Earlier text: The First Migrations of the GothsTHEOLOGICAL QUERIES.
By Editor
The Committee on Theological Queries reported as follows:— The Committee to whom was referred the subject of the ordination of local elders, would respectfully report that we find there is a difference of opinion existing, and there has been a difference in practice in different Conferences, in regard to the jurisdiction of local elders, or to the extent of their authority to act. In some places the jurisdiction and ordination have been looked upon as confined to the church which elected them; in other cases, they have been permitted to administer the ordinances wherever they might chance to be, as unrestricted as a minister. We have tried to canvass the ground thoroughly, and find that there are difficulties in both positions if separately traced to their conclusions. All agree that it is to be regarded as purely a matter of church discipline, and we believe there is truth in both positions which may be combined into one consistent system. We therefore offer the following recommendations:— 1. That the jurisdiction of a local elder, or his authority to administer the ordinances, be confined to that church which elected him as elder; the only exception to this is where the Conference Committee deems it advisable to instruct him to go to another church under special circumstances. 2. If he be re-elected, or properly elected elder of another church, his ordination shall stand good. He need not be re-ordained. 3. But in case of his removal to another church or another Conference, the fact that he has acted as elder over another church should not be considered a ground for calling him to act as elder again. The church should consider his qualifications just as they would if he had never been an elder; and if there is any doubt, inquiry should be made of some minister or of an officer of the Conference, to ascertain whether he filled the office acceptably. 4. It is well understood that a license from the Conference does not authorize the licentiate to celebrate the ordinances, to administer baptism, or to organize a church. And, therefore, if a local elder receive a ministerial license, it does not enlarge his sphere of action as an elder; it gives him no authority to celebrate the ordinances outside of the church of which he is acting as elder. 5. And, finally, though his ordination shall stand good for all time, except in case of apostasy, whenever and wherever he may properly be called to act, he cannot exercise the functions of an elder beyond the time for which he was elected, unless he is re-elected, or elected by another church. But if from any cause there should be a failure to hold an election, he may then act until his successor shall be elected. We believe that a failure to regard either of the above recommendations will open the way to disorder and confusion in our churches. The question has been proposed to the Committee: If a contractor sub-lets a part of his work, and the sub-contractor does work upon the Sabbath, is the contractor responsible? It is difficult to answer this question because there are so many contingencies presenting themselves; contracts assume so many different phases. We will try to clear the case of some of its difficulties. 1. If the contractor did his work on Sunday, and the sub-contractor worked on the same premises on Sabbath, this would bring reproach, as it would appear to the world that the contractor had work done on his job every day of the week. 2. If the sub-contractor was incompetent or unreliable, and needed to be watched every day to insure his doing his work right, the watching on the part of the contractor, or of any one in his employ, would be a violation of the Sabbath. 3. Any sub-contract which involved oversight, care, or anxiety on the part of the contractor, would be wrong, as the contractor could not rest on the Sabbath to the Lord, and he free from his worldly business, if he were obliged to have such care, oversight, or anxiety. 4. We think that a strictly conscientious regard for the Sabbath on the part of the contractor, will guard him from making a contract which will wound his own conscience, or give the world occasion to reproach him. DISTRIBUTION OF LABOR.
By Editor
The recommendation of the Committee on the Distribution of Labor, that Elder Wm. Ings go at his earliest convenience to England to labor, which was deferred till Elder W. C. White should be present, was taken from the table, and after discussion by W. C. White and others, was adopted. The Committee on the Distribution of Labor offered the following additional recommendations:— 12. That if the Michigan brethren will cheerfully assume the burden of the work in Ontario, this field be connected with the Michigan Conference. 13. That Brother J. F. Ballenger, of Illinois, labor under the direction of the Michigan Conference. 14. That Brother C. H. Bliss, of Illinois, be requested to labor in Georgia, with the counsel of Elder G. G. Rupert. 15. That, if it is consistent with his health and circumstances, Brother J. I. Collins, of Minnesota, labor in Alabama and Mississippi, with the counsel of Elder G. G. Rupert. 16. That Victor Thompson, of Ohio, make Maryland his field of labor. 17. That Brother N. M. Jordon, of Wisconsin, labor under the direction of the Michigan Conference, in the Northern Peninsula. 18. That Brother I. D. Van Horn assist Elder R. M. Kilgore in Illinois for about six weeks before the next camp-meeting season. 19. That W. H. Saxby and wife, of Kentucky, go to Washington to labor in the mission there. 20. That Brother Frank D. Starr, of the North Pacific Conference, join the Illinois Conference. 21. That Brother I. H. Evans, of Michigan, go to Kentucky to labor. 22. That Brother R. M. J. Pound, of Kentucky, labor in Michigan. Committee on Finances reported as follows:— Your Committee on Finances, after collecting all the information at our command, and carefully considering the wants of the cause in its different branches, would report that we find an urgent and pressing need of funds to carry forward our work. The treasuries of the European and Scandinavian missions are empty, and these missions are in debt to the Review office several thousand dollars. The English and Australian missions need additional funds to carry forward their work successfully. The funds of the International Tract Society are exhausted; and this Society, which has done such a noble work in the past in sending out rays of light and truth to all parts of the world, and has by this means brought the light of truth to many that were in darkness, and opened new fields that could not otherwise have been reached, is now, for lack of funds, powerless to occupy the field of usefulness which it has held among other agencies for the spread of the Third Angel's Message. There is also great need of a fund to support city missions outside of organized Conferences. It is evident to the minds of your Committee, after careful and candid consideration, that funds must be raised, or the work we have begun must be abandoned, an idea which no true believer in the Third Angel's Message can entertain for a moment. We would therefore recommend— 1. That $15,000 be raised for the Central European Mission, $15,000 for the Scandinavian Mission, $5,000 for the English Mission, $5,000 for the Australian Mission, $10,000 for the International Tract Society, and $10,000 for the support of city missions. 2. That our people everywhere be requested to make Christmas donations to the European and Scandinavian Missions, to relieve them as much as possible from their present embarrassment. And we would further recommend that the week between the holidays, including the Sabbath, January 2, be set apart as a week of prayer; and that the General Conference Committee suggest suitable subjects for consideration each day, and also prepare addresses to be read at the beginning of this week of prayer and at suitable intervals during the week. We would urge all presidents of Conferences, ministers, and church elders to give this matter their immediate and faithful attention, and see that every church, and as far as possible every individual, is informed of the nature and object of this week of prayer; and that all join in humbling ourselves before God and pleading with him for a deeper conversion, that his blessing may rest upon the work that is begun, and that he may open the hearts of those that have means, to use this talent which God has given them to send the truth to the nations of the earth, to gather out of them a people for his name. 3. That the General Conference Committee use the best means at their command to raise the above mentioned funds to sustain the work already begun, either by themselves visiting men of means, and laying the wants of the cause before them, or by appointing suitable persons to do this work, or in any other way that may seem to them most feasible. 4. In view of the fact that the College buildings are entirely too small to accommodate the students already seeking the advantages of instruction, we recommend that $40,000 be raised to pay the present indebtedness of the College, and to erect such additional buildings, and provide facilities for fully instructing those who seek its aid in preparing themselves to do more efficient work in the cause of truth, that the College may fill the position which the Lord has shown it should occupy. We believe the work in which we are engaged is the work of God, and that he has a special care for it. And we believe that in the hours of trial which may be permitted to come upon us to test our fidelity to him and his cause, we should trust in God and move forward, believing that to the faithful will come the victory. The Coming of a Literal Christ.
WHAT we said in our first article about literality and a literal interpretation, scarcely needs any confirmation; yet it may be well to fortify the point in the minds of the readers by reference to Scripture examples. In John 1:41 are the following words: "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." Now we insist that "the Christ" is a literal interpretation of "the Messias." But according to the theory which we call in question, it cannot be a literal interpretation; for then it must be, "the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Messias." The mystical theory does not admit of any change of terms in a literal interpretation. A stone, as we have seen by that theory, is literally interpreted, a stone! And then the Messias should be literally interpreted the Messias. But that is no interpretation at all. Messiah is a Hebrew word, which, being interpreted into the Greek, is the Christ; literally, not figuratively, the Christ. And this, being again interpreted into the English, is the Anointed—as it is in the margin of our Bibles. And this, again, is literal. In the next verse (42), we find these words: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone." This is what he was to be called, and so he was. It cannot be objected here that he was not literally a stone, and therefore the interpretation is not literal. It does not say he should be a stone, but he should be called a stone. That was literally true. Again, in Heb. 7:1, 2, we read: "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, . . . first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace." "Melchisedec" is composed of two Hebrew words, the first meaning king, and the second, righteousness. This again is a literal interpretation. Salem is also literally interpreted; it means peace. We will now notice a few texts of a somewhat different character, of which much needless misapprehension has existed. Eze. 37:1-10 contains the prophet's vision of the valley of dry bones, which were caused to come together; then by the prophet's word flesh came upon them, and breath came into them, and they stood upon their feet, a great army. This has been applied in the most fanciful manner, generally to a great revival of religion. But the Lord himself explains it in verses 11-14. He says that these bones are the house of Israel; that he will bring them up out of their graves, and cause them to live, and bring them into their own land. This was the promise to Abraham that he should possess the land forever, both he and his seed. Stephen said that he never did possess it (Acts 7:2-5); and Paul said that Abraham dwelt in the land of promise as in a strange country (Heb. 11:9); and he died in the faith of the promise (verse 39), which cannot be fulfilled except through a resurrection of the dead, as is shown in Eze. 37. We insist here that in Eze. 37:11-14 is given a literal interpretation of the vision of the first part of the chapter. But they who claim a mystical or "spiritual" interpretation of prophetic symbols say, "No; it does not mean the resurrection of the dead out of their graves; it is to be spiritually understood." But the Lord said it did mean the bringing of Israel up out of their graves. If this explanation or interpretation of Jehovah himself does not mean what it says—if his words need to be interpreted or explained—then we insist that he gave no interpretation at all; then his words are useless; for we could have given a mystical or imaginary meaning to the vision without his interpretation, as well as we can with his interpretation, if a mystical or imaginary meaning is to be given to it. But if we may not accept the Lord's interpretation, whose shall we accept? It is easy to see that they who spiritualize the words of the Lord which he has spoken in interpretation of the vision, make his words of no effect—of no signification—which is nothing short of an insult to the author of all revelation and inspiration. Once more, in Matt. 13:24-30 is the parable of the tares of the field. This, too, is very often mystified by suppository interpretations. According to the theory which we are calling in question, a literal interpretation would be to take the parable literally. The wheat means only wheat, and the tares mean only tares; for so the writer whom we have noticed takes Dan. 2:35. But that is not a literal interpretation; it is no interpretation at all. It is destroying the parable as a parable, and making it a literal narrative. But the Saviour was asked to "declare" unto them the parable, and he did so, and he gave a declaration or interpretation strictly literal in all its terms. The world, the children of the kingdom, the children of the wicked one, the Son of man, the devil, the angels, the end of the world or age, the separation of the wicked and the righteous, and rewarding each according to his work or character,—every term and every fact is strictly literal. If they are not literal, what do they mean? What is represented by the world? by the Son of man? by the angels? by the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one? If these are still to be interpreted, if they are not literal, then the Saviour declared nothing, he explained nothing, and his language is meaningless. We think it must be very evident to every one that the Saviour interpreted the parable by changing its figures into literal facts, which is a literal interpretation. But if not—if he only changed the figures into other figures—then both the parable and his declaration of it remain to be interpreted. And then who shall declare it? If we cannot believe his word, whose shall we believe? From all this we lay down the following rule:— If a parable or a symbol be taken literally, it is then no parable or symbol; but if the interpretation is not taken literally, it is then no interpretation. We may safely challenge any one to attempt to invalidate this proposition. But if this is true, then it forever settles the controversy as to the literal interpretation of prophetic symbols. We now return to the text under first consideration, and proceed to show the fallacy, the inconclusiveness of the arguments of the learned writer in the Interior. All admit that the several parts of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream are symbols; they are not to be taken literally. The prophet said to the king: "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." Now if it were literal—if the stone meant a stone—then no interpretation was admissible; an interpretation of a literal statement is a mere pretense. But Daniel explained the several parts of the image to mean several kingdoms, according to their characteristics, beginning with that kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar was the head and representative; and the stone he interpreted to mean the kingdom of the God of Heaven. To show the analogy, or the completeness of the interpretation, we will quote what is said of the stone in the dream, and what is said of the kingdom in the interpretation. "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer thrashing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." In the interpretation the prophet said: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Inasmuch as the image begins with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and gives successively the kingdoms which succeeded his, we know, as all admit, that the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron represented Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. But the writer in the Interior, and with him all who deny the literal interpretation of the prophecy, said that because the stone is not to be taken literally—that is, the surface of the earth will not be covered with stone—therefore the kingdom which the God of Heaven will set up is not a literal kingdom! Never was a greater fallacy put forth. Are the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron to be taken literally? No; no one, not even the writer in the Interior, would claim that; all admit that these metals are used as symbols, even as the stone is used as a symbol. Very well. Then we inquire: Were Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, literal kingdoms? Not at all, replies the spiritualistic interpreter. The gold, silver, brass, and iron are not to be taken literally; therefore the kingdoms which they represented were not literal kingdoms! According to that argument, this conclusion is unavoidable. Not a literal kingdom has existed upon the face of the earth since the days of Daniel the prophet! They are all to be taken "spiritually," because they were all represented by symbols in the prophecy! No one can deny that our conclusion is just, if that theory is true. No one has any better right to spiritualize one part of the prophecy than we have to spiritualize every part. If the first four symbols—also the feet and toes—represent literal kingdoms, why may not the fifth symbol? Or, if the fifth kingdom is not literal because it was represented by a symbol, then the four kingdoms were not literal because they were represented by symbols. If this reasoning is not just, will some one give a reason why it is not? That cannot be done. But we now apply the rule, the justness of which we have demonstrated. If the interpretation is not literal, then there was no interpretation at all. Daniel spoke of a kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler; of another kingdom which was to succeed this; and another, and yet another, which was to bear rule over all the earth. This was his interpretation of certain symbols. And the interpretation was literal, because the kingdoms were literal; the prophet meant just what he said—neither more nor less. And he is presumptuous who attempts to correct the prophet,—who says he did not mean what he said, but something else. And we insist, and our claim cannot be denied, that the fifth kingdom is to be as literal as the other four. It breaks them in pieces; it destroys them; it occupies their place in the same territory. The stone was neither more nor less literal than the iron; the fifth kingdom is to be neither more nor less literal than the fourth. The prophet said nothing about "spiritual kingdoms" in his interpretation. Who has received authority to add to his words? He promised to interpret the dream to the king. But if his words need to be interpreted—if they cannot be understood without somebody correcting them and telling us what they mean—then he did not interpret the dream. But if he did interpret the777dream, then no explanation of his words is admissible. Were it not for the popularity of the spiritualizing system, were not that system so all-controlling in the theology of the day, we should feel like apologizing for dwelling upon this point at such length. But we are desirous that all should see this truth clearly, for we have yet to trace this subject further.
(To be continued.) The Law of God—for Whom Made.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
LAST week, under the head of "Principles and Precepts," we showed that not simply the great principles of love, but the embodiment of those principles in the ten commandments, are the rule of life for all men in all ages; that the law is adapted to pure and holy beings, and is kept even by the angels in Heaven. After one additional thought on this point, we shall proceed to notice in detail some things that are offered as objections to this view. The difference between sinful man and the law of God, is shown by Paul in the following words: "For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin." Rom 7:14. Between things spiritual and things carnal there is no possibility for the slightest union, as is proved by Gal. 5:17: "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other." And therefore, as a consequence of this implacable enmity, the words of Paul follow very naturally: "So that ye cannot do the things that ye would." This last statement is made more emphatic in Rom. 8:7: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." That by the term "law" Paul refers to the ten commandments, and not to certain abstract principles, is easily seen from Rom. 7:7 and 2:17-23. The fact, then, is made plain that men cannot meet the requirements of the ten commandments, because the commandments are spiritual, and men are carnal. "They that are in the flesh cannot please God." Rom. 8:8. Now it is required of all men that they please God, and therefore the apostle proceeds to show how it may be done: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Rom. 8:9. A man in whom the Spirit of God dwells is certainly spiritual, and therefore just in harmony with the law of God, which is also spiritual. And so we see that instead of the law being adapted only to sinful beings, it is especially adapted to the righteous; for they are the only ones who can continue in its requirements. It is the keeping of the ten commandments (which can be done only by those who are "in Christ") that makes men spiritual; when they cease to keep the law, they cease to be spiritual. In supposed opposition to the position which we have taken, is 1 Tim. 1:9, 10: "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." Whoever imagines that this text means that a righteous man is not under obligations to keep the law, has never given it a second thought. He cannot have read more than the first clause. Since the law is "made for" those who steal, lie, kill, commit adultery, blaspheme, etc., we should gather that it forbids all those things, and so it does. Then according to the common supposition, the righteous, for whom the law is not "made," are not prohibited from these practices! A necessary conclusion which is so absurd, shows plainly that the premises are wrong. But if it is the duty of Christians to keep the law, how shall we understand Paul's statement that the law is "made" for the wicked, and not for the righteous? We can answer this question in no better way than by quoting a portion of Dr. Clarke's comment on 1 Tim. 1:9:— "He [the apostle] does not say that the law was not MADE for a righteous man; but ou keitai, it does not LIE against a righteous man; because he does not transgress against it; but it lies against the wicked; for such, as the apostle mentions, have broken it, and grievously too, and are condemned by it. The word keitai, lies, refers to the custom of writing laws on boards, and hanging them up in public places, within reach of every man, that they might be read by all; thus all would see against whom the law lay." This is exactly in harmony with the primal meaning of the word law,—"something laid,"—as given in the article last week. The law is "laid" for the benefit of all; it lies against the man who violates it, and crushes him if he persists in his disobedience; but it does not lie against the righteous, because they "walk in the law of the Lord." There is no opposition between them and the law; to them the law is indeed "the way of peace," because they delight in it. But let one of the righteous ones step out of this way, and that step will bring the law against him. And now to the statement that Christians are in duty bound to keep the ten commandments, and that, in fact, that is the badge of their discipleship, we must add another statement which necessarily follows, namely, that this delightful duty will be theirs throughout eternity, just as it has been that of the angels ever since they were created. "Angels that excel in strength" do the commandments of God, "hearkening unto the voice of his word." Ps. 103:20. And when the kingdom of God is established upon earth, God's will (the ten commandments) will be done on earth even as it is now done in Heaven. Matt. 6:10. As long as the throne of God endures, the ten commandments will be the law by which God rules his vast Government, because they are the very basis of that Government, the foundation of his throne. How Does It Happen?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WHEN people for the first time hear or read the truth concerning the Sabbath, the nature of man, the coming of the Lord, and other Bible doctrines held by Seventh-day Adventists, they frequently ask, "If these things are so plainly taught in the Bible, as you claim, why is it that they have not been taught by Bible students in past ages? Why is it that Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other learned and pious theologians did not see these doctrines?" A satisfactory answer to these questions may easily be given. We must consider the circumstances under which those men began their labors. We must remember that when the Reformation began, the Bible had been for several hundred years a proscribed book. The art of printing was unknown, and books were necessarily copied by hand. This was a tedious process, and made it impossible for poor people to own them. Besides this, the only copies of the Bible in existence were in the original Greek and Hebrew, or in Latin; and when we remember that Greek and Hebrew were rarely taught, even in the universities, and that few learned men had any knowledge of those languages, Latin being the only language of educated people, we see that the number of people who could use the Bible, even had they possessed a copy, was very limited. Still further, when we remember that the few manuscript copies of the Bible that were in existence were the property of the Catholic Church, which had no interest in circulating them among the people, but on the contrary, kept these copies carefully concealed, we see that it was next to impossible for anybody to have any personal acquaintance with the word of God. Says D'Aubigne:— "The priests having taken into their own hands the disposing of a salvation which belonged only to God, had thereby secured a sufficient hold on the respect of the people. What need had they to study sacred learning? It was no longer their office to explain the Scriptures, but to grant letters of indulgence; and for the fulfilling of that ministry, it was unnecessary to have acquired any great learning. In country parts, says Wimpheling, they appointed as preachers poor wretches whom they had taken from beggary, and who had been cooks, musicians, huntsmen, stable-boys, and even worse. "The superior clergy themselves were sunk in great ignorance. A bishop of Dunfeldt congratulated himself on never having learned Greek or Hebrew. The monks asserted that all heresies arose from these languages, but especially from the Greek. 'Greek,' continued he, 'is a modern language but recently invented, and against which we must be upon our guard. As to Hebrew, my dear brethren, it is certain that whoever studies that immediately becomes a Jew.' . . . Thomas Linacer, a learned and celebrated divine, had never read the New Testament. Drawing near his end (in 1524), he called for it, but quickly threw it from him with an oath because his eye had caught the words, 'But I say unto you, Swear not at all.' 'Either this is not the gospel,' said he, 'or we are not Christians.' Even the schools of theology in Paris did not scruple to declare before the Parliament, 'There is an end of religion if the study of Hebrew and Greek is permitted.' "If here and there among the clergy some learning existed, it was not in sacred literature. The Ciceronians of Italy affected great contempt for the Bible on account of its style. Men who arrogated to themselves the title of priests of Christ's church translated the words of the Holy Ghost into the style of Virgil and of Horace to accommodate them to the ears of men of taste. The Cardinal Bembo wrote always instead of 'the Holy Spirit,' 'the breath of the celestial zephyr;' for 'remission of sins' he substituted 'the pity of the manes and of the gods;' and instead of 'Christ the Son of God,' 'Minerva sprung from the brows of Jupiter.' Finding, one day, the respectable Sadoletus employed on the translation of the epistle to the Romans, 'Leave these childish productions,' said he, 'such puerilities do not become a sensible man.'" It was only a few weeks ago that a Catholic priest in Montreal, speaking of the Protestant Bible, said to his congregation: "I want to be understood that the Church forbids you to read these Bibles. If you have any of them in your house, burn them; and if you do not want to burn them, bring them to me, and I will burn them." It was amidst influences like these that the Reformation began. Luther was twenty years old before he had even seen a copy of the Bible. Now if any one wonders why he did not, in his life-time, grasp all the truths which it contains, let him try an experiment: Let him give the Bible to a man who has never seen the book, and see how long it will take him to thoroughly understand it. Let the reader consider his own case, and see how great an understanding he has of the Bible; then remember that there can scarcely be a parallel to Luther's case nowadays, because the influence of the Bible is everywhere. The people who have never read it have met its teachings in books, or perhaps in sermons, or in their intercourse with other people. When we think of these things, instead of wondering that Luther did not understand more of the Bible, we are lost in astonishment that he was able to grasp so many of its truths as he did. When we come to the time of Wesley, we find that he had a still better understanding of the Bible than Luther had. This was not because he was a more talented or a more devoted man than Luther, but because he had better advantages. He had the benefit of all of Luther's study and experience, as well as of that of many other learned men. And as we come down a hundred years later, to our own time, it is no egotism to say that we may have a deeper insight into the truths of the Bible than Wesley had, because we have the aid of his research, and that of Bible students since his time. It would indeed be a cause for shame to any intelligent Bible student if he did not profit by the light thrown upon the778word by those men of God. Besides this, we must remember that there are special truths for special occasions. Peter speaks of the "present truth." There is such a truth for every age. The special truth for the time of Luther was justification by faith. The people were swallowed up in dead forms and useless ceremonies, and needed instruction in the first principles of the gospel, of which the world was totally ignorant. All the preaching needed to be directed to that one thing. As the Bible became a common book, and the doctrine of justification by faith and not by works was more generally understood, other points could be brought in. As we come down to the early portion of this century, we see a special prominence given to the doctrine of Christ's second coming. Ministers of all denominations seemed moved by a common impulse to study the prophecies, and to teach them to the people. A little later the doctrine of eternal life only in Christ, and that received at the resurrection, began to be preached quite extensively. This was a natural consequence of the preaching of the second advent. And still later we find special attention given to the law of God, and the Sabbath, until now the truth on this point has been circulated throughout the world. To be sure, there have been a few people in all generations who have held all, or nearly all, of these truths; but the attention of the people as a whole has been directed to only one new truth at a time. Our Lord, in speaking to his disciples, recognized the fact that the human mind must be led into truth step by step when he said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John 16:12. It will be noticed, however, that while in different generations one truth has been made especially prominent, the truths which have been brought out in preceding generations are not ignored, but the new truths are added to them; and thus is fulfilled the statement that "the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day." Prov. 4:18. It is not for us to spend time wondering why former generations did not have certain doctrines preached to them, but simply to inquire, Are these things so? This may be easily determined by the Bible, and we should, instead of questioning, rejoice that new light is given to us, and should walk in the light while we have the light, lest darkness come upon us. E. J. W.