p. 115 | Review and Herald, Vol. 39, No. 15. (3/26/1872)

Review and Herald

Mar 26, 1872

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 26, 1872

ESCAPE FOR THY LIFE.

By Eld. N. Wardner

BY ELD. N. WARDNER.

TEXT: Gen. 19:17: “And it came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that he said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed.”

This was the language of the angel to Lot, warning him to escape from the destruction of Sodom.

Lot was the nephew of Abraham, and was brought up by him, and they continued to dwell together after he grew to manhood, till their prosperity caused a clashing of interests, which led to strife among their herdsmen, and threatened alienation between them. Abraham, seeing what it was likely to result in, addressed Lot, in substance, as follows: We being brethren, it is unbecoming that strife should exist between us, or among our herdsmen; better that we separate. Now if you will turn to the right, I will turn to the left; or, if you will turn to the left, I will turn to the right, but let there be no strife between us. Lot accepted the proposition, and, standing upon the high lands of Judea, began to survey the surrounding country for the purpose of selecting a location. And he looked upon the plains of Sodom and saw that they were good for pasture, and he pitched his tent there.

Now observe the motive that influenced him. There is no evidence that he chose that location for the sake of benefiting its inhabitants by acting as missionary among them; or that his children might be brought under better moral and religious influences. On the contrary, the men of Sodom had been declared to be “wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Gen. 13:13. He must have known that he would thus bring his family under the most demoralizing influences. It is evident, therefore, that he was moved entirely by the love of gain. “He saw that it was good for pasture,” and, for that reason, he chose to locate there.

Now notice the result of his worldly, selfish policy. Scarcely had he dwelt there seven years before that people became involved in war, were overcome and carried away captives, with their possessions, and Lot among them. And had it not been for Abraham, who, with his three hundred and nineteen trained servants, pursued, and, by a well-planned surprise, recaptured them, he and his family might have dragged out miserable lives in bondage.

Nor did he heed this warning, but returned and located himself in the city of Sodom. The result was that he lost all he took there, and all he accumulated while there, and nearly all his family, and was compelled to escape almost as destitute as he came into the world. Such was the result of his worldly policy, in which the claims of God and the spiritual interests of his family seem to have been forgotten. And the recording of this event was designed, as we are told, for a warning to those who should come after him.

But it seems that Lot came to be possessed of a different mind before he left Sodom; for the apostle tells us that his righteous soul was vexed from day to day with the vile conversation of the Sodomites; and he became, also, a messenger of God to warn that people of the coming wrath. God always warns in mercy before he smites in wrath.

It seems also that Lot gained a position of honor and influence among them; for, when the angels appeared, they found him sitting in the gate of the city. What was he there for? Ancient cities were always surrounded by a high wall for defense, and at each gate an extra wall was built outside, in the form of a half circle, leaving a space between in the form of a crescent, where seats were erected on which the magistrates and judges of the city sat, each day, to hear and decide cases of complaint or litigation among the people. In confirmation of this, see Deut. 21:18, 19; Ruth 4:1, 2, &c. Christ alluded to the same when he said, “Upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” These gates were also the places where their councils of war were held, which explains the Saviour’s language to mean that all the plottings of the powers of darkness will not be able to prevail against his church and people.

Lot was thus filling his post of duty when these heavenly messengers came to deliver him from the impending ruin. Had he not been in the place of his duty, he might have perished with the Sodomites. The history of the world proves that all whom God honors by any special call or deliverance are those who attended faithfully to the duties of their calling, however humble.

Seeing those strangers enter, he respectfully entreats them to accept of the hospitality of his house. They, probably to test his sincerity, declined; but when he insisted, they accepted. Here, again, we notice the connection between a faithful and hearty discharge of duty, and the blessing and salvation of God. Had he neglected this duty, though he might have been warned, he probably would not have seen the miracle by which he was convinced of their divine mission, and, therefore, might have treated the warning as the Sodomites did. Salvation is always connected with submission and obedience on the part of the creature.

In consequence of this act of hospitality, Lot was assured of the supernatural character of these strangers, and of the validity of their message. Therefore, when they told him to go out and warn his children and kindred of what the Lord was about to do, he obeyed, laboring with all the earnestness of assuring faith. Now he began to realize the demoralizing effect which his residence in Sodom had produced upon his family; for they treated the warning as an idle tale, notwithstanding the attesting evidence which was publicly known. When daylight came, he and his wife and two daughters seemed so intent in trying to induce their friends to flee with them that they would not desist till the angels took hold of them and led them out.

Now, why was Lot saved, and the thousands of Sodom destroyed? Was it because he was better than they? or because God was partial? No; but simply because he believed and, believing, obeyed the message, and the others did not. Had they believed as he did, they would likewise have obeyed. This is the reason why part of the human family will be saved and the rest lost. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” God has warned us of a far more terrible storm of wrath that is gathering, which shall burst upon his enemies, and from which his saints shall be delivered; and whoever really believes the warning will heed it.

To illustrate: Supposing that, as you are sitting here, a man of undoubted sanity and veracity steps into the door, and announces that he has just discovered a keg of powder placed under this house by some evil-disposed person, with a slow match that is nearly burned out, so that the powder is liable to explode at any second; how long would you remain in your seats? You would all rush for the door instantly. But should you see a man, after listening to that statement, fold his arms and lean quietly back in a comfortable position, you would decide at once that he did not believe the statement; for we all understand human nature well enough to know that no sane man could thus sit quietly when he knew he was liable, at any instant, to be blown to atoms, if there was a chance to escape.

God has assured us in his word of a doom that awaits the impenitent as much more terrible than this as eternity surpasses time, and no person who really believes and feels that truth, and that his probation may terminate any moment, can remain in that condition, unconcerned. If he continues indifferent, it is evidence that he does not, from his heart, believe the revelation.

But supposing that after the angels had led Lot out of the city and pointed out to him the place of safety, he, instead of fleeing, had sat down and reasoned with himself thus: “If I am to be saved, I shall be; and if I am not to be saved, I shall not be, though I may make ever so much effort. God knew from eternity whether I shall be saved or not; and what he knew, he knew to a certainty, and nothing can happen contrary to his foreknowledge, and therefore it is useless for me to make any effort, since it cannot change his knowledge or purpose, and therefore cannot change the result;” and upon this plea, refused to make any effort. What would the result have been? Evidently he would have perished with the Sodomites. If God foreknew or determined that he should be saved, it was upon the condition that he should comply with the requirements revealed to him, and to be decided by his own choice. Otherwise, why reveal, or impose conditions?

But why did not the angels take him in their arms and carry him to a place of safety? Evidently because Lot had the power of locomotion, and did not need to be carried. When Peter lay in prison, bound between two soldiers, and his brethren were praying for his deliverance, an angel appeared in the prison and awoke Peter, broke his fetters, and commanded him to put on his garment and follow him. Why not put on his garment for him? Why not carry him instead of commanding him to follow? Why leave him alone in the street instead of taking him to Mary’s house? Simply because Peter had power to do these things himself. But he could not break his fetters, nor open the prison door, nor iron gate, and these things the angel did for him. God simply provides for man what he has not given man the natural power to do for himself; but requires the full use of his natural powers at the peril of his soul.

The command given to Lot, to flee, implied, in the first place, that there was danger in his remaining where he was. If not, why command him to escape? Secondly, it implied that there was a place of safety, and time would be allowed to reach it. If there was no safer place, why should he be required to leave Sodom? Or, if no opportunity would be granted for him to reach it, he might as well remain where he was. In such case, why should he even be notified of any danger? Every dictate of mercy, justice, and reason, would forbid that the short space left him should be filled with such forebodings, if there was no escaping the danger.

God has warned us of a far more terrible storm of wrath that is gathering over this world of sin, which will involve all in eternal ruin who heed not the warning. But if there is to be no such future state of punishment for the wicked, or, if no way of escape from it has been provided, then why should God thus warn? Why fill men’s minds with such forebodings and useless anxiety, and thus rob them of so much peace and enjoyment that they might otherwise experience, if there is to be no such thing, or if there is no way of escape from it? What conceivable attribute in God’s nature could be in fellowship with such false and unmerciful alarms? Is there any other way to account for such revelations than that they are true, and are, therefore, demanded by every attribute of justice and mercy? “The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” This cannot mean the grave; for no such distinction is made in Scripture between the righteous and wicked with reference to burial.

Thirdly, the command implied that Lot was a free agent, and could go or stay as he chose. If not, why command him? As well command the city wall to flee! The same impropriety would attach to every command, warning, promise, and exhortation, in the Bible. If man is not a free agent, the Bible everywhere teaches a falsehood; for it teaches that man is accountable for all that he does, thinks, and feels.

But again, supposing that Lot, instead of fleeing as directed, had gone to quarreling with the angels for preaching such “fire and brimstone doctrine;” as though the God of love was going to pour down fire and brimstone from Heaven and burn up his children! And supposing he had presented such shrewd arguments as even to silence the angels; what would he have gained by it? Could he have changed the purpose of God, or stayed the gathering storm? He would only have quieted his own fears and made his destruction sure; for no fact in history is better authenticated than that Sodom was thus destroyed. Christ asserted it to be a fact. Luke 17:28, 29.

And again, supposing he had refused to make any effort to escape till he could settle the question whether or not he should hold out if he started; insisting that it would be better not to start than to go part way and then turn back or fail to reach the goal. One thing was certain. If he had not started, he would not have reached the place of safety, and certainly would have perished. And being a free agent, his holding out, or not, all depended upon his own choice. And the divine command to flee was an assurance of divine help where needed. The same holds true, including many positive promises, in regard to the command given to all to flee from the wrath to come.

No more certain is it that Lot would have perished had he pleaded such arguments and acted accordingly, than that every soul will perish who thus contends with God and casts aside his commands and his warnings.

Again, Lot was forbidden to look back; doubtless because had he done so, while in the way, and seen that no harm had yet befallen the city, the sight of his home, and friends, &c., might have induced him to falter or turn back and perish. Christ said to his disciples, “He that putteth his hand to the plow and looketh back is not fit for the kingdom of Heaven;” for it shows a covetous longing after the world, a double-mindedness, and half-heartedness that would be quite sure to result in apostasy.

The apostle says, “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God; and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Pet. 4:17. The Jews had a saying that when God determined to destroy the wicked, he first began by afflicting his people, and thus to sift out from among them those who belonged with the wicked, that they might be destroyed together. Judgment began with Lot. It was a sore affliction to be required to leave all the fruits of his life’s toils, and especially his children. But what was the end of those who heeded not the gospel of salvation that was made known to them? The cloud of smoke rising up from that city told the tale.

Again, asks the apostle, “If the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” Lot was scarcely saved, yet it was a complete salvation, though at the loss of nearly every earthly treasure. Not a hair of his head was harmed. And so it will be with every one who thus believes and obeys the heavenly message. But where did those ungodly sinners appear who scorned the message of mercy brought to them? The lurid flames and shrieks of anguish which came up from that city answer the question. And where and how did she appear who essayed to trifle with the command given to her; though willing to obey every requirement except in one little particular. She probably concluded that was of too little account for God to insist upon, provided she did everything else properly and conscientiously. “Surely God is not so hard-hearted as to deny me the small favor of just turning my eye to take one farewell look of my dear children on yonder wall, and of the home I have toiled so hard and so long to provide and beautify for the enjoyment of old age; provided I continue to press on in the way pointed out. If I never do anything worse than this, God certainly will not reject me. The spirit and object of the command must have reference merely to my safe escape out of Sodom, and not the direction of my eyes.”

Thus she ventured to trifle with God’s revealed will, and was instantly transformed into a monument of God’s wrath, as a warning to men in all ages. “Be not deceived, God is not mocked.” “These things were written for our instruction.” Christ said to his disciples, “Remember Lot’s wife!” What about her that they should remember? This act of compromising God’s authority to gratify self, and the judgment that fell upon her for so doing. By that act, she lost all that she coveted, and herself, soul and body. “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” and how much less if he gain only a momentary pleasure?

An anecdote is reported of John Jacob Astor, that he was once visited by a clergyman whom he took much pains to entertain; and, after showing him around his premises, took him up into his observatory, and placing a spy-glass in his hand, requested him to look down a certain street, inquiring, Do you see that block of buildings (describing them)? Yes. Well, that is mine. Now look in that street. Do you see that block of marble buildings and stores? Yes. Those are mine also. And in that direction; do you see those iron fronts and that bank? Yes. Those are mine also. Besides, I have investments in lands, mortgages, railroad stocks, shipping, &c., in all amounting to nearly fifty millions of dollars. I started in life poor; commenced by working out for eight dollars per month and board, and by economy, industry, and management, have accumulated all this; then, straightening himself up, waited for a compliment. The clergyman replied, You have been very successful, Mr. A., and deserve much credit. Few men can boast of what you can. Then putting the spy-glass into his hand, he said, Please look across the river there, do you see that shanty beside that large rock? Yes. A poor widow lives there whom I visit each week to carry provisions, &c., furnished by benevolent friends; and yet that widow is far more wealthy than you are. Mr. A. started back in surprise and said, What do you mean? please explain yourself. The minister replied, You have been showing me your treasures which consist in houses, money, lands, stocks, &c., but no treasure in Heaven. Fire may consume your buildings, thieves may steal your money, tempests may sink your ships, &c., or, if they are not thus taken from you, death will soon lay his icy hand upon your heart, and you will have to leave all. Not a cent of your princely wealth can you take with you; while that widow, though she cannot claim the food she eats, or the clothes she wears, can look upon Christ and say, My Saviour. She can look to God and say, My Father. She can look upon that sparkling crown in her Saviour’s hand, and say, That is MY crown. She can view that glorious mansion he is fitting up, and say, That is MY mansion. ALL HEAVEN IS MINE, AND MINE FOREVER! Is she not indeed more wealthy than you, Mr. Astor?

Give me the widow’s portion, and let the miser clutch his gold and the worldling his honors. Far greater honors await the humble, faithful servant of Christ.

WATCH AND PRAY.

By Sel.

Watch and pray! watch and pray, Pilgrim, in this narrow way! Strength you need each fleeting hour, While you feel the tempter’s power; Watch and pray! Faith shall turn the night to day!

Hope and trust! hope and trust! Child of sorrow—child of dust! Place not here thy heart’s desire, But to heavenly things aspire! From on high Joys approach that never die!

Pray and fight! pray and fight! Keep thine armor ever bright! Soon thy trials will be done, Soon the crown of victory won! Watch and pray! Looking for the better day!

Watch and pray! watch and pray! Ye who feel the heavenly ray! Christ shall all your foes subdue, Let his grace your strength renew! Watch and pray! Pilgrim in life’s narrow way!

—Sel.

INTERESTING EXTRACTS CONCERNING THE LAW OF GOD

By M. E. Cornell

Testimony of Eminent Authors.—No. 3.

BY ELD. M. E. CORNELL.

INTERESTING EXTRACTS CONCERNING THE LAW OF GOD.

The law of ten commandments, called in Scripture the “lively oracles,” “royal law,” &c., seems to have been exalted purposely above those laws which were merely ritual and ceremonial. That the moral law should be spoken by the voice of God, and then written by his own finger in stone, is significant of its superiority over all other laws. And the fact that when the first tables were broken, other tables like the first must be prepared, and then God himself write the same identical ten commandments, no more, no less, on the second tables, shows the design of the Law-giver to impress the mind of man with the fact that this law was above all—the supreme and immutable constitution of the Creator of all things.

This law is not Jewish—the voice that was heard, shook the whole earth on which all nations dwell. That which was spoken, concerns all nations. Strange that any should regard the ten commandments as merely Jewish! The Jews themselves, with all their blindness and self-exaltation, as being Abraham’s children and hence the exclusive heirs of the promises, have not vanity enough to claim that this was exclusively theirs. Their ancient commentators speak of “The Statutes of Adam,” and the “Precepts of Noah,” which, according to the account of Maimonides were substantially the same with the ten commandments.

Acts 7:38; Rom. 3:2, compared with Deut. 4:8–13, will show clearly enough that the “oracles of God” were the ten commandments. Webster defines the word thus: “Oracle, from orare, to speak, to utter, from os, oris, the mouth.” “Oral, pertaining to the mouth, . . spoken, not written—as oral law, &c.”

Josephus applies “oracle” to the ten commandments, and describes it as spoken, “that they might hear God himself speaking to them about precepts which they were to practice: that the energy of what should be spoken might not be hurt by its utterance by the tongue of a man. . . . And they all heard a voice that came to all of them from above, insomuch that no one of these words escaped them.”—B. iii, chap. 5.

The Emphatic Diaglott, Bible Union, Anderson, and others, render “‘living oracles,’ oracles given by the living God, and that resembled the living God; a transcript of the divine mind and will.” No wonder that the apostle James (2:8) gives it the title, “royal law.” Webster defines royal, thus: “Fr. real. Lat. regalis. Kingly; pertaining to the crown; regal.”

This “royal,” or supreme law, was not to wax old and vanish away like the ceremonial ordinances; hence it was engraved on stone, to show both its superiority and durability. All this will be readily admitted of every command except the fourth. But how can those who are willing to observe the first, second, and third commandments, stop short of the fourth? How can those who admit a holy God and his holy name refuse his holy day?

Among those not to be saved, the Rabbis reckon the “deniers of the law,” and “him who says that the Creator has changed one command for another, and that the law has long since lost its authority, although it was given by God, as Christians and Mohammedans.”—Hilchoth T’shuvah, c. iii, 8.

The great reformer, Martin Luther, believed in the perpetuity of the law of God. “Master Jobst, dining with Luther one day [in the year 1541], showed him certain propositions he had drawn up, to the effect that the law ought not to be preached, since it is not the law which justifies us. Luther grew quite angry at this: ‘What!’ he exclaimed, ‘shall our own people, while we ourselves are yet alive, propound such things as these? Oh! how highly ought we to honor Master Philip [Melanchthon] who inculcates with such perspicuity and truth the use of the law. . . . He who destroys the doctrine of the law, destroys, at the same time, political and social order. If you eject the law from the church, there will no longer be any sin recognized as such in the world; for the gospel only defines and punishes sin by reference to the law. If heretofore I, in my discourses, spoke and wrote so harshly against the law, it was because the Christian church was overwhelmed with superstitions, under which Christ was altogether hidden and buried; and I am anxious to rescue pious and God-fearing souls from the tyranny of the conscience; but as to the law itself, I never rejected it.”—Michelet’s Life of Luther, Hazlitt’s Trans., p. 315.

In a letter against the Antinomians, printed in Samuel Rutherford’s Spiritual Antichrist, pp. 71, 72 (London, 1648), Luther says: “I wonder exceedingly how it came to be imputed to me that I should reject the law of ten commandments. . . . Can it be imaginable that there should be any sin where there is no law? Whosoever abrogates the law, must of necessity abrogate sin also.”

Calvin says: “The law has sustained no diminution of its authority, but ought always to receive from us the same veneration and obedience.”—Institutes, B. ii, chap. vii, § 15.

Dr. McCaul says: “How can a man have a just idea of setting the Lord always before him, who thinks that a cunning evasion of God’s commandments is permitted?”—Old Paths, p. 159.

Alexander Campbell, in his debate with the Roman Catholic Bishop Purcell, says: “It is a poor apology for this expurgation of the decalogue, that it is not so done in the Douay Bible. What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the second commandment was no part of God’s law. It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God’s ten WORDS! which, not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are the most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality.”—Debate with Purcell, p. 214.

Thomas Alexander, writing in the Religious Telescope, Jan. 21, 1857, said: “The law written on the two tables of stone is also written on our nature. In the keeping of it, as individuals, and so as families, and as a nation, there is great reward. God not only blesses the day, but he blesses those that hallow it. Let each of us, therefore, as he would see God in peace, keep holy the Sabbath day according to the commandment.”

John Wesley says: “In the highest rank of the enemies of the gospel of Christ, are they who openly and explicitly ‘judge the law’ itself, and ‘speak evil of the law;’ who teach men to break [λυσα, to dissolve, to loose, to untie the obligation of,] not one only, whether of the least, or of the greatest, but all the commandments at a stroke; who teach without any cover, in so many words, ‘What did our Lord do with the law? He abolished it’!”—Wesley’s Works, Vol. i, pp. 225, 226.

William Tyndale, the martyr, A. D. 1630, remarks: “All the whole law is comprehended in the ten commandments. And the ten commandments are comprehended in these two: Love God and thy neighbor. And he that loveth his neighbor, in God, and in Christ, fulfilleth these two; and, consequently, the ten.” “Now if any man, that submitteth not himself to keep the commandments, do think that he hath any faith in God, the same man’s faith is vain, and is no faith that can justify or be accepted before God.”

“Now read all scriptures, and see where God sent any man to preach mercy to any, save unto them only that repent, and turn to God with all their hearts, to keep his commandments.”—Doctrinal Treatises, p. 470.

John Quincy Adams once remarked: “The decalogue, having been spoken by the voice, and twice written upon the stone tables, by the finger of God, may be considered as the foundation of the whole system.”

President Mahan in his work on Christian Perfection, p. 281, says: “The doctrine of holiness as here maintained, contemplates the moral law as the only rule and standard of moral conduct; and consists in perfect conformity to the precepts of this law.”

Charlotte Elizabeth, in a letter to the Bishop of Jerusalem, remarked: “I would to God that our dear brother Ewald could convince the Christian church that the ten commandments are not abrogated!”

Neander was for the law: “It is no New-Testament idea, least of all a Pauline one, that Christ effected the abrogation of the law by his doctrine.”—Hist. Chr. Dogmas, p. i.

Dr. Adam Clarke, speaking of the law as that which makes known sin, remarks: “And let it be observed that the law did not answer this end, merely among the Jews, in the days of the apostles; it is just as necessary to the Gentiles, to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the gospel to sinners, at best only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people slightly.”—Commentary on Rom. 7:13.

Dr. Cummings of England says: “The law of ten commandments is, in its nature, unchangeable and permanent. It was ordained by the supreme Law-giver, as the infallible rule of life, to all men, in every age of the world, in all places, under all circumstances, in every nation, and generation of men on the earth. Not one jot or tittle of it was ever abolished, nor diminished, nor altered in the least degree, by the change of dispensation from Jewish to Christian.”—Signs of the Times, pp. 23, 39.

Spurgeon of England says: “No human law-giver could have given forth such a law as that which we find in the decalogue.” “There is not a command too many; there is not one too few; but it is so incomparable that its perfection is a proof of its divinity.” “The law of God is a divine law, holy, heavenly, perfect. Those who find fault with the law, or in the least degree depreciate it, do not understand its design.”

President Humphrey of Amherst College, on the ten commandments, says: “The law has no limitations, and therefore can never expire. It has never been repealed, and as the sacred canon is full and complete, we are certain it never will be. It is, therefore, binding on every one of us at this moment; and will be upon all future generations. No human authority may expunge a single word from the statutes of Jehovah.”—Essay on the Sabbath, p. 24.

Dr. Albert Barnes, in his comments on Matt. 5:19, says: “We learn hence, 1. That all the law of God is binding on Christians. 2. That all the commands of God should be preached in their proper place, by Christian ministers. 3. That they who pretend that there are any laws of God so small that they need not obey them, are unworthy of his kingdom. And 4. That true piety has respect to all the commands of God, and keeps them.”

PURITAN FATHERS ON THE LAW.

In the “Confession of Faith,” owned and consented to by the elders and messengers of the churches, assembled at Boston in New England, May 12, 1680, chapter 19, we have the following: “This law, so written in the heart, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall of man, and was delivered by God on Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written on two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.”

“The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it; neither doth Christ in the gospel anywise dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.”

“Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the graces of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”—Mather’s Magnalia, Vol. ii, pp. 196, 197.

TRANSLATIONS OF MATT. 5:17, 18.

None but Christ could change or annul the law of God. Did he do it? Matt. 5:17–19 is sufficient proof that he did not.

Norton translates it as follows: “Think not that I have come to annul the law or the prophets. I have not come to annul, but to perfect. I tell you in truth, not till heaven and earth pass away, shall the smallest letter or stroke pass away from the law; no, not till all things are ended.”

Dickenson renders it: “Imagine not that I have appeared to subvert the law or the prophets; I have not come to subvert, but

to establish. For I assure you, Sooner shall heaven and earth vanish than even a single point or tittle be taken from the law, till its object be accomplished. Any person, therefore, who shall violate one of the least of these injunctions and inculcate the same to others, will be regarded as the least in the reign of Heaven; but he who shall perform and teach them, will be received as great in the same dominion. For I declare to you that unless your integrity shall surpass that of the scribes and Pharisees, you cannot indeed enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

Kendrick’s exposition of it is as follows: “Think not there is any such liberty or licentiousness in my kingdom that, to gratify your expectations of it, I will dispense with any of the rules of morality prescribed by Moses, and explained by the prophets. I am so far from any design of annulling them that I intend to teach them more clearly and perfectly than ever they were taught before.”

Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac Testament: “Do not suppose that I have come to subvert the law or the prophets: I have come not to subvert, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, that until heaven and earth shall pass away, one iota, or one letter, shall not pass from the law, until all shall be fulfilled.”

The Emphatic Diaglott: “Think not that I have come to subvert the law, or the prophets: I have come not to subvert, but to establish. For, indeed, I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one iota, or one tip of a letter, shall by no means pass from the law, till all be accomplished.”

Dr. Geo. Campbell: “Think not that I am come to subvert the law, or the prophets. I am come not to subvert, but to ratify. For verily I say unto you, Heaven and earth shall sooner perish than one iota, or one tittle, of the law, shall perish without attaining its end.”

H. T. Anderson’s New Testament, of high repute among the Disciples, says: “Think not that I have come to make the law or the prophets of no effect. I have not come to make them of no effect, but to give them their full efficiency. For verily I say to you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one point, shall in no way pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

The Douay, or Catholic, version reads: “Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For, amen, I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall not pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Jurisprudence in New York.

By The Stockholder

REMARKABLE events in this singular city of ours are framing history before our eyes, with little remark from their nearest and most interested spectators. That spectacles like those daily unrolling in our presence do not notably evoke contemporary criticism is no novel instance in memorable periods in human affairs. It will be for those who write our annals for other times, the Macaulays of coming generations, to display these occurrences in their true perspective.

The pending trial of Stokes for the homicide of Fisk involves a sequence of effects, dramatic and picturesque to the present observer, and grave with immediate and ultimate importance to all individuals and to the State. One of the most noted men of his country and time is slain by a successful rival in the affections of evidently one of the most fascinating women of her class—a class, however, which happily can never touch the tender regard the world is willing to pay to the memory of Cleopatra, nor claim any share of the delicate grace which adorned Aspasia. Nor to the fallen rival, although by the blare of his life and the catastrophe of his death a hero to half the population in a republic of millions, does the wildest flattery ascribe the great courageous heart of Antony or any part of the eloquence and patriotism of Pericles.

It is not, let us observe, on the character or fate of the slayer or slain that the reader needs to linger. The survivor, arraigned for his life puts on trial the tribunal which chose the grand jury that presents the indictment against him. Meantime, the judge presiding at the trial, before whom the grand jury is impeached, is himself contemporaneously on trial, with no chance of appeal, before the highest law-giving power of the State, summoned to answer charges which, if proven, terminate his official career. He has adjourned the Stokes issue from day to day in order to meet his own impeachers of the higher jurisdiction; the felon has waited that the trial of his judge might go on. Concurrently with this unparalleled exhibition, the magistrate who presided at the choice of the grand jury that Stokes impeaches—the chief magistrate of a municipality of a million people—is also on trial charged with offenses which, if proven, not only terminate his official career, but moreover, consign his person to a felon's cell. Were ever stranger complications evolved in the brain that conceived the marvels of the Arabian Nights!—The Stockholder.

Continue reading: Effects of Novel Reading

ESCAPE FOR THY LIFE.*