The Scriptural phrase, "the end of the world," has an important bearing on the subject in hand, and deserves careful consideration.
It is claimed that this phrase, used by our Lord in parable, prophecy, and promise, relates to the close of the Jewish dispensation, and not to the winding up of the affairs of this world when time shall cease. And it is essential that any system of doctrines that denies the coming of Christ to judge the world at the end of the meditorial reign, should maintain this ground; for the coming of Christ at "the end of the world," in some sense, is not to be questioned. It is the occurrence of this phrase in the twenty-fourth of Matthew, in the second question propounded to the Saviour, that gives the defenders of a figurative coming the anxiety they manifest.
Their position is that the word "world," in this phrase, is a mistranslation; that the original word, aion, should be rendered age; and that the application should be made so as to show that it was the "end of the Jewish age" or dispensation the disciples and the Saviour were speaking of in the use of this language.
Writers of respectability have given countenance to this exposition, so that authorities of high character for learning and evangelical soundness can be quoted in its support; and yet it is clearly untenable and misleading. We reject it utterly, and give reasons; and if our reasons are solid, so as to overthrow the position against which they are alleged, they sweep away the entire assumption of a "figurative" coming of Christ at the destruction of Jerusalem.
The entire ground of the assertion that this phrase means the end of the Jewish age is the fact that the word rendered "world" sometimes means "age," and may be fairly so translated. This fact is not disputed. No violence would be done if the phrase were rendered "the end of the age." The question is not as to the meaning or force of the word, but as to its application. If the period of the Jewish economy was one "age," the period of the gospel economy is another "age" or dispensation; and if the Jewish "age" had an "end," the gospel age will also have an "end." Then conceding that the word aion means age, and might be so rendered, the question is, To which "age" does the phrase apply in our Saviour's discourses—the Jewish or the Christian? This is a question of fact. If it applies to the Jewish age alone, the advocates of a figurative coming of Christ have one point in their favor, and so far may be right. But if it applies to the "age" of the Gospel, as we shall see that it does, then the notion of a figurative advent must be abandoned. The issue is plain and vital.
More has been conceded to the opposition, with reference to this word aion, than a knowledge of all the facts will warrant. It has been claimed, and sometimes admitted, that aion never means the "world" in which we live, as we use the term "world." We know that kosmos is the proper word for "world," and expresses the ordinary conception of the material globe, and does it, as aion can not; and yet there is a fact which has evidently escaped the attention of those who make the broad assertion that aion never means "world." In the Greek Testament kosmos and aion are used interchangeably in some instances, and in other places aion plainly takes the meaning of kosmos. An example of the interchangeable use of these words is found in 1 Cor. 3:18, 19: "If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world [aion], let him become a fool that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world [kosmos] is foolishness with God." An instance of aion taking the meaning of kosmos is found in Heb. 1:2: "By whom also he made the worlds" [aionas]. Another example of this kind is found in Heb. 11:3: "Through faith we understand that the worlds [aionas] were framed by the word of God." The worlds that were "made" and "framed" by the word of God were none other than the material worlds that float in space, including the world in which we live—the kosmos. We call attention to this fact, not for the purpose of building an argument upon it, but as an offset to the confident assertion which is so often made to the contrary. It is a fact not without significance in this discussion, and yet we submit it without further comment.
The application of the phrase in question to the destruction of Jerusalem, or to anything coincident therewith, is unauthorized and without meaning. Strange that it should have been so widely accepted! It aims, when thus applied, to denote the "end" of the Jewish dispensation. But the Jewish dispensation "ended" long before Jerusalem was destroyed. And to this fact we invite particular attention. Jerusalem was destroyed forty years after the ascension of Christ, and therefore after the ministry of the apostles; and, of course, it was after the "end" of the Jewish, and after the beginning of the gospel age. The apostle used the phrase correctly, of course, with undoubted reference to the "end" of the Jewish age, when he said, "But now once in the end of the world [aion] hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. This shows that Christ's first "appearance," or coming, was at the end of the Jewish age, as his second coming will be at the end of the gospel age. Strictly speaking, the end of the Jewish age was the time that Christ died. It was when he "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." That was a typical dispensation, and could not last an hour longer than the period of the fulfillment of the types. The rending of the veil of the temple marked the time of the closing up of the typical economy. No other period is designated or known in the Scriptures, or is in any wise set forth as the "end of the Jewish dispensation." The Christian dispensation began with the death of Christ, and was fully ushered in not later than the day of Pentecost, which, we have seen, was the date of the beginning of the kingdom of God on earth—the day on which Christ came "in his kingdom," and the "kingdom of God came with power." That day was an epoch. It stands out in history as the birthday of the church of Christ in its new relation, and as fully endowed for the conquest of the nations. We dare not date the new dispensation later than that memorable Pentecost. But, if this is correct, the Jewish dispensation was then past. The apostolic ministry belonged not to the Jewish, but to the gospel age, as every intelligent reader of the Scriptures will readily admit. Hence, the Jewish age closed, and the Christian dispensation began at least forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem—for the dispensations did not lap. Both were not in progress at the same time. Neither was there a hiatus of forty years between them. When one ended, the other began. The apostles entered upon their ministry with the dawn of the new dispensation, and lived and labored and died in the full blaze of gospel light, while Jerusalem was yet standing. It is therefore absurd to speak of the destruction of Jerusalem as "the end of the Jewish age."353The phrase in dispute occurs also in the great commission, and its use in that place ought to determine its application in other passages, and particularly where the second coming is connected with it. When Christ sent his apostles into all the world to baptize and teach the nations, he said to them, "And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Does this mean that Christ was to be with his ministers only until the end of the Jewish age? So we are told by those who deny the future coming of the Lord to judgment—consistency requires them to do it; but the absurdity of the statement must appear upon its face. The commission was given them to preach the gospel, and his presence was promised during the time they were thus employed. If the preaching under this commission belongs to the gospel age, then the promised presence of Christ belongs to the gospel age, and the promise, "Lo, I am with you alway," covers the entire period of the gospel dispensation. The Jewish age ended before the apostles began to preach under this commission. Christ himself brought that dispensation to a close when he "put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Here we stand with confidence. If the commission to preach the gospel to every creature belonged to the Jewish age, and was fulfilled under that economy, then our critics may be right in their assumption that "the end of the world," in this passage, means the "end of the Jewish age." But who will assert all this? Who believes it? Surely no one intelligently weighs the matter will affirm anything so preposterous. And yet it must be done, or the very foundation of the opposition to the future coming of the Son of man to judgment gives way. For as certainly as the obligation to preach the gospel pertains to the gospel age, and lasts as long as the age lasts, it follows that the spiritual presence of Christ is promised throughout that age, and the "end of the world" means the end of the gospel age. And if this is the true application of the phrase in this passage, it can scarcely be possible that it will bear a different application where the second coming of Christ is connected with "the end of the world."
The same conclusion is forced upon us by the use the Saviour made of this phrase in his exposition of the parable of the tares and the wheat. Matt. 13:37-43: "He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world, and the reapers are the angels. As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear." This is full of instruction. It is not a parable, but the exposition of a parable. The language should therefore be taken in the most literal sense admissible, and particularly with reference to the description given of the divine arrangement for the separation of the tares and wheat—the children of the kingdom, and the children of the wicked one.
It is evident that "the end of the world" here mentioned did not take place at the time Christ "appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." That great fact put an end to the typical economy, and the Jewish age, but no one believes it was the "harvest" described in this scripture. Our critics do not so apply the language, but invariably to the destruction of Jerusalem. That sad event is all their hope. If it was not the "end of the world," as we have seen it was not, their whole theory fails. The "harvest" was not then, for the righteous did not at that time experience the blessedness of the promise that they should "shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." They received no special distinction in connection with the horrors of that catastrophe, except that they escaped the miseries of the Jews by obeying the direction of the Master to "flee to the mountains." Neither were the angels sent forth at that time as "reapers." The assumption that the "angels" were gospel ministers is groundless, and contrary to all correct ideas of the Saviour's language; and yet if we should admit the baseless assumption, the facts would condemn the interpretation sought to be forced upon this expression. The gospel ministers were not sent forth at the destruction of Jerusalem, but long before, so that the apostles had finished their ministry, and had all gone to rest—unless John still lingered—before that time. And they were not sent forth as "reapers," but as "sowers." Their business was unlike that which is ascribed to the angels when the harvest comes.
But the point to be noted is, that the harvest is the "end" of that particular "age" in which "the kingdom of Heaven" is displayed. Did the parable of the "tares" relate to the condition of things before the birth of Christ? If the "kingdom of Heaven" pertained to the Jewish dispensation, and accomplished its work therein, and terminated with the close of that typical period, then there might be propriety in claiming that the "harvest" was the "end of the Jewish age." And there can be no propriety in that claim without this condition of facts. But it was not the Jewish economy that was illustrated by this parable. The kingdom of Heaven did not belong to that age. The law and the prophets were until John the Baptist, and since then the kingdom of Heaven is preached. This kingdom belongs to the age of the gospel. Its coming was seen in Christ's personal ministry, and its establishment on earth was complete when the kingdom of God came with power on the day of Pentecost.
The first coming of Christ put an end to the Jewish age, as his second coming will bring an end to the gospel age. Hence, when he comes, he will "send forth his angels"—send them forth "with a great sound of a trumpet"—"and gather out of his kingdom all things that offend"—an expression which, of itself, proves beyond question, that the "harvest" is to be at the end, and not at the beginning of the gospel age.
Thus, every turn we give to this language, every possible view that has reason in it, carries us to the same conclusion, and reveals more and more clearly the absurdity of the assumption that "the end of the world," as used by our Lord, had reference to the end of the Jewish age. Such a position cannot stand for a moment without making the kingdom of Heaven synchronical with that age, and the folly of attempting this is too glaring for even those whose doctrine is unable to stand without it. The "end of the age" meant in this parable is the time of the "harvest;" and the harvest cannot come till after the sowing of the good seed; and the good seed are the children of the kingdom, sown by the Son of man. The "tares" grow along with the "wheat," and so long as the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one live together in this world, it is useless to imagine that the "harvest" is past. The harvest separates the tares from the wheat, or it does nothing. "So shall it be in the end of the world."—From Bishop Merrill's Book, The Coming of Christ.
The Sabbath-School.
By Uriah Smith
Everlasting Punishment.
Matt. 25:46: "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."
This text is very commonly urged as an objection against the view that the destiny of the reprobate is an utter and eternal extinction of being; and it is one which has great apparent force. But the secret of this apparent strength lies in the fact that the term punishment is almost invariably supposed to be confined to conscious suffering, and that when any affliction is no longer taken cognizance of by the senses, it ceases to be a punishment at all. But if it can be shown from sound reason, and from the analogy of human penalties, that punishment is estimated by the loss involved, and not merely by the amount of pain inflicted, the objection vanishes at once, and will cease to hold back many devout and holy minds from adopting the view we here advocate.
On the duration of the punishment brought to view in the text, we take no issue. It is to be eternal; but what is to be its nature? The text says, Everlasting punishment; popular orthodoxy says, Unending misery; the Bible, we believe, says, Eternal death.
Is death punishment? If so, when a death is inflicted from which there is no release, that punishment is eternal or everlasting. Then the application of this scripture to the view we hold is very apparent. The heathen, to reconcile themselves to what they supposed to be their inevitable fate, used to argue that death was no evil. But when they looked forward into the endless future of which that death deprived them, they were obliged to reverse their former decision, and acknowledge that death was an endless injury.
Why is the sentence of death in our courts of justice reckoned as the most severe and greatest punishment? It is not because the pain involved is greater; for the scourge, the rack, the pillory, and many kinds of minor punishment, inflict more pain upon the petty offender than decapitation or hanging inflicts upon the murderer. But it is reckoned the greatest because it is the most lasting; and its length is estimated by the life the person would have enjoyed, if it had not been inflicted. It has deprived him of every hour of that life he would have had but for this punishment; and hence the punishment is considered as co-existent with the period of his natural life.
Augustine says:—
"The laws do not estimate the punishment of a criminal by the brief period during which he is being put to death, but by their removing him forever from the company of living men."
The same reasoning applies to the future life as readily as to the present. By the terrible infliction of the second death, the sinner is deprived of all the bright and ceaseless years of everlasting life. The loss of every moment, hour, and year, of this life, is a punishment; and, as the life is eternal, the loss, or the punishment, is eternal also. "There is here no straining of argument to make out a case. The argument is one which man's judgment has in every age approved as just."
The original sustains the same idea. The word for punishment is kolasis; and this is defined, "a curtailing, a pruning." The idea of cutting off is here prominent. The righteous go into everlasting life, but the wicked, into an everlasting state in which they are curtailed, or cut off. Cut off from what? Not from happiness; for that is not the subject of discourse; but from life, as expressly stated in reference to the righteous. "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." And since the life given to man through Christ, is eternal life, it follows that the loss of it inflicted as a punishment, is eternal punishment.
The same objection is again stated in a little different form. As in the ages before our existence we suffered no punishment, so, it is claimed, it will be no punishment to be reduced to that state again. To this we reply, that those who never had an existence cannot, of course, be conceived of in relation to rewards and punishments at all. But when a person has once seen the light of life, when he has lived long enough to taste its sweets and appreciate its blessings, is it then no punishment to be deprived of it? Says Luther Lee (Immortality of the Soul, p. 128), "We maintain that the simple loss of existence cannot be a penalty or punishment in the circumstances of the sinner after the general resurrection." And what are these circumstances? He comes up to the beloved city, and sees the people of God in the everlasting kingdom. He sees before them an eternity, not of life only, but of bliss and glory indescribable, while before himself is only the blackness of darkness forever. Then, says the Saviour, addressing a class of sinners, there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God. What is the cause of this wailing? It is not that they have to choose between annihilation or eternal torture. Had this privilege, some might perhaps choose the former; others would not. But the cause of their woe is that they are to receive a certain kind of punishment when they would prefer another, but because they have lost the life and blessedness which they now behold in possession of the righteous. The only conditions between which they can draw their cheerless comparisons are, the blessed and happy state of the righteous within the city of God, and their own hapless lot outside of its walls. And we may well infer from the nature of the case, as well as the Saviour's language, that it is because they find themselves thus thrust out, that they lift up their voices in lamentation and woe. "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, and ye yourselves thrust out!"
The sinner then begins to see what he has lost; the sense of it, like a barbed arrow, pierces his soul, and the thought that the glorious inheritance before him might have been his but for his own self-willed and perverse career, sets the keenest edge upon every pang of remorse. And as he looks far away into eternity, to the utmost limit which the mind's eye can reach, and gets a glimpse of the inconceivable blessedness and glory which he might have enjoyed but for his idol sin, the hopeless thought that all is lost will be sufficient to rend the hardest and most obdurate heart with unutterable agony. Say not then that loss of existence under such circumstances is no penalty or punishment.
But again: The Bible plainly teaches degrees of punishment; and how is this compatible, it is asked, with the idea of a mere state of death to which all alike will be reduced? Let us ask believers in eternal misery how they will maintain degrees in their system? They tell us the intensity of the pain endured will be in each case proportioned to the guilt of the sufferer. But how can this be? Are not the flames of hell equally severe in all parts? and will they not equally affect all the immaterial souls cast therein? But God can interpose, it is answered, to produce the effect desired. Very well, then, we reply, cannot he also interpose, if necessary, according to our view, and graduate the pain attendant upon the sinner's being reduced to a state of death as a climax of his penalty? So, then, our view is equal with the common one in this respect, while it possesses a great advantage over it in another; for, while that has to find its degrees of punishment in intensity of pain alone, the duration in all cases being equal, ours may have not only degrees in pain, but in duration also; for, while some may perish in a short space of time, the weary sufferings of others may be long drawn out. But yet we apprehend that the bodily suffering will be but an unnoticed trifle compared with the mental agony, that keen anguish which will rack their souls as they get a view of their incomparable loss, each according to his capacity of appreciation. The youth who had but little more than reached the years of accountability and died, perhaps with just enough guilt upon him to debar him from Heaven, being less able to comprehend his situation and his loss, will of course feel it less. To him of older years, more capacity, and consequently a deeper experience in sin, the burden of his fate will be proportionately greater. While the man of giant intellect, and almost boundless comprehension, who thereby possessed greater influence for evil, and hence was the more guilty for devoting those powers to that evil, being able to understand his situation fully, comprehend his fate and realize his loss, will feel it most keenly of all. Into his soul indeed the iron will enter most intolerably deep. And thus by an established law of mind, the sufferings of each may be most accurately adjusted to the magnitude of his guilt.
Then, says one, the sinner will long for death as a release from his evils, and experience a sense of relief when all is over. No, friend, not even this pitiful semblance of consolation is granted; for no such sense of relief will ever come. The words of another will best illustrate this point:—
"'But the sense of relief when death comes at last.' We hardly need to reply: There can be no sense of relief. The light of life gone out, the expired soul can never know that it has escaped from pain. The bold transgressor may fix his thoughts upon it now, heedless of all that intervenes; but he will forget to think of it then. To waken from a troubled dream, and to know that it was only a dream, is an exceeding joy; and with transport do the friends of one dying in delirium, note a gleam of returning reason, ere he breathes his last. But the soul's death knows no waking; its maddening fever ends in no sweet moment of rest. It can never feel that its woe is ended. The agony ends, not in a happy consciousness that all is past, but in eternal night—in the blackness of darkness forever!"
U. S.
OUR COUNTRY'S FUTURE FORETOLD.
By Uriah Smith
THE UNITED STATES IN PROPHECY.
BY ELD. U. SMITH.
THIS is a full exposition of a portion of prophecy which applies to our own Government, showing the position the United States holds in prophecy, and the part it has to act in the closing scenes of time.
THE SUNDAY MOVEMENT,
Which is now attracting such general attention, is thoroughly canvassed, and abundant testimony is given to prove that in a few years this will be the
ALL-IMPORTANT QUESTION
In this country. Facts and statistics are largely presented, showing in the most conclusive manner that this government is the one pointed out in the prophecy quoted. 200 pages. Bound, 40 cents. Paper covers, 20 cents.
Address, Signs of the Times, Oakland, Cal.
NEW MUSIC!
THE LAST IS THE BEST!
JUST published by GEO. D. RUSSELL, 126 Tremont St., Boston, a new book of music, 160 pages, entitled
# PEARLY PORTALS.
### BY D. S. HAKES.
The music and words of this book are mostly entirely new, and well adapted to the Sabbath-school and social circle. It is receiving the most unqualified praise from all who have examined it. The music is of a high order throughout and yet not at all difficult. Per copy, 35 cents; $3.60 per dozen. Bound, 50 cents; $5.00 per dozen.
Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.
THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information.
As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study.
The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth.
SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR.
All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge.
TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE.
Price per Copy, Post-paid.
5 to 10 copies...................60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward .................50 cents a year.
Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months. Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly.
Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.
Or Signs of the Times, Oakland, Cal.
Morality of the Ten Commandments.
No WRITER in the Old Testament had more wisdom from God imparted to him than had Solomon; and no one gave a more emphatic testimony on the nature of the commandments of God than he did in Eccl. 12:13, 14. In other places, as in Prov. 28:9, he also spoke decidedly on the subject. This text reads: "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." This shows that the nature of the law is such that disobedience or neglect of it vitiates all religion. The same is shown by a text which we have quoted on another point, to mark the distinction between the law and the offerings and sacrifices, or ceremonials of religion. "Behold, I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me." Jer. 6:19, 20. Incense, offerings, sacrifices, prayers—nothing is acceptable to God from those who reject his law.
This is directly contrary to the opinion expressed by many at the present time. They affect to think that God will hear their prayers and accept their offerings notwithstanding they reject or neglect his law. Nay, more, they say that our worship in this dispensation is so much more spiritual and exalted than that in the days of the patriarchs and prophets that it is not only acceptable without regard to the law, but is even more acceptable if the law is disregarded! We shall show, when we come to examine the New Testament, how completely this position is negatived by Christ and his apostles. For the present we will notice but one statement of the apostle Paul, in Rom. 6. He meets the point squarely by raising the question: "Shall we sin [sin is transgression of the law,] that grace may abound?" Does he answer, Yes! neglect of the law is conducive to grace under Christ? He says: "By no means," or God forbid. "How shall we, that are dead to sin [to the violation of the law,] live any longer therein?" Christ removes his people from sin; saves them from sin; Matt. 1:21; saves them from walking contrary to his Father's revealed will. There is no intimation in the Bible that he will save anybody in sin, or answer their prayers if they turn away their ears from hearing the law.
Eccl. 12:13, 14, reads thus: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Let us notice the relations presented in this text.
It is an accepted truism that "God is Supreme Moral Governor." To be a governor he must have a government; to have a government he must have a law, for there is no government without law. In the absence of law there is only confusion or anarchy. The Scriptures abundantly teach—and reason approves—that God has exercised governmental control over man ever since the creation of the race. Not that he compelled everybody to obey him. He never did that; he does not now. He always left man free to act, and held him responsible for his actions. This is necessary where there is any free agency, for without freedom to act no character could be formed. All which goes to prove that God has always had a law for the government of his creatures. The opposite of this is an absurdity, and a direct contradiction of the Scriptures.
As he is a moral governor his law is a moral law, and as he is supreme his law is a universal law. No one can be found who is not amenable to his law unless he is outside of his jurisdiction—beyond the sway of God's authority. But that is impossible.
Can there be two moral laws? Yes, provided there are two moral governors! Not otherwise. Hence, if there are two moral laws, God is not supreme. Again, if his moral law has been changed, morality itself has been changed; man's moral nature and relations have been changed; and is it too much to say that, in that event, God himself has changed? We think not.
Now we will consider further the objection that our religion is higher than that of the Old Testament, and that New Testament morality is above that of the Old. When God says: "Be ye holy; for I am holy," can there be a higher standard of holiness than this? And when he says if they will keep his covenant—his law—they will be a holy people, is not that proof that a holy character is formed by obedience to his law. As there cannot be two moral laws unless there are two supreme moral governors, there can be but one rule for the measurement of morality. All moral characters are formed according to that rule.
Two more important statements made by Solomon remain to be noticed:—
1. That the commandments of God contained the whole duty of man. As man is a moral agent, the above declaration proves that the commandments of God cover all moral obligation. Every relation of man both to God and to his fellow-man, comes within the province of that law of which Solomon spoke. Types may give way, for these are not original or elementary, but circumstantial. Memorials may take the place of types; but no new moral relation can be instituted. Our relation to the salvation of Christ is exactly that of Adam when a Saviour was provided for him; our faith is exactly that of Adam when he accepted "the seed" of the woman as the one appointed to bruise the head of man's seducer; it is that of Abraham to whom the gospel promises were made, and who rejoiced to see the day of Christ; it is that of Moses who "esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt." And of all the ancient worthies who are held up to us as examples of faith whom we do well to follow.
2. On the authority of these commandments every work shall be brought into judgment. That law was no local affair; it was no temporary arrangement; it was not limited to a few outward acts. By it shall "every secret thing" be tested; it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
And what need we say more? Yet much more remains for us to say on this the most important of all subjects. The points here examined will all come up for further examination when we come to the testimony of the New Testament concerning them.
Concerning the term "covenant," we must express our surprise that any should take so limited views of the subject as to conclude that God's covenant commanded to them by his own voice, is identical with that covenant or agreement made with them through Moses as the mediator, or spokesman for the parties. See Ex. 19:5-8. The word covenant covers many different things in the Bible. It is not by the word, but by its connections and relations that we learn to what it refers in any instance. The agreement made with them was inoperative and passed away of necessity because they did not keep it. But what reasonable person will imagine that a moral law, the very basis of God's moral government, covering all moral relations of judgment-bound creatures, passes away because somebody broke it? The last great day will show that the transgressor passes away, not the law of "the Judge of all."