul answers, "It was spoken because of transgressions."
"Because of transgressions." Again the casual reader will say: "You have told us that there can be no transgression when there is no law; yet here you have the law spoken because of transgressions already existing; how is this?" It is all right. There can indeed be no transgression when there is no law; but it must be remembered that the law existed in full force long before it was spoken from Sinai, yes, long before the creation of man. In the temple of God in Heaven the law of God was beneath the throne of God, the basis of his Government. This we have clearly demonstrated. And when it was spoken from Sinai, and a copy of it was given to Moses to place within the ark, there was no more law in existence than there was before. The people of the world were under just as much obligation to keep the law before that time as they were afterward. And that was just why it was then given. The people being under obligation to keep the law perfectly, it was necessary that they should have it in such a form that they could study it carefully. Before the giving of the law upon Sinai, God had conveyed a knowledge of his will to the people by his prophets, as Enoch and Noah. The people also had in their hearts more or less trace of the law originally written in the heart of man. But the only people who cared to remember God had been in long and cruel bondage to the heathen, and their knowledge of right and wrong had become blunted. Consequently the law was given that wrong might be known to be wrong. If this point be kept in mind, the reader will not become confused by the text, even though he retains the rendering "added" instead of "spoken." Thus the law was already in existence, and known to man, although only by tradition; but now the Lord added it in written form. But however it is rendered, there is no more reason for supposing that it teaches that the law was here first introduced than there is of supposing that by the "entering" of the law, in Rom. 5:20, or the "speaking" of it, in Heb. 12:19, the first introduction of the law is indicated.
A parallel to the expression, "It was added [or spoken] because of transgressions," is found in Rom. 5:20: "Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound." The "entering" of the law was at Sinai. Why did it enter?—That the offense (sin) which previously existed might abound. The previous existence of sin implies the previous existence of the law; but it was then formally given that the enormity of sin might be seen. And why was it necessary that the enormity of sin might be seen? Says Paul, "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound; that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." That is, it was necessary for men to see the real nature of sin, in order that they might seek the grace that is in Christ, which alone can take away sin. And the more enormous sin appeared, the more comprehensive views could they have of grace; for no matter how greatly sin abounded, grace super-abounded. This will be made more clear further on. W.
"Rome Never Changes."
THE Sabbath Recorder, after noting the position of the Catholic Church in regard to secret societies, and its quasi-support of temperance principles, asks: "May we not hope that the time is not far distant when the dominion of the church over the faith and practice of her communicants will be broken, and the era of freedom of conscience shall come again to this priest-ridden church?" No; the Bible forbids us to hope for any such change. It is a truth that "Rome never changes." The prophet, speaking of the papal power, says: "I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." Dan. 7:21, 22. Freedom of conscience and Roman Catholicism are incompatible.
Gone to Canossa.
By Editor
LAST winter, under the heading of "Going to Canossa," we inserted the following:—
"In 1075, A. D., Pope Gregory VII. took it upon himself to interfere in the affairs of State of Germany. It was determined that any ecclesiastic who should accept office from the hands of a layman should be deposed, while the secular lord who should presume to bestow investiture, should be excommunicated. Henry IV. resisted the pope's pretensions, and so was brought on the war of investitures, and the memorable contest between Hildebrand and Henry. Henry first deposed the pope, and then was in turn deposed by the pope; then he went to Canossa, and, in the garb of a supplicant, stood three days and nights in the wintry blast, awaiting the pleasure of Hildebrand to receive his submission.
"In 1872, a similar contest arose between the German Chancellor Bismarck and Pope Pius IX. The contention went on quite bitterly; but in 1873, Prince Bismarck declared, 'We will not go to Canossa.'
"In 1885, a dispute sprang up, which, for a while, threatened war between Germany and Spain. To get out of the difficulty, Bismarck sought the mediation of the pope, and selected him as arbiter in the controversy. This so tickled the pope that he conferred upon the Chancellor the 'Decoration of the Order of Christ.' And that so pleased Prince Bismarck that his gratitude found vent in a remarkable letter to the pope."
And we then expressed the opinion that Bismarck was going to Canossa, but we had no idea then that we should so soon be called upon to report that he has actually gone on that historical journey. At that time we had not a copy of this notable letter, but only a press dispatch report of it. Now, however, by the Catholic papers, which by the way are exulting loudly over it, we have the letter in full. We here insert the most striking paragraphs of it:—
"BERLIN, Jan. 13.
"SIRE: The gracious letter which your Holiness did me the honor to write to me, as well as the high decoration with which it was accompanied, has been to me the cause of great joy, and I beg your Holiness to accept the expressions of my deep gratitude. Any mark of approval connected with a labor undertaken for the sake of peace, and toward which I had been privileged to co-operate, is all the more precious to me that it gives deep satisfaction to His Majesty, my august master.
"Your Holiness says in your letter that nothing is more in conformity with the spirit and the nature of the Roman Pontificate than the work of peace-making. This same thought it was that guided me when I besought your Holiness to accept the noble trust of mediation in the dispute existing between Spain and Germany, and in proposing to the Spanish Government that we should, on both sides, agree to the decision given by your Holiness. . . . There is, therefore, every reason to hope that the peace-making action of your Holiness will have lasting effects, and among these I reckon, before all, the grateful memory which both parties must cherish of their august mediator.
"In so far as I am concerned, I shall always seize—and with the greatest eagerness—every occasion offered me in the fulfillment of my duty toward my master and my country to manifest toward your Holiness my deep gratitude and my most humble devotion.
"I am, with the feeling of the deepest respect, Sire, your Holiness's most humble servant,
"V. BISMARCK."
This is the translation of the letter which Father O'Reilly sent from Rome to the New York Sun. With it he also sent quite a long letter of his own, giving the view in which the transaction is held by439what he calls "the most thoughtful journalists" of Europe, and especially by the Papacy itself. From Father O'Reilly's letter we select the following significant paragraphs:—
"The truth is that the most thoughtful journalists in Great Britain and on the continent have agreed to consider the act of Spain and Germany as a direct recognition of the pope's sovereignty, while the extraordinary promptness with which Leo solved the difficulty and cut off all chance of war between the two countries, as well as the uncommon tact displayed in finding a basis of agreement acceptable to both, has revived a public opinion favorable to the restoration of the old-time mediatorship of the Holy See."
"Bismarck, in his answer to the pope's letter, has deviated from all previous customs, and instead of beginning his letter with 'Most Holy Father,' he says 'Sire,' thus designedly and of set purpose addressing him as king, as he would his own sovereign, the Emperor of Germany. Of course this will be another bitter pill for the Piedmontese rulers of Rome to swallow; in the Italian press it will be like a bomb falling into a powder magazine. It was confidently affirmed here that the insignia of the Order of Christ sent by Leo XIII. to the German Chancellor would be returned, as the Emperor would not grant the latter permission to wear them, and as the pope, not being a temporal sovereign, had no acknowledged right either to found such an order or to confer its honors. But the decrees of the Emperor William granting the desired permission and granting it in the most honorary manner, soon set these doubts at rest. The German Empire recognizes Leo XIII. both as pope and king, and therefore as sovereign.
"All this is very important in international law; for the time must come, and is coming, when the Papacy will be formally acknowledged as the international institution par excellence, and when both its sovereignty (temporal and spiritual), and the means necessary to secure its exercise, will be once more placed solemnly under the safeguard of all nations.
"Leo XIII., like Pius IX., may die restricted in his physical liberty to the Vatican and its garden; but the Papacy does not die. . . . The Papacy has buried many empires, kingdoms, and republics; it will outlive those now in existence."
But this acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the pope is not all of the story. The principal act of Germany in the contest of 1872 was, under the guidance of Bismarck, to pass what are known as the May Laws. "By these laws it was required that candidates for the clerical office should undergo a certain amount of secular training at the universities, and that every ecclesiastical appointment should receive the sanction of the secular authorities." This legislation was denounced, and pronounced invalid, by the pope, and was disregarded by the Catholic bishops. Bismarck "imposed penalty after penalty in order to establish the supremacy of the State. Refractory bishops were imprisoned, deposed, and banished." It was in the midst of these heroic measures that Bismarck exclaimed, "We will not go to Canossa."
But lo! following hard upon the lead struck in his letter to the pope, the doughty Bismarck introduced into the German Parliament the "Prussian Ecclesiastical Laws Amendment Bill," which provides for the revision of the May Laws in such a way as in fact to amount to nothing less than their actual repeal. Nor was the Chancellor content with the mere introduction of the bill; but he never rested, nor gave the Parliament any rest, till he had pushed it to a successful issue, even carrying his energy to the extent of leading the Chamber to depart from the usage generally followed in dealing with important bills, and rushed it through the three readings without ever referring it to a committee.
In the debate on the bill, Bismarck "avowed that in his opinion, the whole system involved in the May Laws was useless, and, in many ways, mischievous." He assured the Chamber that the pope is "a venerable, wise, and good man, very friendly to Germany, much better disposed to forward the true interests of Germany than some of the politicians in the Prussian Diet and the Reichstag." He declared that he did "not see any use in maintaining the May Laws." He said he "sincerely wished for a reconciliation; so did the king, his master; so did all sensible people;" and that he had "unbounded confidence in the honor of the pope" that he would faithfully fulfill all his part of the conditions. He said that under the provisions of this bill the Prussian Government would go on with the work which they had commenced, and set about "a thorough revision of the May legislation." And to make the thing perfectly satisfactory to the pope, he actually proposed to submit the matter to him beforehand, and then work according to his orders. He said they would "submit their views to the pope," because "his final approval would be indispensable for success;" and so they had "better have his approval at the outset, and save time and discussion."
And this is the "Iron Chancellor"! This is the man who would not go to Canossa! It seems to us that the "iron" part of the Chancellor has become very malleable, and it is certain that V. Bismarck has gone to Canossa. If Henry IV. cut any more humiliating figure in the eleventh century than has Bismarck in the nineteenth, we should like for some one to show it, for as for ourselves, we fail to see it.
J.
The Law of Love.
By John Harvey Waggoner
A NOTABLE objection against the ten commandments is often presented in about the following shape:—
The great duty taught in the gospel is that of love; if we truly love God and our neighbor, we may safely dispense with the ten commandments, and, indeed, with all law—everything legal. In carrying out this objection, one writer urged that the ten commandments could not be enforced in Heaven, because there are penalties attached, and we cannot conceive of penalties in Heaven, where everything is love. Hence, the nearer we approach to our heavenly state—that is, the more we are influenced and controlled by love—the farther we are removed from the obligation of the ten commandments. And thus he concludes that the only obligation in Heaven is expressed in the two great precepts given by the Saviour,—love to God and to our neighbor.
Nothing could be more inconsistent with the teachings of the Bible than the above objection. Its whole intent is sheer lawlessness, and its fallacy ought to be apparent to every reader.
1. It is not inconsistent with Heaven's order that penalty should be regarded there. Penalty was once enforced in Heaven, when Lucifer tried to rise superior to Heaven's law, and would be again if any tried there to set aside the law of God. The carnal mind, which "is not subject to the law of God," would not be tolerated in Heaven as it is on earth. And sin is not tolerated here because it is not offensive to God. He abhors it, and denounces it, and will yet severely punish it. He bears with it until the Judgment, when presumption will receive its just reward.
2. The duty to love God and our neighbor is put forth in the form of two commandments, or laws. But the objection now being considered against the decalogue is that it is law—that it does contain commandments, and therefore must have penalties. Then, query: Is there no penalty attached to the two great commandments to love God and our neighbor? which is the same as to ask, Is there no guilt incurred in refusing or failing to love God and our neighbor? Is there no meaning to the curse pronounced upon him who does not love the Lord Jesus Christ? May a man indeed hate his brother and not be a murderer? And when we get to440Heaven, shall we be so far removed from legal restraint that we could violate them and still retain our position in Heaven and in the favor of God? We think if the projectors of such a theory took time to carefully consider its bearings, they would renounce it for very shame.
3. So far from these commandments being peculiar to the gospel, and different from a system of legal restraint, they are and were a part of a legal system, having been given to the Jews among other laws. The first is quoted from Deut. 6:5, and the second from Lev. 19:18. They are neither new in, nor peculiar to, the gospel. Therefore, when these are set forth as containing the highest development of Christian morality, it is a confession that the highest morality of the New Testament is identical with the morality of the Old Testament.
4. And so far from these being given as substitutes for the law by our Saviour, he presents them as the basis, or foundation, of "all the law." "On these hang all the law," he said. These two are the principles of which the law is the exposition. We have already examined the particulars, yet we can here take another view of them, thus:—
(1) We must love God. But can one truly love God and have other gods before him, or bow in adoration to idols, or profane his holy name? Every objector to the decalogue will answer in the negative. Thus far we are in agreement.
(2) We must love our neighbor. Can a man truly love his neighbor who takes his life, destroys the chastity of his family, steals his goods, ruins his reputation, or wishes any evil to him of any nature? Here, again, the objector answers, No; and here, again, we are in agreement. Thus far we find that the commandments are in perfect harmony with the great principles of love to God and to man.
But we have not yet reached the extent of our Saviour's declaration. We have only examined three of the four precepts on the first table, or nine of the entire ten. The Saviour did not say, On these two hang three-fourths or nine-tenths of the law, but, "On these two commandments hang all the law." According to this decision of Jesus, a man has not fully developed the principle of love to God who has observed the first three commandments and the last six. "All the law" includes the fourth precept, "the Sabbath of Jehovah our God." This also "hangs" on the principle of love to God. Greenfield defines kremantai, in this text, "To depend from or on, be contained in, derive authority from." The ten commandments are all "contained in" love to God and to our fellow-men.
5. And so far from a man loving God in keeping three-fourths or nine-tenths of the law, he is not considered as truly keeping any unless he keeps it all. We do not presume to determine how great allowance must be made for one who is ignorant of the full requirement of the law, and who, with an obedient spirit, keeps it according to the best light he may have. But he who intentionally sets aside one of its precepts, or who understands what the commandment requires, but chooses, for reasons satisfactory to himself, to do some other way than that marked out in the law, surely falls under the condemnation pronounced by the inspired apostle: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." Jas. 2:10. True obedience does not choose how much to do of the revealed will of God.
6. Let it be remembered that the Sabbath is the sole object of attack in all pretended arguments against the law. Against the other nine no one has an objection. But men have discovered that it is impossible to destroy the fourth and leave the others intact. And they are so determined to get rid of the Sabbath that they are willing to sacrifice the whole ten to accomplish their object. Do they ever well consider the consequences of their action? Have they calmly viewed the aspect of society when the authority of the law of God is weakened? The world is sufficiently filled with the spirit of lawlessness without having professed Christians break down all restraint by teaching that the ten commandments are no longer binding.
As a theory, and to evade the Sabbath, many teach freedom from the ten commandments as a rule of life, while their sober conviction denies their theory. The advocates of Sunday well understand that they cannot go before an intelligent, reading people and uphold the Sunday by the fourth commandment. But it must be enforced, Bible or no Bible. Therefore they adopt the expedient of throwing it into politics, and base its obligation on "a police regulation," and then, to meet the Bible argument for the claims of the seventh day, declare that the ten commandments were "a Jewish law," the keeping of which is inconsistent with Christian liberty! Woe to the world, when Christian ministers thus destroy the distinction between liberty and license to evil—to lawlessness. J. H. W.