Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 7, 1870
The Decalogue.
The following article is from “The Watchword,” a Magazine published in the interest of the Free Church of Scotland, at Edinburgh, April, 1866. While waiting for the cars at a R. R. station in Maine, last autumn, I picked up this paper, and was agreeably surprised to find in it so able a defense of the law of God.
M. E. CORNELL.
Dr. Macleod on the Decalogue.
Decalogue is a Greek word, which literally signifies the ten words. The decalogue, under the disguise of a foreign language, means neither more nor less than what we call in English the ten commandments. As the discussion presently raised is an English one, let us look upon the word decalogue as dead and buried, and instead of that expression let us speak chiefly of the ten commandments, as the form of speech which is not only most familiar, but which is also most fitted to give clearness to this discussion. Keeping this statement in view, and generally using “the ten commandments” where Dr. Macleod uses the word decalogue, we shall briefly consider his sentiments, which, as expressed in his own words, are as follows:— “The decalogue, as written on the tables of the covenant, and including necessarily its Sabbath law as the sign of the covenant, which I presume to think, has been abrogated by being nailed to Christ’s cross and buried in the grave with Jesus.” And again:—“I say, the decalogue was buried in the grave of Jesus Christ when He rose from the dead.” We might cite a number of other passages to the same effect. These, however, are sufficient, because there is no dubiety in the matter. Even Dr. Macleod himself will admit that we state his sentiments with absolute fairness when we say, that he maintains the ten commandments to have been put to death on Christ’s cross, and to have been buried in his grave. A Jesuit, in defending Dr. Macleod’s views, would be able on something like good grounds to assert, that he did not maintain that the ten commandments are abolished, but merely that they are abolished “as written on the tables of the covenant.” This, however, would serve no end, because no person in a state of sanity ever maintained in our day that the ten commandments, as written on the tables of the covenant, are still even in existence. There can, therefore, be no possible doubt that Dr. Macleod maintains that the ten commandments are dead and buried, and that they are as entirely null and void, in respect of being, or place, or power in the church or in the world, as a man who is in his grave. It would, indeed, be the gospel of gospels for many if they could believe, on anything like good authority, that not one of all the ten commandments had any power over them. Such a doctrine would cover all the sins of individuals, and all the defections of the church, and all the crimes of the world. The world has been, and is, very, very bad; but it would become inexpressibly worse—it would, indeed, differ little from hell, except in respect of duration—if mankind could be brought to believe that the ten commandments are dead and buried, and long ago have said “to corruption, Thou art my father, and to the worm, Thou art my sister.” Human nature is depraved. Language, as used by creatures, is altogether inadequate to express the nature, variety, and power of that corruption. Yet, bad as human nature is, it would become worse by a millionfold if men could be brought to believe that the ten commandments—some defaced remainders of which exist in their own consciences—have been blotted out of existence and buried in the heart of the earth, so that they may free themselves from all further trouble in regard to them. The conscience of every individual on the face of the earth, which has not been steeped in guilt or seared by crime, bears witness that every one of the ten commandments is holy, and just, and good, and universally binding. However far he may come short in practice, no sophistry in the world ever will convince a single man, who wishes simply to know the path of truth and duty, that he is not bound to order his life in every respect in accordance with the moral law as “summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.” Well aware of the impropriety and the impolicy of using stronger language than is necessary, we nevertheless feel constrained to say, that the opinion that the ten commandments were abolished by our Lord’s death is not merely a heresy, not merely a sin, but a piece of the most arrant folly and the most consummate absurdity. Our Lord’s death could194not abolish the ten commandments, because the substance of them consisted not of sins but of duties—not ceremonial duties, binding only for a time, but moral duties which are of perpetual obligation. Wonderful as the death of Christ was, it could not in any sense destroy a single moral duty, because it could not convert right into wrong, nor wrong into right. No man, unless he were in a state of moral delirium, would say that the death of Christ made it right for him to have more gods than one, or made it right for him to worship God by images, or to take God’s name in vain, or to disobey his parents, or to kill, commit adultery, steal, lie, or covet. It would be the ne plus ultra of blasphemy to assert that our Lord died in order to secure freedom for men to do all these abominations with perfect impunity. There are, however, only two ways in the matter. Either men are at liberty to do those things which they are forbidden to do by the ten commandments, or they are not. If they are at liberty to do what is forbidden by the ten commandments, then no such thing as sin is possible since our Lord’s death. On the other hand, if they are not at liberty to do any of those things which are forbidden in the ten commandments, then these are still binding as a moral law, and those parties who assert otherwise, and believe in the existence of such a thing as sin, are not only guilty of paltering in a double sense, and that most contemptibly, but of deliberately using language fraudulently, or with the design of intentionally deceiving.
Our Lord’s death abolished all that was ceremonial and Jewish. The ten commandments, however, were neither ceremonial nor Jewish in the slightest degree. They were not duties which came into existence for the first time on Mount Sinai. They were not duties which owed their existence to the Divine appointment, and which had their origin in the Divine will. All of them had their foundation in the Divine nature, and in the relations which God sustained to men. It had always been a sin to have other gods besides Jehovah. It had always been a sin to take his name in vain. It had always been a sin to kill, and steal, and lie, and covet. These were sins by the law of man’s nature, as originally made in the image of God. After the fall, the copy of that law which was originally written upon the table of man’s heart, was defaced, and had become so illegible that no perfect version of it existed in all the world. In mercy to his church, when he entered into covenant with her, God gave forth a perfect edition of the moral law in the ten commandments. These are the most wonderful words of the kind in existence. In the compass of a few sentences, the whole moral law, including every possible moral action, is summarily comprehended. God, first of all, spake these ten commandments with his own voice. Then, with his own finger, he wrote them upon two tables of stone. Both as spoken and as written, the decalogue was kept completely distinct from the ceremonial law. On the tables of stone nothing whatever was written except the ten commandments. This showed that they belonged to a class by themselves. This showed that they were quite distinct from the ceremonial and the judicial laws of the Jews. The first tables on which the law was written, having been broken, God, in wonderful condescension and mercy,195wrote the ten commandments a second time on two tables of stone. These were deposited in the ark of the covenant, together with the manna in the golden pot, and Aaron’s rod that budded. Those who examine the directions given with reference to the placing of these tables in the ark, will find that a much larger space of the Bible is occupied with these than is given to the account of the creation of the heavens and the earth. This special attention to the law written on the two tables shows its great pre-eminence in the eyes of God over the ceremonial and judicial laws. If what God hath joined no man may put asunder, what God hath put asunder let no man dare to join. But in the most emphatic manner he has put the ten commandments asunder from all the other laws given to the Jews, and therefore it must be highly criminal in any man to join them together. The decalogue stands alone. It alone was written by God. It alone was placed within the holy of holies. It alone was inside the mercy-seat, which was God’s throne in the temple. All the ceremonial and judicial laws were outside. In their own nature, the ten commandments are moral, and not typical. As deposited in the ark of the covenant, they were made to serve a typical purpose. They were a symbol of the law as a broken covenant of works. They said that man could not approach God in the way of law, but only in the way of mercy, and that mercy could only be dispensed on the basis of law. The tables of the law must be in the heart of the mercy-seat. In so far as the ten commandments were put to a typical use, that use of them has been abolished. They existed, however, before they were made types, and they continue to exist after they have ceased to be types.
The substance of the decalogue is righteousness. It expresses that which is due or just in the relationships subsisting between God and man, and between man and man. It is as impossible that the ten commandments could be abolished as that justice could be abolished.
The sum of the ten commandments, as explained by our Lord himself, consists in love to God and love to man. The ten commandments can, therefore, never be abolished so long as love to God and love to man continue to be binding.
If the ten commandments had been a purely Jewish law, then our Lord’s atonement would have been confined to the Jewish nation. He would, in that case, not have satisfied that law which is common to “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.” Not having satisfied the law which is common to all the world, he could not have been the Saviour of the world. But he is “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world.” “He is the propitiation . . . . for the sins of the whole world.” The law, therefore, by obeying which he made atonement, must have been the common law of God’s moral government under which all mankind are placed. Nay, more than that, the idea that the decalogue can be set aside undermines the doctrine of the atonement, subverts the whole plan of redemption, and carried logically out, renders the whole Bible of none effect. If the moral law contained in the ten commandments could be abolished, then, in its own nature, IT MUST BE CHANGEABLE. Apart from an unchangeable moral law there was nothing whatever to render an atonement necessary. A law that could be changed—a law that had not its foundations in God’s nature, but only in his will—might have been set aside by an act of sovereignty, or of governmental expediency, without any atonement. And we should very much like if the opponents of the decalogue would attempt to state the grounds on which the necessity of an atonement can be maintained on the supposition that the moral law, as summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, is of a mutable nature. Unless they can do so on the field of fair argument, the opinion that the ten commandments have been abolished must be charged with overturning all that is fundamental in Christianity. Nay, more even than that. If the moral law, as contained in the ten commandments, be abolished, the very light of nature itself would be abolished; for what is the light of nature but the defaced copy of the ten commandments—the lex nata, non scripta, common to both the Jews and Gentiles? (Rom. 2: 12–14)—“For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law. . . . For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature those things contained in the law, these having not the law are a law unto themselves.” The apostle here says that the Gentiles who have not the law are a law unto themselves.
It will surely not be maintained that the Gentiles were a ceremonial law, or a Jewish law, unto themselves. What he means is, that in the remains of the light of nature, still legible in their hearts and binding on their consciences, they were a moral law unto themselves, though they had it not in a written and perfect form, as the Jews had. And does not this show clearly that the moral law, as common to Jew and Gentile, was binding on the former in its written form, and on the latter as unwritten, and that in respect to both it was an instrument of God’s moral government? From the same epistle we learn that the moral law also exists as God’s grand ordinance for convincing men of their sin and misery. (Rom. 3: 19)—“Now we know that what things soever the law saith it saith to them that are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” This passage shows that the law still exists, and exists for the whole world. Its grand function in connection with the dispensation of mercy in New-Testament times is, to stop every mouth, and bring in the whole world guilty before God.
The whole world is therefore under the law in the present day. If we should suppose the ten commandments to be abolished, there would remain no means of convincing men of sin. There would be no means of bringing sinners to the Saviour. Abolish the law, and you abolish the gospel. It was the law that made the gospel necessary, for it alone made the atonement necessary. And the law alone can make any man feel that the gospel, the atonement, the Saviour, are absolutely necessary for himself. Besides, the law alone can show that the gospel scheme of mercy is suitable to man and worthy of God. It shows the scheme of mercy to be worthy of God, inasmuch as, our Saviour having satisfied the Divine law in its whole extent, God now is “a just God and a Saviour”—just, and the justifier of the ungodly.
It is shown that the gospel scheme is suitable to man, as satisfying that innate, ineradicable sense of the divine righteousness, which is so strong in truly-awakened consciences as to render salvation by grace at first wholly discordant to the natural structure of the mind, and to make it continue to be both unsuitable and unacceptable, till it is seen to be founded in law—till grace is seen to reign through righteousness, and the noble column of divine mercy is seen to be built on the basis of eternal and immutable justice. So far, therefore, from the law’s being abolished by our Lord’s death, and buried in his grave, it exists in greater strength than it did before he died for our sins, and has the most important functions to perform in connection with the application of redemption—by showing its absolute necessity to the conscience, and its relational suitableness in all respects to the illuminated understanding. Dr. Macleod in his sermon, apologetical of his speech, tells us that the cross of Christ and the love of Christ are far more powerful motives to move men to obedience than the moral law. THIS IS A GREAT TRUTH IN REGARD TO BELIEVERS. In regard to unbelievers it is, however, a superlatively enormous error. Nothing so moves the heart already Christianized as the cross of Christ, and that amazing love to his people which led him to “endure the cross, despising the shame.” In regard to unbelievers, which all men are by nature, the cross of Christ and the love of Christ never had, and never will have, any effect until the law comes home to the man’s soul, and shows him sin, and wrath, and death, and his own personal helplessness and hopelessness. Two editions of the moral law have been issued on this earth—the one by the Maker, the other by that fell usurper who in the Scriptures is called “the prince of this world,” and “the god of this world.” As Archdeacon Hare, in his work on the “Comforter,” remarked, the one is the contradictory of the other, and becomes so by dropping the word not in respect to all the commandments except the fourth and fifth, and by adding not to these two. “Thou shalt have other gods before me. Thou shalt worship God by images. Thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. Thou shalt not remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Thou shalt not honor thy father and thy mother. Thou shalt kill. Thou shalt commit adultery. Thou shalt steal. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor. Thou shalt covet.”
If God’s edition of the moral law, as summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, has been set aside, how will Dr. Macleod prove that men are not subject to that edition of it written so effectually in all unbelieving hearts by the god of this world? While Adam was innocent, he required no law exterior to himself. Since the fall, however, there is a grievous alteration, which Dr. Macleod has wholly overlooked. When Adam was created, his whole being was conformed to the image of God. Since the fall, and even in believers, there are two natures, two sides, two interests, and two armies. Since the fall, a law external, even to God’s children, is therefore necessary, in order to discriminate between moral good and evil with perfect accuracy—in order to determine, with divine authority, what proceeds from the lustings of the flesh, and what is the result of the lustings of the spirit—in order to guide and rectify the corrupted conscience—to be a reliable means of self-examination—to be a rule in ordering his conversation—which the believer feels to be divine—which, in concert with conscience, checks, and restrains, and condemns the motives of his old man, and, in subserviency to the gospel, making them instrumental in promoting humility, watchfulness and prayer, and which, as THE PERFECT LAW OF THE LORD GOD, when applied to himself even with natural moral sincerity, will prevent him from being wholly misled by his own judgment, his own will, his own pleasure, his own interest, his own love of self. The heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” In so far as it is the remainder of the natural heart, it is so in believers, and in them superlatively seen so to be. The remainder of sin in believers seems to us to establish the absolute necessity of that sure, unchanging moral light outside of ourselves, and unaffected by our changes of frames and circumstances, which God “who knoweth our frame,” graciously gave and has graciously continued to us in the moral law as “summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.” In respect of his justification, every believer will thank God that the decalogue was put to death on Christ’s cross, and was buried in his grave. In respect of his sanctification, he will give glory to God that the decalogue, like the sun in the heavens, remains from generation to generation, “a light to the feet, and a lamp to the path.” As an act of divine wisdom, the abolition of the sun, while men continue to be born with eyes, is as conceivable as the abolition of the ten commandments is conceivable as an act of divine justice, while men continue to be born with consciences, which, though defiled, and darkened, and perverted, are still God’s moral viceroys, which require a perfect light without them, in order to enable them to act in God’s name and with God’s moral authority.
It is time for Thee to work, Lord,
Now when men make void thy law,
When they look with jest and laughter
On what Sinai trembling saw.
Yea, the mountains heard and shuddered,
Hosts of mighty angels bowed,
When the Lord his precepts uttered
From within the glory-cloud.
And those rocks again shall tremble,
When the mockers seek to hide
From the face of Him whose coming
None, unshielded, may abide.
Thou who art our law-fulfiller,
We would hide ourselves in thee;
And we seek before the Father
Justified in thee to be.
Now, we plead that thy good Spirit
Would inscribe upon our heart
All thy precepts, pure and holy,
Lest from thee we should depart.
We should wander far in darkness
But for thy revealed light;196But, with this for guide, we fear not
Though it comes a troubled night.
Thou art Judge and King, Lawgiver,
And our rule must be thy Word:
And our one unfailing weapon
Thy resistless Spirit’s sword.
Through a night of pain and anguish,
Till the morning breaketh sweet,
We will tread the narrow pathway
Where thy Word directs our feet.
THE VOYAGE OF LIFE.
By L. D. Santee
I AM come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. . . . Let not the waterflood overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up. Ps. 69: 2, 15.
Our little barks are driven by the gale,
Across the billows of life's troubled sea;
With lowering skies o'erhead we onward sail,
Though tempest-tossed our vessels frail, may be.
Here we have no abiding city found,
Beneath us yawns the rough and stormy wave,
Darkness and gloom encompass us around,
We turn our longing eyes for one to save.
See, see, beyond the wave a gleam appears!
'Tis faint at first, yet shineth more and more;
Oh! shall we lay aside our toil and fears,
When once we reach the distant, beckoning shore?
Beyond the gloom we see that beacon light,
O trembling heart, be strong in faith and hope.
The farther shore is dawning on our sight,
No more in darkness shall we blindly grope.
Soon shall we reach the haven fair and bright,
Soon shall we stand upon the immortal shore,
Soon shall we bid adieu to gloom and night,
Where tears are changed to joy forevermore.
Until we stand upon the shores of life,
Be this our watchword, We are almost home.
Let us not faint amid the world's rude strife,
Jesus is waiting and he bids us come.
L. D. SANTEE.
Dixon, Mo.
The Pharisees’ Question About Christ’s Believers
By Wm. Penniman
Have Any of the Rulers or of the Pharisees Believed on Him? John 7: 48.
WHAT was the object of this question? By an examination of the chapter, we learn that there was a division among the people in regard to some of the doctrines of Christ. The Pharisees and chief priests were anxious to take Christ; and no doubt their object was to try him by this law. In the 45th, 46th, and 47th verses of the chapter, we read as follows: “Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?” The question, then, in the 48th verse was given by the Pharisees to the officers. The Pharisees and rulers were men who stood high in the estimation of the people. They were popular; and if they asked the question for information, no doubt the object was to ascertain in regard to the popularity of the doctrines which Christ taught. Certainly, if the Pharisees and rulers believed on him, it would do for them to believe. What! are you deceived in these contemptible doctrines which none of the rulers have believed? Had they known that the rulers, or any of their own sect, believed on him, they would not have been willing, or have dared, to acknowledge it.
Perhaps even those self-righteous pretenders who wished to learn whether any of their own party believed on Christ, had the same kind of faith as those rulers spoken of in John 12: 42, 43: “Nevertheless, among the chief rulers many believed on him; but, because of the Pharisees, they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.” Their object was not to learn whether the doctrines taught were of God, but whether certain men, whom they preferred to follow instead of Christ, believed them.
Are there not many now like those rulers, who dare not confess that they believe an unpopular truth, for fear they shall be turned out of the synagogue? The fear of losing some popular position, binds them with a threefold cord. They will never break away from these influences so long as they love the praise of men more than the praise of God. Alas! there is too much of this spirit manifested. How often is it the case that when our preachers visit certain places, and proclaim the “present truth,” some will inquire, What does Deacon ——, and Squire ——, and Elder ——, think of it? I verily believe thousands of this class would profess to believe the truth if some of the rulers and modern Pharisees would lead the way. Their example would take away all the cross of becoming members of an unpopular church. Men who acknowledge the truth under such circumstances, cannot withstand opposition. Men who have not mind enough to think and act for themselves, would be of little benefit to the cause should they join our ranks.
Some will ever go with those who are considered great, it matters not whether they are right or wrong. Why is this? Simply because they are like a lump of clay, and can be molded into any shape in which their Pharisaic potters may wish to mold them.
Others will manifest a great love for the truth, and seem to delight in its progress, and will even give of their means for its advancement; and yet they will not obey it; for, in obeying it, they would be required to sacrifice their love of popularity.
A friend whom I highly esteem for his many good qualities, and who has, I think, a keen perception of the truth so far as he has investigated, once said to me, “I hope the Adventists will succeed in establishing a church in this place; but I shall not join them.” Will you not if you see it your duty? I said. He replied, “I shall not see it my duty.” As to why he would not see it his duty, I will let him answer if he happens to see these lines.
Another remarked to me that he would not keep the seventh day if he knew he should lose the kingdom. And why would he not keep it? Simply because it is unpopular. So strong has this idol grown in the minds of the people, that it now holds them like an iron band, and some seem to prefer the risk of losing eternal life, rather than to become unpopular. It is said of Diogenes, the eccentric ancient philosopher, that he was seen apparently groping around in the daytime, holding a lighted candle. On being interrogated as to what he was looking for, he replied that he was seeking a man. If some modern Diogenes should look around in the same way, I fear that he would find real men, as it is said of angels’ visits, few and far between.
The prophet Jeremiah, no doubt, saw the same evil when he exclaimed, “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it.” Jer. 5: 1.
Men who have not the moral courage to take a position, or to seek after truth without looking to their leaders, are to be pitied, since they are mere dupes; they are not men in the true sense of the word. It is true that we should be willing to be led, and we should look to our leaders for advice; but we should not carry this so far as to lose all independence of character. Men and women who have ever accomplished much in the world, have independence of character and moral courage—qualities which are not possessed by those who do not think and act for themselves, but depend upon their leaders to think for them.
The great question with the reformer is, Are these things of God? Are they elevating in their tendency, or will these doctrines make one pure and holy? This is not the question with man-worshipers, or with those who love the praise of men more than they love the praise of God.
Had many of the Pharisees and rulers believed on Christ and acknowledged it, the news would have spread abroad, and his teachings would have become popular. But the pure teachings of God’s word never have been popular in any age of the world, nor will they ever be, so long as Satan controls the minds of the people. If our Saviour were personally on earth now, unostentatiously accomplishing his mission, how many of the so-called mighty men would believe on him? Some might possibly dare to call on him by night, as did Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews.
Those who look to the wise men seem to lose sight of the language of Paul when he says, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are; that no flesh should glory in his presence.” 1 Cor. 1: 26–29. How true are these words in respect to the people of this age.
The doctrines of S. D. Adventists are unpopular, especially in respect to the Sabbath; and the question arises, if these doctrines are true, if the seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, why have not the learned men of the past, why do not those of the present, believe them? and why have not the reformers, such men as Luther and Wesley, taught that the seventh day is the Sabbath? In answer to these questions it can be said, that many of the learned men have admitted that the seventh day is the Sabbath, but they have not kept it; and why? The language we have quoted will explain, as not “many wise men after the flesh are called.” Paul foreseeing this very difficulty, that some would look to the great men for a pattern, exhorted his Roman brethren to mind not high things, but to condescend to men of low estate. Rom. 12: 16.
How great would be the theological earthquake, should H. W. Beecher, Chapin, Spurgeon, and other theologians who stand high in the estimation of the people, embrace the Sabbath, or other unpopular truths. Truly, some would exclaim, “How are the mighty fallen!” while others would soon soften down in their opposition to the truth, and follow in the train.
This is equally true in respect to the dress reform. Strong-minded and virtuous women are looked upon scornfully because they have moral courage enough to wear a dress which is healthful, becoming, and modest, and which no reasonable being can consistently condemn. Yet if this very dress had originated from a certain empress, or from some of the wives of the Pharisees and rulers, how popular it would be. The most unhealthful and immodest fashions are all right with the mass if they only have the Pharisaic sanction.
In regard to the visions, some are loud in their opposition; yet this class can believe almost anything else. They can believe in heathen mythology, and ancient astrology. They believe in ancient and modern witchcraft. They believe in the Koran. They believe in Spiritualism. And lastly they believe in all unbelief. Such forget, or do not know, that the Scriptures teach that where there is no vision the people perish. Prov. 29: 18. They are ignorant of the truth that we are now living in the last days, and that in the fulfillment of the prophecies, we are now having more light on the word of God; and that the gifts are placed in the church. They, therefore, anathematize the visions; and why? Is it not because of this ignorance, and that the truths they unfold not only have too sharp an edge, but also that they uphold and substantiate the unpopular truths of God’s word?
Away with this senseless worship of man, or of public opinion. Men and women, arise in your God-given strength, and dare to stand upon the broad platform of truth. Make not the love of popularity your idol. Examine yourselves and know whether you are influenced more by man than by the great truths of God’s word. Will such a course as you are taking stand the test in the Judgment? Be no longer the slaves of partyism. Let no creed, sect, position, or party, civil or religious, hinder you from embracing an unpopular truth. Be not like Naaman in looking for some great thing. Think not that “no good thing can come out of Nazareth.” Do not inquire, Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? but inquire rather, Are these things of God?
WM. PENNIMAN.
Cattle Plague in Europe.
THE intelligence received from Eastern Europe relative to the extent and progress of the cattle plague is far from being reassuring. It was hoped that all danger had passed with reference to an extension of the malady from the western and south-western parts of Poland into Prussian Silesia, but recent information shows that the Prussian government has found it necessary to extend its precautionary measures in that direction, and to have the frontier guarded by troops from Neuberun, in Silesia, to Weischinie, in the department of Posen. Not only is Prussia threatened by an invasion of the disease in her south-eastern provinces, but also in her north-eastern, as the plague has extended in Russia as far northward as Kovno. To meet this new source of danger the government has dispatched troops to guard the frontier from Tilsitt to Pillkallen, in East Prussia. Poland is suffering to a great extent from this visitation of the plague, as is likewise Galicia, Transylvania, and Buckoweria.
— Washington Monthly Report of Agriculture.
Blaming Others.
A DISPOSITION to lay the blame for our neglect of duty, or our shortcoming, upon others, is a sure sign that we have inwardly backslidden from God. The first transgressor endeavored, in this way, to palliate his offense, and his example has been faithfully followed ever since. God can make us right, whether any one else is right or not. Whoever may falter, he can enable us to do our duty. When we fail, we should blame ourselves, and no one else. In this way alone can we hope to obtain forgiveness for the past, or make improvement in the future. Let us be severe upon ourselves—but forbearing toward our neighbors.