Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 26. (5/6/1875)

Signs of the Times

May 6, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · May 6, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

SPIRITUAL GIFTS.

BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER.

No truth of the Bible can be more clearly proved than this, that the signs following the believers, spoken of by the Saviour in the great commission, are identical with the gift of the Holy Spirit which was promised by the apostles who first preached under that commission on the day of Pentecost; and these signs were designed to continue in the church as long as the commission is of force, or as long as the gospel is preached.

But some object that the commission itself was limited to the apostles, and expired with them, and, therefore, they say that promise is no longer extended to believers. Let us look at the result of this affirmation. The commission included two prominent points: a duty and a promise. The duty is baptism; the promise is of the signs or gift of the Holy Spirit. When the apostles first preached under this commission these two were associated together. Now, if the promise is annulled by the expiration of the commission, then the duty enjoined has also expired. This cannot be controverted that the apostles baptized under this commission, and by no other authority. Therefore, if the commission was for the apostles only, and expired with them, then there has existed no authority to baptize since their day; for no other authority in the gospel can be shown by which they or any others ever baptized. And it is a noteworthy fact that they who deny the perpetuity of the gifts, and of the commission under which they were promised to believers, yet go directly to Acts, to that day of Pentecost, for authority to baptize, both of precept and example. Such inconsistency on their part is evidence that they are in error. This thought should lead to more carefulness in taking their positions; for all can see that they are in error in regard to the commission and the gifts, or else the baptism they administer is unauthorized and unscriptural.

The perpetuity of the gifts is the subject of direct remark by another apostle who acted under this same commission, in 1 Cor. 13:9, 10:—

"For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."

It is a truth to be deplored that men are sometimes so blinded as to rest their cause on the very texts which testify against them, as this has often been quoted by those who deny the perpetuity of the gifts. It is easy to catch at the sound of the words, "done away," but quite another thing to point out the time when this shall be fulfilled. In regard to that we read farther:—

"For now we see through a glass darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." Ver. 12.

This shows that Paul looked forward to a time when he should know more and see more clearly than he then did by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And when we consider that he had been caught up to the third heaven, and by "visions and revelations" had heard unspeakable words which it was not possible for a man to utter, and which, of course, exceeded in wisdom and glory all that he could speak or write, we see at a glance that the time is not yet in which that perfect is come, for the church has not yet attained unto wisdom and knowledge greater than that which the apostles possessed by inspiration. Therefore, "that which is in part" is not done away.

On this text, as on Eph. 4:8–11, an erroneous position is taken in reference to the object of the gifts. It has often been asserted that the gifts were conferred for the sole purpose of establishing the gospel in perfecting the canon of Scripture, and when the Revelation was completed they were withdrawn. But it is worthy of special notice that, when the apostles speak of the reasons of their being bestowed, that is never mentioned as being one of them. Not for the perfecting of a system of divinity, but "for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry." And so in 1 Cor. 13, it is not of reaching unto the establishing of a perfect system of theology by revelation, but to a time when the inspired ones shall see more clearly and know more perfectly than they could by that inspiration. Surely the church has not yet reached that time, nor attained unto that position. We cannot know more nor see better by the aid of the revelation given than they could see and know who were inspired to give it. And especially is this true in regard to Paul, who saw and knew more than it was possible for him to write. And yet he knew only in part, and prophesied (for our instruction) only in part, and saw through a glass darkly, by the spirit of prophecy, compared to how we shall see and know when that which is perfect is come. Language could hardly be framed to more clearly teach the perpetuity of the gifts, to show that

the time is not yet come for them to be done away, than it is taught in 1 Cor. 13.

The sum of all objections will be found to amount to this: They have ceased; therefore it was the design of the Lord that they should cease. But this is no reason at all; certainly it is no valid argument in favor of their having been abolished. In that manner a great declension of piety might be offered as proof that it was not designed that the spirit of piety was to be perpetuated in the church. But where is the evidence that they have been done away? Where is the evidence that they have not been in existence since the days of the apostles? It does not exist. In favor of a position involving such consequences some clear and decisive evidence should be produced.

On the other hand it is shown that the Scriptures contemplated their perpetuity. And in harmony with their teachings there is evidence clear and strong that they have existed since the days of the apostles. Moreover, there is proof that they exist even in our own generation. And why not? If they existed for a single century after the apostles there is no reason, except the unbelief in the church, why they should not still exist. We call special attention to the following proposition: If a single well-attested instance of the manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy, or of any gift of the Spirit, can be produced this side of the apostles, then the force of every argument and of every objection against their perpetuity throughout the Christian dispensation is entirely destroyed.

We have no sympathy with the course of those who quote history and offer the opinions of uninspired men to prove points of doctrine. But when we come to facts of existence we must appeal to history. And more especially are we warranted to do so in this case, for history attests the continued existence of that which the Scriptures inform us should continue to exist. Now we are brought to the question, Is there evidence that the gifts of the Spirit have existed and have been manifested in the church since the days of the apostles? The field is a very wide one. Testimony to almost any extent might be given; but we shall content ourselves with giving a few cases which we believe to be well authenticated.

Milner, speaking of the third century, says:—

"Though the miraculous dispensations attendant on Christianity form no part of the plan of this history, I cannot but observe on this occasion how strongly their continuance in the third century is here attested. Pionius affirms that devils were ejected by Christians in the name of Christ; and he does this in the face of enemies, who would have been glad of the shadow of an argument to justify their bitterness, resentment, and perfidy." Milner's Church History, p. 143.

Cyprian speaks thus of the gifts of the Spirit:—

"Hence, an ability is given with sober chastity, uprightness of mind and purity of language, to heal the sick, to extinguish the force of poison, to cleanse the filth of distempered minds, to speak peace to the hostile, to give tranquillity to the violent, and gentleness to the fierce, to compel, by menaces, unclean and wandering spirits, to quit their hold of men, to scourge the foe, and by torments bring him to confess what he is."

Upon which Milner remarks:—

"The testimony here given to the ejection of evil spirits, as a common thing among Christians, even in the third century, deserves to be noticed as proof that miraculous influences had not ceased in the church. Indeed, the testimonies of the fathers in these times is so general and concurrent, that the fact itself cannot be denied without universally impeaching their veracity. We may safely, therefore, infer that such things were frequent among Christians." Church History, Am. Ed.*, p. 254.

Mosheim, speaking of the progress of Christianity in the third century, says:—

"Among the causes which belong to the first of these classes we do not only reckon the intrinsic force of celestial truth, and the piety and fortitude of those who declared it to the world, but also that special and interposing Providence, which by such dreams and visions as were presented to the minds of many who were inattentive to the Christian doctrine, or its professed enemies, touched their hearts with a conviction of its truth, and a sense of its importance, and engaged them without delay to confess themselves the disciples of Christ. To this may also be added the healing of diseases, and other miracles which many Christians were yet able to perform by invoking the name of the divine Saviour. The number of miracles, however, we find to have been much less in this, than in the preceding century; nor must this alteration be attributed only to the divine wisdom which rendered miraculous interpositions less frequent as they became less necessary, but also to that justice which was provoked to diminish the frequency of gifts, because some did not scruple to pervert them to mercenary purposes." History, vol. 1, p. 78.

This diminution of the frequency of the gifts in the third century is just what might have been expected in view of the "falling away," of which Paul prophesied, and which was then fully in progress; of the "grievous wolves" who should enter the church, the "false prophets" and the "damnable heresies," of which Peter wrote, and whose "pernicious ways" so many followed by which the Spirit of God was grieved away. But we cannot see the reasonableness of the historian's conclusion that the gifts were "less necessary" under such circumstances. Inasmuch as they were given "for the perfecting of the saints, for the edifying of the body of Christ," they were really more necessary, but less frequent because of the unbelief and worldliness of the church.

Much more reasonable than the conclusion of Mosheim is the answer of Mr. Wesley to the question: "If you allow miracles before the empire became Christian, why not afterward?" He replied as follows:—

"Because after the empire became Christian, a general corruption both of faith and morals infected the Christian church; which, by that revolution, as St. Jerome says, 'lost as much of her virtues as it had gained of wealth and power.' And this very reason St. Chrysostom himself gave in the words you have afterward cited: 'There are some who ask, Why are not miracles performed still? Why are there no persons who raise the dead, and cure diseases?' To which he replies that it was owing to the want of faith, and virtue, and piety in those times."—Wesley's Works, p. 700.

Again, of the fourth century Mosheim speaks thus:—

"But I cannot, on the other hand, assent to the opinions of those who maintain that, in this century, miracles had entirely ceased; and at this period the Christian church was not favored with any extraordinary or supernatural work of a divine power engaged in its cause."—Church History, vol. 1, p. 105.

In the time of the reformation it was the belief that the Spirit of God was yet in the church, in its gifts, and in special answers to prayer. D'Aubigne says:—

"John Huss did more; prophetic words issued from the depths of his dungeon."

Huss saw the Reformation about one hundred years before Luther came, and was, says D'Aubigne, "the John Baptist of the Reformation."

Martin Luther not only believed in the direct interposition of God by the power of the Spirit, but he recorded the following remarkable case:—

"A woman at Isenack, lying very sick, had endured horrible paroxysms, which no physician was able to cure; for her indisposition was directly the work of the devil, and an unnatural thing, occasioned by devilish frightenings, insomuch that she fell into a faint swooning, and thereupon had four paroxysms, each enduring the space of three or four hours; her hands and feet bended in the manner of a horn. She was chill and cold, her tongue rough and dry; her body, by reason of the disease, was much swelled; she, seeing Luther, who came to visit her, was much rejoiced thereat, raised herself up and said, 'Ah! my loving father in Christ, I have a heavy burden upon me. Pray to God for me;' and so she fell down into her bed again—whereupon Luther fetched a deep sigh and said, 'God rebuke and command thee Satan that thou suffer this his creature to be in peace!' Then turning himself to the standers-by, he said, 'She is plagued of the Devil in the body, but the soul is safe and shall be preserved. Therefore let us give thanks to God and pray for her.' And so they all repeated aloud the Lord's prayer. After which Luther concluded with these words, 'Lord God, heavenly Father, who hast commanded us to pray for the sick, we beseech thee through thy only beloved Son, that thou wouldst deliver this, thy servant, from her sickness and from the hands of the devil. Spare, O Lord, her soul, which together with her body thou hast purchased and redeemed from the power of sin, of death, and of the devil.' Whereupon the sick woman said, Amen. The night following she took good rest and the next day was graciously delivered from her disease and sickness." Table Talk, p. 359.

Zuingale, of Switzerland, the great reformer, was seized by the plague called "great death," which was sweeping off its thousands; and he was so near gone that he was supposed by some to be dead; but he was miraculously restored in answer to prayer. D'Aubigne says:—

"The believers cried to God night and day, earnestly entreating that he would restore their faithful pastor. The prayer was answered and the news was soon flying everywhere that Zuingale had been snatched from the brink of the grave." Hist Ref., vol. 2, p. 331.

Mr. Wesley records the following case of the healing of a Mrs. Jones, an eminently pious woman:—

"She had various physicians but still grew worse and worse; still perceiving herself to be no better, she left them off. She had a continual pain in her groin, with such a prolapsus uteri as soon confined her to her bed. There she lay two months helpless and hopeless; till a thought came one day into her mind, 'Lord, if thou wilt thou canst make me whole! Be it according to thy will!' Immediately the pain and the distress ceased. Feeling herself well, she rose and dressed herself. Her husband coming in and seeing her in tears, asked, 'Are those tears of serious joy?' She said, 'Of joy!' on which they wept together. From that hour she felt no pain, but enjoyed perfect health. I think our Lord never wrought a plainer miracle, even in the days of his flesh." Wesley's Journal, vol. 4, p. 748.

What of the Night?

What of the night? O watchman in Zion! Moveth the darkness to bring in the dawn? Breaketh there not in the distant horizon Glimmers of light that foretoken the morn?

What of the night? O watchman in Zion! Hark! on the hill-tops a song from the sky, Valleys with gladness re-echo the chorus, Sing! for the day of the Lord draweth nigh!

See ye the dawn? O watchman in Zion! Waiteth thy hosts for the tread of their King? Lo! 'tis the hour of thy glorious triumph; Rise from thy resting, new victories bring!

Hear ye the war cry? O watchman in Zion! Shoutings that ring from the camp of the Lord! Where are the signs of thy jubilant legions? Sleepeth thy warriors in helmet and sword?

Rouse from thy slumber, and gird thee for battle!, Off from thy spirit dead lethargy fling! Rally thy hosts to thy conquering standard! Banner of holiness! cross of thy king!

The Two Laws.

By D. M. Canright

TEXTS: "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31.

"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15.

Both these texts are in the New Testament, and both were written by the same apostle; yet one asserts positively that "the law" has been abolished by Christ, and the other declares as positively that "the law" has not been abolished. How is this seeming contradiction to be reconciled? By the simple fact that Paul is speaking of two entirely different laws. The first text relates to the decalogue; the second to the typical law.

But some of our opponents deny that there is any such distinction of laws. They claim that the Old Testament contained but one law; hence when Paul says that "the law" is abolished they assert that it is all gone. We freely admit that their conclusion is good if there be not two laws in the Old Testament. Numerous passages in the New Testament do clearly speak of the abolition of a law at the death of Christ. If the phrase "the law," embraces all the precepts of the Old Testament, if there were not two laws, then, not only the ceremonial law but the ten commandments and all the moral precepts of the Old Testament were done away by Christ; for it is repeatedly taught that a law was abolished at his death. But the absurdity of such a conclusion should itself cause us to stop and examine well our premises before we adopt it. Is it reasonable that God should abolish such precepts as these? "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," "Thou shalt not kill," &c. These are in the Old Testament law and have all been abolished if "the law" which was abolished embraced all the laws of the Old Testament.

We will now show that there were two systems of law running parallel from the fall of Adam to the death of Christ, where one expired while the other was confirmed and established.

In the beginning, man was placed upon probation under such conditions that he could have secured eternal life by simple obedience to God. Adam was placed in Eden and given free access to the tree of life and all the trees, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2:8-17. As long as he could continue to eat of the tree of life, just so long he would live. Gen. 3:22. To Adam the Lord said, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. 2:16, 17. Then the day of his death would not come till the day that he disobeyed God and ate of the forbidden fruit. Had he never disobeyed God he never would have died. But death came in consequence of sin, and so Paul says, "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." Rom. 5:12.

If, therefore, man had been obedient to his Creator, he would have secured eternal life by that obedience. Then Christ need not have died to save men; and none of the types, shadows, and sacrifices of the Old Testament, pointing to the death of Christ, would ever have been instituted. But Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and thus became sinners. Gen. 3:1-6. By this act they broke God's moral law, and violated the principles of several of the ten commandments, as afterwards stated. Look at the facts: the Lord gave them free access to everything but one tree which he forbade them to touch. But the tempter persuaded Eve to eat of it. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave unto her husband with her, and he did eat." Gen. 3:6. Eve looked at the fruit and saw that it was pleasant and much to be desired. In short, she began to covet it and thus violated the principle of the tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet." Next, she put forth her hand and took what did not belong to her, and thus broke the eighth commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." Further, by this act they obeyed the serpent and disobeyed God and thus violated the principle of the first commandment, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." Again, "Adam, which was the son of God," Luke, 3:38, disobeyed his father and thus violated the principle of the fifth commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother."

Thus it will be seen that the first transgression did have a direct bearing upon the principles of the moral law as afterward stated in the ten commandments. But was the decalogue given to Adam in Eden? Of course it was not written out on tables or in a book, for men were not acquainted with writing till the days of Moses; but certainly the principles of the ten commandments all existed then, and probably the Lord orally instructed Adam touching them. Would it not have been a sin for Adam to worship a false god, or to bow down to an image, or to take God's name in vain? No candid person can deny these points. It is directly stated that the Sabbath commandment was given there. Gen. 2:1-3. But how could Adam dishonor his parents when he had none, or commit adultery when there was no woman but his own wife, or lie about his neighbor when he had none? Be it remembered that all these relations were anticipated at the creation of man, for right there the Lord instituted marriage and commanded them to multiply and fill the earth. Gen. 1:28. All the relations of parents and children, brethren, neighbors, &c., would and did immediately obtain according to the Lord's direction. Did not the Lord anticipate and make provision for all these relations? To say he did not is to charge God with negligence and folly.

Now, having disobeyed God and become sinners, it thereby became necessary that Christ should die to redeem and save fallen men. Hence the Redeemer was immediately promised, in the declaration, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head. Gen. 3:15. And so it is said that Jesus was a lamb "slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8. But it was to be many ages before the Saviour would come; hence it became necessary to offer sacrifices as types and shadows of the death of Christ, thereby to show their faith in the coming Redeemer; also to confess thereby that they were condemned sinners. To offer a sacrifice they must have an altar upon which to offer it; they must have a priest properly set apart to officiate at the altar; this priest must be supported; and finally a temple with all its ceremonies became necessary. To regulate all these a law was necessary. Hence gradually grew up the law relating to types and shadows, commonly called the ceremonial law.

The least reflection will show that this law never would have existed if man had not previously transgressed the other—the moral law. No precept relating to sacrifices, types, shadows, the priesthood, temple, &c., would ever have been given if man had not first broken the moral law and thus become a condemned sinner, needing a Saviour. Hence the second law was added to point to the promised seed till he should come. Paul is very clear upon this point. He says, "Wherefore, then, serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Gal. 3:19.

Why was this law given? "Because of transgressions." Transgression is a violation of the law, 1 John 3:4, and "where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15. But a law did exist and was transgressed before the ceremonial law was given, for Paul says "it was added because of transgressions." Then the transgressions existed before this law was given; but there could be no transgression without a law to transgress. Hence the conclusion is inevitable that there was a law which existed and was violated before ever this law spoken of in Galatians had an existence. Furthermore, as transgression of a previous law was what brought this law into existence, then it follows that if there had been no transgression this law would never have had an existence. This is just what I have already shown concerning the ceremonial law. It was necessarily brought into existence as soon as man became a sinner by the violation of the moral law. It pointed to the death of Christ, the seed that was to come. Hence Paul says, "it was added because of transgression till the seed should come." Then it was not the moral law for that does not point to Christ, nor say anything about the coming of the seed, while the law of sacrifices, types and shadows, related wholly to that promised seed.

Many references to both these laws may be seen in Genesis. In Chap. 3:21, we learn that the Lord clothed Adam and Eve with skins. This intimates that beasts had been slain in sacrifice. Abel offered a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock. Gen. 4:4. He did this by faith, as Paul tells us in Heb. 11:4. By this he showed his faith in the death of the Lamb of God who was to come. But the infidel Cain, having no faith in the coming of Christ simply brought of the fruit of the ground a thank offering. Gen. 4:3. This the Lord would not accept as it showed no faith in the coming Redeemer.

Noah built an altar and offered upon it burnt offerings. Gen. 8:20. So did Abraham. Gen. 12:7, 8. Melchizedek "was the priest of the most high God," Gen. 14:18, whom Abraham honored and to whom he paid tithes. Verse 20. This shows that at an early day the Lord had regularly ordained priests and a law for their proper maintenance. Isaac offered sacrifices, Gen. 26:25, so did Jacob, Gen. 31:54.

These facts show that the Lord did give directions in the earliest ages to the patriarchs concerning sacrifices, altars, priests, &c., though we have no direct record of it, as no books were written at that time. But as soon as we come to where books were written both the ceremonial and the moral laws were written out fully.

References to the moral law, the ten commandments, are also found in Genesis. See Chap. 2:1-3; 4:8-11; 9:22-25; 20:6-9; 31:30-32; 35:1, 2; 39:17-20, &c. The sacredness of the seventh day is specially and prominently noticed in the very beginning. Gen. 2:1-3. The book of Genesis being a record of events which were all in the past when it was written, and the parties all dead to whom it related, it was not necessary that it should contain a code of laws. But it is noticeable that as soon as the record reaches the time of the author—Moses—both laws are immediately written out in full, the moral law first, and the law of ordinances immediately after. See Ex. 19-30.

Notice in what a solemn and impressive manner the moral law was given. After the people had made special preparations for three days to meet with the Lord, he came down in great majesty upon mount Sinai. "And it came to pass on the third day in the morning that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that were in the camp trembled. And Moses brought forth the people out of the camp to meet with God; and they stood at the nether part of the mount. And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly." Ex. 19:16-19. Paul says the Lord's "voice then shook the earth." Heb. 12:26. Moses says, "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. 4:12, 13.

Some have denied that the decalogue is ever called a law; but in this they ignore the plainest teaching of the Bible. Thus the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." Ex. 24:12. What did God write? The ten commandments; nothing more nor less. That which the Lord wrote on tables of stone is here directly declared to be a law. So in Deut. 33:2, speaking of the descent of the Lord upon Mount Sinai, Moses says, "From his right hand went a fiery law for them." What went from God's right hand? The decalogue; and this is here again called a law. Moses is particular to mention the fact that when the Lord had spoken just the ten commandments "he added no more;" and he wrote them in two tables of stone." Deut. 5:22. This indicates that it was a complete law. And when Moses had broken the first tables, the Lord wrote just the same ten commandments the second time. Deut. 10:1-5. This shows that the Lord had a design in selecting those commandments above any others.

All through the Bible the decalogue is referred to and quoted as "the law." Paul says, "I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7:7. This is the tenth command. Again Paul enjoins upon them to fulfill "the law," and to show what he means by this he quotes the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments of the decalogue. Rom. 13:8-10. So James quotes the sixth and seventh commandments and says that whoever violates these breaks "the law." James 2:10-13. Numerous instances might be given where the term law is applied to the decalogue alone.

No other part of the Bible was given in the same manner, or honored as highly as the ten commandments were. First, God spoke this law himself in the hearing of the whole nation with a great voice that shook the earth. He did not suffer it to be given through a prophet, nor even through an angel. It was so important that the Lord came down from heaven personally in the greatest majesty and delivered it himself. No other law was ever thus given. Secondly, God wrote this holy law with his own finger. "The tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." Ex. 32:16. "Tables of stone written with the finger of God." Ex. 31:18. The Lord also wrote it the second time. See Deut. 10:1-5. All the rest was written by the hands of men. But this law was too holy and too important to be written by sinful men. It is the only document we have in the hand-writing of Jehovah. Thirdly, this law was engraved upon the enduring stone, indicating its unchangeable and imperishable nature. It was not intrusted to paper or parchment like other laws. Fourthly, it was then deposited in the ark in the most holy place. Thus, Moses says, "And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made," Deut. 10:5. Again, "There was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb." 1 Kings 8:9. No other law was thus honored. Why were the ten commandments thus singled out and honored above all other precepts? Our opponents are never able to explain this matter.

Look a moment at the nature of the law itself. Man's duty branches out in two directions: First, supreme love to the Creator; second, equal love to his neighbor. Hence, the law is divided into two parts, the first four commandments relating to our duty to God, and the last six to our duty to man. First commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." If this commandment was kept it would banish all false gods from the world and secure the undivided worship of the true God.

Second commandment: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters under the earth," &c. This forbids the false worship of the true God. If it were obeyed it would banish from the world all images and every false mode of worshiping God. The third commandment forbids us to profane God's name. This would stop all profanity and irreverence toward God. In all the world this holy name would ever be spoken with awe and reverence.

The fourth precept forbids all secular work upon the Creator's rest-day, the seventh day, and requires all to keep it holy to the Lord. What a glorious scene that would be were this commandment kept by all the world!

Next to our duty to God, is duty to our parents. Hence the second table begins with: "Honor thy father and thy mother." This would secure love and obedience to parents, and respect for the aged and to superiors. The sixth, "Thou shalt not kill," guards the life of our neighbor. The next, against adultery, guards the purity and chastity of every family. Then comes the one against theft, guarding every man's property. Then the one forbidding lying and enforcing truthfulness. And, finally, the tenth, against coveting that which is not ours.

Reader, if these commandments were all strictly kept by every one in all the world, this earth would be almost a Heaven itself! Oh! what a perfect law this is, worthy of its divine Author and to be given as it was. Well may the Psalmist exclaim, "Thy commandment is exceeding broad." Ps. 119:96. Then he says, "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Ps. 119:18. And the wise man properly sums up every moral duty thus: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13. The decalogue is an epitome of every moral duty. There is no sin or crime, which is not covered by some one of the ten commandments. John M. Stearns, counselor at law, in an article in the Christian Union, Jan. 1, 1870, says: "The law libraries of the world, with their mixed dialects, and ancient lore, and mammoth tomes, innumerable reports, and multitudinous variety of discussions by men of judicial accumen and giant learning, do not give us one idea of crime or virtue, right or wrong, of the propensities or delinquencies of human life, beyond what is embodied in these sacred tables. Notwithstanding the ridicule sought to be thrown on a resolution of one of the early Legislatures of Connecticut, that God's law should be the law of the colony until special laws should be enacted by the government, or to that effect, it is believed that few cases arise claiming adjudications from our courts of law that would not be better determined by a careful respect to the commands of the decalogue."

It is simply a brief outline of moral principle. When they come to be carried out in all their bearings in the minutiæ, of course, a thousand explanations of them are necessary. To illustrate: Before me lies a grammar. On the first page we have thirty-five rules governing words in every possible relation and combination. Then follows the whole body of the book of five hundred pages, re-stating and explaining these rules. As the student progresses he finds that these few simple rules cover innumerable cases of which he never would have thought without an explanation. Many times it is very difficult to determine under just which rule a word does come.

So with the ten commandments. They are the ten great rules of God's moral government in this earth. Then follows the great body of God's book, explaining, illustrating, and enforcing these rules. Every writer, every prophet, every apostle has thrown some additional light upon them, has made some new statement of their principles as circumstances call them forth. Christ, the great Teacher, did this more than any before him. See his explanation of the sixth and seventh commandments. Matt. 5:21-28. He says that anger in the heart is a violation of the precept; "Thou shalt not kill," and that lust in the heart is a violation of the precept against adultery. This always had been true, though not as clearly stated in this form till now. The same principle is stated in Prov. 6:25.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Stockton, May 2., 1875.

Continue reading: That's All