Earlier text: Nehemiah Causes the People to Be Instructed in the Law of GodThe Doctrine of a Trinity as Related to the Atonement.
By Editor
BUT we are not the only ones who see this difficulty in the Trinitarian views of the atoning sacrifice. Their own expressions betray a sense of the weakness of their position, and of the necessity of something more than a human offering for the redemption of man. Dr. Barnes, as quoted, says that “the divine nature in the person of Christ” could not suffer, nor die; yet, in speaking of the nature of the Atonement, he says:— “If it be a part of the doctrine of the Atonement, and essential to that doctrine, that the Redeemer was divine, that he was ‘God manifest in the flesh,’ that there was in a proper sense an incarnation of Deity, then it is clear that such an incarnation, and the sufferings of such an one on a cross, were events adapted to make an impression on the universe at large, deeper by far than would be done by the sufferings of the guilty themselves.” “All must feel that it was appropriate that the Eternal Father should command the sun to withdraw his beams, and the earth to tremble, and the rocks to rend—to spread a universal pall over the world—when his Son expired on the cross.” “He had descended from Heaven, and had taken upon himself the form of a servant. He had subjected himself voluntarily to poverty, shame, and contempt; he had been bound, and scourged, and publicly rejected; he had submitted to a mock trial and to an unjust condemnation; he had borne his own cross to the place of crucifixion, and had voluntarily given himself up to be put to death in a form that involved the keenest torture that man could inflict.” Pp. 255–7. If it were true that the divine nature—that which “descended from Heaven”—could not suffer and die, such remarks as the above are only calculated to mislead; and it must appear to all that they betray a consciousness, on the part of the writer, that if the sacrifice was only human, as he had elsewhere said, the offering lacked in dignity, and the Atonement in efficacy. The Manual of Atonement, as quoted, says he could only die as man; that in his divine nature he could neither suffer nor die; and yet uses the following words:— “It was sin that drew Christ from the skies, and influenced him to lead a life of suffering in this world. It was sin that wounded his sacred head—that agonized his soul in the garden—that led him to Calvary—that nailed him to the cross, and drew out his heart’s blood as a sin-atoning sacrifice.” P. 138. Who would not suppose from the above that the very Christ that came “from the skies” died on the cross? Why is this language used? Evidently to make an impression of the enormity of the sin, and the value of the sacrifice, which could not be made by the death of a human being. That object might be accomplished without any contradiction, by allowing what the Scriptures plainly teach of the death of the Son of God. Dr. Scott, who says his death was only in his human nature, further says:— “‘I am he that liveth;’ the ever-living, self-existent God, to whom as mediator it was given to have life in himself, and to be the life of men; and who had also been obedient to death for sinners; but behold he was alive as the first-fruits of the resurrection, to die no more.”—Note on Rev. 1: 18. “This same person, who created and upholds all worlds, as the high priest of his people, purged away the guilt of their sins, by himself, and the sacrifice of his death upon the cross.”—Note on Heb. 1: 3. If it was given to the “self-existent God” to have life in himself, by whom was it given? Here is a plain declaration that “the ever-living, self-existent God” died for sinners, which we cannot believe, and Dr. Scott did not believe, for he contradicted it elsewhere. The self-existent God could not purge away our sin “by himself,” but the Son of God could “by himself” (as Paul says, Heb. 1: 3), and the self-existent God could by his Son; for God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Dr. Clarke, in his Commentary, says:— “Considering him (Paul) as writing under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, then we have from the plain, grammatical meaning of the words which he has used, the fullest demonstration (for the Spirit of God cannot lie) that He who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was God over all.”—Clarke on Col. 1. In view of the remark from the same author, which we before quoted, that the suffering or punishment due to our sins was borne in the human body, the above is a most remarkable statement. In the former quotations he said that the divine nature was not the Son of God; that the Godhead dwelt in a human body, and it was the human body that endured the punishment due to our sins; and in the latter quotation he says that “he who died for our sins, and rose again for our justification, and in whose blood we have redemption, was God over all.” Can it be possible that he thought that the human nature, in distinction from the divine nature which dwelt therein, is God over all? We very well know that he thought the divine nature which dwelt in the human was God; and if the human nature, which died for us, was also God, then he certainly has presented to us two Gods, namely, a divine God and a human God! And each one is God over all. We think he has fallen into the same inconsistency which was manifested by the Manual of Atonement, by Dr. Scott, and by Dr. Barnes. Each said that divinity or the divine nature could not suffer nor die, and each said that the pre-existing divinity suffered and died. Dr. Scott even said that the self-existent God died as our mediator. We believe that the doctrine of the trinity lies at the foundation of these errors on the part of these able authors. The Bible is not, and should not be made, responsible for such inconsistencies. They are not at all necessary to an understanding of the Bible or the doctrine of the Atonement. On the contrary, they prevent an understanding of the truth, and cause the teachings of the Scriptures to appear confused and uncertain in the eyes of all who trust in the wisdom of the wise of this world. Dr. John Harris, in his first volume on Theological Science—the Pre-Adamite Earth—has very forcibly stated the truth concerning the pre-existence and manifestation of the Redeemer. He says:— “For εν αρχη [in the beginning] even then He already ην [was]. The assertion of his pre-existence is included alike in αρχη and in ην. For when every created thing had yet to be, He already was. He comprehends every being in himself.” P. 31. And of the manifestation of this pre-existent one he further says:— “His disciples subsequently declared that the life had been manifested, and that they had seen it; that that which was from the beginning they had handled and seen, even the Word of Life.” P. 34. Now, when the disciples also declare that that Word which they saw and handled was put to death on the cross, and rose from the dead, we cannot avoid the conclusion that that which was from the beginning, which was before all things, actually died for man. Of course we cannot believe what men say about his being co-equal with God in every respect, and that the divine Son of God could not suffer nor die. These are mere human words. But that the Word, or Logos, was the Son of God, that he was before all things, that he was made flesh, that he was seen and handled of men, that he was put to death, that he was raised from the dead—these are the words of inspiration. “What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord.” “The mystery of godliness,” the mystery of the incarnation, is great indeed. It is to be doubted whether a finite mind will ever be able to comprehend it. This does not speak against it as a fact; for we may accept a fact revealed, when we cannot comprehend the nature of the fact. We may believe that a certain star is thousands of millions of miles from the earth, but the human mind can have no just conception of such a distance. We believe in the being of the omnipotent God, but we cannot comprehend his being. We believe that he who was glorified with the Father before the world was, was made flesh, and dwelt among men; in whom, as the Methodist Discipline justly expressed it, were two natures joined together in one person, never to be divided; who truly suffered and died for us. What a sacrifice for guilty man! What an offering to the immutable law of Jehovah! What a vindication of the mercy and justice of the Father! “Here’s love and grief beyond degree;
The Lord of glory dies for men!” “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” See 1 Cor. 2: 8; Rom. 11: 33. Infallibility.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
This is an attribute that belongs to God only. No man ever possessed it, if we except the man Christ Jesus. But we as a people teach our peculiar views with so much confidence, people sometimes imagine that we think ourselves infallible. This is not the case. There is no one among us that makes this profession, or holds such a faith. We are all liable to err. We make mistakes; but we would humbly confess our errors, correct our mistakes, and get right. But we do hold that God is infallible. He makes no errors. He never needs to make amendment. His word is infallible. He has so published it and preserved it in the world as to communicate his will infallibly to the comprehension of those who, above all things, desire to know and do it. Is it not so? Who dare say otherwise? I dare not. Then why so many sects, all professing to take their faith from that word? I must think, “An enemy has done this.” The Bible is right, but men are wrong. It is evident that sects and error will be co-extensive. When all errors are corrected, Christians will be one. There will be no differences sufficient to form an apology for division. It is true there are certain things in the Bible that may not be understood. There might be a difference of opinion concerning them; but in matters of faith and duty, there need be no difference. This is true of the moral law. Its infallible Author has made it infallible. It never needed amendment, and never will. Its principles are eternal; and therefore can no more be abolished, or changed, than the principles and being of God himself. Talk of a “revised constitution!” You may do so in respect to constitutions merely human; but in respect to the constitution framed by the Almighty, wait till he speaks of amendment. How often has God been blasphemed, traduced, insulted, from the “sacred desk!” “The law of the Lord is perfect”—absolutely infallible. It is given to make known his will, so that man can understand his duty. It is so expressed as to make that understanding possible. If it is not possible for man to understand his duty from it, God has evidently failed to accomplish his design. If God has attempted to express man’s duty so as to be understood, what21 is his duty? Who can tell? And if man cannot know his duty, who is to blame if he does not do it? The truth is, if a man earnestly desires, with undivided heart, to know his duty that he may do it, he can learn his duty from the commandments of God. These commandments, with marvelous brevity, express man’s duty, clearly, intelligently, and infallibly. But I hear it said, “We do not all understand these commandments alike.” Then there is a failure somewhere. Where is the fault? Not in the law, I presume. But can we not, if we will, understand those ten plain precepts alike? On how many of them do we disagree? How many of them are in dispute in Protestant Christendom? We do not include those under the control of the Roman hierarchy; for that power is accused in prophecy of thinking to “change times and laws;” and I must anticipate myself a little by saying here that I believe the prophecies to be infallible. How many commandments, then, are in dispute among Protestants? Barely one; and that one is more particularly expressed and defined than any other; and a reason is given for it, dating from the beginning of the world. The Sabbath is infallible. With those who have kept it according to the commandment, it has never failed to commemorate, from week to week, the great Creator’s rest from the six days’ work of creation. It has never failed to come on the seventh day. Sabbath means rest. The Sabbath of the Lord means the day on which he rested. The infallible word of the Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and gives as the reason, that when he created the world, “he rested the seventh day,” and that for this reason he “blessed the seventh day and hallowed it.” It was not a seventh part of time merely that he sanctified, but the seventh day. And why? Because it was his Sabbath day—the day on which he rested. The Sabbath, therefore, is infallibly fixed to the seventh day; because he rested on no other. The labor and the rest, which are made an example to us, are in the past. They are fixed facts. And till historic facts can be changed—until it becomes a fact that he rested on some other day besides the seventh—no other day can possibly become the Sabbath of the Lord. Any day a man chooses to rest may be his sabbath, but it cannot be the Lord’s unless it be the day on which he rested. The Sabbath precept was placed by infallible wisdom in the central part of the moral law. This precept, demanding especial honor to God, and the one requiring honor to earthly parents, beautifully blend, and are the connecting links between duty to God and duty to men. The Sabbath is a part of that infallible law of which Jesus said, “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Infallibility has preserved the knowledge of the day. It was unmistakably marked by the falling of manna on the other six days and withholding it on that; it was owned and honored by Jesus; kept by his disciples after his death, “according to the commandment,” on the day preceding “the first day of the week;” and a portion of mankind have observed it in its weekly return ever since. And this is not all; the sure word of prophecy has spoken of it in the world to come, assuring us that all that shall be accounted worthy of a part in that world shall come from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship God. Isa. 66:22, 23. That state shall endure forever. God has testified of the new earth that it “shall remain” in his presence. Therefore the Sabbath shall remain and be observed in the endless years of eternity. God’s “work is honorable and glorious.” “All his commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever.” Ps. 111. And so long as the work of his hand shall endure, so long will the memorial of his rest keep it in remembrance. Thus will he ever be honored. “Holy and reverend is his name.” The prophecies also are infallible. They are the words of God, given for the instruction and guidance of men in this mortal state. They are a sure guide; the Holy Spirit has called the record of these predictions “the sure word of prophecy.” Some admit that the law of God is plain, easy to be understood, and therefore reliable. But when we speak of the prophecies and their fulfillment, as constituting the “signs of the times,” they begin to speak of the uncertainty and doubt that envelop the subject. Let me not be understood to claim that there are no parts of prophecy “hard to be understood,” or that I understand them all. Far from it! But what I claim is, that there are many of them which, by part fulfillment, have become very plain to the understanding of the common people, and even of children. This is especially the case with those long continuous lines of prophecy which describe events in the order of time, and were, without doubt, given to mark the progress of the world’s history, so that we may know with certainty in what age of the world we live. If this is not the intent, for what are they given? Not to make the Bible a larger book; not to puzzle men to guess concerning things of which there is no certainty. Of what use are they, but to cause us to understand the signs of the times, and know where we are and what we may expect? The words of Jesus prove this to be the case. He sharply rebuked the Jews for not discerning the signs of the times. He charged his disciples, before he left them, that when they should “see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place,” or in other words, when they should “see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then,” said he, “know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” And, after giving the signs of his second coming, he said, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it is near.” He certainly intends that the believing student of prophecy should discern the signs of his own times, and know something of what is to come in the near future. Now, look at the prophecies of the four great empires of the old world, as described and recorded in Dan. 2 and 7, and other scriptures. Is it not certain that Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome are here described? History has made this certain beyond a doubt. They have arisen in the given order, and each has done the entire work predicted of it. What next? Is it not the fifth kingdom, the kingdom of God? Observe how the character and work of the little horn of chap. 7 has been fulfilled by the papacy. Not an item of the description remains to be fulfilled, but its destruction. His dominion has already been taken away, “to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” What next? Is it not certain that he is soon to be destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming? 2 Thess. 2:8. And so we might go on, and trace the description of the fourth beast and the papacy in the book of Revelation. And also of the fulfillment of the predicted messages of warning to the world, showing by “infallible proofs” that the last warning is now being given. It is the infallible word of God that is being fulfilled. What a sin to doubt that word, or the providence of God in fulfilling it! Both his word and providence are infallible. The warning of the “third angel,” described in Rev. 14:9–12, is being borne to the ends of the earth. The time is evidently come when it is due; and it is here. The Lord is not disappointed or frustrated in his plan by this movement. He promised it; and he it is that is fulfilling it. How easy the task required of us. It is only to believe and obey his word, and engage heartily in his work. R. F. COTTRELL. Feelings Are Flowers, Fruit Must Follow
By M'Cheyne
MANY seem to think that a believer is to have certain feelings and experiences, forgetting all the time that those are but the flowers, and that the fruit must follow.—M'Cheyne. “The Bible as the Supreme Authority.”
By W. N. Glenn
A WRITER in the Christian at Work undertakes to uphold the above sentiment, and starts out reverently, with the assertion that “the Bible is the supreme standard of faith and law of life.” But in the second paragraph he begins to qualify the premise, and falls to the proposition that “the Bible is supreme in its principles, and not in its precepts,” and inquires, “How shall we separate the principle from precept?” He then answers the question: “Native common sense will separate them. The feet-washing of the Master has the lesson of humility and lowly service. Thoughtful men do not repeat the feet-washing. They learn the lesson. They leave the precept and take the principle.” That is to say, practically, they make void the commandment by their tradition. Leaving out the precepts of the Bible, there would be little principle left. Imagine a father saying to his son, “John, I am going away to-day, and you must feed the cattle just as you have seen me do it.” In his father’s absence, the boy does not give the cattle anything to eat. He admits the principle is good; he believes in that, and is willing to be guided by it; but it must be separated from the precept. “Thoughtful” boys do not feed cattle. “They learn the lesson; they leave the precept and take the principle.” Yet they consider the authority of the father as supreme, in the same sense that the writer above quoted does the authority of the Bible. And farther on he compromises again, as might be expected, and plainly gives the Bible a second place, in the following language: “The Bible is supreme when interpreted in harmony with the Christian consciousness of the age. The Christian consciousness is a fact and ever has been; the creeds of the ages are born out of it; it is a power to-day.” Just so is father’s authority supreme when interpreted in harmony with Young America’s consciousness. This consciousness “is a power to-day.” Father is a first-rate fellow, and his authority will be respected, just as long as he allows the boy to do as he pleases. W. N. GLENN. IF you want your spiritual life to be more healthy and vigorous, you must come more boldly to the throne of grace. The secret of your weakness is your little faith and little prayer. The fountain is unsealed; but you only sip a few drops. The bread-of life is before you, yet you only eat a few crumbs. The treasury of Heaven is open, but you only take a few pence. O man of little faith, wherefore do you doubt? Awake to know your privileges! Awake, and sleep no longer! Tell me not of a spiritual hunger, and thirst, and poverty, so long as the throne of grace is before you. Say rather you are proud, and will not come to it as a poor sinner; say rather you are slothful, and will not take pains to get more. Cast aside the grave-clothes of pride that still hang around you. Throw off that Egyptian garment of indolence, which ought not to have been brought through the Red Sea. Away with that unbelief which ties and paralyzes your tongue. You are not straitened in God, but in yourself. Come boldly, for you may, all sinful as you are, if you come in the name of the great High Priest.—Sel. Churchwarden Alleges Auricular Confession in Church Schools
“A CHURCHWARDEN” writes to the Record, of London, and makes the following astounding statement:— It is well known that auricular confession is resorted to in some large public schools (professedly Church of England schools), and that the book used for the Confessional, called “The Priest in Absolution,” is of such an obscene nature that it would be punishable, under Lord Campbell’s Act, to offer it publicly for sale, which alone ought to be sufficient to condemn the system. Brief Comments on 2 Cor. 11.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
“WOULD to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly; and indeed bear with me.” 2 Cor. 11:1. The translators took unwarranted liberty in this case, as in some others, in inserting the word God when there is nothing in the original to indicate it. A literal translation would be, “Would that ye could bear with me;” or, “I wish that ye could bear with me.” This would properly represent the apostle, and not make it appear that he was in the habit of making a strong appeal to God on every slight occasion. This item should be emphasized, and carefully noted, in order that none may think that they have apostolic example for such appeals. Very many persons who would be shocked at any intimation that they are profane, are really guilty of violating the third commandment. That precept says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” That is, The name of the Lord must never be spoken unless it is absolutely necessary. Repeating oaths that others have uttered; a light use of the sacred name of the Deity in ordinary conversation; very frequent repetition of his name even in prayer; and an appeal to God on any ordinary occasion,—these are all violations of the third commandment. We may be assured that Paul was never guilty of taking the name of the Lord in vain. IN this chapter and the one following, the apostle enters into a commendation of himself. He was forced to do this for the sake of the cause, and not for any personal consideration. The second and third verses give this reason for this boasting. It was his intense love for those who had accepted the truth under his labors, and his fear that they would be led astray, that moved him to do it. Some one was trying to overthrow the faith of the Corinthians, by setting forth that Paul was an impostor. If the people should lose their confidence in Paul, all his preaching would go for nothing. But he knew that he had been sent by the Lord, and had preached the truth; and rather than have them seduced from their allegiance, he reluctantly vindicated his claim to be an inspired apostle. On verse 2, Dr. Barnes says: “The allusion here, according to Doddridge, is to the custom among the Greeks ‘of having an officer whose business it was to educate and form young women, especially those of rank and figure, designed for marriage, and then to present them to those who were to be their husbands; and if this officer through negligence permitted them to be corrupted between the espousals and the consummation of the marriage, great blame would fall upon him.’ Such a responsibility Paul felt.” There never was a man who had more of which he might boast, than Paul had, and there are few who do less. His humility is apparent even in the midst of his enforced self-commendation, and shows that it was others, and not self, of whom he was thinking. “FOR if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.” Verse 4. Most commentators think that this means that if the one who was seeking to supplant Paul could offer to them a more powerful Saviour, and more exalted spiritual advantages than he had done, they would be excusable for following the new comer. But there is no pronoun expressed in the Greek, and the translators have placed the pronoun “me” in the margin. This, we are inclined to think, should be inserted in the text, so that the last clause would read, “ye might well bear with me.” The next verse seems to make this necessary. Even if another Jesus, and another gospel were preached to them, Paul argues that they ought to still bear with him; “for,” says he, “I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.” This was a good reason why they should be slow to accept the teachings of another in preference to his. “BUT though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge.” Verse 6. Paul’s traducers had evidently sought to weaken his hold of the Corinthians, by sneering at his manner of speaking. Paul does not deny that his speech was rude, i. e., unpolished, but he claims with truth that his manner of speaking did not in the least affect the truth of what he preached. From his childhood Paul had doubtless been familiar with the Greek language, but it could not be expected that he would speak it with all the polish of a native Greek. Corinth occupied somewhat the same position that Paris does in modern times. Its inhabitants prided themselves on the elegance of their language, and could be easily led to ridicule one whose speech showed that he was not a native of the metropolis. “Critics profoundly acquainted with the Greek language remark that while there is great energy of thought and of diction in the writings of Paul; while he chooses or coins most expressive words, yet there is ever a want of Attic elegance of manner, and of the smoothness and beauty which were so grateful to a Grecian ear.”—Barnes. This attempt to weaken Paul’s influence by ridiculing his straightforward, terse language, shows clearly the contemptible spirit that actuated his opposers. Such men have their successors at the present day. It is not opposers alone who criticise to their own and others’ detriment. Many professors often lose the greater part of a valuable discourse, by letting their minds dwell upon some inaccuracies in the language of the speaker; or they will stop to note some statement that might be construed to mean exactly the opposite of what the speaker intended. And while they are thus engaged, they are oblivious to golden truths which are being uttered. Persons with such a critical turn of mind as that are to be pitied. They feed on husks, and miss the wholesome, nourishing grain. Instead of cultivating such a disposition, they should seek to get rid of it as quickly as possible, and learn to “desire the sincere milk of the word,” that they may grow thereby. “HAVE I committed an offense in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?” Verse 7. This verse contains a most delicate yet pointed reproof, and at the same time a vindication of Paul’s own integrity. He had not accepted anything from the Corinthians, but had been supported by other churches, especially those of Macedonia, and had also contributed to his own support, by manual labor. It seems that the Corinthian church had been negligent of Paul’s wants, and had willingly allowed others to provide for him. But while rebuking the church for this neglect of a plain duty, he declares that he will still keep himself from being burdensome to any; not because he does not love them, but because he is determined that his captious critics shall have no occasion of accusing him of trying to enrich himself at the expense of his converts. We cannot get the full force of Paul’s language in verses 7-9 without reading verses 12 and 13 of the next chapter. Continuing the same subject, he says: “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.” From this, as well as from many other passages, we learn that it is a privilege as well as a duty for the churches to contribute to the support of the gospel. Indeed, it is an absolute necessity, for in this same epistle Paul says that “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly.” He here has reference to money, and it naturally follows that he who neglects to sow will surely fail to reap. Paul had not urged the Corinthians to the enjoyment of this privilege in his case, and he humbly says, “forgive me this wrong.” And now we can see how completely he turns the tables upon his accusers in chapter 11:7. He shows them that the only thing in which he can be said to be inferior to the other apostles is the fact that he supported himself; and while the members of the Corinthian church allowed him to do that which in reality exalted him above all others, they were proving themselves to be inferior to other churches. Most churches are very ready to forgive an offense of this kind on the part of their minister; but if the Corinthians were not more active in supporting the cause of God after this, they must have been obtuse and careless in the extreme. Let modern church-members take good heed to the apostle’s delicate reproof, lest they show themselves to be inferior, and thus lose a great blessing. IN verse 13 Paul declares that those who have been seeking occasions against him are “false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” And lest any should be inclined to doubt this statement, thinking it impossible that impostors could so successfully personate true apostles, he adds: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness.” Some persons make a great ado when a professor, and especially a minister, is found to be a rascal, and would make the Christian religion responsible for the misdeeds of all who may profess to be its followers. The fact that the fall of a professed Christian, be he minister or layman, is so loudly heralded by unbelievers, is a compliment to the cause which they despise, for it proves that they expect better things of Christian professors. But why should it be thought a strange thing that bad men should be in the church, and even in the ministry? Do men express surprise when they find a wolf in the sheepfold? Do they not expect that the wolf will go, if he can, where he can inflict the most injury on the flock? Would they not be more surprised if he should willingly stay outside? Then why should they marvel that wicked men seek to accomplish their master’s work by the same methods? Satan himself appears as an angel of light, and he is able to help his servants to play the hypocrite to perfection also. Every valuable coin is counterfeited, but the base coin does not make the true any less valuable. While the gospel ministry is the most exalted of any calling, and the true minister of Christ is worthy of esteem and affection, a man should not be received, nor all that he says believed, simply because he ranks as a minister. No one need be deceived, if he will only apply the proper test. John says: “Beloved, believe not every spirit [teacher], but try the spirits whether they are of God; for many false prophets are gone out into the world.” 1 John 4:1. And the prophet Isaiah gives the rule by which we are to try them: “To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8:20. Although it is the office of preachers to handle the word of God, and explain it to the people, we are not to throw away reason, and accept everything that they may teach, simply because they speak with authority23 . We are to sanctify the Lord in our hearts, as much for the purpose of being able to discern between truth and error, as to be able to tell the reason of our hope. The minister may be far superior to his flock in intellectual endowments, yet God is able to give spiritual discernment so that the humblest may be able to judge correctly as to the truth of what is preached. Many at the present time seek to excuse themselves for observing the first day instead of the seventh day, which God commanded, on the ground that many learned ministers of the gospel teach and practice first-day observance. This excuse is often made as a last resort, when the person is really convinced of the truth. Like the ostrich that hides its head in the sand and thinks itself secure from its pursuers, they seem to imagine that the error of their teachers, whether ignorant or willful, will shield them from the wrath of God. Such ones should remember that Paul’s words are as true of lay members as of ministers, that their “end shall be according to their works.” See also Rom. 14:10-12; Rev. 20:12; 22:12. E. J. W. LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JAN. 19.
2 Corinthians, Chaps. 11-13. Temperance in England and America.
By Thos. Stocker
ENGLAND to-day is more than a quarter of a century behind America with regard to its temperance sentiment, methods, and activities. How comes this to pass? Is it because England moves much more slowly than America on all great questions of reform? This is no doubt true, but does not explain fully this strange phenomenon. I think there are several reasons for the difference in question, which perhaps are resolvable into one main reason. The main reason, I think, is, that the people of England have failed to comprehend the temperance question in all its relations to home, to health, to morals, to national prosperity, and to legislation. Of course there has been progress in this direction during the period above named. Dr. Lees, Sir. Wilfred Lawson, and others have not labored in vain. But there are comparatively few leaders of temperance thought in the British Parliament, in English pulpits, and its editorial sanctums, who seem to have thoroughly mastered the fundamental principles of the temperance reform. A few there are, and such are working nobly; but the public sentiment is far from being either correct or as powerful as it ought to be. For example among the highly cultured and intensely religious people of the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, where Chalmers, Guthrie, and many others have labored earnestly for years to disseminate total-abstinence principles and save the victims of drink and licentiousness, the temperance sentiment is so feeble that seldom does a minister of the gospel advocate from the pulpit the duty of total abstinence from poisonous drinks as a beverage. The subject is too secular, it is not sacred enough for a Christian pulpit, or the Sabbath day. How do I know this? How? The knowledge came on this wise:— A few earnest temperance men desired the writer to speak on the present status of temperance in America, and I promised to comply with their desire, if I could have the use of a Christian pulpit on a Sabbath evening, so as to reach the ministers of the different churches that did not have service, but I was forbidden the use of such a place for such a subject, at such a time; and Edinburgh is a fair sample of almost all other places in Great Britain. Noble exceptions no doubt there are, but the rule is, that the pulpits of England and Scotland are not much used in the advocacy of the temperance reform. And certainly they are not used to show up the moral and political wickedness of the liquor traffic. With the present public sentiment such a work would be regarded as a desecration of the sacred desk. How different has been the course pursued by the Christian pulpit of America, with but comparatively few exceptions; hence we have one of the causes, and a main one too, of the strength of the temperance sentiment in America as contrasted with the sentiment in Great Britain. Whatever, therefore, some people may say against the seeming lack of zeal and activity of the Christian church with regard to temperance, one thing is true, the Christian pulpit of America has lent no small aid to the cause of temperance, and especially with regard to its legal phase. Let me give in support of this last statement some resolutions passed by a large body of delegated ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in 1880. Or rather I will give the “declaration of principles” of that body, which are contained in the Discipline of said church. Here they are:— “Temperance in its broader meaning is distinctively a Christian virtue, Scripturally enjoined. It implies a subordination of all the emotions, passions, and appetites to the control of reason and conscience. Dietetically, it means a wise use of articles of food and drink, with entire abstinence from such as are known to be hurtful. Both science and human experience unite with the Holy Scriptures in condemning all alcoholic beverages as being neither useful nor safe. The business of manufacturing and vending such liquors is also against the principles of morality, political economy, and the public welfare. We, therefore, regard voluntary abstinence from all intoxicants as the true ground of personal temperance, and complete legal prohibition of the traffic in alcoholic drinks as the duty of the civil Government. We heartily approve of all lawful and Christian efforts to save society from the manifold and grievous evils resulting from intemperance.” Now here are principles that have the right ring to them, but we have no hesitancy in saying that there is no church in Great Britain that could, with the present state of public sentiment, adopt with safety such a declaration of principles.—Rev. Thos. Stocker.