Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 16, 1861
DEBATE IN RICHMOND IOWA.
By B. F. Snook
WHEN at Richmond last October (21st), I preached a discourse on the little horn of Daniel vii, 25, for the benefit of Campbellites. While I was speaking Elder Bonham, their preacher, interrupted me by asking a question. When I had finished preaching I told him that if he was willing to try the strength of his system, we would debate the issues between us, each affirming the teachings of the church with which we respectively stood connected. But the Elder soon bolted from this agreement by refusing to affirm the teachings of his church on the subject of the kingdom. We entered into correspondence, and I did my best to bring him to terms on the kingdom question; but all in vain. He would not affirm that the kingdom of God was
set up on the day of Pentecost. He proposed to meet me on my "Review of Springer." I accepted of this, and told him to set the time, and say that he would affirm on the kingdom issue. And what do you think he did? He broke off the correspondence, and then reported that I had backed out!
Soon after, he made an appointment in Richmond to review my "Review of Springer." I heard of this and met him there March 22nd. He had lectured the evening before, read the correspondence, and reported that I would not meet him, that I had backed out, &c. I heard him on the evening of the 22nd, and announced a review the following evening. After I had exposed his false assertions, and slanderous charges in reference to my book, I urged him to meet me in debate. This he seemed willing to do, but would not accept of any kind of a fair proposition. So he determined to go on in review of my book. However, the people desiring a fair debate, a lawyer, Mr. James Baty, suggested the following proposition which I agreed to affirm, and Bonham's brethren agreed he should deny. Proposition: "The Bible teaches that the seventh day Sabbath should be kept by all men in all time." We met on Sunday at the appointed time, and the arrangement was made known to the Elder. He however persisted in his course, and seemed determined to go on with my book, the agreement of his friends to the contrary notwithstanding. He arose and made a speech of a half hour's length on my book, hoping thus to draw me off from the proposition agreed upon for debate. But I was not to be led off in this way. I arose and informed the people that I was ready to comply with their wishes and would proceed with my argument on the proposition that had been suggested, and that Elder Bonham might spend his time in reply, or in any other way that pleased him. Thus began the debate which continued two days, occupying six hours each day.
As the readers of the Review may be interested in seeing it, I will give a brief synopsis of the positions, pro and con.
1. I showed that the Sabbath was instituted on facts which yet exist. 1st. God rested or sabbatized on the seventh day. 2nd. He blessed and sanctified the day on which he sabbatized. I then drew the conclusion that as the facts and reason on which the Sabbath is based still exist, the institution thus based upon them must also exist. This argument was admitted.
2. We showed that the Sabbath is God's memorial, and as such endureth forever.
3. We showed that the Sabbath existed in our Saviour's time, was kept by him, was his day of worship, and hence if we would be his followers we must also keep it.
4. I showed from Matt. xxiv, 20; Acts xvii, 2; xviii, 4, that the Sabbath existed this side of the day of Pentecost in what Elder Bonham regards as the New Testament.
5. I showed from Luke xxiii, 56 that the disciples of Christ kept the Sabbath this side of the death of Christ which shows that he did not abolish it.
1. That the Sabbath was instituted in Paradise before man fell.
2. That God made it by resting or sabbatizing.
3. That the Sabbath was God's sign or seal under the Old Testament.
4. That the Sabbath was a sign between God and the Israelites FOREVER.
5. That Christ and the four evangelists teach the Sabbath.
6. That the Sabbath existed in the time of the apostles.
QUESTIONS UNANSWERED BY ELDER BONHAM.
1. When did God unsanctify the Sabbath? To this question he paid no attention, though I often urged him to do so.
2. He said that the only authority for keeping the Sabbath was in the commandment. I showed that we should keep the Sabbath, "for (or because) God rested on the seventh day and sanctified it. I asked him to notice this no less than six times, but all in vain. He passed it by in silence.
3. He admitted that all the reasons that ever existed for keeping the Sabbath existed in our Saviour's time. I then called upon him to show that those reasons were abolished or destroyed, but he did not make the effort.
DILEMMAS OF ELDER BONHAM.
1. Elder Snook misrepresented A. Campbell. The moderators, however, decided that Elder Snook had represented A. Campbell fairly in the light of his teachings.
2. I quoted Mark ii, 27; Job xiv, and Isa. lvi, to prove that the word man without an adjective means all men, and hence the Gentiles should keep the Sabbath. To this Elder B. replied: I admit that the passages quoted refer to Gentile men as well as Jew men.
3. In his next speech he not only denied this admission, but denied that I quoted Isa. lvi. I appealed to the moderators and people and they here also testified against the Elder.
4. In his next speech he again admitted that the Gentiles under certain circumstances should keep the Sabbath.
5. The second day, when I was engaged proving the perpetuity of the law, he urged upon me the necessity of proving that the word law or laws when used in the last will includes the170fourth commandment. I told him I would, provided that he would inform us what he understood the last will to be. Ah! says he, you must find that out! In his second speech in the morning session, he talked for a short time, and asked how much time he had. Says, "I don't care how much (very gruffly). This debate will go no farther till Elder Snook proves that the word law in the last will includes the Sabbath. I arose and said, "I proposed to do this if he would only tell us what he means by the last will," but he very gravely informed us that we must find that out. Here the Elder went under clear out of sight. Well, says he, if I can't answer him with talk, I will by silence. I will put in my time anyhow. And there he stood, mute, while his time passed away.
The moderators then announced that Mr. Snook had proved that the law was binding up to a time that Mr. Bonham admitted, and that now Mr. B. must show that it was abolished. Here was trouble in the Elder's camp again. He had admitted too much for this; for he admitted that Christ did not abolish the law by his death, that it was binding up to the day of Pentecost. However, he made an effort to accomplish the end. 2 Cor. iii, was resorted to, but with the usual failure.
Thus ended the debate. We generally had a good and peaceable time. The Elder said some hard things of me, but I overlooked them, knowing that he was sorely pressed. I felt the hand of God upon me all the time. I felt as happy when speaking as if engaged in a revival of pure religion. Never did I see and realize more clearly the power and force of our blessed truths. The strongest opposers must quail beneath them.
Many of the people of Richmond who were our enemies are now our friends. As far as I could learn (and I heard many express themselves) victory was on the Lord's side, and the general opinion was that Bonham lost the question.
The next morning one of our brethren went into one of the stores and asked the crowd for the news. They responded, The only news of importance is Bonham's surrender. Every one treated me with respect. I think much good may be done at Richmond now. I would have complied with the universal request of the people by giving a course of lectures, but was prevented by the sore throat. May the Lord bless us in all our trials, lead us by his Spirit, and save us in his kingdom.
B. F. SNOOK.
"I AM CHIEF!"
CHARGE no other man with guilt!
I alone his blood have split;
Every crime against the Lamb,
Charge on me! Lo! here I am
Self-convicted,—self-confessed,
Chief, alone. Discharge the rest.
Olivet! 'twas I that slept;
Slept when watch-hour should be kept,
I alone: 'twas not the three:
Spare me, O Gethsemane!
Though thy sod with bloodlike sweat,
For my wicked sloth was wet.
Who 'gainst Peter bringeth blame?
Enter there another name;
He but thrice: I stood beside,
And a thousand times denied.
His sin washed in bitter tears;
Mine persisted in for years.
Sayest thou,—doubting what I am,—
Judas told the Paschal Lamb?
Yes! for silver: but they bought
Jesus Christ of me for nought.
'Tis no Jew his life assails;
'Tis no Roman drives the nails!
These are sins, not spikes: and those,
Those are crimes, not thorns! His woes
Mine iniquities. That spear
In my heart was forged! And here
Pilate, Herod, both were born;
Cross, and spike, and spear, and thorn.
Shamed, I own them every one:
That black cloud that vails the sun,—
(Vails the Father, too, in wrath)—
From my soul its blackness hath.
Leaves my soul to light and bliss;
All have gone from mine to his.
Joy, peace, righteousness divine,
All have come from his to mine.
Him in my stead; me in his,
God accepts. The sonship is
Mine; and he,—oh! past belief,—
He, not I, appears the Chief.
INCONSISTENCY OF THE OPPOSITION.
By D. T. Bourdeau
Bro. Smith: The truth has met much opposition in Sutton, C. E., of late. Ministers of different denominations have united together to oppose the truth, and to discourage those who keep the Seventh-day Sabbath. Among those who have taken an active part in the work of opposing the truth, are Elders Fowler and Garvin—the former a Wesleyan, and the latter an Adventist. Last Sunday they spoke against our views of the law and Sabbath. Their remarks were reviewed by my brother and myself before a large congregation. The result was good. Many of those present acknowledged that we had got the truth on the Sabbath question. May the Lord help them to be consistent, and live up to what they acknowledge to be the truth.
While reviewing the positions of these two Elders we were reminded of the fact that "consistency is a rare jewel." One of the leading ideas of Eld. F. was, that "every precept of the decalogue is binding." He seemed to overlook the idea that if every precept of the decalogue is binding, we are in duty bound to keep the Seventh-day Sabbath, and that we cannot obey the fourth commandment by keeping Sunday. The fourth commandment enforces the observance of the day on which God rested, and which he blessed and sanctified at creation. If we substitute the first day for the seventh day, we must take the position that God rested on the first day and that he blessed and sanctified the first day and thus contradict the fourth commandment which shows that the seventh day is God's rest-day or Sabbath, and that the seventh day is the day which God blessed and sanctified in the beginning. Without the particular day on which God rested, and which God blessed and sanctified, the fourth commandment cannot exist. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work." Ex. xx, 10.
Eld. G. next read Matt. xxviii, 1; Mark xvi, 1; Luke xxiv, 1; John xx, 1; Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2; Rev. i, 10, and leaped at the following conclusion: "The first day is the only correct, holy, Bible Sabbath." This conclusion is adopted by many. But is it correct? Can it be logically drawn from the texts on which it is predicated? Let us see.
1. The first two texts read by Eld. F. show that the first day is the day after the Sabbath.
3. Acts xx, 7, informs us that on the first day of the week the disciples met to break bread. "There were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together." Verse 5. Hence this was an evening meeting. Again, this meeting was held on the "first day of the week;" and according to the Bible manner of reckoning time, the day commenced with the evening, or at sunset. See Gen. i; Neh. xiii, 19; Mark i, 32. Therefore this meeting was held on what is now called Saturday night. Paul preached all night, and Sunday morning he started on foot on his long journey to Jerusalem.
4. 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, contains an injunction for each member of the Corinthian church to lay by him (Greek, παρ᾿ ἑαυτῷ, AT HOME), that there might be no gatherings when Paul should come.
5. Rev. i, 10, speaks of the Lord's day, but it does not say that the first day is the Lord's day.
Thus we have failed to see that Eld. F.'s texts sustain him in his conclusion. They do not say a single word about the change of the Sabbath, neither do they say that the first day is a "Holy Sabbath." To the foregoing texts we might add the two remaining passages in which the first day is mentioned, viz., John xx, 19, and Mark xvi, 9-14; but these texts would not help Eld. F., for they show that the "disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews;" that "they sat at meat" when Christ appeared unto them (they had a common abode: compare Mark xvi, 14; John xx, 19, 26, with Acts i, 13); and that they did not believe Christ had risen from the dead.
Eld. G. took the position that the first covenant was the ten commandments exclusively, and read 2 Cor. iii, to prove that they were abolished. In our reply we proved that the word covenant was used in different acceptations in the Bible (see Gen. ix, 8-17; xvii, 1-8; Heb. viii, 9; Deut. iv, 12, 13; Ex. xxxi, 16; Isa. xxviii, 15, 19; Eze. xvii, 12, 13); that the ten commandments were God's covenant, and were commanded to a thousand generations (Deut. iv, 12, 13; 1 Chron. xvi, 15-17; Matt. v, 17); that the Sinaitic covenant was an agreement between God and the children of Israel, comprising promises and conditions. See Ex. xix, 5-8. In this agreement or covenant God told the people that if they would obey his voice, and keep his covenant (the ten commandments), they would be a peculiar people, an holy nation; "and the people said, All that the Lord has spoken will we do." This covenant had a mediator or mediators (Gal. iii, 19; Ex. xx, 19, 21, 22); blood, "ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary." Ex. xxiv, 5, 6, 8; Heb. ix, 1, 18, 19. It could not reward those who were under it; for its conditions, the ten commandments, were broken by all. Besides, the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin. Hence the necessity of a "better covenant, established on better promises," embracing forgiveness.
But what about the law of God? Was it abolished? Eld. G. says that it was. But, says the Lord through Jeremiah: "This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. xxxi, 33. With this passage accords the testimony of Paul in 2 Cor. iii, 3: "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in the fleshly tables of the heart." The same law that was written by the finger of God in tables of stone, is now written by the Spirit of God in the heart.
In 2 Cor. iii, Paul contrasts the ministration of death with the ministration of the Spirit. The ministration of death or condemnation was so glorious "that the children of Israel could not behold the face of Moses who administered the law; but the ministration of the Spirit exceeds in glory. The justice of God appeared in the condemnation and death of those who transgressed the law; the mercy and justice of God shine forth gloriously in the ministration of the Spirit, which postpones the penalty of the law, and brings mercy, pardon, and life to the penitent. It was the glory of Moses' countenance which represented the glory of the ministration, or service of condemnation, that was to be done away. Verse 7. Again it was that which was covered with the vail—the glory which enshrouded the face of Moses in his ministration—that was abolished. Verse 13. Now was the law vailed? By no means. The law remains the same. Says Paul, "Do we make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. Again, Paul expostulates thus with the Jews, who had the form of the truth in the law: "Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? ... Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God." Rom. ii, 21-23. Query. How could the Jews dishonor God in breaking the law, if the law had been abolished?
Eld. G. "We will next notice what was said at the apostolic council in Jerusalem. Acts xv. Says Peter, 'Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.' Verse 10. This was not the ceremonial law, but the law of ten commandments. It was a yoke and was faulty."
Answer. We are glad that Eld. G. speaks of "the law of ten commandments," and of "the ceremonial law," and virtually admits that there are two laws. We are here reminded of a discourse that Eld. G. gave in Sutton about two months ago, in which he took the position that there was but one law. He compared the law to a child, and said, "Those who say that there are two laws, divide the child in two." It is to be hoped that he will learn to be consistent, and rightly divide the word of truth on this important subject. But does Peter refer to the law of ten commandments? He does not. For those who troubled the disciples, said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Verse 1. They said it was needful for the disciples to be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Verse 5. Paul says, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the keeping of the commandments of God." 1 Cor. vii, 19. Again, is it not strange that a perfect law (Ps. xix, 7), which was the delight of David (Ps. cxix, 77), and which Christ kept (Jno. xv, 10), should be a yoke?
Before Eld. G. got through, he brought in all the ten commandments (or their principles) but the fourth, and said that the fourth commandment was a yoke. So the yoke and the fault must have been in the Sabbath. But is there anything faulty—anything like a yoke—hard to be borne—in gratefully acknowledging the power, benevolence and goodness of the Creator, by resting171from our works on the seventh day? But notwithstanding the efforts made to get rid of this 'faulty yoke,' Eld. G. worked hard before he closed to manufacture another Sabbath yoke. He tried to make it appear that men should keep Sunday.
Eld. G. 'The law is dead. We have nothing to do with it. Proof. Rom. vii, 1-6. Verse 7 shows that Paul has reference to the law of ten commandments.'
Answer. We admit that Paul speaks of the law of ten commandments; but we think that Eld. G's conclusion does not agree with that of Paul. Says Paul, 'What shall we say then? (Then, implies a conclusion.) Is the law sin? ('O yes,' says Eld. G., 'It is dead.' But let us have Paul's answer.) God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just and good.' Verses 7-12. In Paul's figure [verses 2, 3], it is necessary that the first husband should die, in order that the woman may be married to another man; so in the Bible conversion, which Paul is illustrating, it is necessary that the 'old man' should be crucified with Christ [Rom. vi, 6], and slain by the law, that the sinner may be united to Christ. The sinner must first see the exceeding sinfulness of sin (the transgression of God's law) in the penalty that was inflicted on the Son of God, and become dead to the law by the body of Christ. Then he is delivered from the law, or is freed from the condemnation wherein he was held by the law. The penalty of the law is paid, the law is satisfied, and he who was once a sinner, can be married to Christ. The death of the first husband does not affect the law of marriage, neither does the death of the old man affect the law of God. Paul had to be slain by the law before he could be united to Christ [verses 5-11]; and when he had believed on Christ for the remission of his sins, he could say, 'I delight in the law of God after the inward man' [verse 22]; for he realized that Christ died 'that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in him.' Rom. viii, 4.
Eld. G. 'Christ was a lawgiver. He revised the law. We have a new decalogue. The first commandment is found in Matt. xxii, 37; the second, in 1 John v, 21; the third, in Matt. v, 34-37. The fourth commandment of the decalogue is omitted. In its stead we have, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Matt. xxii, 39. The last six are the same as in the old decalogue. Matt. xix, 18, 19; Rom. vii, 7.'
Answer. 1. The law was perfect. Ps. xix, 7. Therefore there was no need of revising it. To alter a perfect law would be to make it imperfect. 2. Christ does not claim to be a lawgiver, nor a reviser of the law. He was a prophet or teacher. Deut. xviii, 15-18. He taught his Father's law [John vii, 16; Rev. xxii, 14; Matt. v; xix], and never intimated that his teachings would constitute a new law, and take the place of the law which existed from the beginning. 3. Eld. G's first and fourth commandments are the sum of all moral law. Says Christ, 'On these two commandments hang ('depend'—French Trans.) all the law (the fourth commandment included) and the prophets.' Matt. xxii, 40. Why don't G. leave the law where Christ left it? If Christ revised the law, how does it happen that he did not particularly mention the second and tenth commandments of G's decalogue. Where is G's authority for introducing the precept, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,' in the place of the fourth commandment? and where does he find the idea of a new decalogue? Did Christ leave the work of revising the law, and arranging a new law in the form of a decalogue, to the teachers of the nineteenth century?
Eld. G. 'The fourth commandment is not binding. It is not in the new covenant. It never was binding on the Gentiles.' (Let the reader compare this with Eld. F.'s leading idea.)
Answer. Of the law of which the fourth commandment is a part, Christ says, 'Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law.' Matt. v, 17. Heaven and earth have not passed; therefore the fourth commandment is binding; therefore the fourth commandment is in the new covenant. Read Matt. xii, 12; Luke xxiii, 56. We have already seen that the law of God was to be written in the heart under the new covenant; and the fourth commandment is a part of God's law. Paul delighted in the law of God, which G. calls 'dead,' 'a yoke,' &c. Rom. vii, 22. Therefore Paul delighted in the fourth commandment. See Acts xiii, 42, 44; xvii, 2; xviii, 3, 4, 11. Paul served the law of God [Rom. vii, 25]; and James says that he that offended in one point of the law is guilty. James ii, 10, 11. 'Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' (Or 'He shall be of no esteem in the reign of heaven'—Campbell.) 'But whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.' Matt. v, 19. 'Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life; and may enter in through the gates into the city.' Rev. xxii, 14.
D. T. BOURDEAU.
Distinguished Converts to Spiritualism.
By Cleaveland Plaindealer
The celebrated Robert Bell, one of the astutest commentators, editors and literateurs of London, and one who has chiefly devoted his large capacities to the comparison of probabilities, the weighing of evidence, and the minute sifting of facts, has come out openly in the Cornhill Magazine, avowing himself a believer in Spiritualism, and stating the evidence on which his belief is founded. He states that he has witnessed the phenomena which he describes, not in one house, but in many houses; not in the dim, religious light, but in the morning—in the broad day, in a blaze of gas; not in a single room of any peculiar construction, but in every and all sorts of rooms; not in the society of gaping mystics, but in the company of skeptical, scientific, shrewd, worldly men; not in the houses of mediums, exhibitors, showmen, but of private gentlemen, and ladies, unbelievers and scoffers like himself. With this preface, we shall submit to the judgment of our readers Mr. Bell's description of one seance which he attended at the house of a medium—Mr. Hume, "the spiritualistic confident of the emperor Napoleon the third," also being present.
"On sitting down to the table," says the writer, "I found the table cover drawn over my lap. A twitch at my knees was several times repeated. A large hand came under the table cover, and with the fingers clustered to a point, was raised between me and the table, I felt it very sensibly—it was as palpable as any soft substance, velvet, or pulp; and at the touch it seemed as solid; but pressure reduced it to air. A hand-bell was snatched away—rung at several places—and returned into the hand of another person. A hand with long, white, delicate fingers, rose up slowly, and bending over a flower vanished with it. A hand, of which the lambent gleam was visible, slowly ascended, and placed a flower in a hand for which it was intended. An accordeon descended to the floor in silence. It was played without hands with unearthly sweetness and delicacy, execution and power—at the close drawing tears from every eye. Upon holding up the instrument myself, in one hand, in the open room, with the full light upon it, similar strains were emitted, the regular action of the accordeon going on without any visible agency. During the loud and vehement passages, it became so difficult to hold, in consequence of the extraordinary power with which it was held from below, that I was obliged to grasp it with both hands. I witnessed the same result on different occasions, when the instrument was held by others. Mr. Hume was seated next the window. He said in a quiet voice, 'My chair is moving; I am off the ground.' I saw his hands disappear from the table, his head vanish into the deep shadow beyond. His
voice was in the air above our heads. He ascended higher—described his position, which was sometimes perpendicular, sometimes horizontal. We saw his figure pass from one side of the window to the other—feet foremost—horizontally in the air. He spoke to us as he passed, hovered round the circle for several minutes, passing perpendicularly over our heads. I heard his voice behind me in the air—he gave me leave to touch his foot. I placed my hand gently upon it, when he uttered a cry of pain, passing over to the farthest corner of the room. He had reached the ceiling, on which he made a slight mark, descended, and resumed his place at the table—the accordeon we supposed to be on the ground, playing a strain of wild pathos in the air, from the most distant corner of the room."
This is a pretty tough story, as all must admit; but Mr. Bell vouches that all these things have been submitted to the test of his senses, and Mr. Thackeray vouches for Mr. Bell—apart from his intellectual reputation, which needs no endorsement—as a man "whose good faith and honorable character he can attest on the friendship of twenty-five years." But there is yet other and equally reputable evidence on the point. The phenomena witnessed by Robert Bell, were witnessed at the same time by Dr. Gully, the eminent physician of Malvern; by the eminent Dr. Collier, of London, and by other persons distinguished for the social positions they have attained by learning, genius, ability, and vigor of mind. William Howitt, the author, has seen and vouches marvels equally startling. Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, a minister of state; Newton Crossland, one of our most successful lecturers and annotators; Parker Snow of the arctic expedition; Mr. and Mrs. S. C. Hall, celebrated in literature; Sir David Brewster, Dr. Bird, Lord Brougham, and others of equal note, are all believers in the spiritualistic theory. It is also known that Louis Napoleon is a firm and ardent student of these phenomena, and that he received many messages through Mr. Hume, purporting to emanate, and believed by him to emanate from the spirit of Napoleon the first. We have confined this detail entirely to the transcription of the narrative of physical phenomena, palpable to the bodily senses, to appearances frequently seen, often heard, sensibly felt. The whole matter is certainly one deserving attention, if nothing more.—Cleaveland Plaindealer.
One Drop at a Time.
HAVE you ever watched an icicle as it formed? You noticed how it froze one drop at a time until it was a foot long or more. If the water was clean, the icicle remained clear and sparkled brightly in the sun; but if the water was but slightly muddy, the icicle looked foul, and its beauty was spoiled. Just so our characters are forming—one little thought, or feeling at a time, adds its influence. If each thought be pure and right, the soul will be lovely, and will sparkle with happiness; but if impure and wrong, there will be final deformity and wretchedness.
Christ not Silent.
CHRIST is not silent upon earth. He that has an ear for his voice, hears it in a variety of ways in every place. Witnessing for himself and his cause, he speaks at one time in obvious judgments, which he inflicts upon his foes; and at another, in tangible blessings and answers to prayers with which he favors his friends. He speaks in the Sabbatic rest of soul which those enjoy who trust in him, as well as by the want of peace, the distressing care and fear of death which are the lot of the ungodly. He speaks by the suprising confirmations which science in its progress, is often involuntarily obliged to afford his word, as well as by the manifold signs of the times, which manifest nothing but a literal fulfillment of his prophecies.
NO CONDEMNATION.
THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Rom. viii, 1. There are some passages of Scripture which are wonderfully suggestive in their character. They serve as gateways leading us into vast fields of reflection and contemplation; or as keys to unlock the storehouse of wisdom and mercy as revealed in the plan and purposes of God. Such is the text before us. It brings with it a cluster of questions which cannot be passed by unnoticed. It bids us ask for a definition of this condemnation from which we are freed through Christ. It takes us back to a contemplation of that time when condemnation had never entered. It bids us look for the cause which first brought its dark shadow over the heart of man; and it bids us inquire how it is that being in Christ lifts us out of its horrible pit and miry clay. It embraces, in short, the main points involved in the atonement of Christ and the plan of salvation.
Condemnation! Sad word! Word which expresses the alienation of man from his Creator. Word that embraces in its fiery folds the whole progeny of man; for all have become guilty before God. Word that spans the whole way from the first slight departure from purity and right to the lowest depths of irretrievable ruin and death. And this has been the household word of a fallen race for nearly six thousand years. With this all have become familiar. This has rested like an incubus upon all hearts. It has followed its victims blighting their fairest flowers, and instilling its poison into their sweetest cups of pleasure. And can we have freedom from this ubiquitous specter? Can we be delivered from its relentless grasp? Yes; for there is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
Once man had no need of the release here promised by the Saviour; for he was already at peace with God, and knew not the bitterness of condemnation and guilt. Every command of God had been obeyed. Justice had no claims to urge against him. Rebellion had not disturbed his union with his Maker. All was joy, peace, harmony, satisfaction, and love. Well may the children of Adam as they find themselves in the bonds of condemnation, goaded by conscience and stung by remorse, look back with unutterable longings to the shining heights and peaceful bowers of that paradise from which, by transgression, our first parents fell. Well may they covet its golden glories and anxiously inquire if a re-instatement is possible, and by what means it can be accomplished. The text before us answers the question by setting us on the track that leads us through to paradise restored. As condemnation has resulted from the fall through the introduction of sin, the removal of this condemnation must of course, be the first step toward a restoration; and this removal is a glorious pledge of a full accomplishment of the work; for God would no more leave men in this state forever who are freed from condemnation and morally fitted for a higher sphere, than he would have suffered them to fall at first had no condemnation been incurred through a committal of sin. This glorious work is not therefore altogether a future good. We are not required, in regard to it, to walk altogether by faith; in some particulars we walk by sight, or, at least, by knowledge wrought out in our own hearts. A part of the work is accomplished for us in this state. The moral restoration takes place here and now. The condemnation is lifted, the guilt removed, and we are fitted for that physical transformation for which we look, not far in the future, when this vile body shall be fashioned like unto Christ's most glorious body, and still further when the earth shall be renewed as the everlasting habitation of the saints. And of this the work of the Spirit in our hearts here, is the removal of our condemnation and guilt, is the earnest and the pledge.
No condemnation! Blessed thought! not only as an earnest of our future blessedness, but as a means of our present joy. Paul introduces it after narrating the experience by which we get into Christ. The sixth and seventh of Romans contain an account of the awakened sinner's struggle with sin and the steps by which he effects his escape. The eighth opens with a declaration of the glorious liberty into which we are then ushered. Christ has died, the just for the unjust. The Sinless has died for the sinner. The penalty is paid. The sinner has now but to put faith in the sacrifice, and show by certain outward steps his faith in the death and resurrection of Christ; show that he has died, that he has been slain by the law, and that he flies for safety to the atoning blood of the Saviour; and then, O wonderful result! the sin and condemnation departs; the guilt is canceled; the righteousness of Christ is transferred to us; and we are accepted in the beloved. Hence exclaims the apostle, There is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. The soul is placed in the same relation to God as though sin had never entered into the world. It is as free from condemnation as was Adam's when in the beautiful garden he walked and talked with God. So much of paradise is already restored. Then let the accuser of the brethren arise; let him thunder in our ears the claims of law; let him hold up the justice of God; let him endeavor to excite our fears, and throw over our soul the gloom of remorse and despair; our answer is, The claims of the law have been paid; the justice of God is satisfied; and there is now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
This is the position which we believe it is the privilege of God's people to enjoy; and hence not only their privilege but their duty. They need not be always living in the seventh of Romans; they need not be continually struggling with a half-forsaken carnal nature, a half-crucified man of sin; but they may press on into the experience of the eighth chapter where is brought to view the liberty wherewith Christ proposes to make his people free; where they can have the abiding witness of the Spirit of adoption, and know that they are Christ's, and therefore heirs according to the promise.