Earlier text: Development of Indulgences in the ChurchTemperance.
By Egbert L. Bangs
What Makes the Difference?
I AM sitting by an open window. It is that witching hour just after sundown, before it has grown dark. All sorts of vehicles are in the street before me. I am looking out upon the business thoroughfare of a very lively town. Three places of business right across the way are open, and they are all having a good trade, for it is Saturday, and people from the country have poured in, as they always do on that day. Out of one of those open doors there comes a plain-looking man, leading a little boy by the hand. The boy has on a new suit of clothes, and is happy in the consciousness of being well dressed. The sign over the door where they have been, reads: CLOTHING AND FURNISHING GOODS.
Several persons have gone in at the next door, but they have not come out yet. At the third door there stands a farmer's two-horse wagon; a cook stove, bright with tinware and copper boilers, has just been lifted in. They are putting in the end-board, and now they start—brown-faced man and buxom wife, for their home in the country. Over the door of the place they came out of, I read in great wooden letters: Between these two places there is another door. It admits you to a very attractive place. The windows are a perfect curiosity shop. There are stuffed birds, mounted on the dry branches of an evergreen. There are also stuffed animals, so naturally placed that they seem instinct with life. Strains of music from time to time come from that elegantly-kept place of business. But whom do I see going in there? That well dressed gentleman, with a red nose, is one of our principal business men. The young fellow who comes after him belongs in a dry goods store. The seedy-looking man who brings up the rear is a day laborer. He has just been paid fifty cents for sweeping a cellar and picking up the rubbish in a door-yard. Lucky fellow, he is going to invest in what he calls internal improvements. The sign at the middle place of business, reads: This kind of business is regarded as a necessary one. I heard a prominent business man—one of our city fathers—say the other day that grass would grow in our streets were it not for the places where liquor is sold. I, for one, would let our city or any other city go to grass, and would try the dairy business on the spot for a living, sooner than I would thrive by a business that is kept moist with the tears of women, and red with the blood of murdered humanity. But glance at those three open doors again. Let us ask each of the men who preside within them the same question. "Mr. A:—What do you pay for the privilege of selling ready-made clothing?" "What do I pay?" why nothing at all. Thank God, I live in a free country." "Mr. B:—What do you pay for the privilege of carrying on your business?" "I pay three hundred dollars, sir," says Mr. B, as he takes the change for a "set-em-up-all-round," and drops it in his till. "And," continues he, "it's a cursed shame to make me pay it; I tell you, and don't you forget it." "Mr. C:—What do you pay for selling hardware?" "Nothing at all, sir. Can't I sell you a lawn mower, or a George Washington hatchet, or a catch-em-alive mouse trap?" "No," I say; "I've just come out of a catch-em-alive trap that keeps the grass from growing in our streets; a trap that does double duty, like the old-fashioned clock that kept the time of day accurately and gave two quarts of milk on Sunday; I don't want to buy anything." I go out of that place, the last of the three, with a puzzle, so to speak, on my hands. The puzzle is this: Why does the man in the middle place of business, he who is the meaty part of the sandwich, pay for the right to sell his property when neither the man on his right hand, nor the man on his left pay a single cent for the privilege of selling theirs? Is it just? Liquor dealers do a great deal of cheap swearing on the subject. Have they any cause for their profanity? The whole community would rise up in arms if bonds were required of every business man, and if he were compelled to pay heavily for the privilege of selling his goods. If it is right to sell liquor, if it is an honest calling, if it benefits the community—then, clearly, it is unjust to make any distinction between selling liquor, and selling ready-made clothing or hardware. But suppose it to be a curse, as it surely is. What then? How does it look to take money as a compensation for an injury to society, and then credit a wicked business with helping us to pay our taxes? Our Saxon ancestors allowed the most notorious offenders to commute for murder. We commute for almost everything. Cash down for a quantity, buys milk tickets, dinner tickets, and railroad tickets, at reduced rates. Cash down would save the neck of a Saxon murderer after the commission of a crime. We go further. Cash down in advance, and the seller of liquor is allowed to be an accessory to every crime under heaven. Shades of our Saxon ancestors, how your descendants have improved upon your uncouth legislation!—Egbert L. Bangs, in Christian at Work. Mrs. Brown on Fast Young Men.
By Merchant Traveler
WHAT is my opinion of fast young men? It isn't as good as might be, and still it is better than the subject merits. I sat at my window the other day, and I noticed four or five “bloods” standing in front of a saloon from which they had just emerged, wiping their lips. I knew they were all society men, and presently I saw a pretty young lady of their “set” coming down the street toward them. Now, thought I, if that girl had the proper nerve she would pass those fellows by as she would any other set of loafers whose character was as good as theirs, but whose social position by accident of birth was less elevated. I wagered with myself that she would not do it; and I won the wager. She spoke to them as sweetly and womanly as if every man in the lot was as pure and as good as she was. If they had been women, instead of men, and she had known them, how quickly she would have cut them from the list of her acquaintances, and how haughtily she would have snubbed them! These fast young men spend an evening in a gambling den, associate with disreputable men, swear like a mad teamster, have more or less “lady friends” they dare not recognize in public places, and so on down a long list of fashionable eccentricities, and yet they have the gall to apply for places of trust in the confidence and respect of decent women and men, and the startling part of it is, they are accepted as fit associates for mothers, daughters, sons, husbands, and fathers. They may say they are not bad at heart, but are merely “sowing their wild oats.” Conceded; but in the name of all that is good and respectable, why are they not excluded from homes until the so-called necessary “wild oats” period is past? “Wild oats” is a very contagious kind of a vegetable, and because a few sow them, it does not follow that the seed must be spread broadcast and grow up into a crop of ruined homes, dishonored lives, and eternal destruction!—Merchant Traveler. THAT the apostle has in this chapter introduced the service of the two covenants, all must admit. We will carry out the comparison by an examination of other scriptures concerning them. In Heb. 8:6, Paul says Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, that is, of the new covenant. But "a mediator is not a mediator of one." Gal. 3:20. There must be at least two parties between whom he mediates. The parties in this matter are God, the Father, the Lawgiver, and man, the sinner. "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." 1 Tim. 2:5. Therefore, as Christ is the mediator of this covenant between God and men, he is not the party covenanting, but the Father is. "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." We know that these are the words of the Father, and not of the Son; for the Son is the mediator of the covenant, and, as already shown, there must be two contracting parties between whom he mediates. Again, when the covenanting party says: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jer. 31:33), we know that it refers to the law of the Father, the covenanting party, and not to the law of the Son, the mediator. It is through the instrumentality of the mediator that the law of the covenanter is put into the hearts of those with whom the covenant is made. See 2 Cor. 3:3; 5:18, 19, and many other scriptures which show that Jesus puts away our sin and reconciles us to his Father. God publicly proclaimed his law to Israel when he made a covenant with them at Horeb. He wrote it upon two tables of stone. When Moses brought down these tables, when he came from the presence of the Lord, his face shone with glory so that he had to veil it while he talked with Israel. The glory upon his face represented the glory of that covenant of which he was the mediator, as Paul plainly says, which is done away. The law (which was not veiled, and is not done away) was put into the ark, and over it the high priest sprinkled the blood of the sin-offering, to take away their sins, showing that in regard to this law they were sinners. This was the law concerning which the covenant was made. Compare Ex. 9:5-8; Deut. 4:12, 13; Ex. 24:6-8. When God spoke to Israel by Jeremiah, six hundred years before Christ, concerning the covenant he made with their fathers, and promised to make a new covenant with them in which he would put his law in their hearts, and forgive their sins, their minds were at once directed to the law which was the condition of the first covenant; for their sins, of which forgiveness was promised in the new covenant, were transgressions of that law. In the old covenant the law was written in tables of stone; in the new, in "fleshly tables of the heart." Coming down to the New Testament, Jesus said he did not come to make void the law (Matt. 5:17), and Paul says it is not made void through faith (Rom. 3:31); but by it all are condemned before God, for by it is the knowledge of sin. Verses 19, 20. He was convinced of sin by the law (Rom. 7:7); and he consented unto it as holy, just, and good, showing that his mind approved it, insomuch that he called it the law of his mind. Verses 16, 23. And not only did his mind approve it, but his heart embraced it, for he delighted in it after the inward man. Verse 22. All this shows that that pre-existing law which is not made void by faith in Christ, which the Saviour did not destroy, now proves men sinners, and that Paul, as a representative man under the new covenant, had this law put in his mind and written in his heart. And so the promise of the new covenant was fulfilled in him. And he also declared that the very object of the gospel of Christ is that the righteousness, or precept, of the law may be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Rom. 8:4. By this is shown that they who violate the law walk after the flesh, while they who fulfill it through faith in Christ walk after the Spirit, which is yet further shown in Verse 7: "Because the carnal mind (literally, the minding of the flesh) is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God." Paul also says "that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. Of course the spiritually minded love and obey it, while the carnally minded can do neither. Now, from the stand-point of these words of Paul, of his own experience, and of the promises of the new covenant, it is easy to perceive the drift of his remarks in 2 Cor. 3. We, the apostles, said he, are able ministers of the new covenant, not of the old. That was glorious; this excels in glory. In that the law was written on stones; in this, in these fleshly tables of the heart. When that was ordained, the mediator, or first priest, veiled his face to hide from Israel a glory which they could not look upon, the import of which they did not understand; in this, we all with open face behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. The law, when written only on stone, can have no converting power, and there was no promise of forgiveness in that covenant; in this, the law is written in the heart by the Spirit of God, past sin is forgiven, and the subjects are changed into the same image, the image of the Lord, the mediator, from glory to glory. As our sins are taken away by the blood of the covenant, and the carnal mind, the enmity to the law, is removed, we are reconciled to God, at peace with him, and can behold the glory with unveiled face, because we are partakers of the same glory. One point, barely mentioned, deserves a further notice in this connection. The law on the tables of stone was separated from all other laws, and was put into the ark over which the priests ministered for sin. A certain writer, highly recommended by his denomination, when pressed to give a reason for this distinction and separation of the decalogue from all other laws, said:— "The decalogue is the constitution of the Mosaic code, i. e., it sustains the same relation to the laws that the Constitution of the United States sustains to our laws. . . . I can easily account for God's writing only the ten commandments. They were the Jewish constitution, and constitutions are usually better cared for than other laws." This is truth, and it is an important concession. And as our laws are subject to change or abolition without affecting the Constitution, so were theirs; the special, local, or positive laws given to Israel were abolished, but that did not affect the constitution on which they were based. That was of force and convinced of sin before they were given, and it remains of force since they were nailed to the cross; for it yet remains a truth that "by the law is the knowledge of sin." We have traced these precepts from the beginning, and they have ever taken hold on man's moral relations to God. They are the basis, or constitution, of God's moral government on earth; and as long as that government exists—as long as man's moral relations to his Creator exist—so long must these precepts endure. But the objector says this was the constitution of the Jewish government, and that having passed away, the constitution is no longer of force. A more plausible objection cannot be stated, but it is a fallacy. The fact that the ten precepts are moral and are indispensable for the welfare of society and the preservation of morality and religion, is quite sufficient to refute the objection. They are, in fact, the groundwork of all correct human governments; but the rise and fall of these governments has no effect on their perpetuity or power. Our Government does not make it wrong to steal and to kill. It protects society by punishing these actions because they are wrong. And so it is in respect to all civil governments, the Jewish not excepted. Blasphemy, murder, adultery, etc., would have been wrong if the Jewish government or Jewish nation had never existed. According to the theory of the opposers of the law, these things first became wrong after Israel left Egypt! If it had been the basis of the Jewish economy only, having no force outside of that typical system, the objection would bear with force. But the most bitter opponents of the law accept the law as a necessity in society; they even pay a portion of respect to the fourth commandment by not discarding entirely its principle, for they choose a day as a substitute for the one enjoined in that commandment. We have proved that that law was the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and also by both Scripture and reason, that it was, and is, binding on the Gentiles, as well as on the Jews. Therefore its being connected with any temporary system has no effect on its perpetuity. But there is one very important fact, clearly revealed in Scripture, which this objection disregards. We insist that "the kingdom of Israel" is not abolished. It is only suspended for a season "till he come whose right it is." Eze. 21:25-27. Israel is the scriptural name for the seed and heirs of Abraham, and therefore Israel cannot cease from before the Lord as long as the promises to Abraham stand sure. In Eph. 2, speaking to Gentile converts to Christianity, Paul said they were, before their conversion, "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel; and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Both covenants were made with Israel. Heb. 8:8, 9. To them pertain the covenants, the promises, the adoption, and the glory. Rom. 9:4. And therefore "salvation is of the Jews." John 4:22. The covenant made with Israel (Jer. 31:31), the promises, the adoption, the glory, the salvation, all remain to this day. These did not pass away that substitutes might be given to the Gentiles, but the middle wall of partition is broken down, and the Gentiles are "grafted in" (Rom. 11), "that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." Eph. 3:6. The conclusion is drawn by the apostle in Eph. 2:19. Still addressing converts from the Gentiles, he says: "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners [from the commonwealth of Israel], but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." It needs no argument to show that when the Gentiles are grafted in and become citizens of the commonwealth of Israel, they are in duty bound to obey the constitution of that commonwealth. And this they will do if they are good citizens; and if they refuse to do this, they disfranchise themselves. See Rom. 6:14-16. In harmony with this idea, Rev. 21:12 says the New Jerusalem, the heavenly city, has its twelve gates named after the twelve tribes of the children of Israel. The "God of Israel" hath prepared for them a city, and because the commandments are Israel's constitution, it is said, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14. None but the "Israel of God" will633enter those gates. Gal. 6:16. Compare Rom. 2:28, 29; Gal. 3:19. The naming of the gates of the heavenly city after the twelve tribes of Israel is suggestive. That city belongs to the Israel of God. To enter those gates they must keep his commandments. When God gathered his chosen people on earth to the city which was called by his name, he gave by the Spirit a pattern of a temple. 1 Chron. 28:11, 12, 19. In this temple was an inner sanctuary, called the most holy place, in which was set the ark containing the constitution of the commonwealth. It was called the ark of the covenant. That city and temple are now destroyed, and the Israel of God, heirs of the promises, are taught to fix their hopes on the New Jerusalem, the city above, the mother of us all. And as in the earthly tabernacle the high priest was appointed to minister over the ark in behalf of the law which the people had transgressed, so in the heavenly, we have an High Priest ministering for sinners. And, as "by the law is the knowledge of sin," he ministers to remove their transgressions of the law, and to vindicate its authority. And thus we read, "The temple of God was opened in Heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." Rev. 11:18. Here we behold Israel's High Priest in Israel's city, and the great constitution laid up in the ark. Truly the constitution is well "cared for," as it is of exceeding great value. We are willing to submit this part of the subject to every candid reader. The following points are established:— - The ministration, or service, of the priests was not written on the tables of stone.
- The distinction between the ministration and that which was written on stone is a necessary distinction, resting on an evident fact, and is sustained by such authors as Anderson, Olshausen, Bloomfield, Lange, Dean Alford, Conybeare and Howson, and Barnes.
- That Paul speaks of the ministration, in a figure, as the above eminent authors clearly show.
- The opposition view supposes that to be written on stone which, as a plain matter of fact, was not written thereon, and makes that void which Paul says is not made void, and perverts the gospel of Christ by substituting license for pardon.
- Both the context and other scriptures, especially the promises of the new covenant, show that that which was written on the tables of stone is now written on "the fleshly tables of the heart."
The "Teaching of the Apostles."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
CHARACTER OF EARLY WRITINGS IN GENERAL.
THE admirers of this document have been led to put unlimited confidence in it, as a production fully equal to the New Testament, because the same manuscript in which it was found contains the two epistles of Clement of Rome, the epistle of Barnabas, and the epistles of Ignatius. We shall therefore devote a little attention to them to see if proximity to them materially enhances its value. But first we wish to show the general character of the writings ascribed to the early Fathers. In the preceding article we quoted testimony from Mosheim, which showed that forgery, interpolations, and the palming off of spurious writings, were common practices even in the early part of the second century. So, then, however much credit for honesty and orthodoxy we may be inclined to give to the Fathers themselves, we cannot depend with any certainty on their perverted writings. It is impossible to distinguish the genuine from the false. But this need not cause us any concern, since they were not inspired, and, consequently, their testimony is of no more authority on any subject than that of anybody else. When we want information concerning a question of morals or of Christian duty, we must go to the Holy Scriptures—the inspired word of God. That alone is a sure guide. In his "Ecclesiastical History," Book I., Cent. II., Part II., chap. III., sections 5 and 6, after having spoken of the works of several of the Fathers, among which he mentions certain writings of Clement of Alexandria, Tatian, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus of Antioch, Dr. Mosheim says, "All these works are lost." He then continues:— "But this loss is the less to be regretted, since it is certain that no one of these expositors could be pronounced a good interpreter. They all believed the language of Scripture to contain two meanings, the one obvious, and corresponding with the direct import of the words, the other recondite, and concealed under the words, like a nut by the shell; and neglecting the former, as being of little value, they bestowed their chief attention on the latter; that is, they were more intent on throwing obscurity over the sacred writings by the fictions of their own imaginations, than of searching out their true meaning." In the next section he says: "It is therefore not strange that all sects of Christians can find in what are called 'the Fathers,' something to favor their own opinions and systems." And in section 8 of the same chapter, after having mentioned several other writers, among them Irenæus and Tertullian, Mosheim says:— "In these disputants there was something more of ingenuousness and good faith, than in those who undertook the support of truth in the following centuries. For the convenient wiles of sophistry, and the dishonorable artifices of debate, had not yet gained admittance among Christians. Yet a man of sound judgment, who has due regard for truth, cannot extol them highly. Most of them lacked discernment, knowledge, application, good arrangement, and force. They often advance very flimsy arguments, and such as are suited rather to embarrass the mind than to convince the understanding." This is the character of the writings which contain the strongest arguments that can be found for the observance of Sunday. But we quote from Mosheim once more. In the tenth section of the chapter above referred to, he states that learned men are not agreed as to the estimation in which these Fathers should be held, and says:— "To us it appears that their writings contain many things excellent, well considered, and well calculated to enkindle pious emotions; but also many things unduly rigorous, and derived from the Academic and Stoic philosophy; many things vague and indeterminate; and many things positively false, and inconsistent with the precepts of Christ. If one deserves the title of bad master in morals, who has no just ideas of the proper boundaries and limitations of Christian duties, nor clear and distinct conceptions of the different virtues and vices, nor a perception of those general principles to which recurrence should be had in all discussions respecting Christian virtue, and therefore very often talks at random, and blunders in expounding the divine laws, though he may say many excellent things, and excite in us considerable emotion; then I can readily admit that in strict truth this title belongs to many of the Fathers." Much more of this sort of testimony might be cited from Mosheim, who certainly cannot be called a prejudiced witness, but this is sufficient. And writers of this class are they whom we are asked to accept as authority for Sunday-keeping, and as competent expositors of the teaching of the apostles. We beg to be excused. When we can find no better authority for the observance of a day of rest, than they are, we will be our own authority. We cannot close this article with anything more to the point, and more worthy of general acceptance, than the following paragraph from "The Ancient Church," by Dr. Wm. Killen, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Pastoral Theology to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. After having noticed the erroneous and absurd expositions of the Fathers, he says:— "It would seem as if the great Head of the Church permitted these early writers to commit the grossest mistakes, and to propound the most foolish theories, for the express purpose of teaching us that we are not implicitly to follow their guidance. It might have been thought that authors who flourished on the borders of apostolic times, knew more of the mind of the Spirit than others who appeared in succeeding ages; but the truths of Scripture, like the phenomena of the visible creation, are equally intelligible to all generations. If we possess spiritual discernment, the trees and the flowers will display the wisdom and the goodness of God as distinctly to us as they did to our first parents; and if we have the 'unction from the Holy One,' we may enter into the meaning of the Scriptures as fully as did Justin Martyr or Irenæus [and far more]. To assist us in the interpretation of the New Testament, we have at command a critical apparatus of which they were unable to avail themselves. Jehovah is jealous for the honor of his word, and he has inscribed in letters of light over the labors of his most ancient interpreters—'CEASE YE FROM MAN.' The 'opening of the Scriptures,' so as to exhibit their beauty, their consistency, their purity, their wisdom, and their power, is the clearest proof that the commentator is possessed of 'the key of knowledge.' When tried by this test, Thomas Scott or Matthew Henry are better entitled to confidence than either Origen or Gregory Thaumaturgus. The Bible is its own safest expositor. 'The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.'" —Period II., Section I., Chapter I., last paragraph. In our next article we shall notice the writings in whose immediate company the "Teaching" was found. What Constitutes a Christian?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A SHORT time ago the Chinese of San Francisco had a grand celebration in honor of one of their gods. The Chronicle gave a full account of this heathen festival, and of the procession through the streets, which, with the idol at the head, was marked by all the gaudy display peculiar to the Chinese. The Pacific (Congregationalist) copies the Chronicle's report, and adds the following comment:— "This is still called a Christian country, and there are still some who teach their children, 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me,' and 'Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.' What do these boys and girls think as they see the regular sacrificial smoked hog carried in procession to the joss-house, and placed before the idol?" We are glad for this testimony of the Pacific as to what makes one a Christian. Not because it is anything new, but because it is in harmony with the Bible. "This is still called a Christian country," it says. Why? Because parents still teach their children the commandments of God. A more direct and truthful statement of the case could not have been made. Let us see how well it is sustained by the Scriptures.634 The definition of Christian as "one who believes the doctrine of Christ," will be accepted by all. He said, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." John 15:10. That these commandments are not something peculiar to Christ, and distinct from the Father's law, we learn from John 17:14, where Christ says to the Father, "I have given them thy word;" and again: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John 7:16; and yet again from John 6:38: "For I came down from Heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." From these declarations we should understand that Christ came to declare the righteousness of God's law, and to enable men to obey it. In this he set the example, and whosoever walks as he walked, i. e., keeps the commandments of God, is a Christian. This conclusion is verified by Christ's statement concerning the law, in his sermon on the mount. "Think not," he says, "that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:17-19. Some affect to understand from verse 19 that breakers of the law may gain an entrance into Heaven, but that they will occupy a low place; but that is not the meaning of the text. The true force of the verse is grasped by Dr. Clarke, who says:— "He who by his mode of acting, speaking, or explaining, the words of God, sets the holy precept aside, or explains away its force or meaning, shall be called least—shall have no place in the kingdom of Christ here, nor in the kingdom of glory above. That this is the meaning of these words is evident enough from the following verse." Christ, then, kept and taught the commandments; and he expressly declares, what the Pacific implies, that none who do otherwise can be followers of him. "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46. Now read a few testimonies from the apostles. John says: "He that saith he abideth in Him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." 1 John 2:6. Peter contrasts the frailty of man with the enduring nature of the word of God, saying that all flesh shall wither as the grass, "But the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this," he says, "is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." 1 Pet. 1:25. The gospel, then, proclaims the righteousness and stability of God's law. How could it be otherwise? The gospel brings the good news of pardon for sin. But sin is the transgression of the law, and the very act of announcing a pardon bears witness to the existence of the law; for without the law there can be no transgression, and consequently no necessity for pardon. To offer a pardon to a man after the abolition of the law which condemned him, would be an insult. As the gospel of Christ teaches obedience to the law, so it carries with it that assistance which makes it possible for man to keep the law. Paul says: "For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh [it could not justify a sinner], God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness [requirement, or precept] of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:3, 4. All these witnesses agree that a Christian is one who follows Christ in obeying the commandments of God, using the strength which Christ bestows. One more testimony we will add. Paul, as the representative of the Christian ministry, says: "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Cor. 5:20, 21. What is it to be made "the righteousness of God"? If "all unrighteousness is sin" (1 John 5:17), then righteousness is the exact opposite of sin; but "sin is the transgression of the law," and therefore righteousness is the keeping of the law. So then 2 Cor. 5:21 simply states that Christ's work was in order that we might be brought into perfect harmony with the law of God. It is true that the Pacific did not mention the entire law as requisite to constitute one a Christian; it only mentioned the first and second precepts of the law. But we recall the Saviour's words, that "it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. Also the words of James: "For he that said [or, the law which said], Do not commit adultery, said also Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." Jas. 2:11. The Pacific will, no doubt, readily admit that the keeping of these two commandments (the sixth and seventh) is as necessary to perfect Christianity as is the keeping of the first and second. Very well, then we will try again: For he that said, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image," said also, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Now if thou make no graven image, nor worship any false god, yet if thou labor on the seventh day, thou art become a transgressor of the law. The law being a unit, incapable of being divided, we cannot see why keeping and teaching the fourth commandment is not as necessary to constitute one a perfect Christian as is the keeping of the first or second. Will the Pacific accept this conclusion, and act accordingly? If not, why not?