Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 4, 1877
THE MILLENNIUM.
By G. V. Kilgore
THERE are various ideas in this age in regard to the millennium. The term implies, to many minds, a thousand years of peace and joy on earth before the general judgment. But this idea has only been attached to the word by the theologians of modern times. The word comes from two Latin words—mille, meaning a thousand, and annus, which signifies a year—and simply means a thousand years. See Webster. It is applied to the thousand years of Rev. 20, during which time Satan is to be bound. All agree that there will be a time, even a thousand years, when Satan will be bound; but that peace and joy on earth, “Christ’s spiritual reign,” and a converted world, will exist during that time, all will not agree. Even “great men” differ on this question.
It is not my design to argue this question at present. But I want to have the statements of two eminent men on the condition of the world in the last days placed side by side. One is the learned Buek. Hear him: “This will be a state of happiness and glory. Some think that Christ will reign personally on the earth, and that there will be a literal resurrection of the saints, Rev. 20:4, 7; but I rather suppose that the reign of Christ and the resurrection of saints alluded to in that passage, are only figurative; and that nothing more is meant than that, before the general judgment, the Jews shall be converted, genuine Christianity be diffused through all nations, and that Christ shall reign by his spiritual presence, in a glorious manner. It will, however, be a time of eminent holiness, clear light and knowledge, love, peace, and friendship, agreement in doctrine and worship. . . .
“The inhabitants of every place will rest secure from fear of robbery and murder. War shall be entirely ended. Capital crimes and punishments be heard of no more. Governments placed on fair, just, and humane foundations. The torch of civil discord will be extinguished. . . . Above all, the Bible will be more highly appreciated, its harmony perceived, its superiority owned, and its energy felt, by millions of human beings. In fact, the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.”
This is the present belief of many a D. D. Now we quote the other eminent man, Paul, the chief apostle to the Gentiles: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”
This was the belief of all the Bible writers. These perilous times were to be in the last days—the very time when Professor Buek expects glorious times. Buek says, “It will, most probably, come on by degrees, and be in a manner introduced years before that time.” Thus it is expected that evil men will become better, and righteousness gradually fill the earth. Paul had a different idea. He predicted a bad state of affairs for the last days, and, without any hope of better times before the end, he declared, “Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecutions. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.”
But, as Buek is esteemed a great man, I will honor his arguments by bringing a greater than Paul against him. But his own ideas must first stand out clear. He seems to have thought that probation would continue during the millennium, and that the work of salvation would still be carried on. His idea of the way to life was that it become very broad before the end of probation. It almost amounts to Universalism. Listen to it: “In this time, in which the world will soon be filled with real Christians, and continue full by constant propagation to supply the place of those who leave the world, there will be many thousands born and live on the earth to each one that has been born and lived in the preceding six thousand years; so that, if they who shall be born in that thousand years shall be all, or most of them saved (as they will be), there will, on the whole, be many thousands of mankind saved to one that shall be lost.”
Think of it, “many thousands of mankind saved to one that shall be lost.” Now hear what a greater than Paul has said, “Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat. Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Look at the difference. Buek declares that the broad way leads to glory. Christ says it leads to destruction. Buek says, many thousands will be saved to one that is lost. Christ declares that many will go to destruction, and only a few will be saved. In whom can we put confidence? The psalmist says, “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.” That is the kind of a person every great man of this world is. But Jesus Christ is a Prince and a Son of man in whom there is help; and we may confidently trust in him.
The doctrine of the temporal millennium is urged as an objection against the soon coming of Christ, as taught by Adventists. But, like all other objections of the kind, when held out in view before the light of Bible truth, it perishes like Jonah’s gourd.
G. V. KILGORE.
TEN ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE USE OF TOBACCO.
By John G. Matteson
1. The use of tobacco is an unchristian practice, whether it is used for chewing, smoking, or in the shape of snuff. For that which is Christian comes from Christ, either by precept or example. The belief that we may use tobacco is no Christian belief or faith, for all Christian faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17. And whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Rom. 14:23. Therefore it is a sin to use tobacco. The word of God instructs us concerning food and drink, raiment and work, and concerning our conduct at home and abroad. Even the marriage relation and duties of every member of the family are plainly presented and regulated by the Bible. But the use of tobacco belongs to none of these things, and it has been known in the world only a few hundred years.
2. The use of tobacco is a heathen practice. White people have learned it of the Indians, and they are heathen. “Be not ye therefore like unto them.” Matt. 6:8.
3. It is a useless and expensive habit. The city of New York consumes in one year tobacco for more than $17,000,000. According to English statistics, Great Britain gave in the year 1870, $2,500,000 to all Christian missions, and paid the same year only thirteen times as much for its duty on tobacco. That is $32,500,000. According to this comparison, England is more heathen than Christian.
4. It is an injurious habit. Dr. John B. Beck says in his Materia Medica that the active principle of tobacco is nicotine, and that half a grain of this active poison will kill a dog. “In large doses,” he says, “it is a virulent poison, acting principally on the brain and heart.”
Many will ask, What, then, can tobacco be used for, if we may not chew or smoke or snuff it? It is good to kill vermin on animals. If the calf gets full of lice in the spring, you may kill them with a decoction of tobacco. But be careful lest you kill the calf too.
Any one would naturally suppose that even a tobacco-user could learn to understand that that which was made to kill vermin was not made to eat or chew.
5. It is a nasty habit. Those who use tobacco shed a disagreeable odor from their mouth and clothes. They spit upon the clean floor, and they fill the air with poison for others to breathe. The hog is an animal who puts his nose into nearly every kind of filth, but he will not put it into tobacco. A brother in Iowa promised to lay aside his tobacco if his hogs would not taste it. He took a small box of tobacco, and we went out to the hog-pen. He put it in the pen, and called the hogs as usual. But when they came so near that they could smell the tobacco, they said unrf! unrf! (which probably meant, we will not disgrace ourselves by touching such stuff), and turned right back to their house. At last an old boar came out to see what was the matter. He had more courage than the rest, and put his nose close to it. There was some froth around his mouth, and the fine-cut tobacco stuck to it. Then he expressed his opinion like the rest—unrf! unrf!—and making a curious face, expressive of his disgust, he tried to purge himself from the unpleasant stuff.
Will those who are Christians show themselves lower than their own hogs in this respect?
King James the first of England says in his “Counterblast of Tobacco,” “The use of it is a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and the black, stinking fume thereof does nearest resemble the horrible smoke of the bottomless pit.” He says if he should invite the devil to dine with him, he would give him a pipe of tobacco to help his digestion.
6. The judgment of nature itself is against it. Several years ago, when my two oldest children were about six and eight years of age, they saw for the first time in their life a man who smoked tobacco. They had never heard tobacco spoken of, and, consequently, knew nothing about the arguments for or against it. He was a mason, who was plastering my house. He had just lit his pipe. They looked in through the open door greatly astonished. When they saw me coming, they cried, “Pa, come and see! Oh! see that man! It smokes out of his mouth just like a chimney. He has got ashes close to his mouth, and fire right under his nose. Pa, isn’t that nasty?” Here is the testimony of nature itself, from the lips of innocent children, against the use of tobacco. “Have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?” Matt. 21:16.
7. The use of tobacco is contrary to holiness and purity. It will make people who are not used to it drunk and sick, so that they have to vomit. The Bible says, “Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God’s.” 1 Cor. 6:20.
Tobacco is often prepared in a very nasty way. I was in a store several years, where we sold a great deal of tobacco, and many said that we had the best tobacco in town. That kind which we sold principally was black and juicy, and experienced tobacco-devotees pronounced it genuine and of excellent flavor. We had a large stone jar in the ware house with tobacco-gravy wherein the tobacco was pickled. This gravy we prepared from old, rotten prunes, old syrup, lampblack, and a little salt and water. This recipe I present free of charge for the benefit of all who desire to gratify their palate with such rare delicacies.
8. It is conforming to the world. But the Lord says, “Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Rom. 12:2. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27.
9. It is a human ordinance. God has not commanded us to use tobacco or given us directions in regard to its use. Men have themselves invented the use of it. Let those who keep the commandments of God tear loose from mere human ordinances, and learn to obey God rather than men.
10. It is an unnatural lust of the flesh. The use of tobacco is a habit which most men have to force themselves to before they acquire it. God has not implanted this desire in our natures by creation, neither has he done it by redemption; therefore it does not spring from God, but from the opposite source—from Satan and sin. Consequently, it is sinful to use tobacco, and you cannot deny it.
Let every Christian man and woman in the fear of the Lord immediately abstain from this unchristian, heathen, useless, expensive, hurtful, nasty, unnatural, unholy, worldly, and sinful habit.
Make up your mind fully that the use of tobacco is sinful in the sight of God. Determine never more to touch or taste it, live or die. And ask God humbly to save you for Christ’s sake, that you may not die, but live to glorify him in this world and in the world to come. JOHN G. MATTESON.
HYMN TO CHRIST.
By Mrs. Miles
Thou who didst stoop below
To drain the cup of woe,
Wearing the form of frail mortality,
Thy blessed labors done,
Thy crown of victory won,
Hast passed from earth,—passed to thy throne on high.
Our eyes behold thee not,
Yet hast thou not forgot
Those who have placed their hope, their trust, in thee.
Before thy Father's face
Thou hast prepared a place,
That where thou art, there may they also be.
It was no path of flowers
Through this dark world of ours,
Beloved of the Father, thou didst tread;
And shall we in dismay
Shrink from the narrow way,
When clouds and darkness are around it spread?
O Thou who art our life,
Be with us through the strife;
Was not thy head by earth's fierce tempests bowed?
Raise thou our eyes above
To see a Father's love
Beam, like a bow of promise, through the cloud.
E'en through the awful gloom,
Which hovers o'er the tomb,
That light of love our guiding star shall be;
Our spirits shall not dread
The shadowy way to tread,
Friend! Guardian! Saviour! which doth lead to thee.
—Mrs. Miles.
Never Be Idle: Cultivating the Mind
NEVER be idle. If your hands cannot be usefully employed, attend to the cultivation of your mind.
THE COMMANDMENTS.—PART 1.
By A. C. Spicer
The Two Covenants.
The English word covenant is derived from the Latin word convenio—con, together, and venio, I come, and hence literally means a coming together of two or more persons in mutual agreement. In accord with this literal meaning is its common use and its definition. Webster thus defines it:
1. “A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; a stipulation.”
2. “A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties.” Contract he thus defines:
1. “An agreement or covenant between two or more persons in which each person binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises; a mutual promise (in law) which binds the parties to a performance; a bargain; a compact.”
2. “The writing which contains the agreement of parties, with the terms and conditions, and which serves as a proof of the obligation.”
Therefore a covenant or contract possesses these two leading characteristics:
1. That of mutual agreement between parties for their mutual and reciprocal advantage.
2. That of a formal statement oral or written containing the terms of such agreement.
In entire harmony with this literal and defined meaning of the term was its origin and primary use in the Bible. The original Hebrew word translated covenant was “b'reth,” derived, by transposition of the consonants of the second syllable, from bathar—to cut, to cut into two parts—and took its application from the act narrated in Gen. 15. Note especially verses 9, 10, 17, 18. The thought and act referred to will be found illustrated by reference to Jer. 34:18, 19. These examples of divine origin clearly present the ideas of mutual agreement and equality of interest in a covenant. See also Gen. 31:43–53, in illustration of a covenant. In that case on settlement of an unpleasant disagreement between Jacob and Laban, Laban said, “Now therefore come thou, let us make a covenant, I and thou.” Then as there must needs be a witness of the covenant, a stone was set up as a pillar, and a heap of stones was piled up. And Laban said to Jacob, “Behold this heap, and behold this pillar which I have cast betwixt me and thee; this heap be witness and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar to me, for harm.”
Besides that general, mutual pledge of abstinence from harm to each other, there were other specific requirements; and Laban called the God of Abraham to witness their agreement, and “Jacob sware by the fear of his father Isaac.” Of the same simple character was the covenant between Abraham and Abimelech. Gen. 21:22–24; 26:28.
A covenant, then, implies, necessarily,
1. A mutual and reciprocal agreement of two or more parties.
2. An object or purpose to be effected by the contract, to the mutual and reciprocal advantage of said parties.
3. A token or sign as a witness to said agreement; and (4), a solemn pledge or oath of confirmation. Marriage, including (1) the mutual promises, (2) the mutual and reciprocal advantages had in view, (3) the witnesses to the agreement, and (4) the solemn pledge or oath of confirmation at the altar, is such a covenant.
A covenant, hence, cannot be imposed by one upon another making him a party thereto without the other's consent, as can a law. It implies the mutual assent and agreement of the parties thereto. In imposing a law upon the people, the law-making power may or may not consult the wishes of the people. Agreement of the parties is not implied. Law implies the right of the sovereign to govern, and the duty of the subject to obey. God as absolute sovereign legislates without asking the consent of his subjects. His law, then, cannot be regarded as a covenant in this sense. The keeping of it may be the object of a covenant. Two men may covenant together to keep God's law, or any other law. So God and man may enter into a solemn covenant, the object of which may be to secure obedience to God's law, which object will appear in the mutual agreement. But then the law would not be the covenant, but the covenant would be the mutual contract or agreement of the parties in respect to the law. In a covenant the different parties thereto are equally bound each to the other to fulfil his part of the agreement, and the covenant is made null and void when either party entirely fails to fulfil his part of the stipulation. Merely acknowledging obligation to do or to abstain from doing does not necessarily imply a covenant. A covenant is that which could not have been and could not exist without the consent of both parties thereto, the same as a contract. A law may exist and impose obligations, whether the subject consents to it or not.
II. With the above definition and analysis of a covenant and reflections thereon before us, we proceed to consider the two covenants of God with his people. And first, attention is called to what may be termed the Abrahamic covenant—God's covenant with Abraham. That is quite definitely set forth in Gen. 17:1–8, though not fully. Abraham's response to God's requests and promises are not recorded, though they are implied very clearly in his compliant obedience. The direct object of the covenant seems to have been to encourage Abraham to obedience. Encouragement, and encouragement to obedience to God and to a holy life seems to have been the purpose of every covenant God has made with men. The statement of that object is very brief in this instance, yet it is as definite and comprehensive as need be. It is, “Walk before me, and be thou perfect.”
What God meant by the request “Walk before me” is further indicated in Gen. 18:16: “Keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment”; and still further in Gen. 26:5, where God renews the same covenant to Isaac: “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” To “walk before God and be perfect” implies law by which to walk, and a knowledge thereof, as the rule or law of perfection. So to “keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment” implies, not only just laws, but also a knowledge of them—implies not only the existence but a knowledge of God's moral law. To “obey the voice of God” implies that God had spoken to man (and doubtless personally to Abraham) his commandments, his statutes, and his laws, which God said Abraham obeyed. It appears, therefore, very definitely, that the direct object which God had in view was obedience to his law, and that that covenant with Abraham was made to encourage him and his posterity to such obedience.
The stipulated promises of God were of a two-fold character,—temporal and eternal, material and spiritual, special and limited, general and everlasting. Previous to this interview with Abraham God had said to him (Gen. 13:14–17), “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,” &c. But this had been previously promised, as we learn from Gen. 12:2, 3, 7. And now as he has fully prepared him to understand his motives and object, he enters into full covenant relation with Abraham, and
1. He promised to be a God (in a peculiar and special sense) unto him and to his seed after him. Verse 7.
2. He promised him and his seed spiritual prosperity and spiritual blessings in time and heavenly possessions and eternal rewards hereafter. Verses 4–7.
3. He promised him and his seed material temporal blessings, prosperity, and possessions. Verse 8.
God had, from the beginning, endeavored to induce man to “walk before him” in obedience and holiness, to “obey his voice,” “keeping his commandments, his statutes, and his laws,” and had sought to induce all people to be his. But man had proven himself incorrigible, and had persistently disobeyed and gone astray. The severe judgments of God by the Deluge and by the dispersion from Babel had been insufficient to restrain him from sin and idolatry. Hence, in order to encourage piety and virtue and purity, and to preserve to himself a posterity on earth, God by his Son, finding one faithful, true man, entered into the above-named covenant with him in distinction from the balance of the race. This arrangement elected him and his posterity to be his special wards, separated from among men to be the recipients of his special favors, and blessings. This act, however, did not imply an entire abandonment of the rest of mankind by God, but only hopelessness of inducing all to be obedient and walk with him, and hence special effort to preserve to himself a name on earth and a people who should become the conservators of his law and will and through whom he could work out his purposes with man, in connection with his plan of redemption, by special and peculiar discipline which could not be effectually attempted with the entire mass of an incorrigibly sinful race.
III. At this point it is desirable to call attention to a peculiar characteristic of God's language when speaking of this Abrahamic covenant. While a covenant is such a mutual contract between two or more parties—such mutual coming together in agreement for mutual and reciprocal advantages, that it cannot be said to belong to one party more than to the other, yet here in Gen. 17, God speaks of this as his covenant. In the second verse he says to Abraham, “And I will make my covenant between me and thee,” &c. The same expression is repeated in verses 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 21, “my covenant.” And again the same language is used where Jehovah rehearses to Moses the fact that he had covenanted with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob; Ex. 6:4, 5; and then again in Ex. 19:5, where God proceeds to establish the covenant with Israel.
That form of expression found used subsequent to God's formal covenant with Abraham would not attract particular attention, as thereafter there existed a covenant which God might choose to call his own. But as used in Gen. 17, before God has covenanted with Abraham, it demands attention as possessing special significance. There God spoke the covenant he wished to establish with Abraham as a thing already existing to which he then and there invited Abraham's attention, and then solicited him to become a party thereto. God said (verse 2), “I will make my covenant between me and thee,” and then repeats (verse 7), “I will establish my covenant between me and thee,” &c., thus speaking of the covenant he wished to establish with Abraham as of a contract already existing in form, to which he then wished to obtain Abraham's approval and signature, just as we might speak of a formal contract, which we had at some previous time made with some party who had failed to fulfil his agreement, and to which we were now seeking to find some one to subscribe, and who would keep his promise. God spoke to Abraham as if there was such an existing document and as if he was then specially anxious to confer the blessings promised in it upon him and his seed, if he would only give his assent thereto and consent to become a coordinate contractor with him. The language certainly seems to imply that Abraham was not the first with whom God had established the mutual relations of a covenanter. Then by reference back to Gen. 9:9, 11, 15, and then again back to chapter 6:18, we find the same form of expression—“my covenant”—used when God and Noah covenanted together. In chapter 6:18, after declaring his purpose to destroy the wicked from off the face of the earth by a flood of waters, God said to Noah, “But with thee will I establish my covenant,” &c.
At that time “God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth,” and that “the earth was filled with violence,” while he found but one man and his family worthy of life and its blessings, all others having hopelessly gone astray and irredeemably “corrupted themselves.” Hence, in order not to witness the entire extinction of all virtue and purity and holiness, he must needs by an awful judgment remove all the wicked, and start anew to people the earth with the seed of the one righteous family. Noah being found “walking with God,” a just man and perfect, God entered into covenant relation with him and saved him and his family by a very peculiar providence. A merely casual reading of the very brief history left to us of Noah and of the deluge might leave the impression that that covenant with Noah was but a promise that he and his family should come into the ark and be saved from destruction by the overwhelming waters. It may be that what is stated in the latter clause of the 18th verse, and in verses 19, 20, and 21, was a part of the promises of God in his covenant with Noah. But on careful examination of the history, it seems more likely that those were precautionary directions outside of the covenant; for the language seems to be that of command, while in verse 22 it is said, “Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.”
The object of the covenant is indicated in verse 9 to have been the same as in the case of Abraham. God asked of Abraham that he should walk before him and be perfect, as a condition precedent to the reception of the blessings to be granted. The statement that “Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God,” though in the indicative form, nevertheless implies the same precedent conditions. And God would encourage Noah still to “walk with him” and to continue “perfect”; and hence he entered into covenant obligations with him, as he did subsequently with Abraham for the same reasons. The stipulated terms of the covenant are not transmitted to us in chap. 6; nor are the mutual promises and pledges or the oath of establishment. But God called it “my covenant” the same as when conferring with Abraham; and as the object and conditions are indicated to have been the same, there can be no doubt that the covenant with Noah was the same essentially as that made with Abraham.
After the waters of the flood were abated from the earth, and Noah had gone forth from the ark and offered sacrifices, God renewed that covenant with him, adding thereto the positive promise that he would not again smite the earth with a flood to destroy man from its face. Chap. 8:20–22; 9:8–17. There again God called it “my covenant.” God said, “And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you,” &c.
Here, also, the language seems to indicate that there was an existing covenant or contract to which God desired to secure Noah's assent and signature, which God called his own. This covenant with Noah answers the inquiry suggested in Gen. 17 by the use of the expression, “my covenant.” There had been a covenant—the one with Noah—the stipulations of which may have been known to Abraham, and which God might consistently call his, he being still willing to grant all the blessings therein promised, to any one and to all who would keep his law and be obedient. But still we must go back of the record in Gen. 6 and 9 to find its origin; for the same form of expression is used there, viz., “my covenant,” which seems indicative of its previous existence. “Enoch walked with God and God took him.” From the little we are enabled to know of Enoch and of his teachings and writings, there can be no doubt that he was in covenant fellowship with God, and clearly understood God's plan of salvation, and, doubtless, also, his covenant of grace and mercy.
The manner in which typical, sacrificial offerings were made in the days of Adam, and by Abel, indicates that to Adam the plan of redemption by the atoning blood of Christ was definitely unfolded, which fact, together with the brief expression of a redemptive promise, as recorded in Gen. 3:15, may be accepted as implying a covenant of grace and mercy with Adam. The declaration that the “seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head” is very significant, and explained as it is by subsequent scriptures must be accepted as indicative of a covenant of promise with the representatives of a fallen race. Indeed, it seems that no close student of the Bible can doubt that immediately subsequent to the transgression of the race, God made known to Adam his plan of redemption from the death entailed by sin, and immediately entered into a covenant in relation thereto, and that such covenant of promise was the covenant which God subsequently so frequently called his own. On the supposition that such an Adamic covenant existed, it is evident it was disregarded by Cain, and by all the posterity of Adam as far as the record shows, except Enoch, down to Noah. Then as God sought to re-establish the covenant with Noah, it would be entirely natural and consistent for God to speak of it as his covenant.
It was a formal contract entered upon between God and fallen man, solemnly subscribed to by both parties. But man had broken his promise, and hence had forfeited the advantages and blessings promised therein by God. God had kept all his promises faithfully. Therefore God's signature to the instrument remained good, and he was ready to accept and anxious to secure any other partner to the mutual agreement who would honestly endeavor to be faithful to its stipulations. Hence God might properly speak of it as “my covenant,” it containing the same promises upon the same condition to which he had previously sworn.
Then, it having been again disregarded by Noah's posterity and his promised mercies forfeited, when God found Abraham3“walking before him” in faith, and wished to encourage him to righteousness and to “be perfect,” and wished to discipline him and his posterity to faith and obedience by special and peculiar providences, that they might become the legatees of his law and will, and the conservators of his purpose to give to the world a Saviour, and he proposed to Abraham to enter into solemn covenant relations with him, it was perfectly natural for God to speak of the agreement and promises as “my covenant.” Thus, also, was it entirely natural to speak of it to Isaac and Jacob, and to the Israelites as he did, when he proposed to renew it before Mt. Sinai previous to the formal rehearsal of his law to them, the keeping of which law was the primary object of the covenant and the basis and condition upon which the promises were made. Subsequent to its confirmation thus to Israel, the same form of expression was frequently used referring to the covenant of grace and salvation. See Lev. 26:15; Num. 25:12; Deut. 31:20; Ps. 50:16; 89:34; 132:12; Isa. 59:21; Jer. 33:25; Eze. 17:19; 44:7; Zech. 11:10. Now, reasoning from analogy, the logical deduction is that the expression, “my covenant,” where used by God, refers to one and the same covenant of grace.
From the foregoing considerations, it is confidently believed that the Abrahamic covenant of grace, mercy, and salvation through a crucified, resurrected, and triumphing Redeemer, was but a repetition (though perhaps modified in respect to the temporal blessings promised to meet the exigencies of Abraham's time) of a covenant established with the race in Adam, and repeated subsequently to Noah, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, and to all Israel before Mt. Sinai.
A. C. SPICER.
CHARACTER OF FREE MASONRY.
By S. A. Gilley
No. 1.—Can Christians Endorse It?
Every institution has its own character, and should be tolerated or condemned, as the character is good or evil. To fix the true character of an institution, we must be acquainted with it; not with some of its features, but with all; for if we know it only in part, while what we know may be good, what we do not know may be an overbalancing evil. An institution, while hiding from public inspection its principles and rules, from whose outworkings alone its true character can be known, has no right to call upon us for endorsement. Such an institution is Free Masonry.
Covering with the obligation of secrecy its ruling principles; claiming to have baffled all outside its pale, who would investigate those principles; it turns to ask our signatures to the virtue and glory of its hidden mysteries.
We assert that the true vital principles of Masonry cannot be known except from an inside inspection; but, looking at the outer and better side of the institution, we see much to condemn. We wish, by consent of the editor, to call attention to some features of this institution that lie upon the outside in their published writings, and therefore are open for all to examine; and after this may speak of some things we know to lie within, beyond the gaze of “cowans and eaves-droppers,” as masons term outsiders who will investigate for themselves.
From our outside review, we learn:—
I. FREE MASONRY IS A RELIGION.
1. It has a regular, religious ritual, with scriptural readings, prayers, and burial services, &c. 2. It claims to re-unite, or re-bind, man to God (the literal meaning of religion). This we shall see in our next account. 3. By its leaders and authors, it is claimed to be a religion. We might prove this by a long list of extracts from all their published works, but we only submit a few brief quotations out of many. Mackey’s Lexicon; article, “God”: “Free Masons have always been worshippers of the one true God.” Article, “Prayer,” page 369: “All the ceremonies of our order are prefaced and terminated with prayer, because Masonry is a religious institution.” Article, “Religion,” page 402: “The religion then of Masonry is pure theism.” Morris’ Dictionary, article, “God”: “The essentially religious character of Masonry, is shown under the head, Deity.” Article, “Deity,” page 128: “The idea of an omniscient and omnipotent God, who will punish vice and reward virtue, pervades the entire theory of Masonry.” Steinbrenner’s Origin of Masonry, pages 13 and 14: “Masonry can and will educate the pious man to that higher religion—that religion in which all men can agree.” “Rationale and Ethics of Free Masonry,” by Aug. C. L. Arnold, L. L. D., page 189: “Masonry marches in the same path with Christianity to-day.” Page 197, “Nay, Masonry is Christianity.” To conclude, Salem Town says: “Every good Mason is of necessity truly and emphatically a Christian, and is assured of his election and final salvation.”
Continuing this outside examination we learn:—
II. FREE MASONRY IS AN ANTI-CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
1. Christ’s name is left out, in all passages where it occurs in the scriptural readings, of their ritual; and also left out of all their prayers. “They have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.” How can this omission be reconciled with the words of Christ, (John 14:6): “No man cometh unto the Father, but by me”? 2. They teach, in Masonry, a way to God and heaven; unlike the way taught by Christ and revealed in his word. Dictionary of Symbolical Free Masonry, by Geo. Oliver, D. D., article, Mason: “Guided by these movable jewels of Masonry (Square, Level, and Plumb), he (the Mason) may descend the water of life with joy in the hope of being accepted by the Most High, as a successful candidate for admission into the Grand Lodge above [Heaven].” See also Sickle’s Monitor, page 34; Star in the East, by Geo. Oliver, D. D., pages 6, 7, and 8; Spirit of Masonry, by Wm. Hutchinson, pages 7, 13, 15, and 114.
Now claiming to be a religious institution, yet leaving out the name of Christ, and teaching a way to heaven by (masonic) works, what is the character of Masonry, if not anti-Christian? S. A. GILLEY.