Review and Herald, Vol. 45, No. 16. (4/15/1875)

Review and Herald

Apr 15, 1875

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 15, 1875

TWO LAWS—MORAL AND CEREMONIAL

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 9.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

TWO LAWS—MORAL AND CEREMONIAL.

One of the most common methods of trying to evade the claims of the fourth commandment is to deny the distinction between moral and ceremonial, or positive, law, and to include the ten commandments in “the law of Moses,” or “the handwriting of ordinances,” which is done away. And while it is one of the most common, it is one of the most unreasonable and inexcusable.

Would it not be a truly singular fact that God should give a law as a rule whereby moral agents were to develop their characters, so unfitted to the end for which it was given, that he was obliged to send his Son to die and release us from the obligation to keep it? This is not only making God such an one as themselves, but it is bringing him, unchangeable as he has declared himself to be, far below our sense of right and justice. But there is no such thing found in the word of God. “Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures.” Sin existed before the Levitical law. To say that Christ died to abolish the law of Moses, is like saying that the traveler pursues his journey expressly to pass the mile-stones. He travels to reach a certain destination, and the mile-stones must necessarily be left behind. That was a system of types and shadows—when the substance is reached we follow the shadow no further. But there must be a substance before a shadow can be cast. Christ was as a lamb “slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 13:8. He did not come to die, merely because that system of types was instituted, and needed to be removed; but that was instituted because he was coming to die. The objection reverses the true order of things, by placing the cause for the effect; and must arise from taking a very superficial and false view of the work of our Saviour.

In connection with this, it has been said that the law which governed men under the former dispensation was faulty, and Christ came to take it away and introduce a better. This objection is raised from a perversion of Heb. 8, in making the “first covenant,” read first law. We have before shown that the term covenant is used in different senses, and the remarks of the apostle on the two covenants forbid the idea that any candid searcher for truth should be so mistaken. Before his death, the Saviour prayed, “O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” But it was not possible. He drank the cup prepared and imbittered by our sins. But if our sins were the transgressions of an imperfect, faulty law, all must admit that the law might have been set aside, and the transgressor freed from its yoke, without the death of the Son of God. And indeed it admits of a query, whether the transgression of a faulty, good-for-nothing law is morally wrong. In such a case the fault need not be reckoned on the part of the transgressor, but on the part of the law-giver. If God gave man a faulty, imperfect law, which had a curse necessarily attached to it, as some claim, and man failed to develop a perfect moral character under it, and was thereby lost, where would the blame rest? And would not God, under such circumstances, be unrighteous in taking vengeance? Rom. 3:5. They who raise such objections cannot consider, so as to be aware of the dishonor they put upon the government of God. They need to pray in the words of David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.”

That the law of moral precepts, the transgression of which occasioned the death of the Son of God, is distinct from that law of types and shadows which was instituted in view of his death, is so plainly revealed in the Scriptures, that it would seem impossible for any candid Bible student to deny it. Said the Lord to Moses, “Come up to me into the mount, and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments, which I have written.” Ex. 24:12. “The law” here referred to which God had written on the tables of stone comprised the ten commandments—neither more nor less—which God spoke with his own voice. It was thus distinguished from all other laws, by being spoken by the voice of God, and written with his own hand, and it was separated from all others by being put into the ark over which atonement was made for sin. It was also distinguished by express statement as in the following text:—

“Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me.” Jer. 6:19, 20.

This shows that the offering of sacrifices was distinct from keeping the law. He wrote the law on tables of stone, but there was no more than the ten commandments on the tables of stone. Also he spoke the law with his own voice, but he spoke only the ten commandments with his own voice in the hearing of the people. Of this distinction the Lord himself has spoken, as follows:—

“For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice.” Jer. 7:22, 23. When they heard his voice, they heard only the ten commandments—he said nothing about offerings or sacrifices. Thus plainly has the Lord separated between his law and all secondary matters.

The ten commandments are a moral law, which is the will of God, covering all our moral relations. There was a ceremonial law in the past dispensation, as there are positive laws in this.

The moral law existed before sin entered into the world, for where no law is there is no transgression; Rom. 4:15; the ceremonial law was enacted because sin had been committed, as it was entirely remedial.

There is one law to which the carnal mind is not subject, because the law is based on love, and the carnal mind is enmity; Rom. 8:7. But the other law is itself called the enmity; Eph. 2:15.

One law is spiritual; Rom. 7:14. The other was carnal; Heb. 7:16.

One law was magnified and made honorable by the Saviour; Isa. 42:21. The other he blotted out; Col. 2:14.

One law he came not to destroy; Matt. 5:17. The other he disannulled; Heb. 7:18.

One law is holy, and just, and good; Rom. 7:12. The other was not good; Eze. 20:25.

One is perfect, containing the whole duty of man; Psa. 19:7; Eccl. 12:13. The other had only a shadow of good things to come; Heb. 10:1.

One law in which the godly delight; Rom. 7:22; Ps. 119:24, 92, 97; Isa. 58:13. The other, called the law of Moses, a yoke which they could not bear; Acts 15:5, 10.

One, in the keeping of which there is great reward; Ps. 19:11. The other was weak and unprofitable; Heb. 7:18.

One which was established forever; Ps. 119:152, 160. The other was imposed on them till the time of reformation; Heb. 9:10.

One law is not made void, but established, by faith; Rom. 3:31. The other is abolished; Eph. 2:15.

In Matt. 5:19, the Saviour says that they who do and teach the commandments of the law shall be great in the kingdom of Heaven, while they who break them and teach men so, shall not; and in Acts 15:24, the apostles taught that the law need not be kept.

If one and the same law is spoken of in all these passages, then we may despair of ever arriving at correct conclusions from such contradictory statements. The Saviour spoke of the moral law—the law of universal and perpetual obligation, which is not made void; while we are explicitly informed that the apostles were speaking of “the law of Moses.”

If, as the opposers of the law say, Christ came to introduce a better law than that given in the Old Testament, then we may safely say his mission was a complete failure, for no such law is found in the teachings of Christ or his apostles. We are free to make the assertion that no new principle of morality is taught in the New Testament. It cannot be true that he altered or relaxed the law of God in any particular. But if that was abolished, what became of the first commandment? The answer to this question, as an opposer gave it, was, that only the ceremonial part of the law (the fourth precept) was abolished, and the remainder greatly enlarged—that the principle of the first commandment could be discovered in the writings of the apostles. Then in the former dispensation, it was fully declared in definite terms; in the present, we must endeavor to trace the principle in the writings of the apostles, who do not make any particular mention of it. An enlargement truly from definite to indefinite! Part of a perfect law abolished—other parts obscured, and thus it is incomparably better than it was before! But inasmuch as that is the only moral code ever given, and the New Testament brings to light no new principles of morality, but only ratifies and establishes those taught in the Old (see Matt. 5:17–19; Rom. 3:31; 2 Tim. 3:15–17), can those who say that the law was for the Jews only, show that any moral law was ever given to the Gentiles? Can they prove that the Gentile world was ever designed to be placed under moral restraint? And if the offense of the Jews, as has been shown from the Scriptures, was the transgression of that law, why are they not restored to the favor of God, if that law is abolished?

But if it could be shown that another law had been given in the New Testament, why should it be called a better law than that given on Mount Sinai? Could it be more just in its nature? That was perfect. Could it be more replete with moral obligations? That embraced the whole duty of man. Could its observance tend to better results? That was ordained to life. Rom. 7:10; Lev. 18:5; Eze. 20:11; Matt. 19:17. Is it contended that that produced the death of the transgressor (Rom. 6:23), insomuch that it is even called the law of death (2 Cor. 3:7) because all have transgressed it? Rom. 3:23. We would then inquire, Has God ever promised life to the disobedient, even in the New Testament? Does the gospel justify all, without distinction of character? Our opponents boast of the gospel of Christ as though it was impossible for the most incorrigible sinner to die, since the ushering in of the present dispensation! But can they show that the law would ever curse those who obeyed it, or that the gospel will save those who disobey it? 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. The light of the gospel results in the condemnation of those who reject it. John 3:19. Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” John 15:22. Could not the Jews, therefore, claim, with equal propriety, that the gospel of Christ was a curse unto them? Again, Paul says of himself and fellow-laborers in the gospel (2 Cor. 2:15, 16), that they are unto God a sweet savor of Christ in them that perish—even the savor of death unto death. Why do not our opponents reject the gospel for all these things? On their line of reasoning we could prove the gospel to be faulty, because it will not save those who reject it.

But if that law was perfect, embracing in its requirements the whole duty of man (and so it must have been, or the Scriptures are not true), then every principle of morality that could arise out of our relation to God or to our fellow-men must have been embraced in it. To suppose otherwise were to suppose that God did not require holiness under the past dispensation; but this supposition is contradicted by his word, Lev. 11:44. If all the moral duties growing out of our relation to God and to our fellow-creatures were included in that, then none remained to be added thereafter; and if that be abolished, and another substituted, the one so substituted must be as extensive in its requirements as that was, or else it would not include the whole duty of man, and hence would be imperfect; but such a law (an imperfect one) will not be contended for. Therefore we will consider it granted that the new law must be as comprehensive as the old one. But it is not possible to even imagine how such a thing can be, unless the two laws are exactly alike! We can no more comprehend the existence of two complete, perfect rules of moral action, both embracing the whole duty of man, yet different, than we can comprehend the existence of two supreme deities, both essentially holy in their natures, yet not alike. And we hazard nothing in saying that it is impossible for God to create two different complete rules of moral action. The requirement to be holy is based upon the holiness of God himself; for he said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Therefore it is as impossible to create two different rules of holiness, for the perfection of the characters of moral agents, as it is to duplicate the attributes of Deity. A careful examination of this subject must convince any one that this declaration is correct.

It has been shown that we are required to be holy, because God is holy, and we are to be like him. So the Saviour said: “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect.” Matt. 5:48. And this is not an unreasonable requirement—only equivalent to that of loving God with all the heart. It is an acknowledged law of the human mind that man is assimilated to the object of his worship. If he worships a being of a depraved character, the more he contemplates the character of that being—the more he loves it—the more degraded and depraved he becomes. Witness the heathen nations, who worship monstrous beings of various kinds, and themselves become monsters of depravity. On the other hand, if the object of his worship is possessed of a pure and lovely character, the more worshipful and devoted he is, the more lovely he will become in temper and disposition. An intelligent being, possessed of creative power—in other words, being supreme—must have the right to command the worship of his creatures; and if so, to prescribe also the form of worship (without which the command would

be a nullity); his own character being an index to the form of worship prescribed. The character of God is declared in the passage referred to—he is holy; and also in 1 John 4:8, “God is love.” These declarations of the character of God are a sufficient guarantee that a system or form of worship, or rule of action, required by him, would be perfect, holy, like his own character, the embodiment of love. For such a being to require the creature to love and adore him, is only to provide for the creature’s own best good—to point out the way whereby the created being may be like his Creator—pure, lovely, holy, and of course, happy. The idea of obedience to right laws tending to the happiness of the moral agent, has been beautifully illustrated by a late writer:—

“Happiness depends on the state of our minds, and the feelings which are prevalent there. Now the law of God prescribes exactly that class of affections, and that only, which invariably and necessarily produce enjoyment in the existence and exercise of them—love. ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength; and thy neighbor as thyself.’ And so ‘love is the fulfilling of the law.’

“Allow the imagination to bring such a state of mind before you as your own; just try the experiment of imagining how you would feel, if every selfish, unlovely emotion, had become utterly extinct, leaving no trace behind, and pure love to all beings animated your breast; the heart filled with holy love and reverence for God, so that you exulted in your relation to him, and delighted in all his will; love to God supremely, and to all his creatures subordinately—why, your cup would be full to overflowing, and you would be ready to shout aloud for joy. Thus admirably is God’s law adapted to secure the perfect happiness of every one that observes it. Thanks be to God for such a law!”—Dobney, pp. 46, 47.

That God designed that his creatures should be holy and happy, none can deny; and that obedience to his law was the appointed means to secure this very desirable state, is equally evident from the reasons and scriptures offered above, and other scriptures declaring that righteousness consists in keeping the law. Deut. 6:25. His law is the transcript of his own divine mind, the revelation of his holy will. The keeping of his law is his own prescribed form of worship; and no worship is acceptable without it. Therefore he says, “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9; see also, Matt. 15:9.

How can any one become like God—holy—without worshiping him? And how can any one worship him and not keep his commandments? These contain his own prescribed rule or standard of holiness. But if that law was the rule whereby man might become like God, holy, in the former dispensation, can any other rule be followed in this dispensation, and the agent still develop a holy character? Or, in other words, has God’s holiness changed in its nature? or is it the same now that it was in times past? Thus we see there is a material point at issue. As God requires his creatures to be holy, he must give them a rule or standard of holiness. But if there are two rules essentially different in the two dispensations, then the holiness attained by the two rules must be essentially different; as it is impossible to arrive at the same point by going in different directions. Thus it is shown that a change of the moral law of God involves a change of the divine perfections, which is a manifest absurdity.

All that has been here said of the perfection of the law, of its completeness, of its being a way of life, a rule of holiness, &c., is, in the Scriptures, spoken of the moral law, the ten commandments. But not one sentence of all this can possibly be referred to the ceremonial law, nor to any law of a positive nature. Surely the difference between the two laws is so plain that no one need to err in regard to them.

THE ALTERED MOTTO.

By Theodore Monod

Oh! the bitter shame and sorrow, That a time could ever be When I let the Saviour's pity Plead in vain, and proudly answered, “All of self, and none of thee.”

Yet he found me. I beheld him Bleeding on the accursed tree; Heard him pray, “Forgive them, Father!” And my wistful heart said faintly, “Some of self, and some of thee.”

Day by day his tender mercy, Healing, helping, full and free, Sweet and strong, and, ah, so patient! Brought me lower, while I whispered, “Less of self, and more of thee.”

Higher than the highest heavens, Deeper than the deepest sea, Lord, thy love at last hath conquered, Grant me now my soul’s desire, “None of self, and all of thee.”

—Theodore Monod.

Associations. Prov. 1:10.

By D. H. Lamson

THERE was a time when the Christian world was satisfied with the real in life, and cared but little for the company of unbelievers, either for pleasure or profit. They did not hold that no relations should be sustained with them, but that they should not be received as familiar friends. To keep no company with the world, one “must needs go out of it,” but there can and should be a distinct line of separation.

“Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord. . . . And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” If this language was ever of force, it must be now; for professed Christians are found assimilated with almost every phase of life. Nothing can be more displeasing to God than an unlawful connection with the world, and yet among professed Christians, the transition from grave to gay is apparently as easy as the ebb and flow of the sea. It is no uncommon thing for men to come from the heated arena of political strife, or from dabbling in stocks, to the deeply contrasted atmosphere of the prayer-meeting. Nothing that they may have done at these places seems to abate their fervor, and the features are lighted up and the eye sparkles with an apparent blessing.

The world is full of deceptions, but none are so subtle as those of a religious nature; for such take hold of eternity. Religion to-day is too much like a robe that can be taken off or put on at pleasure. One suit is kept for business; another for the prayer-meeting and the Sabbath. It is too common to hear the expression that business is one thing and religion quite another. Such opinions would never become universal, had not the church in a great measure severed its connection with Christ; in other words, worldly interests and associations have hidden the Master from view.

A gentleman called at the shop of a smith, not long since, to have some repairs made to his buggy. This man was a minister, and in the course of conversation remarked that he believed religion could be laid aside and resumed at pleasure; and asked the workman what he thought of it. The man was not a Christian, but replied that, in his opinion, true conversion was designed to be of permanent benefit, and could not at any time be put away without serious loss. “My experience,” said the preacher, “proves my statement to be true; for I said to the Lord before entering the army, knowing it would be a hard place for a Christian, that if he would allow me to serve the devil while there, I would again yield allegiance to him when safely out. This I did, and here I am preaching again, and I do not see but his blessing is with me as much as it was before.” The smith could not help remarking that his religion must have been spurious at first, and no better now.

Such lax ideas of what constitutes true morality can only bring those within their influence to the same level. It cannot be denied that the man was well answered; and it is to be regretted that so many having itching ears are tolerated in this age as teachers of the people. Whether this is applied to teachers or people it is equally true; for “the priests bear rule by the means, and the people love to have it so.” It is true wisdom in those who love the present truth especially, to keep wholly within its influence.

There is enough trouble for those whom the truth separates in feeling from their surroundings, without the addition of unnecessary burdens. It is not seldom that Matt. 10:34 is fulfilled. Certainly it cannot be that the truth is to be blamed, or those that bear it. The blame must fall on such as will not receive it in the love of it. There is, at times, bitter anguish for those who would live for God, because opposed by husband or wife, son or daughter. It requires no little sacrifice to sever such close connections, if they must be severed on account of faith and practice; and we can decide that it is right only when it is considered that the dearest of friends cannot stand between us and the decisions of the Judgment. If the Lord did not look upon the heart-aches, and number each tear and pang, and give the consolation of his Spirit, these separations would indeed be unbearable, but this knowledge makes the prospect of final victory a priceless and holy rapture. How soon is the expectation to be realized!

Observing the difficulties in the pathway of others, should we inconsiderately plunge ourselves into the same? Should self or selfish interests be gratified at the expense of a well-grounded hope? Who would turn away from light and deliberately go into darkness? And who, having in full view the path which others have trod till faith is blunted and hope is lost, would trace their steps to the same bitter end? Looking at times upon those who profess, and seem to have an ardent love for, the precious truth and work for the last days, and then seeing them, apparently without one reflection, placing themselves where it is next to impossible to follow their honest convictions, their course becomes a matter of the greatest wonder and astonishment. It would be hard to point to purely earthly pleasure that is enduring. What are supposed to be diamonds or pearls, are found to be baubles of but little worth, and disappointment, like a canker, eats away enjoyment.

Happy the man who can learn by observation that which, should he learn it by experience, would make him neither better nor wiser! And is it not time to be released from every anxious care—to be placed in the best possible relations with truth and those that love it—and to turn away from every injurious association and unholy influence? We may be thrown into company which we dare not keep; we may enter places in which we must not linger. Acquaintances may, and will, be formed that cannot, without loss, be sustained; for virtue is a plant that a breath may blight, and none can know too well the power of a good name and an unblemished reputation.

No other associations that gather around us are such subtle inducements to evil as those that are inanimate. The literature of the day is the bane of pure and holy thoughts and heavenly aspirations. The unholy adventures, real or imaginary, of brigands and burglars, knights and warriors, kings and queens, all combine to nip the germs of morality, as an untimely frost the tender plant. The assassin of human life is condemned as a murderer, but the deadliest aims at virtue and true morality are sometimes looked upon with complacency, if not with favor, by the professedly good. Thousands feel the degrading captivity which a love for romance brings, yet, like the folds of a serpent, it tightens its grasp, and powerless to release themselves, they become as really slaves as the veriest wretch that ever toiled in chains.

While at the house of a friend a few years ago, an opportunity was offered me of witnessing his appreciation of efforts to spread this enervating poison. A man called with the Literary Companion, soliciting subscriptions; a beautiful picture was offered as an additional inducement for subscribing. The gentleman of the house was not at home, but a young lady who was present, a member of the family, told him that such reading was not allowed in the house. He wished to leave a copy for examination. She would not at first permit it, but finally consented, still protesting that it would be of no avail as Mr. W. had no love for such things. The man of the house returned and having his attention called to the paper thrust it indignantly into the fire, feeling much as if he were grinding beneath his heel the head of a serpent.

In many places search is made in vain for a Bible or religious books, but that which is well-named light literature, embossed in gilt, fills the book case and decks the center table.

Truth will sometimes affect the heart under such circumstances and drive the danger from the door, but oftener it is powerless to arrest the attention and convince the mind. Novel readers do not realize that life is made up of real burdens and much that is real sorrow, with enough of joy for contrast, that the affections may cling to that which is unclouded in the world to come.

The accursed thing is in many a household and thousands who look with just abhorrence at outbreaks of depraved hearts, seem not to realize the causes. Yet ministers, deacons, and lay members, are engaged in this pernicious traffic. “Give me,” said a lady, “a Bible to read and I can go to sleep in ten minutes; but let me have the Ledger and I can easily keep awake half the night.” So it is nearly everywhere. The Bible is upon the table or shelf in undisturbed repose, dust accumulated upon the cover, the gilt unchafed from its edges, and its leaves unthumbed; but the weeklies and the monthlies which are admitted to be only tissues of falsehood, are borrowed and loaned till life is seen in its falsest light, and every bitter drop of discontent is drunk to the very dregs.

A woman now comes to mind who was married when very young, no doubt as the result of novel reading. Perhaps she might have been happy; but habits already acquired induced neglect of home duties. Calling there upon business, I found her at nearly eleven o’clock forgetful, in her own selfish enjoyment drawn from a trashy story, of the two uncared-for children, who waited her attention. The breakfast table still stood in the middle of the floor; her hair was uncombed, and her dress unchanged. She lived long enough to be estranged from home—to see her children scattered—and died. Who is to blame?

Take this class of authors from lowest to highest, and tekel may be written upon them all. Then read Rev. 22:15, last clause, and ask, Is it true that lovers and makers of lies shall sink to one common ruin? If all liars have their part in the lake of fire, does it not mean those of every shade and degree? One has truly said that “the value of a book may be justly determined by the spirit in which it is laid down.” If, in its perusal, aspirations have become purer and holier, if a deeper regard for virtue and a more exalted courage fill the mind, then it is worth the reading. The same may be said of every association that men may form.

One point still should claim earnest attention. It is well known that we claim that the fourth commandment is now, as it was in the days of Moses, the test of allegiance to God. Suppose it was some other command. In looking back over the history of the past, it will be seen that in the time of Elijah the second commandment was the test. How did the Lord look upon the people who transgressed it? Is it not to be supposed that the relations then sustained socially and religiously were precious to the servants of Baal? Do not the words of Moses, “Who is on the Lord’s side,” spoken on an occasion when it was necessary to break these relations, call for the exercise of reason and judgment? And are these things, as the apostle affirms, written for our admonition? Can we for a moment think that our God, who is unchangeable, is less particular to-day than he was then?

Read Ex. 32:27–29, and reflect upon the scenes then enacted. Were not hearts stricken in the decisions and separations of that hour? The Lord does not love our friends because we love them. His regard is bestowed for more just and weighty reasons. Love of husband or children, could not save Lot’s wife, and the sons-in-law of Lot were suffered to mock him, although he sought to save them. Will a doubtful sincerity that leads astray arrest justice? It cannot be doubted that affections were dearly cherished, and some, at least, of the relations of life deeply regarded by the multitudes who have perished. None of them have lacked but one thing, and that was obedience to the will of God.

Now what shall we do? Shall excuses, they cannot be called reasons, affect the decisions upon which eternal destinies are suspended? Shall pastors or teachers, who are highly esteemed, stand between us and duty? Shall bosom friends, even in the family circle, cause us to be unprepared for the Judgment? We can save neither son nor daughter, and our own souls only by faithfulness.

There is no promise to the vacillating or to those whom supineness keeps from the way of life. To the hardened wretch who has loved his sin, the day of doom will be a day of darkness and gloom; but to the trembling soul that has neglected to obtain so great salvation, or to retain it when within the grasp, it will be a nameless terror. Though all else be forgotten, may this be remembered, that if enjoyment is sought in our own way it will be lost to ourselves and others; but if the counsel of the Lord is followed it will be saved to both. He says: “Keep my commandments and live, and my law as the apple of thine eye.”

D. H. LAMSON. Carsonville, Sanilac Co., Mich.

Continue reading: Present Aspects of the Papacy