Earlier text: General Articles[FROM JOHN WESLEY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.]
By John Wesley
BETWEEN AN ANTINOMIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
Ant.—So you say, "Christ was made only under the Jewish dispensation, to redeem the Jews from that dispensation." (Cudworth's Dialogue, pp. 8 and 9.) F.—I do not say so. By inserting "only" you quite pervert my words. You cannot deny that Christ "was made under the Jewish dispensation." But I never affirmed, He was "made under it only to redeem the Jews from that dispensation." Ant.—Was he made under the moral law at all? F.—No doubt he was. For the Jewish dispensation included the moral, as well as ceremonial, law. Ant.—Then the case is plain. "If he was under the moral law, we are redeemed from the moral law." (Ib.) F.—That does not follow. "He redeemed them that were under" this, as well as the ceremonial, "law." But from what did he redeem them? Not "from the law," but from "guilt, and sin, and hell." In other words, He redeemed them from the "condemnation of this law," not from "obedience to it." In this respect they are still, "not without law to God, but under the law to Christ." 1 Cor. 9: 21. Ant.—"Under the law to Christ!" No. The Greek word is ennomos Christo, in a law to Christ; that is, the law of love and liberty." (Ib.) F.—Very true. This is the exact thing I mean. You have spoken the very thought of my heart. Ant.—It may be so. But "a believer is free from the law of commandments," call it moral or what you please. F.—Do you mean only, that he obeys the law of Christ, by free choice, and not by constraint? that he keeps the commandments of God, out of love, not fear? If so, you may triumph without an opponent. But if you mean, he is free from obeying that law, then your liberty is a liberty to disobey God. Ant.—God forbid. It is "a liberty to walk in the Spirit, and not fulfill the lust (or desire) of the flesh." (Ib. p. 8.) F.—Why, this is the thing I am contending for. The very thing I daily assert is this, that Christian liberty is a liberty to obey God, and not to commit sin. Ant.—But how do you understand those words of St. Paul, that Christ "blotted out the hand writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way?" Col. 2: 14. F.—I understand them of the Jewish ordinances; as it is plain St. Paul himself did, by the inference he immediately draws: Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink," (the ordinances touching these being now "taken out of the way,") "or in respect of a holy-day," (once observed,) "or of the new moon, or of the (Jewish) Sabbaths." Verse 16. Ant.—But how could the hand writing of these "ordinances" be said to be "against us," or to be "contrary to us?" F.—I will not insist on the criticism of those who render the words "over against us," as alluding to that "hand writing on the wall," which appeared "over against King Belshazzar." The words of St. Peter suffice, which will bear no dispute, who, speaking of these same ordinances, calls them "a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear." Acts 15: 5, 10. Ant.—You must then understand those words of our Lord, of the moral law alone: "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am 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." Matt. 5: 17, 18. But I say, our Lord has fulfilled every jot and tittle of this law too. F.—I grant he has. But do you infer from thence, "therefore he has destroyed the law?" Our Lord's arguing is the very reverse of yours. He mentions his coming to "fulfill the law," as an evident proof that he did not come to "destroy" or "take it away." But suppose you could get over the former verse, what can you do with the following? —"Verily I say unto you, One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till heaven and earth pass;" or, which comes to the same thing, "till all be fulfilled." The former evasion will do you no service with regard to this clause. For the word all in this does not refer to the law, but to heaven and earth and all things therein; the original sentence running thus: heos an panta genetai. Nor indeed is the word genetai well rendered, by the ambiguous word 'fulfilled,' which would easily induce an English reader to suppose it was the same word that was rendered so just before; it should rather be translated accomplished, finished, or done; as they will be in the great and terrible day of the Lord, when the "earth and the heaven shall flee from his face, and there shall be no place found for them." Ant.—But why did you say my account of sanctification was crude and indigested? (First Dialogue, p. 73.) F.—Let me hear it again. If it be better digested than it was, I shall rejoice. Ant.—"Our minds are either defiled and impure, or pure and holy. The question is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one? You say, 'By love, meekness, gentleness.' I say by believing in Christ. By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin. And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, etc. It is therefore absurd to say, We are made good by goodness, meek by meekness; or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated so from these fruits of the Spirit." (Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 10) F.—You have mended the matter a little, and not much. For 1. "The question," say you, "is, Which way is a defiled and impure mind to be made a good one?" Nothing less. The present question between you and me is this and no other, Has a believer any goodness in him at all? any love, meekness, or gentleness. 2. "You say, an impure mind is made good by goodness, &c. I say, by believing in Christ." This is a mere playing upon words. If the question stood thus, "Which way is an evil mind made good?" you are conscious I should make the very same reply;—By believing in Jesus Christ. 3. "By this my conscience becomes purged and clean, as though I had not committed sin." Here you run away from the question, notwithstanding that express caution, "Observe we are not speaking of justification, but sanctification." (First Dialogue, p. 74.) 4. "And such a purged conscience bears forth the fruit of love, meekness, gentleness, &c. You here give me all I desire, viz., that "there are these dispositions in all believers." It avails nothing therefore to add, "But we are not made good by goodness, or gentle by gentleness. We are only denominated good or gentle from these fruits of the Spirit;" since a believer can neither be made nor denominated so, without having goodness or gentleness in him. Ant.—Then how dare you affirm that a believer in Christ "is not really holy!" F.—You have forgotten yourself. I affirm that he is. If you affirm so too, our dispute is at an end. For if he is really holy, then he is inwardly and inherently holy. And if you grant this you may express it as you please, I have no leisure for strife of words. Ant.—But why will not you cut off all occasion of such strife, by speaking as I do? F.—I cannot in conscience speak in the way that you do; and that for several plain reasons: (even setting aside that main consideration, whether the things you speak be right or wrong:) 1. Because it is a confused way of speaking; so that unless a man has both a clear apprehension, and a large measure of patience, he will hardly find out any consistent meaning in what you say. 2. Because it is an insincere way of speaking. For you seem to mean what you do not. 3. Because it is an unscriptural way of speaking; the Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament speaking, frequently and expressly, both of holiness, of good works, of the law and the commandments of God, as expressly and frequently to the full, as of believing in Jesus Christ. 4. Because by experience I find, it is a dangerous way of speaking, and that, both to the speaker and to the hearer; to the speaker, as it has a peculiar tendency to puff him up, to engender pride; to make him exalt himself, (under pretense of exalting the grace of God,) and despise others: to the hearers, as it keeps many who are before our eyes from ever awaking out of the sleep of death; as it throws others again into that fatal slumber, who were just beginning to awake; as it stops many in the midst of their Christian course, and turns others clear out of the way; yea, and plunges not a few into all the wretchedness of unclean living. In consideration of this, I the more earnestly desire, when I speak on this head in particular, "to speak as the oracles of God;" to express scriptural sense in scriptural words; in every phrase I use, to keep as close as I can to "the law and the testimony;" being convinced there are no words so fit to express the deep things of God, as those which "holy men of old spake" when "they were moved by the Spirit of God." "HINDER ME NOT."
By Mrs. H. B. Beegle
Hinder me not! for fast the sands are wasting,
And months and years are quickly hurrying by;
A sinful world to its sad doom is hasting,
And winged moments now so swiftly fly:
The nations and the thrones of earth re areeling,
And men are filled with dread perplexity,
While God in mighty power is revealing
The blood of Christ to set the sinner free. Hinder me not! for I would hear the story,
The precious story of redeeming grace;
Would learn of Him, the Lord, the King of glory,
And in his presence find a resting place.
Fain would I hide me in his bright pavillion
Until the storms of life be overpast;
In him, my life, my hope, my faith concealing,
Sheltered in safety in his home at last. Hinder me not! the clouds at length are breaking,
The morning's glorious dawn will soon appear;
The word declares, and signs there's no mistaking,
Proclaim aloud the great Messiah near.
Hinder me not, for I would fain be watching,
Watching and waiting till the hour shall come
When, in the clouds of radiant glory beaming,
He shall appear to call his chosen home.
—Mrs. H. B. Beegle. Is Unbelief a Sin?
By R. F. Cottrell
IN ancient times unbelief and sin were ranked together. The great difficulty with the people in the time of Moses, and that which was condemned was their want of faith in God, and in his providential care for them; and the wonderful miracles in Egypt, in the Red sea, and in the wilderness, were performed to convince them that the Lord they professed to serve was God, and that he was fulfilling his promises to their fathers. Was it not sin for them to disbelieve God? Says an apostle, "But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." Heb. 3:17-19; 4:1. From this testimony we learn that sin and unbelief go hand in hand, like twin sisters, and it is hard to decide which is the older of the two. Unbelief leads to sin; and sin tends to unbelief—it attempts to hide itself from justice under the covering of unbelief. In the first instance of sin in our race on record, the tempter would not have succeeded, but by creating a doubt of the word of God. We learn too from the testimony quoted above, that we of this age, as well as the ancients, are in danger of falling in the same way by unbelief. And the danger continues beyond the time of the apostle; for he also testifies that in "the latter times" men will still depart from the faith. Now, there never was a time in all the history of the world, when there were so many reasons for faith in the Bible, as at the present time. In the fulfillment of the promise of increase in knowledge, (Dan. 12:4,) in the time of the end, and by the fulfillment of prophecy down to our times, the truth of that word is so verified that there is no excuse for unbelief; and yet it is an age of infidelity. And this verifies the predictions of the apostles and the emphatic suggestion of Christ, that on his return faith would hardly be found on the earth. Luke 18:8. And it is most marvelous to see professed believers, as they witness the plainest prophecies clearly fulfilled, so much that they can show no discrepancy between the prophecy and the fulfillment, while they dare not deny it, yet feel safe to doubt; as if it were safer to doubt than to believe the fulfillment of God's promises. When the word of God is fulfilled, is it a virtue to doubt? Is not unbelief rather a sin, even in a professed believer? Is it a wonder that the world is rushing into infidelity, when there is so little faith in the church? Believe, my brother, my sister, it is safe to believe; and there is no safety nor consolation in your doubts. Cultivate faith. Evil weeds grow spontaneously; but the valuable products of the earth must be sought by cultivation. There is no lack of evidence on which to found faith; but it must be carefully searched; and that with a willingness that truth shall be truth, and a courage that will acknowledge it when found. "Trust in the Lord forever." What we understand by trust is confidence; a reliance or resting of the mind on the integrity, veracity, justice and friendship of another. Consequently what we understand by trusting in the Lord, is believing that he is able and willing to perform whatever he has promised. JOSEPH NESHIMA, who is now doing a noble work among his countrymen, found, when a boy, two tracts—one about America, the other on Christianity, On reading these he was filled with the desire to go to America and become a Christian. This was at a period when any native caught leaving Japan was put to death. The Japanese boy, undeterred by the danger, secreted himself on a vessel and escaped to China, and from thence to Boston. He was educated at Amherst College, and on his return to his native land was offered a lucrative position as interpreter. This he declined in order to preach the Gospel. He has now fifty preaching places, three churches, and eighty-four students in College, half of whom are studying for the ministry. The time for the blessing is when you begin to praise God for it. For, brethren, you may be sure that when you put up a thanksgiving on the ground that God has answered your prayer, you really have prevailed with God. Suppose you had promised to some poor woman that you would give her a meal to-morrow. You might forget it, you know; but suppose when the morning came she sent her little girl with a basket for it, she would be likely to get it I think. But, suppose that she sent in addition, a little note in which the poor soul thanked you for your great kindness, could you have the heart to say, “My dear girl, I cannot attend to you to-day. Come another time.” Oh dear no; if the cupboard was bare you would send out to get something, because the good soul so believed in you that she had sent you thanks for it before she received your gift.—Spurgeon. The Hour of Prayer.
By Austin Phelps
IN the vestibule of St. Peter's, at Rome, is a doorway, which is walled up and marked with a cross. It is opened but four times in a century. On Christmas Eve, once in twenty-five years, the Pope approaches it in princely state, with the retinue of cardinals in attendance, and begins the demolition of the door, by striking it three times with a silver hammer. When the passage is opened, the multitude pass into the nave of the cathedral, and up to the altar, by an avenue which the majority of them never entered thus before, and never will enter thus again. Imagine that the way to the throne of grace were like the Porta Santa, inaccessible, save once in a quarter of a century, on the twenty-fifth of December, and then only with august solemnities, conducted by great dignitaries in a holy city. Conceive that it were now ten years since you, or I, or any other sinner, had been permitted to pray; and that fifteen long years must drag themselves away, before we could venture again to approach God; and that, at the most, we could not hope to pray more than two or three times in a lifetime! With what solicitude we should wait for the coming of that holy day! We should lay our plans of life, select our homes, build our houses, choose our professions, form our friendships, with reference to a pilgrimage in that twenty-fifth year. We should reckon on time by the openings of that sacred door, as epochs. No other one thought would engross so much of our lives, or kindle our sensibilities so intensely, as the thought of prayer. It would be of more significance to us than the thought of death is now. It would multiply our trepidations at the thought of dying. Fear would grow to horror, at the idea of dying before that year of Jubilee. No other question would give us such tremors of anxiety as these would excite: ‘How many years now to the time of prayer? How many months? How many weeks? How many days? Shall we live to see it? Who can tell?’ Yet, on that great day, amidst an innumerable throng, in a courtly presence, within sight and hearing of stately rites, what would prayer be worth to us? Who would value it in the comparison with those still moments, that— ‘secret silence of the mind,’
in which we now can ‘find God,’ every day and every where? That day would be more like the day of Judgment to us, than like the sweet minutes of converse with ‘Our Father,’ which we may now have, every hour. We should appreciate this privilege of hourly prayer, if it were once taken from us. Should we not? ‘Still with thee, O my God,
I would desire to be;
By day, by night, at home, abroad,
I would be still with thee!
With thee amid the crowd
That throngs the busy mart—
To hear thy voice, ‘mid clamor loud,
Speak softly to my heart!’ —Still Hour, by Austin Phelps. 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 vail 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 vailed, 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 faith in Christ does not make void, 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 standpoint 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, vailed 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 unvailed 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 were 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 "graffed 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 graffed 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" will enter 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:— 1. The ministration, or service, of the priests was not written on the tables of stone. 2. 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, Connybeare and Howson, and Barnes. 3. That Paul speaks of the ministration, in a figure, as the above eminent authors clearly show. 4. 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. 5. 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." Blessed Are the Peacemakers
"BLESSED are the peacemakers." ALL who have read Will M. Carlton's poetry on "The New Church Organ"--and who has not read it?--have laughed over its quaint and happy hits. But happy hits are not necessarily good arguments. There is something to be said on the other side of the question. In the Baptist Banner there has been some controversy on this subject, one styling himself "Fogy, Jr." having given his reasons for objecting to the use of organs in church. To these "A disciple" replies, and from the reply we quote the following:--- "He tells us his first objection to the church organ is, that 'it is an innovation. The New Testament knows nothing about it.' On the very same principle, he must object to church houses, pulpits, hymn books, and printed Bibles. The New Testament says nothing about them. "But Fogy, Jr., proceeds to tell us that the organ causes divisions. Some members of the Fogy family even leave the church on account of it. Just so the old Fogy generation objected a few hundred years ago, to printed Bibles. They said printing was an invention of the devil. So also a century or two ago they objected to note books. What really causes the divisions in all such cases, is not the improvements, but the disposition the Fogy family have to make everything go their way, or 'fly off the handle.' Hence, Paul commands us rather to avoid the Fogies, than the organs and note books. "We are next told that the organ destroys congregational singing? This I doubt not will be news to many readers of the Banner. In our church the people sing much better when the organ is used. The organ is not intended to superseed congregational singing at all, but rather to aid it." On this last point we have a word to say. In some cases we know this is the truth. We are acquainted with a church which had not a male voice competent to lead in singing. Tunes were generally started by one who was always willing to lead, but who could not distinguish between F, and F sharp, and always sung them on the same tones! Instead of "making melody," the singing was discordant. Now, it happened that in this church were several females who were accomplished musicians. Of course there was no worship to them in the harsh, jarring discords which passed for singing; but they could not be expected to lead a congregation. There were also many people of cultivated tastes who attended the meetings, especially when there was preaching. Hence the singing was a cause of constant mortification to the ministers, and to the members who could distinguish between harmony and discord, and a source of amusement to those who were not so directly interested. Under these circumstances the ministers advised the purchase of a "new church organ." But "Fogy Jr." was there, and insisted that "it would spoil their singing"---that it would break up their congregational singing. But the necessity was pressing, and the organ was bought. And when a modest sister of good taste and thorough training struck the keys, the congregation joined in with a will, and all but a few of the "Fogy family" were delighted. Since that time the singing in that church is really devotional, and the congregation easily sing together. But was "Fogy Jr." convinced by the result? Not at all. His course from that time forward showed that he cared as little for "harmony" in the church in other respects as in the music. Alas, poor man! if he was accustomed to the disagreeable work of self-examination he would discover, what others have long known, that his persistence and zeal are not exercised for the welfare of the church and the furtherance of the cause, but for the sweet satisfaction of having his own way. We fear he will fail of joining the harmonious songsters who are "harping with their harps," in the heavenly Zion. We almost hope he will, unless he gets converted from his present ways, for we have known too much of discord and contention here, to have a desire to have them perpetuated in the world to come.