Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 5. (1/31/1878)

Review and Herald

Jan 31, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 31, 1878

THE DESIGN OF THE GOSPEL.

By John Nevins Andrews

Notes of a Sermon preached in Mill Yard Chapel, London, Sabbath Afternoon, Nov. 24, 1877.

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

TEXT: “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:1–4.

THESE verses present the design of the gospel of Christ with respect to the law of God. Those who will read them with care may see that God did not send his Son to abolish the holy law which condemns the sinner, but that he sent him to deliver men from the guilt of sin, and to place them where they can render acceptable obedience.

The condemnation from which Christ delivers is a just condemnation. It is the condemnation which the law of God pronounces against sin. The fault is wholly with the sinner, and not at all with the law. It is not, therefore, the law of God, but the sinner, that needs to be changed, in order that things may be right. The persons who are delivered from condemnation are those who have ceased to walk after the carnal mind.

The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus is the gospel of Christ. The law of sin and death from which the Christian is delivered is explained in Rom. 7:22, 23: “For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” It is said to be another law in the members which wars against the law of God. This law of sin is further defined, in Rom. 8:7, as the carnal mind. Those who are delivered from the just condemnation of the law of God are changed by the gospel of Christ, so that the natural enmity of their hearts toward the law is taken away from them.

The gospel, therefore, accomplishes that which the law could not accomplish. The law demands filial obedience, but cannot obtain it because man has an evil nature. The gospel changes man’s nature, so that he can obey from the heart.

Paul said that the law was weak through the flesh, or carnal mind. Yet the law of God is as strong as the Lawgiver, and Christ said that “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.” Luke 16:17. The law is not weak with respect to punishing sin, but with respect to obtaining from the sinner the loving obedience it demands. The weakness is not in the law, but in man, who is not willing to render love to God; the law demands perfect love, but the presence of the law of sin in the heart renders this obedience impossible. It is not the office of the law of God to change the evil nature of the sinner. If it finds him in rebellion, it can only condemn him. The man who has nothing, and yet owes £10,000, cannot be made to pay it even by the most powerful of laws.

The law of God shows the extent of what God requires. Thus we read: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” Deut. 6:5. Let these words be well considered. This is the sum of our duty toward God. The gospel cannot ask more and cannot accept less. In fact, we see that God has not changed with respect to this just demand, and that in the nature of the case he cannot change. It is the design of the gospel of Christ, not to erect another and more perfect standard of right, but to enable men to conform to that which God has already erected in the law.

The gospel accomplishes this by providing a great sacrifice for sin. Men deserved to die. God sent his Son to die for man as his substitute. This was a solemn attestation of the justice of men’s condemnation. The gospel cannot offer pardon till the justice of the law has been shown beyond all question. The sacrifice offered must be the life of one who never sinned, else he would merit death on his own account. It must be the life of one who did not owe service to the law, else he would be under obligation to obey with all his powers in the discharge of his own duty, and he could not, therefore, take the place of others as their substitute. It must be the life of one who, in the sight of the law, is of as great worth as the lives of all who have broken it. It was the life of Christ alone which answered all this. And when this great sacrifice had been made, the sinner could not say, “Now the great debt has been paid, and the law has no more demand upon me.” The sinner has given nothing. There is something now for him to do.

In this which follows we find the part which the sinner is to act, in order that this sacrifice may avail him. Christ, having died for our offenses, was raised for our justification. Then he ascended on high to become a priest on men’s behalf.

The office of the priest is to present the blood of sin offering in behalf of the sinner. It is now the part of the sinner to come to God through the high priest, and to ask that this sacrifice which has been made to the law of God, may be accepted in his behalf. The conditions on which we may obtain this great mercy are, repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance is toward God, because it is his law that has been broken; it commences with godly sorrow, but it never ceases till it has caused the sinner to leave off to transgress and to turn to obedience. Faith is directed to our Lord Jesus Christ, because he is the great sacrifice for our sins. And when we have thus laid hold upon the sacrifice made for us, it is accepted of God in our behalf, and the law of God ceases to condemn us.

This is not all. The Spirit of God works in our hearts the great change which is called conversion. It takes out of the heart the law of sin, and it writes in the heart the law of God. This is the great promise of the new covenant, that God will forgive the sins of those with whom he enters into covenant, and that he will write his law in their hearts. Jer. 31:33. This is the great work which the Bible calls conversion. When the carnal mind, which will not be subjected to the law of God, has been taken away, the man is no longer in enmity against the law. When the law of God has been written in the heart, then the mouth can no longer speak against it. Nay: the law of God being within the heart, the man will obey that law with his members and in all his life.

Hence the apostle states the grand result in these words: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” John defines righteousness to be right doing. 1 John 3:7. We may therefore say, without fear of contradiction, that the design of the gospel of Christ is to honor the law of God, while extending mercy to the sinner, and that those who are really New Testament Christians, will, from the heart, render obedience to all the commandments of the law of God.—Sabbath Memorial.

THE LAW IN GALATIANS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Those who claim that the law of God has been abolished always go directly to the book of Galatians for their proof. There they get such expressions as this: “The law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master,” and others of a similar nature. They claim that this means the ten commandments. But this we confidently deny. We freely admit that the book of Galatians does show that a certain law of the Old Testament has been abolished, and so we, Christians, are no longer under obligation to obey it. But we claim that this is the typical law regulating the ceremonial ordinances of the Jewish age. In proof of this we offer the following facts:—

1. Whether they should or should not be circumcised, was the question which was troubling the church at Galatia. A few quotations will readily show this. “But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2:3. “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.” “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” Gal. 5:2, 3, 11; 6:12, 13. Any candid man who wishes the truth must admit that these quotations show that it was the question of circumcision which was agitating that church; but circumcision is no part of the ten commandments.

2. Against this false doctrine, Paul first appeals to the decision of this very question by the great apostolic council held at Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts 15. Let us notice what question occasioned the calling of that council, and who attended it. “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1. What was the point at issue? It was circumcision. Some said if they were not circumcised they could not be saved. “When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” Verse 2. Here we see that Paul and Barnabas were opposed to that doctrine, and strongly contended against it. Finally, it was determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others should go up to Jerusalem, and consult the apostles about this question. What question? The question of circumcision. “And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Verse 6.

Now observe that Paul, in his argument with the Galatians, refers them to that council, and appeals to its decision upon the very question which was troubling them: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.” Gal. 2:1. Here he most certainly refers to the very thing recorded in Acts 15. “And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2:2, 3. Here we see that he brings up the very subject discussed in that council, viz., circumcision, and states that it was decided that Titus, being a Gentile, need not be circumcised. These Galatians were Gentiles, Gal. 4:8, and hence the case of Titus and the decision of that council against circumcision for Gentile Christians was right to the point if it was the observance of the ceremonial law which Paul was arguing with the Galatians; but if it was the keeping of the ten commandments, or the moral law, then it had no bearing at all, because that was not the question discussed in that council.

3. Circumcision and the observance of the ritual law of Moses were the only questions discussed and decided in that apostolic council. Acts 15. That this is so, a slight examination will readily show. “And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose

up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” Acts 15:1, 2, 4, 5.

Reader, what is the question? If you are candid and willing to see the truth, you must admit that it was circumcision as enjoined in the law of Moses; but there is nothing in the decalogue about circumcision. Moreover, the decalogue is never called the law of Moses, not in a single case in the Bible.

“And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” Acts 15:6. After they had had much discussion, Peter said, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Here Peter says that the observance of that old law was a yoke which even the Jews themselves found it hard to bear; and he decides that the Gentiles who believe in Christ ought not to be required to keep it.

This was certainly true of the innumerable rites and ceremonies and distinctions of the ceremonial law. Everything had to be done in a very precise manner. No wonder Peter thought it was a heavy yoke. So after the apostles and elders had thoroughly discussed the matter, they came to this conclusion: “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no such commandment; . . . for it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Acts 15:23, 24, 28, 29.

Notice that this decision related simply to the Gentile Christians, to those who had not been raised in the observance of the Jewish law. The apostles decide that there are only four things in that old law which need at all to be regarded by Christians. All the rest can be disregarded with impunity. What are these four things? Are they any part of the ten commandments? No; the first is meats offered to idols; the second, eating blood; the third, eating things that are strangled or that died of themselves; and the fourth, fornication. Every one of these things is forbidden in the ceremonial law of Moses. Now notice: If the observance of the ten commandments was under discussion in this council, then the apostles deliberately decided that Christians could lie, steal, murder, swear, &c.; because not one of these things was mentioned, and they said that Christians need not observe a single item of the old law except the four points above mentioned. But what a blasphemous conclusion this would be! It was not the moral law which was under consideration; but it was the law relating to circumcision, which we know was a part of the ceremonial law.

4. Peter termed the ceremonial law a yoke which could not be borne; and Paul says the same of the law in question in Galatians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. 5:1. This shows that the law in Galatians and the one in Acts 15 are the same.

5. The moral law is not a yoke of bondage. Can any one of the ten commandments be thus called? Let us look at them. Take the first commandment, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Reader, is that a yoke of bondage? Are you so anxious to get rid of the service of God, and to go after other gods, that this would be a yoke of bondage to you? You dare not say it. Second commandment: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image; . . . thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” Are you so anxious to worship wood and stone that this commandment is a galling yoke upon your neck? Third commandment: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Are you so full of cursing and swearing that you want to get rid of this commandment? Do you find that it circumscribes your liberty? Who dare assert such a thing?

So we might go through the whole ten commandments,—“Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” &c. Do you so love these sins that these commandments grieve you, are a galling yoke for you to bear? After a careful examination of the law, our opponents themselves are ashamed to assert that the ten commandments are a yoke of bondage to them. Then the ten commandments are not the law here referred to.

6. Paul’s argument from Peter’s example in eating with the Gentiles proves that it was the observance of the ritual law which was in question. Notice Paul’s argument upon this circumstance:—“But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Gal. 2:11–14.

What had Peter done that was wrong? He had gone down to Antioch, and had freely eaten with the Gentiles. In so doing he had violated the ceremonial law. Lev. 5:2, 3; Hag. 2:11–13; Acts 11:1–3. A purified Jew was very careful not to be polluted by touching anything that was unclean, for so the law directed, as will be seen by the above references. The Gentiles were unclean according to the ritual law; but Peter, disregarding this, “went in to men uncircumcised,” and ate and drank, and “lived after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews.” By so doing he virtually said that the ceremonial law need not be observed any longer, even by a Jew. But what one of the ten commandments had he violated or disregarded? Had he lied, or sworn, or broken the Sabbath? No; it was the ritual law upon which his conduct had a bearing.

Now observe: When some of the Judaizing teachers came down from Jerusalem, Peter changed his conduct immediately. He withdrew himself, and would not eat with the Gentiles. By this course he virtually declared that the ceremonial law was still binding, and should be observed. Thus he contradicted himself. Paul openly rebuked him for this. He asked Peter this question: “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles [as Peter had done before certain ones came down from Jerusalem], and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Paul’s argument was an unanswerable one. If Peter himself, being a Jew, could be a Christian without keeping the ceremonial law, then why should he compel the Gentile Christians to keep that law which he himself had disregarded?

Of course Paul’s argument was unanswerable. He told Peter further that he made himself a transgressor by building up again what he had once torn down. “For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Gal. 2:18; that is, by now scrupulously observing that law, he proved that he had been a transgressor when disregarding it. But which one of the ten commandments had Peter disregarded? Had he been swearing, worshiping images, murdering, lying, coveting, or breaking the Sabbath? No. It seems to me that Paul’s argument from Peter’s course unanswerably shows what law was under consideration with these Galatian brethren.

7. Paul calls the observance of this law the works of the flesh, which shows that it is the ceremonial, not the moral, law. “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Gal. 3:3; that is, by observing those fleshly rites, as circumcision, meats, and drinks. That by the works of the flesh he refers to the ceremonial law is shown by what he says a little further on in the same epistle: “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Gal. 6:12. In another place Paul directly declares the Levitical law to be a carnal law, that is, one relating wholly to the flesh: “Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” Heb. 7:16. And again, speaking of the same law, he says, “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9:10. Carnal, fleshly ordinances are just what the ceremonial law enjoined, and nothing else. Hence he could truly say to them, that, having begun in the Spirit, they were now trying to be made perfect by the works of the flesh. That this does not mean the observance of the ten commandments is positively shown by what Paul says of that law in Romans: “For I had not known lust, except the law had said, ‘Thou shalt not covet.’” Rom. 7:7. Here is one of the ten commandments. Of this law he says, “For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” Rom. 7:14. The ten commandments, then, are a spiritual law. Again he says of it: “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

The carnal, fleshly mind, then, is directly opposed to the spiritual law of God, the ten commandments. Here we have another proof that it was not the observance of the moral law that was under consideration in Galatians.

(To be Continued)

O SAVIOUR, WHOSE MERCY.

By Sir Robert Grant

O Saviour! whose mercy, severe in its kindness, Hath chastened my wanderings and guided my way. Adored be the power that illumined my blindness, And weaned me from phantoms that smiled to betray.

Enchanted with all that was dazzling and fair, I followed the rainbow, I caught at the toy; And still in displeasure thy goodness was there, Disappointing the hope and defeating the joy.

The blossom blushed bright, but a worm was below; The moonlight shone fair, there was blight in the beam; Sweet whispered the breeze, but it whispered of woe; And bitterness flowed in the soft-flowing stream.

So cured of my folly, yet cured but in part, I turned to the refuge thy pity displayed; And still, did this eager and credulous heart, Weave visions of promise that bloomed but to fade.

I thought that the course of the pilgrim to Heaven Would be bright as the summer and glad as the morn; Thou showedst me the path: it was dark and uneven, All rugged with rock and all tangled with thorn.

I dreamed of celestial rewards and renown, I grasped at the triumph that blesses the brave; I asked for the palm-branch, the robe, and the crown, I asked, and thou showedst me a cross and a grave!

Subdued and instructed, at length to thy will My hopes and my wishes I freely resign; O, give me a heart that can wait and be still, Nor know of a wish or a pleasure but thine.

There are mansions exempted from sin and from woe. But they stand in a region by mortals untrod; There are rivers of joy, but they roll not below; There is rest, but 'tis found in the bosom of God.

—Sir Robert Grant.

SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS.

By A. Smith

Are Seventh-day Adventists bigoted and exclusive? We have heard such a charge advanced, but we deny its application. The term bigotry is thus defined by Webster: “Obstinate or blind attachment to a particular creed; unreasonable zeal or warmth in favor of a party, sect, or opinion; excessive prejudice.”

Now since Seventh-day Adventists acknowledge no creed but the Bible, accepting no doctrine or article of faith that cannot be clearly and unequivocally proved by it, we ask, in all candor, Are they blindly and obstinately attached to that sacred word? Let Paul answer, in an epistle abounding with the doctrine of the second advent: “But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day; we are not of the night, nor of darkness.” 1 Thess. 5:4, 5. If those who now claim to be preaching the third angel’s message are indeed the people of God who will witness the second advent, the above quotation emphatically applies to them, and in its terms foreshadows, not only the time and manner of the second advent, but also the self-purification and holiness that will enable them to stand in the day of wrath.

The third angel’s message is the last message that is ever to be given to man, and it is the most solemn and awful one that has ever been proclaimed. Can those, therefore, who believe and embrace it, be unreasonably zealous and warm in advocating it, and exalting the standard of truth; or in maintaining their purity and distinctness of character as a religious body? We think not. The wonder is that they are not more zealous and in earnest.

Are they “excessively prejudiced?” We presume the objector means against other religious denominations. Prejudice is thus defined by Webster: “An opinion or decision of mind, formed without due examination of the facts or arguments which are necessary to a just and impartial determination.” They must not only be prejudiced, but excessively so, to incur the charge of bigotry on this point. The force of circumstances compelled us to organize a distinct religious body; but we have often declared that we do not like to differ with others, nor will we unless we are compelled to do so to be in harmony with revealed truth. Furthermore, we believe and teach that God has children in all those religious bodies from which we have separated. Do these facts justify the charge of bigotry?

“But you will not attend their meetings,” says one. This, again, is a mistake. We believe in attending meetings in other churches whenever the glory of God can be promoted by it, or any good accomplished. We are compelled to believe, by the evidences that are continually forced upon our attention, that the popular churches of our day have suffered great religious declension, as the Scriptures declare. They teach dangerous and unscriptural doctrines; as, the change of one of the most important precepts of that law which the psalmist declared was perfect, and which Christ said should not pass away “till all be fulfilled;” the eternal torment of the lost; and the immortality of the soul, the pet dogma of spiritualism, which, doubtless, will finally obtain control of all those churches.

Is the Sabbath of the Bible indeed a test in these last days? How, then, can we freely unite in worship with those who keep and teach for the Sabbath a commandment of men? If we attend their meetings, and do not join in the exercises, they will be offended; and if we have anything to say, we must keep the truth we hold in the background or offend in this also.

There are, in the churches, honest people, who deplore the corruption and pride which they see to be on the increase all around them. We should do all we can to rescue such, going, if need be, to the meetings where they worship, and if God so send us, bearing a message from him that will not prove in vain. A. Smith.

OUR BEST THINKING FOR CHRIST.

In surrendering all to the Saviour we give him control of every power he has lent us. Here is one of the paradoxes of our faith. We give up all, yet we keep all to use for him. Some fail to apprehend this. Through weak judgment or from wrong teaching, they blunder; and others stumble over their mistakes.

In complete submission to God there is an abnegation of reason and judgment that is very difficult. It is yet more difficult to understand, that, while we surrender our “memory, mind, and will,” we must make them do their very best work for our Master. Some, in their religious zeal, abnegate their common sense, and never quite resume it. Of such the Saviour says sorrowfully, “The children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light.”

Intellectual pride is an almost certain snare to persons of a little more than average ability and culture. In their efforts to be thoroughly religious, they are apt to shy the old pitfall, and lean a little too far from it for straight, sensible walking. Just as if the mighty Redeemer could not save them from that danger! A touch of the old Romish asceticism, do you see?

You have Latin and Greek, poetry, imagination, artistic taste. You made the most of them for Satan and self. Now you have given them to God. Will you wrap them in a napkin, and hide them away, when he has place and use for them in his work?

You wonder why you cannot win your friends to this better life. It may be your piety is unlovely. They know you have these gifts. They have expected you to do nobly with them. But there you are, in your fearfulness, neglecting, cramping your talents and wasting your chances.

God “uses the weak things,” to be sure; but any of his earthly children are weak enough, at their very best.

He wants our money for building places of worship, scattering a pure literature, missionating pagans, at home and abroad. Dare we put it out of his reach, in savings-banks or real-estate?

He wants business brains to plan church finances. Dare consecrated people invest his money with less skill and care than they use for their own? He makes the flowers grow; but he usually makes them grow best where a human brain studies out their laws of life, and a human hand helps them to moisture and proper soil.

Christ wants the very best thoughts of the church, to use in toppling over false theories, in straightening theological tangles, in driving heart and voice and pen, to teach the ignorant, warn the unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, and to build up shapely Christian characters.

Let us use our common sense for him.

All “dove” and no “serpent,” we shall make poor work of it. Let us do our bravest, strongest thinking for our Master. If we keep close to him, we need have no fear of intellectual pride. The fullness of his great thoughts will make ours look little enough. The boundlessness of his great life will make ours seem small enough.

“Thy self-upbraiding is a snare, Though meekness it appears; More humbling is it far for thee To face the eternal years. “Brave quiet is the thing for thee; Chiding thy scrupulous fears: Learn to be real from the thought Of the eternal years.” —Sel.

Sensational Preachers and Their Lasting Harm to the Church

“SENSATIONAL” preachers, said the Rev. R. W. Dale, in his first lecture before the Yale Theological School, are most commonly mere charlatans. They have neither the fire of human genius nor the fire of a divine zeal. They win a transient popularity; but they inspire no intellectual respect, they command no lasting confidence. Their popularity is a shame to the church.

CHRISTIANITY AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

When three centuries were gone, the Roman Empire accepted Christianity. One day, in the senate-house, they voted down Jupiter, and voted up Christ. That was a great step! But was it, really? The churches had rest; persecution ceased; pagan temples became Christian temples; all up and down the Mediterranean, from Asia to Western Europe, Christian hymns and prayers and ordinances were celebrated. Pagan Rome, the most powerful empire on the earth, became Christian Rome. Let us not be deceived. There was much that was good in this change; but there was much that was evil also. The pure and divine religion that glows in the breasts of martyrs could not be transferred by an imperial decree into the hearts of pagans. If paganism was christianized, Christianity was paganized. It was inevitable that the introduction of this vast mass of ignorance and superstition should corrupt both the faith and the practice of the church. To say the least, it was doubtful whether the nominal christianization of Rome was more a blessing than a curse. Certain it is that the Christian faith, henceforth on the throne of the world, was hindered rather than helped by political power. There was within the mass the same pure, holy faith and experience that had characterized the martyr ages; but the mass itself, called Christian, was pagan still. It is no marvel that for ten centuries the ingrafted superstition poisoned and corrupted the pure truth. But the included truth continued to leaven the lump despite the powerful corrupting forces. The triumphant Christianity was a prevailing false Christianity, but the ark of a pure faith notwithstanding,—Bishop Foster.

It would have been well if Bishop Foster had proceeded a little further, and made the application of his excellent remarks concerning the ingrafting of pagan ideas and superstitions into the Christian system. The two great doctrines of paganism which have been baptized as Christian and overshadow all others, are the immortality of the soul, and Sunday-keeping.

Continue reading: IN CHRIST’S STEAD