Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 21. (11/17/1874)

Review and Herald

Nov 17, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 17, 1874

SPIRITUALITY OF THE LAW OF GOD.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)

TEXT: “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.” Eccl. 12:13, 14.

The idea held by some that the righteousness of the law differs from the righteousness of the gospel is an error. We have seen that the law, as given to Israel, is the measure of holiness; even that holiness of which the divine character is the model. This is the reason why the law is witness to “the righteousness of God.” Man lost that righteousness by transgression. As the holy law which he transgressed now condemns him, his only hope is in Christ, who restores to him that which he lost by sin. As the law is the rule of holiness, of righteousness, was ordained to life, contains man’s whole duty, is perfect, and is sufficient to justify the doer, and as the gospel is a remedy, of course the object of the gospel is to restore man to the position he would have occupied had he never violated God’s holy law. This it does by justifying him, or pardoning his past transgression, and converting him, or turning him away from sin to obedience.

This is so reasonable that it would seem that none could deny it; and it is a necessary deduction from the premises laid down for us in the texts quoted. To this conclusion we are positively shut up by the Scriptures. But if any deny reason and are dissatisfied with the deduction, plain and necessary as it is, we have something yet more evident for their benefit, even a direct statement of the apostle Paul. In Rom. 8:3, 4, he says that the offering of Christ “condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit.” Here is a statement confirming our whole argument in terms too plain to be misunderstood; too direct to admit of any evasion. Now, as the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them who, through faith in Christ, walk after the spirit, and not after the flesh, we must conclude that they in whom the righteousness of the law is not fulfilled do not walk after the spirit, but are still walking after the flesh. This is another necessary conclusion; and to sustain it we have another positive declaration. “The minding of the flesh” is the marginal reading for “the carnal mind;” and the carnal mind is declared to be enmity against God, and not subject to the law of God. Of course, when the carnal mind is removed, when the spiritual mind is given, that is, when the person ceases to walk after the flesh and does walk after the spirit, the enmity is taken away, and the mind is then subject to the law of God. Then, and not till then, is the righteousness of the law fulfilled in that person. Thus clearly is the law established, and not made void, through faith in Christ. Rom. 3:31.

Paul is confessedly a great and deep reasoner, and his conclusions are always based on well-established premises. He has not arrived at the conclusion that the carnal or fleshly mind is not subject to the law of God without a good and sufficient reason. This reason is found in the fact stated in Rom. 7:14, thus: “For we know that the law is spiritual.”

The law has never changed in its nature since it was given by Jehovah. He then showed it to be a holy law in that they would be holy who kept it. In David’s time it was perfect; and in Solomon’s day it contained the whole duty of man. The Saviour said it was the basis of the golden rule, and that it was the outgrowth of the principles of perfect love to God and to man. Therefore, the law was spiritual before the gospel dispensation as well as at the time when Paul wrote.

If the law were carnal, as some affect to believe, the carnal mind would agree with it. But the carnal mind is opposed to it, and cannot be subject to it, even as there can be no agreement between spirituality and carnality. As well could we unite midnight and noon, or bring Belial and Christ in union as to bring the carnal mind into harmony with the spiritual law of God. We cannot imagine how the opposers of the law can overlook this fact. This one statement of the spirituality of the law, Rom. 7:14, should forever silence all objections to it. And with the additional declarations that the carnal mind is opposed to it, and that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the spiritually minded, we have here in brief an overwhelming argument in favor of the law. But even these are not alone. In connection with them we have the apostle’s words that the law would justify the doer; that it is a revelation of the will of God; that by it he will judge the world; that it makes known sin, and proves both Jews and Gentiles guilty before God; that it is a witness to the righteousness of God; that it is not made void through faith, but established by it, inasmuch as the blood of Christ was offered to vindicate the justice of God, not to supersede it; that we shall not sin in order to magnify the grace of God in our pardon, but that we frustrate grace and are the servants of sin unto death if we continue in sin; that even as the law proves a woman guilty of adultery if she marries a second husband while the first is yet living, so are we guilty of spiritual adultery if we seek to be united to Christ while “the old man,” or the “body of sin,” is yet alive; that he [Paul] was proved a sinner by the law; that, though the law was ordained unto justification and life, he found it to be unto condemnation and death because he was a transgressor; that the condemnation of man is no fault of the law, but an argument in its favor, for man is a wrong doer, and the law condemns the wrong, being itself holy, just, and good. In view of all these facts, how reasonable is the statement that the carnal mind is opposed to it; and that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in those who walk after the spirit and not after the flesh. Would that all would make a just application of these truths to their own hearts and lives, and be so instructed by this holy law as to discover their own sinfulness, and so be led to repent and prepare to stand accepted of God in that day when he shall bring every work into judgment.

Considering all this evidence of the morality, spirituality, and holiness of the law, how idle appears the objection to which we have referred, viz.: that there is no love in the ten commandments. Obedience to the law lives in the very atmosphere of love. The Saviour said that all the law (not any part of it alone) hangs on love to God and to man. It is the outgrowth of love. And therefore the apostle says, “Love is the fulfilling of the law.” To fulfill an obligation means to observe or to keep it, as we learn from Gal. 6:2, “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Equally explicit is Rom. 2:27. “And shall not uncircumcision, if it fulfill the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” Fulfilling is the opposite of transgressing, and is keeping. Not, as some would have it, that love is substituted for keeping, but, literally, “Love is the keeping of the law.” There is no true obedience to God without love; neither is there any real love to God without obedience. They are inseparable, and obedience is the only test of love. While one apostle says, “Love is the fulfilling [or keeping] of the law,” another confirms it by saying, “This is the love of God, that ye keep his commandments.”

If the carnal mind yielded at once to the force of argument and reason it would hardly be true to its own rebellious nature. Therefore, when by reason and evident deductions its positions are overthrown, it covers its enmity under evasions. When it is proved that the law is spiritual, and that formality without the spirit of love and obedience never did and never can fulfill the righteousness of the law, then the opposers of the law make answer that we are not required to keep the letter of the law if we keep it in spirit. Nay, more than this, they say that the letter is opposed to the spirit of the law, and so we are not only not required to keep it in the letter, but if we do so it will be at the sacrifice of the spirit.

Of all evasions of the truth this seems the shallowest; and yet we find it often resorted to by many from whom we should look for better things, considering their position and their opportunities to understand the truth.

Admitting that the letter of a law may be kept without the spirit, we cannot admit that a law can be kept in the spirit when it is not kept in the letter. It is not true that the apostle places the letter in opposition to or in contrast with the spirit. Having said that the law is spiritual, that the carnal mind is opposed to it, and that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in the faithful in Christ, he could not also say anything so unreasonable and absurd as the above position supposes.

For example we will take the two precepts spoken by the Saviour and by his apostle. The Saviour said that he who looks upon a woman with lustful desire is guilty of adultery; and John wrote, saying, “Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.” And yet we consider that the letter of the law is kept by him who does not actually commit adultery nor take life. But, on the other hand, we cannot consider that it is possible to keep the spirit of these precepts and break the letter, that is, to commit adultery and kill. Because the letter may be kept without the spirit, it is not therefore true that the spirit of a law may be kept without keeping the letter. Without the letter no precept can exist; and between it and the spirit there must be perfect agreement.

The words of the Saviour in Matt. 5, confirm this. He affirms that keeping and teaching the law are necessary in order to be exalted in the kingdom of Heaven. But he also says that we shall in no case enter that kingdom except our righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Now the scribes and Pharisees were tenacious of the letter of the law, but had entirely lost the spirit of it. Our obedience, therefore, must be on a higher plane than theirs was. But we may not therefore disobey or break the law. If we break it, we neither keep it in letter nor spirit, and then, instead of having a righteousness which exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, we shall fall even below them.

Some have so misconstrued the Saviour’s teachings in this chapter as to take it that he reversed the law, or released us from its obligations. Here we are reminded of the old saying that “the wish is father to the thought.” For, surely, no one can find such an idea in the Saviour’s sayings unless his mind has a strong bent in that direction. When such is the case—when prejudice and prepossession are stronger than reason—it is easy to pervert language to make it conform to the result desired.

After the Saviour had corrected the impression that might arise that he had come to subvert the law, and had indorsed the law as the rule of action to secure a place in the kingdom of God, and required righteousness (which is the same as obedience) exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees, he immediately commented on two of the ten commandments, and, instead of reversing them, most emphatically confirmed them by showing their spirituality, saying that they were even violated by the mind without any outward action. It is strange indeed that anybody can find a reversal of the commandments or a release from obligation to them in such teachings.

But the case is different when he speaks of those things not found in the ten commandments. These he reverses in each case. Thus a clear distinction is made between the law of ten commandments and other laws and customs not of the same nature, and not like it to be perpetuated throughout the gospel dispensation.

Paul, in Rom. 7, speaks of “another law” in his members, or in his flesh, which some have confounded with the law of God. But Paul says he delights in the law of God after the inward man, or serves it with his mind. But that law in his flesh wars against that which he loves and serves with his mind. Again, he says “the law” is holy, just, good, and spiritual; but he also says that in his flesh dwells no good thing, thereby showing that that law which is in his flesh is not the holy law of God. It is contrary to the law of God, as the flesh always has been since the fall of Adam. This law of sin in the flesh is nothing but the movings of the flesh, of the fleshly or carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God. It is a marvel that any should ever confound this with the law of God. Faith in Christ, or the law of the spirit of life in Christ sets us free from the law of sin in the flesh, or the carnal mind, and when that is removed we are brought to delight in the law of God, and its righteousness is fulfilled in us.

This shows a perfect harmony between the will of the Father and the work of the Son. Any other view makes a conflict between the Father and Son, and represents the Son as changing the government of God instead of changing our relation to it. As the law is holy, just, good, and spiritual, and man is a transgressor of it, and worthy of death under its righteous sentence, how reasonable that the Son of God should die to vindicate its claims to the life of the sinner, and to make pardon consistent with justice, and at the same time to change the condition of man, to remove

his rebellion and enmity to God and his government, and bring him back to obedience to the holy law of the Father. How unreasonable that Christ should abolish a holy, just, and spiritual law, and release rebellious man from obligation to obey it. The very thought is impious, and to teach it is to degrade the government of God, and to make the blessed Saviour the minister of sin instead of the minister of righteousness.

While the scriptures herein quoted and the unavoidable conclusions drawn from them most decidedly refute the arguments and remove the objections of those who oppose this holy law, we must not forget that they are not the only ones who ought to be deeply interested in the question of the spirituality of the law. If it is indeed “a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart;” if every secret thing shall be examined in its sacred light, in the Judgment how zealously should we watch our thoughts and the motive of every action. David said, “I hate vain thoughts; but thy law do I love.” Ps. 119:113. Here a plain contrast is presented between the law of God and vain thoughts.

Paul, in calling the motions of sin (really our propensities to sin) “the law of sin” in the flesh, gives us to understand that it is uniformly in the flesh. The carnal or fleshly mind expresses the natural condition of all. Again, the enumeration of sins in Gal. 5 as “the works of the flesh,” shows that these evils inhere in the human heart; that they are not merely in the hearts of a particular class, but in the hearts of all. Truly, the heart of man is deceitful and “desperately wicked.” A proper regard for the sacredness of the law gives us a sense of these things, while the tendency of antinomianism, as was remarked by Andrew Fuller, the celebrated Baptist author, is to render its adherents self-complacent, spiritually proud, and, to use his own language, “excite an irreverent familiarity with God, and in some cases a daring boldness in approaching him; yet such is the strength of the antinomian delusion that it passes for intimate communion with him.”

A careful reading of Ps. 119 will show that David uses the term “thy word” as the equivalent of “thy law.” When he says, verse 105, “thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path,” he means “thy law.” This is confirmed and directly expressed in Prov. 6:23: “For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light.” The law of God exposes the corruption and deceitfulness of the heart, while antinomianism, or opposition to the law, strengthens the deception, and gives a feeling of security even in rebellion against the sacred precepts of Jehovah.

But here again the opposers object that we make too much of the law; that they cannot see in it all that we profess to see. We see in it exactly that which the Scriptures reveal, and which they could also see if they, as did the inspired servants of God, loved it and delighted in it. David, whose whole being seemed enraptured with the holiness of God’s law, still prayed, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Love of, and obedience to, that law had drawn him near to God, and he longed for a deeper knowledge of God and of his truth in which his soul so greatly delighted. His joy in God was far different from that self-sufficient, empty joy which is felt by those whose eyes are not opened, to behold “wondrous things” in the divine statutes.

Though the law was holy from the beginning, and a rule of holiness for man; though the commandment was “exceeding broad,” man has obscured its light by transgression and rebellion, even until his heart has become “enmity against God,” and “not subject to the law of God.” The work of Jesus, as said the prophet Isaiah, is to “magnify the law and make it honorable.” We think he has done this; antinomians think he has not. We think “the law is spiritual;” they think it is not. We think the carnal mind is opposed to it; they think that opposition to it is evidence of the highest state of spirituality. We think the truly converted delight in it; they think that open opposition to it, and even reviling it, is consistent with entire holiness. We think that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in all who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit; they think there is no righteousness of the law worthy of the regard of those who walk after the spirit. And in all this we stand upon the plain testimony of the Scriptures; they do not. They are in open conflict with every Scripture statement concerning the nature and obligation of the holy law of God.

The fact that they do not and cannot see beauty and glory in the law of God should cause them to stop in their career and consider their condition. “The law is light.” Rejecting it they are in darkness. Their darkness is such that they can see neither beauty in the law of God, nor the condition of their own hearts, while they oppose it.

From what has been quoted of the nature of the law which Jehovah gave to Israel, and that obedience to it will exalt us in the kingdom of Heaven; learning that it is holy and spiritual; that it justifies all right and condemns all wrong; we are at no loss to conclude that it is referred to in Rev. 14:12, where the commandments of God are connected with the faith of Jesus. And the application is the more certain inasmuch as we already see the spirit of war manifested which is prophesied of in Rev. 12:18, as coming against those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. This will work out “the patience of the saints.” Compare Rev. 14:12, and Rom. 5:1–3. Never in the history of the church were so many influences combining against those who keep all the commandments of God. We say all; for if the spirit of the sixth commandment cannot be kept by those who take life; and if the spirit of the seventh cannot be kept by those who commit adultery in fact, neither is the spirit of the fourth commandment kept by those who profane the seventh day, the day required to be kept in that commandment, and substitute for it the observance of another day, a day which is positively forbidden to be kept as a Sabbath, by that commandment.

And inasmuch as an exalted place in the kingdom of Heaven is assured to all who “do and teach” that law and those commandments which were already revealed when Jesus commenced his preaching, Matt. 5, and as the Saviour indorsed them as the condition of entering into life, we know that they are the commandments referred to in Rev. 22:14, the doing of which will give right to the tree of life and an entrance through the gates into the city.

God has revealed to us in his word that “the law is spiritual.” And in the light of its holiness and spirituality we shall all be judged. The law will not be regarded by the Judge in that day as rebellious man regards it. Man looks upon it as of little value, and as possessed of little sacredness. The Judge himself has revealed to us that he regards it as holy and spiritual, and therefore of infinite value and importance. Man looks upon sin as a trifling thing; to be sported with at pleasure; easily disposed of in the divine government; and of which the consequences are not serious. God looks upon sin as exceedingly odious and abominable; as having brought reproach and dishonor upon his name and his government; to remove it cost the life of his own dear Son; and which will sink to everlasting perdition every one who is found in any wise or to any degree connected with it when the mediation of our High Priest closes and probation ends. See Rev. 22:11, 12.

We are apt to complain of our fellow-men because we think they judge us harshly beyond our deserts. Yet were we to be judged by the most enlightened of mortals, by men who have the keenest sensibilities and the highest sense of justice, the Judgment would be a matter of small moment to what it actually will be. Who understands the holiness of the law which we have transgressed as God understands it? Who abhors sin as the God of infinite perfection abhors it? Who knows its nature and desert as he knows them? There is food for much serious reflection in the words of the psalmist: “Thou hast set our iniquities before thee: our secret sins in the light of thy countenance.” Ps. 90:8. How will the heart of the sinner fail when he beholds the burning glory of him who said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy,” and sees all his actions, his words, and the secrets of his heart, in the light of infinite purity?

“How will my heart endure The terrors of that day, When earth and heaven before the Judge, Astonished shrink away?”

Thanks be to God that there is a remedy. A healing fountain of infinite value and power has been opened. The love of God has devised the plan and prepared the great salvation. “The blood of his Son, Jesus Christ, cleanses us from all unrighteousness.” It was his mission to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. How fitting it is that we pray, Dear Saviour, let thy work be wrought in me. May I be a worker together with thee, in putting away from myself every sin, every evil word, every vain and evil thought. Enlarge my heart to run in the way of the commandments. Sanctify me, Father, through thy truth: thy word is truth.

But let none presume on God’s goodness and mercy. Let no one think he may sin because grace abounds. Jesus taught that the ill desert of sin is increased by his coming to earth to suffer and die for man. Every cloak is removed, and every excuse is taken away by the wondrous provisions of divine grace. To live in rebellion against God, to break his holy precepts, is awful to contemplate as the action of a puny creature. But to despise the means of God’s devising for our salvation, to trample under foot the blood shed for our redemption, to do despite to the Holy Spirit sent for our guidance and sanctification, is truly “treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?”

“How careful then ought I to live, With what religious fear, Who such a strict account must give For my behavior here? Thou awful Judge of quick and dead, The watchful power bestow; So shall I to my ways take heed, To all I speak or do.”

SLEEP OF THE RIGHTEOUS DEAD.

By E. B. Browning

Sleep soft, beloved! we sometimes say, But have no power to charm away Sad dreams that through the eyelids creep: But never doleful dream again Shall break the happy slumber, when “He giveth His beloved sleep!”

O earth, so full of dreary noises! O men, with wailing in your voices! O delved gold, the miser’s heap! O strife, O curse, that o’er it fall! God strikes a silence through you all, And giveth His beloved sleep!

His dews drop mutely on the hill, His cloud above it saileth still, Though on its slope men sow and reap: More softly than the dew is shed, Or cloud is floated overhead, “He giveth His beloved sleep!”

And friends, dear friends,—when it shall be That this low breath is gone from me, And round my bier ye come to weep, Let one, most loving of you all, Say,—“Not a tear must o’er her fall— He giveth His beloved sleep!”

—E. B. Browning.

The Frontier Skeptic.

Among the early settlers in an embryo town of the North-west was a Mr. Blaine, a stalwart pioneer, noted for his courage and physical prowess. He was also, though uneducated, intelligent, well-read, and famed for his love of, and ability in, debate. His sledge-hammer fist settled many a border quarrel, while his patience under provocation, readiness at repartee, and rough, broad eloquence, made him no unworthy opponent in an intellectual tournament. An avowed infidel, he boldly challenged the claims of Christianity, and was never better pleased than when he had put to confusion some combative but ill-equipped champion of the cross.

Spring had come. As if by magic, instead of the shroud of snow and the dead, matted grass, the prairies were covered with flowers and verdure. What a suggestive scene! Mr. Parsons, the resident missionary, inspired by the re-awakening of nature, preached a stirring sermon on the resurrection. Tuesday succeeding, a deacon of the newly organized church met him, and with grave countenance said:—

“Your sermon last Sunday has caused a great deal of remark. You know the settlers drop in at the hotel of an evening. Last night a large number were there. Blaine was present, and he ridiculed your discourse unmercifully. He sent by me a request that you discuss the doctrine with him publicly. And I don’t see how you can get along with his objections.”

“What are they?” inquired the preacher.

“He argues that it would defeat justice to raise the body from the grave for purposes of reward and punishment. Because, according to physiology, the human organism undergoes a complete change in all its constituent particles once in seven, if not in every two or three, years. Now, if a man dies at forty-nine, which of the seven bodies will come forth at the sounding of the Judgment trumpet? And, he asks, Shall the body of the aged person suffer, or be made happy, for what the child-body did, when in the interim there have taken place many total transformations, each one a new creature, wholly distinct from the preceding? He stated, to illustrate this scientific fact, that a gentleman recently called on him, who turned out to be an intimate friend in their younger days, but so altered in appearance that Blaine did not recognize him. He affirms that after one of these physiological revolutions, we are as much a different being as if just born.”

“Was there no one of the company who could answer Mr. Blaine?”

“No,” was the reply.

“Well, deacon, don’t you worry. I’ll see that this matter is properly disposed of,” said his pastor, as he bade his official helper a smiling adieu.

Now “out West,” they “fight fire with fire,” sometimes. If, for example, the prairie grass is aflame, the pioneer burns toward the approaching conflagration. And the religious pioneer learns to meet error with other weapons than stately sentences, hot from the shelter of the sanctuary at non-attending cavillers.

The missionary was not wanting in frontier tact. After a meditative dinner, during which a peculiar twinkle of the eye revealed that his reflections were anything but somber, he took his way to Mr. Blaine’s, a distance of three miles. Back of that worthy’s cabin was a strip of woods. Between the latter and the dwelling on the unfenced prairie, a handsome “hobbled” horse was grazing. Warily approaching from the shadow of the trees, Mr. Parsons captured the beast, freed his legs, clapped on a halter, mounted, and, pursuing a circuitous course, reached home unobserved, and “tied up” the confiscated steed in his snug log stable.

A few hours elapsed, and Mr. Blaine and his son were rushing hither and thither, to learn if any one had seen their horse. Then the settlement was excited by a report that the lost beast had been stolen, for the owner declared that the hobble had been found in the grass, and “it could not have been removed from the limbs of the animal without hands.” Search was fruitless, however, and next day at evening twilight, a tumultuous assemblage at the village inn were talking over the occurrence with a view of devising measures to discover, if possible, the culprit, and protect the settlement against further depredations. While the company was thus occupied, Mr. Parsons came calmly riding into town on Mr. Blaine’s horse, and, proceeding to the tavern, leisurely dismounted. But he had been seen by a wide-awake urchin, who, anxious to be the first with the news, ran into the inn, shouting:—

“The minister’s come with Mr. Blaine’s horse!”

The effect was electrical. Pell mell rushed the convention out of doors, Mr. Blaine’s huge form foremost. Sure enough, there was the clergyman quietly hitching the lost horse to a post.

The gratified owner, with a grateful grin ornamenting his sun-burnt face, stepped rapidly forward, saying:—

“Well, parson, I didn’t expect that you’d be the one to recover the critter. Where’d you find her?”

“Find who?” returned the minister, in well-affected surprise.

“Why—my horse.”

“Your horse!” retorted the missionary; “do you pretend that this animal is your property?”

“Oh, now, parson, none of your joking; of course she’s mine. I could tell her from a thousand.” And he walked confidently round the beast, surveying her with a complacent air. “Just her height, build, color, style—one white foot, spot in the forehead—know her as well as I know myself.”

“Blaine’s horse, and no mistake,” echoed the bystanders.

“Gentlemen,” gravely observed the preacher, “I trust you will not be rash in your judgment. There is evidently an error somewhere. A remarkable resemblance may exist between this creature and the one my friend, Mr. Blaine, owned; but I think I can prove, even to his satisfaction, that this is an entirely different animal.”

“Different!” cried the owner; “here comes my son; see if he won’t recognize her. This way, Daniel.”

“Oh, good! There’s Nell. Where’d you find her, father?” exclaimed the lad.

“Isn’t that sufficient?” asked the father, triumphantly. “And my wife would testify to the same,” he added.

“Nevertheless,” answered the missionary, “if the crowd will do me the favor to return into the hotel, I will convince them that this is not Mr. Blaine’s beast, or surrender the animal to him until we have more light on the subject.”

“That’s fair,” responded several; “let’s hear what the pastor has to say.”

“Now, my friends,” said the missionary, after his hearers were seated, “I would like Mr. Blaine to inform us how long he has owned the beast now in dispute.”

“I bought her seven years ago this spring; my wife and boy will remember about it.”

“How long have you been married?”

“Twenty-two years last January; but I don’t see what that has to do with the case.”

“And what is the age of the lad you call your son?”

“Just seventeen,” emphatically.

“Gentlemen,” remarked the clergyman, “you have heard Mr. Blaine’s affirmations. I hope you will give them due weight. I came honestly by the animal he claims, and sincerely desire that he may lose nothing

properly belonging to him. But I shall submit evidence showing, first, that Mr. Blaine did not buy this horse; second, that this horse now claimed by him, he has no ownership in; third, that his testimony and that of the witnesses he cites is unreliable, because he was never legally married, and therefore the lady he lives with is not his wife, and the young man he terms his son, is not truly his child.”

“What’s that?” roared the pioneer, starting up. “Parson, you’re gone crazy!”

“If I have,” mildly answered the missionary, “of course I cannot sustain what I assert, and you’ll get the horse; so you can afford to listen.”

“The evidence I shall present,” he resumed, “is not of the sort commonly received in the courts, but it is of a kind that neighbor Blaine cannot consistently reject. You have heard of the science of physiology. By it we are taught that the human organism experiences a universal renewing every seven, perhaps, every two or three, years. Am I correct, Mr. Blaine?”

“Certainly, but what’s that to the point?”

“You’ll see.”

“By Mr. Blaine’s own statement—and he says his wife and boy will confirm it—he did not buy this horse within the time when this physiological change occurs. It was, therefore, another Mr. Blaine who made the purchase. Hence, it would defeat the purposes of justice for the present Mr. Blaine to claim the reward of what that other Mr. Blaine did in paying the price of the animal. At the end of seven years, that Mr. Blaine became extinct, and this man bearing the same name is as much a new being as if just brought into the world. He is not, then, the proprietor of this horse. Moreover, the horse that the first Mr. Blaine paid for, ceased also to be, at the termination of the seven years. And the existing animal is, in all her constituent particles, another beast, a colt, so to speak, without sire or dam, dropped full grown, by physiological science. What right has Mr. Blaine to this new horse? True, Mr. Blaine professes to identify the animal—and yet he could not identify his old friend, because the fatal physiological transformation had been passed! I should be sorry to question his veracity. But, gentlemen, twenty-two years ago last January, a certain Mr. Blaine was married. Seven years flew by, and his wife ceased to be, physiologically. Another Mr. Blaine sat by the fireside, and another Mrs. Blaine sat by his side. Did they live together conjugally? Certainly not, if honest, unless united in marriage. Three times the physiological change came, the present Mr. Blaine and lady being the final result. They pass as husband and wife. Who has seen their marriage certificate? It would ‘defeat the purposes of justice’ for this couple to enjoy the privileges of wedded life, on the strength of the ceremony performed twenty-two years ago, for the pair then made one. Consider, too, the condition of young Daniel—kept in subjection, forced to do duty as a child, when the Mr. and Mrs. Blaine who claim his obedience and service, are not the persons of whom he was born, and he not the being that then gladdened the parental hearts. To recapitulate. This Mr. Blaine, according to physiology, is not the Mr. Blaine who bought a horse seven years ago last spring. This horse, according to physiology, is not the horse that was then purchased. This Mr. Blaine is not the Mr. Blaine, by the same evidence, who was married twenty-two years ago. Daniel Blaine is not the son that was born seventeen years ago. I have, therefore, demonstrated that the horse claimed by Mr. Blaine is not his, and as they are leading such irregular lives, of what value is their testimony? I rest the case here.”

The applause that followed this speech made it plain that the keen-witted frontiersmen saw the point. When the uproar had subsided, Mr. Blaine frankly said:—

“Well, parson, I own that you’ve beat me this time.”

“Do you confess that these physiological changes do not destroy personal identity? That, if a man, for instance, commits murder at twenty, it would be right to hang him for it at fifty?”

“Yes.”

“Do you then give up the physiological objection to the resurrection of the dead?”

“Guess I shall have to.”

“Then I give up the horse. Gentlemen,” he added, addressing the listening group, “Mr. Blaine had often said to me, ‘When you want to use my nag, just take her along,’ so wishing last Tuesday to use her for his special benefit, I availed myself of his offer. And as in finding his horse he has found the truth, I trust he will forgive the inconvenience to which my little stratagem has subjected him.”—Examiner and Chronicle.

Continue reading: Thoughts on 1 Tim. 4:1-5