Earlier text: Nehemiah Secures the Co-operation of the PeopleDeath of Christ Vicarious.
By Editor
THE following words of Maclaurin are at once so suggestive and impressive that we are pleased to present them to the reader:— “Men may paint Christ’s outward sufferings, but not that inward excellence from whence their virtue flowed, namely, his glory in himself, and his goodness to us. Men may paint one crucified; but how can that distinguish the Saviour from the criminals? On each side of him we may paint his hands and his feet fixed to the cross; but who can paint how these hands used always to be stretched forth for relieving the afflicted and curing the diseased; or how these feet went always about doing good; and how they cure more diseases and do more good now than ever? We may paint the outward appearance of his sufferings, but not the inward bitterness or invisible causes of them. Men can paint the cursed tree, but not the curse of the law that made it so. Men can paint Christ bearing the cross to Calvary, but not Christ bearing the sins of many. We may describe the nails piercing his sacred flesh; but who can describe eternal justice piercing both flesh and spirit? We may describe the soldier’s spear, but not the arrow of the Almighty; the cup of vinegar which he but tasted, but not the cup of wrath which he drank out to the lowest dregs; the derision of the Jews, but not the desertion of the Almighty forsaking his Son, that he might never forsake us who were his enemies.” But let us further examine the facts of the gospel and see if they will justify the statement of Dr. Barnes that there was only mercy in the offering of Jesus Christ for man, as a sacrifice for sin. We do not see how any one can carefully consider the sacrifice, and the reason of its being made, and yet say there was no manifestation of divine justice in the transaction. Man is a sinner, condemned to death. Justice demands his life. But God loves the world, and gives his Son to die for man. The Son volunteers to die; the plan is fixed and determined. After years of toil, privation, suffering, and scorn, he sees the hour of his death approaching. Alone with his Father he pleads, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Not once only does he cry. His soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death. Great drops of sweat, as it were blood, burst through the pores of his skin, so intense is his agony, as he prays again and again, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” Soon is he betrayed, mocked, buffeted, spit upon, scourged, a crown of thorns placed upon his head, falsely accused and unjustly condemned, made to bear his own cross till he faints under the burden, and finally, nailed to the cross, a most cruel means of death, in agony he expires. Now, in all candor, let us ask, was there nothing but mercy in this transaction? Was there any mercy to the Saviour? It is readily acknowledged that “mercy pervades it throughout,” as far as the sinner is concerned; but was it so toward the Saviour? The sinner was not the only one concerned in that transaction. No one can make or indorse this statement of Dr. Barnes unless he looks to the benefit accruing to the sinner, without considering the sufferings and death of the Saviour. And that is surely a very limited consideration of the nature and object of the death of Christ which leaves his death altogether out of view! It may be objected here that Dr. Barnes claims an absolute excess of mercy, because the sufferings of Christ were but a small part of the sufferings that were justly due to the guilty world. But that makes not the least difference; for the question of the justice or the injustice of that part endured by him must be settled by the same principles that would govern the case had he endured the whole. The objection, however, is wholly inadmissible, involving a material error in itself; for death is the penalty of the law, and the just due of the sinner. This Christ suffered, and to deny this were to deny the whole gospel. Why was this immense sacrifice made? Was man of so great value that the glorious Son of the Most High must come to rescue him from ruin? That is by no means the sole reason. Satan made a bold attempt to frustrate the plan of the Almighty. Man, with the power of reason and of will conferred upon him by his Maker, must be free to act and to form his own character in the sight of the Lawgiver. He yielded to the tempter’s wiles and broke the law of his Creator and Benefactor. Not only the life of man, but the honor of God is at stake. Shall Satan be permitted to triumph, and man be utterly ruined and blotted from the earth? Or shall the divine Lawgiver relax the strictness of his law, and so let man escape the penalty which he had incurred? Either would dim the glory of the Most High. Either would cause “the sons of God,” who “shouted for joy” when the foundations of the earth were laid, to vail their faces in astonishment and in sorrow. God, whose love and justice are alike infinite, determined to open a way whereby man might be recovered from his fall, and the integrity of the law be maintained, and its claims fully honored. A way, through the sacrifice of his Son, whereby “he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus.” And shall we yet say that the sacrifice of Jesus was not an offering to justice? that it had no reference to the dignity of the divine law, which had been dishonored? We cannot see how people can read the sacred Scriptures, and look upon the agonies of the cross of Calvary, and yet say that the Atonement does not answer the demand of justice. But the views which we have quoted from Barnes and others on this point, are not those which are commonly accepted by evangelical Christians. And we rejoice that they are not. On the other hand we present a few quotations, the sentiments of which, we feel confident, will meet a response in many an earnest Christian heart. The first is from Bishop Baring, in a sermon on “Christ’s Death a Propitiatory Sacrifice”:— “It is the constant failing of man’s limited intelligence to attempt to exalt one attribute of Jehovah by the surrender of another, and to throw light upon his love by vailing his justice. But the salvation of the gospel, while it immeasurably heightens the glory of each attribute, exhibits them all in perfect harmony; so that each sheds a luster on the rest, and ‘mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.’ Ps. 85:10. Oh, where can we find set forth in more awful reality the immutability of God’s threats, the severity of his justice, his infinite abhorrence of sin, than in the simple narrative of the agony and bloody sweat, the cross and passion of God’s coequal Son.” Dr. Chalmers, in a sermon on the “Power of the Gospel,” said:— “That law which, resting on the solemn authority of its firm and unalterable requirements, demanded a fulfillment up to the last jot and tittle of it, has been magnified and has been made honorable by one illustrious sufferer, who put forth the greatness of his strength in that dark hour of the travail of his soul when he bore the burden of all its penalties.” Robert Hall, in a sermon, “The Innocent for the Guilty,” in which he outlines the gospel as “the substitution of Jesus Christ in the stead of sinners, his suffering the penalty of the law in their room, and opening a way for their deliverance from the sentence of condemnation,” reasoned as follows:— “It is highly expedient, or rather necessary, that the person who is admitted as a substitute in the stead of another, should vindicate the law by which he suffered. Otherwise, the more illustrious his character, and the more extraordinary his interposition, the more the sentiments of mankind would be divided between approbation of his character, and disapprobation of the law by which he suffered. It would be dangerous to throw the luster of such a character, the splendor and weight of his sufferings, into the scale opposite to that which contains the law. While he suffered the penalty, had he complained of the law which exacted it, as being too rigid and severe, as having demanded more than was really equitable, all the glory which the law might have derived from such a sacrifice would have been entirely lost. The honor of the law would have been impaired in the estimation of men, in proportion to the impression which his character and example had made on their minds. But so far is this from the case before us, that, on the contrary, we find both his language and his sufferings combine to produce one result. “Never had justice such an advocate as it had in the doctrine of Christ; at the same time never had it such a victim as in his sacrifice. He illustrated the law in his doctrine, maintained and defended its purity, and rescued it from the pollutions with which the scribes and Pharisees had debased it. He magnified the law, and made it honorable. There was no contrariety between his sufferings and his doctrine; on the contrary, the one afforded the clearest commentary on the equity of the other. Every part of his conduct, and every period of his life, was a practical illustration of the excellence of the precepts which compose that law, the penalty of which he endured on behalf of the offender.” Every one must acknowledge that whatever detracts from the honor of the law, detracts from the glory of the Lawgiver. The law cannot be reproached and its Author be honored. Jesus did not seek his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him; and it was in furtherance of this object that he magnified the law and made it honorable. The following most impressive language is found in a sermon by John Maclaurin, on “Glorying in the Cross”:— “Here shines spotless justice, incomprehensible wisdom, and infinite love, all at once. None of them darkens or eclipses the other; every one of them gives a luster to the rest. They mingle their beams, and shine with united eternal splendor; the just Judge, the merciful Father, and the wise Governor. No other object gives such a display of all these perfections; yea, all the objects we know give not such a display of any one of them. Nowhere does justice appear so awful, mercy so amiable, or wisdom so profound. “By the infinite dignity of Christ’s person, his cross gives more honor and glory to the law and justice of God, than all the other sufferings that ever were or will be endured in the world. When the apostle is speaking to the Romans of the gospel, he does not tell them only of God’s mercy, but also of his justice revealed by it. God’s wrath against the unrighteousness of men is chiefly revealed by the righteousness and sufferings of Christ. ‘The Lord was pleased for his righteousness’ sake.’ Rom. 1:17; Isa. 42:21. Both by requiring and appointing that righteousness, he magnified the law and made it honorable. . . Considering, therefore, that God is the Judge and Lawgiver of the world, it is plain that his glory shines with unspeakable brightness in the cross of Christ as the punishment of sin. But this is the very thing that hinders the lovers of sin from acknowledging the glory of the cross, because it shows so much of God’s hatred of what they love.” Mr. H. H. Dobney, in his excellent work on “Future Punishment,” discoursing on the nature of the law of God, says:— “The mediatorial work of the Son of God is set forth as that which harmonizes justice and mercy. And we can easily perceive that the authority of law, its motive power, its moral force, is more than preserved by this compensative arrangement, which so wonderfully exhibits both the wisdom and the love of God. For those to whom mercy is shown through the Mediator acquire, by the very means adopted in saving them, a much deeper sense of their guilt in violating law than they would ever have attained; while their gratitude, their admiration, their love exceed the power of language to describe; and sin becomes to them ‘inexpressibly hateful, while holiness—conformity to God—becomes the joy and rejoicing of their heart.’” The Franconia Notch Landslide
By Christian at Work
A LANDSLIDE took place in the Franconia Notch last summer, and rushed through the flume, “tearing out the famous bowlder like a straw, ripping great pieces of solid rock from the side of the flume, and greatly increasing its size, pushing on a tidal wave of solids. The body of the slide, which may have been 100 feet high and 500 long, was shot from the narrow flume as if from a gigantic cannon, the charge spreading out and covering a large area from ten to twelve feet deep, and in piles of twenty or thirty feet, and sending the largest rocks nearly to the bridge. Great rocks had furrows ground into them as they were forced along, while banks of glistening masses show that the terrible pressure reduced many of the bowlders to powder.” The event was one of a kind of which, if it had been prehistoric and some geologist of the evolutionary school had found a skull or a flint arrow-head at the bottom of the rubbish, he would have said that it must have taken 1,234,567 years or so to accomplish it; yet it all happened between dark and daylight of a June day, A. D. 1883.—Christian at Work. Charity Is the Scope of All Commands
CHARITY is the scope of all God’s commands. The Sabbath-School.
By W. N. G.
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—December 15.
[This lesson is a review of 1 Cor. chap. 1-15. The Assistant Editor having noted prominent topics in previous issues, the following comments are confined to the one subject of marriage, as presented in the seventh chapter.] THE seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians is an important part of the epistle, because it deals directly with home relations. It deals with matters that perplexed the Corinthian church, as they also do many in the church to-day. Peter said that some of Paul's writings were "hard to be understood," and, although this chapter is not necessarily of that character, there is probably no part of them more abused by superficial misconstruction than this. It has been supposed to tolerate the most scandalous practices, not only at variance with the apostle's uniform teachings, but with the whole tenor of Scripture. With but a slight understanding of the customs of the times, and the peculiar situation of the church amidst a heathen and a persecuting people, one cannot fail to learn a most valuable lesson from his exposition. The apostle's reply to the inquiries made of him embraces three phases of the marriage question: The expediency of marriage in the church, the propriety of separation from unbelieving partners, and the duty of heads of families in regard to giving in marriage their daughters, or wards, or other "virgins" under their charge. "It is good not to touch a woman." Dr. Barnes says: "Not to be connected with her by marriage. Zenophon uses the same word to denote marriage." Paul was unmarried, and, no doubt for the reason given in verses 32, 33, he chose to remain so. This, in connection with the fact that prominent Greek philosophers (including Socrates) taught that it was wisdom not to marry, had probably strengthened a party feeling on the subject in the church. The arbitrary celibacy of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and the establishment of nunneries, are unwarranted abuses of the apostle's example and teaching; for in Hebrews 13:4, he declares that "marriage is honorable in all." And some allowance must be made on account of "the present distress" (or necessity) of the Corinthian church, which had some influence on the apostle's advice. They were under great persecution,—were suffering many inconveniences on account of their profession,—and it was uncertain what further trouble might come upon them; therefore it was advisable that they assume no more responsibilities than were absolutely necessary at such a time, which would add to their burdens in times of great emergency. "NEVERTHELESS, to avoid fornication," &c. Corinth was notably a city of licentiousness,—in fact this was a characteristic feature of the idol-worship to which many in the church had been addicted. It was hard for them to overcome this evil, and to avoid it, if for no other reason, they were to "let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband." The singular number here precludes all idea of having more than one husband or wife. Verses 3, 4 establish beyond controversy the unity of the relationship, and the respect due from one to the other; and verse 5 teaches that the tie is not to be a hindrance to their devotions. "BUT I speak this by permission, and not of commandment." This is no reason why the apostle's advice should not have due weight. He was called of God to be an apostle, and entrusted with the responsibilities of the gospel; he had consecrated himself to the work, with no other object than the glory of God and the salvation of men; and his close connection with Heaven, his burden for the welfare of the church, his unselfish devotion to his calling, would render him a capable adviser. No doubt the divine approval was given to his judgment in this matter, although he may not have felt the direct influence of the Spirit. His strict honesty and carefulness is manifested in the acknowledgment, which an impostor would not have made under the circumstances. This fact alone would establish the reliability of his counsel. "FOR I would that all men were like myself." Verse 7. On this, Dr. Barnes comments as follows: "That Paul was unmarried is evident from 1 Cor. 9:5. But he does not refer to this fact here. When he wishes that all men were like himself, he evidently does not intend that he would prefer that all should be unmarried, for this would be against the divine institution, and against his own precepts elsewhere. But he would be glad if all men had control over their passions and propensities as he had, and could abstain from marriage when circumstances of trial, etc., would make it proper. We may add, that when Paul wishes to exhort to anything that is difficult, he usually adduces his own example to show that it may be done; an example which it would be well for all ministers to be able to follow." VERSES 8, 9 are merely an emphasis upon the sentiment expressed in verses 1, 2, specifying "unmarried [men] and widows," special directions in regard to "virgins" being given further on in the chapter. "LET not the wife depart from her husband. But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife." Verses 10, 11. This is emphatic, and is commanded by the Lord. The marriage tie is a sacred obligation, which even the wide gap between Christ and Belial may not separate in this life. Even if circumstances render it impossible for them to live together, they are not divorced,—they must "remain unmarried, or be reconciled." Christianity does not destroy the marriage relation, even though solemnized by heathen rites, as had been the case with many in the Corinthian church; but it makes it more sacred. The Saviour himself would permit no divorce save for the cause of fornication. Matt. 5:32; 19:6, 9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18. See, also, the teaching of Paul in Rom. 7:2, 3. THE brother is not to put away the unbelieving wife, if she be pleased to dwell with him; and the wife is not to leave the unbelieving husband, if he be pleased to dwell with her. Here seems to be a chance for missionary work, and that with the one who, of all human beings, ought to be nearest the heart. "For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" Verse 16. This will not be accomplished by wrangling argument, the incessant harassing on the part of the wife, or the abuse of authority on the part of the husband. Such means are too often resorted to in the attempt to convert unbelieving partners, and without doubt cause more separations than the mere fact of one or the other embracing the truths of Christianity. If Christianity makes a man a better husband, or a woman a better wife—as it certainly ought—it will hardly fail in a majority of cases to wield a good influence upon the opposite party. See 1 Pet. 3:1, 2. "FOR the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife," &c. It cannot be said that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified in the sense in which that term is applied to the saints. It would rather seem that reference is made to the sanctity of the marriage covenant, as the apostle appeals to the parental feelings, and intimates that any other admission would effect the legitimacy and honor of their children. "IF the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases." Verse 14. Dr. Barnes maintains that this language will not justify the idea that this action on the part of the unbeliever works a permit for the party deserted to marry another, although some others have held that it does so teach. He says, and we think correctly, that "this is contrary to the strain of the argument of the apostle." It would seem that such a position would allow desertion to be a ground of divorce, which would controvert the doctrine of Christ, and of Paul, as set forth in scriptures cited in a previous paragraph. See, also, verse 39. AT verse 27 the apostle begins a summing up of his judgment, considering their then existing circumstances. He advised them, whether married or single, not to seek a change; but if those who could lawfully do so, chose to marry, it would be no sin; nevertheless such should "have trouble in the flesh." They would increase their anxieties and cares by raising families in time of trouble, as also their sorrow should their families be torn asunder in fiery trials, or come into straightened circumstances through poverty. He would have them without unnecessary cares about the affairs of this life, which would detract from their interest in the cause of the Lord. And the day is not yet past when people have "trouble in the flesh" because they have not heeded the counsel of God's servants, although they may have had a right to do as they pleased regarding the matters in question. "BUT this I say, brethren, the time is short." &c. Verse 29. This verse, and onward to verse 33, seems like a sudden outburst upon the great theme that was always uppermost in the mind of this earnest missionary,—the greatness of the work of the Lord, and the indifference of mankind to their true interest. He would have them that had wives "be as though they had none." Not that he would have them neglect their families, but that they should always be ready to serve God first. His great anxiety was lest they should be cumbered with attachments that would engross their attention and ensnare their affections. And his fears were well grounded, as many witnesses might testify. How many husbands and wives give all their energy to the gratification of themselves and families, with but little reference to the things of the Lord. The apostle saw it plainly in his day, and the Spirit of prophecy that was in him saw it in the future; hence the warning exhortation comes down to us in all of its original importance. How well his words agree with those of Christ: "If any man come to me, and have not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Luke 14:26. "BUT if any man think that he behave himself uncomely toward his virgin," &c. Verse 36. This verse has been the cause of much skeptical abuse. By "his virgin" we understand his daughter, or ward, or any unmarried female under his care. It is always deemed proper for young females to have the parents' or guardian's consent before marriage. It is more strictly the case in Eastern countries than in our own. There the father gives his daughter to whom he pleases, often regardless of her wishes. Consequently the responsibility of her marrying or not rests with the father or guardian. It is also a fact that to pass a certain age without marriage was a social discredit to a girl. The apostle seems to recognize these conditions, and leaves the responsibility upon the father. If he thinks it improper for him to act contrary to the custom, and probably cause the unhappiness of his daughter, it will not be sinful for him to let her marry. On the other hand, if he be a, steadfast man, having placed himself under no obligation by agreement with any one regarding the virgin under his care, and be acting with integrity of purpose, notwithstanding the social custom, he will do better if he give her not in marriage. Verse 38. VERSE 39 brings out still another feature of the marriage subject which demands attention. Even after the death of her husband, a woman is allowed to marry whom she will—only in the Lord. Although a woman may not properly leave an unbelieving husband, she is, as a widow, as positively forbidden to marry one. And if a widow may not marry an unbeliever, why should any one? There is no warrant for it in the Scripture: 2 Cor. 6:14 is squarely against it. Israel was forbidden to intermarry with other nations (Deut. 7:3), and the marriage of the sons of God with the daughters of men brought about the wickedness which resulted in the destruction of the old world by the flood. Gen. 6. On this subject Dr. Barnes aptly remarks: "I confess that this verse, to my view, proves that all such marriages are a violation of the spirit of the New Testament; and it will be found, in perhaps nearly all instances, that they are disastrous to the piety of the married Christian." The Christian party to such a contract generally expects to have influence enough to win the unbelieving partner. But, in disregarding the inspired word by making the alliance, the way is paved for further compromise of faith. "A Check on Adventism."
By Editor
LOOKING over the matter as presented by Mr. Woodward we find that we were far too favorable to him in stating that he teaches the abolition of the fourth commandment. In truth he teaches the abolition of all the ten commandments, and the restoration of a part of them, or the substance of a part of them, on an entirely new basis. This we will prove by his own language. The most outspoken antinomians, who openly teach that the decalogue was abolished, never claim that we are privileged to be blasphemers, or thieves, or murderers. They teach the abolition of the entire law, but they assert that certain parts of it were reinstated in the gospel by the authority of the Son of God. The position itself is a weak one; the reasons by which it is sought to be upheld are such as would provoke a smile of scorn from any jurist if they were applied to any transaction in any earthly Government. It is always held that laws must be plainly enacted in the first place, and that they then remain in force till they are plainly repealed. And when they are plainly repealed, they are no longer of obligation unless plainly re-enacted. Antinomianism overlooks every one of these just principles. 1. It disregards the Saviour's statement that he did not come to destroy the law. 2. It assumes that he did destroy the law; for if he repealed or set it aside he did all that could be done to destroy it. 3. They do not pretend to find a plain re-enactment of these laws in the New Testament, but they infer the re-enactment of them from a mere reference to the principles involved in them. And 4. This reference is always found before they claim that they were repealed! Where is there another system so lame as this? And this is exactly the position of Mr. Woodward. He is an out and out antinomian. Read the following from him:— "We will first turn to the Lord's sermon upon the mount, which embraces the entire circle of human relations both to God and to man, and if we find in this perfect sermon no allusion to the commandment that refers to the Sabbath there kept, while all the other commandments are reinstated and reinforced, with great beauty and solemnity, we shall say that the omission was not accidental but intentional." How is it that these commandments were "reinstated" if they were not first set aside or annulled? According to the Scriptures even the ceremonial law was recognized as of authority by the Saviour, during his life. When he healed a leper he said to him: "But go, and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing according as Moses commanded." Luke 5: 14. According to Mr. Woodward's argument (!) this Mosaic law was "reinstated" and is binding now; and it is far more plainly given than he can find some parts of the decalogue in the sermon on the mount. Jesus recognized its validity then, because it was not "taken out of the way" until it was nailed to his cross. See Col. 2. But Mr. Woodward has all the ten commandments abolished even before the sermon on the mount, and some of them "reinstated" in that sermon. But we are not done quoting from him. We shall put him directly against the best Methodist authorities. He says:— "When the young ruler stood before Jesus and asked the greatest of all questions, 'What shall I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus does not say, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' He does not even remotely refer to the fourth commandment; which becomes more remarkable, for in his reply he covers all of them but the fourth." And again, in the same connection:—
"Jesus, therefore, by this reply, first and last, covers the two leaves of the decalogue, viz., 'Love to God,' and 'Love to man.' But where is the fourth commandment? Does it come in his first reply? No, for while he mentions six commands he omits the fourth." And once more, noticing our claim that the Sabbath precept belongs to the first table, where everybody but Mr. Woodward places it, he says:—
"But let it be granted that it belongs to the first part of the decalogue, which is summed up by Christ in the words, 'Follow me,' and the Sabbatarian will have a still more difficult task to show that the fourth commandment is enclosed in the words, 'Follow me.'" Before we proceed to show how he clashes with the highest Methodist authority on this subject, we will notice a few points bearing on his argument.
1. The "fourth commandment" against which he inveighs, is the only Sabbath law, given in express terms, in all the Bible. This is conceded by all. In striking at this he strikes at the highest authority for Sabbath observance.
2. The Sabbath of the fourth commandment, as given in the words of Jehovah himself, is the original Sabbath, the seventh day, on which God rested when he created the heavens and the earth. Removing this commandment were to remove the only "Sabbath of the Lord thy God." But that is just what Mr. Woodward is trying to do.
3. He is guilty of a double deception in his reference to the sermon on the mount, for (1) nine of the commandments are not "reinstated" therein. The whole law is endorsed, but there is not a sentence which can be construed into the enactment of any one of them. A re-enactment or reinstatement was out of the question, as they had not been repealed. (2) The fourth commandment is not omitted in any reference to the first table. In the Saviour's comment on the two commandments, Love God, and Love thy neighbor, he says: "On these two commandments hang all the law." We are free to express our belief that Mr. Woodward knew that the Saviour spoke these words, but for the sake of a short-lived victory which he hoped to gain, he not only concealed them from his readers, but he contradicted them.
4. It is contemptible sophistry to say that the precept, "Follow me," excluded the Sabbath, for the Saviour endorsed "all the law," and he also said: "I have kept my Father's commandments." The fourth could not be excepted, for it was one of those proclaimed by Jehovah himself on Mount Sinai.
5. In order to throw contempt upon the fourth commandment he squarely accuses Jesus of being a Sabbath-breaker; taking sides with those who put him to death. Thus Mr. Woodward says:—
"And when arraigned at last before the high priest two accusations were brought against him, one that he had broken the Sabbath, the other that he made himself equal with God. He denies neither charge, nor even seeks to correct the impression made upon his friends as well as his enemies, that he had broken the Sabbath." There are several shameful misrepresentations of the gospel record in the above extract, beside a blasphemous statement against the character of the Saviour.
(1) The charge of Sabbath-breaking was not brought against Jesus when he was "arraigned at last before the high priest." That statement of Mr. Woodward is as false as the accusation was when it was made, at another time.
(2) The Saviour was condemned on one charge only before the high priest, namely, that he was guilty of blasphemy. This he did not deny, but his silence did not make the accusation true.
(3) Mr. Woodward conceals the charge of blasphemy in his statement, to make it appear that the accusations against Jesus were true! In this manner he seeks to fasten on him the sin of Sabbath-breaking. What a work for a Methodist.
(4) Jesus was accused of Sabbath-breaking for healing the sick on that day, and for no other reason. While it is true that he did not always reply to the accusation, he once did directly, which forever sets that charge at rest with those who have faith in the Saviour's word. In Matt. 12: 10 his enemies asked him if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day. His reply, verse 12, was, "It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days." If it was lawful it could not be a violation of the law. Hence, notwithstanding the combined accusations of the Jews and Mr. Woodward, the Saviour was not a Sabbath-breaker.
Now against Mr. Woodward's double position that Christ broke the Sabbath and that he abrogated the fourth commandment we will bring to bear some reliable Methodist testimony.
And 1. We refer to Dr. Clarke's testimony on Ex. 20, which we quoted last week, that the Saviour fulfilled (kept) the fourth commandment. This is Clarke against Woodward, again. But it seems an insult to the Christian sensibility of all who profess reverence for Jesus to offer proof against Mr. Woodward on this point, as it would be an insult to the moral sense of men to offer proof that it is wrong to steal or to commit murder. 2. That the fourth commandment was not annulled by the Saviour, we will offer a few good testimonies. A work published by the Methodist house in New York, in 1839, contained the following words:—
"Another explicit proof that the law of the ten commandments, and consequently the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is found in the answer of the apostle to an objection to the doctrine of justification by faith: 'Do we then make void the law through faith?' Rom. 3: 31; which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach that the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most solemn form of expression, 'God forbid; yea, we establish the law.' Now, the sense in which the apostle uses the term, 'the law,' in this argument, is indubitably marked in Rom. 7: 7: 'I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;' which being a plain reference to the tenth command of the decalogue, and plainly shows that the decalogue is 'the law' of which he speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the gospel; and this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of its authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever, therefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of the whole decalogue." The above refers to no other Sabbath law but the fourth commandment. The following is from Bishop Haven:—
"Now our belief is that the whole of the decalogue is binding upon all men."
"That Christ and his apostles assumed to nullify a commandment of the decalogue no man of sound judgment could believe. Repeatedly Christ acknowledged and asserted the divine authority of the decalogue. To repeal it would have been to set himself in direct contradiction to what he pronounced the law of God. Such a repeal, if conceivable, must have been open, direct, and formal, or it would not be believed." But Mr. Woodward says he does believe it, though he cannot produce the hint of a repeal. How can we reconcile this with the Bishop's statement that it would not be believed? The solution is easy: The Bishop meant that it would be believed by "NO MAN OF SOUND JUDGMENT." This is the Bishop's estimate of such a man as Mr. Woodward, and we fully concur in his opinion.
And where shall we place Dr. Stratton, who indorses Mr. Woodward? Rather, where has he placed himself? The reader will now see why we expressed regret that the doctor had placed himself in such a position, because we truly respected the man. The Advocate said he did not need our sympathy, but it has quite often shown that its judgment is too nearly on the plane of that of Mr. Woodward! If it shall ever awake to reason it will change its mind.
But we have yet another important testimony, and if Mr. Woodward has any conscience (of which we discover no evidence in his book), his ears will tingle as he reads it. It is from the works of John Wesley. He speaks to one who does not regard the fourth commandment, as we see by his founding his remarks on that commandment; therefore his words apply with cutting force to Mr. Woodward:—
"'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.' Have you forgotten who spoke these words? Or do you set him at defiance? Do you bid him do his worst? Have a care. You are not stronger than he. Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth; but woe unto that man that contendeth with his Maker. He sitteth on the circle of the heavens; and the inhabitants of the earth are as grasshoppers before him.'
"'Six days shalt thou do all manner of work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' It is not thine, but God's day. He claims it for his own. He always did claim it for his own, even from the beginning of the world. 'In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' He hallowed it; that is, he made it holy; he reserved it for his own service. He appointed, that as long as the sun or the moon, the heavens and the earth, should endure, the children of men should spend this day in the worship of Him who gave them life and breath and all things." This is Wesley's estimate of that fourth commandment which Mr. Woodward so heartily despises, and of that Sabbath which it enjoins. Indeed, there is no other.
If Mr. Woodward reflected the views of the Methodist denomination, we could easily put "a check on" Methodism, in the sight of all people "of sound judgment." But he does not. The Methodist standards and best authorities are all against him. Having proved this, we might safely leave him to the condemnation547 which he has courted, without further notice. But as the Advocate said his book "is good reading," and as Dr. Stratton pronounces it both "timely" and "cogent," we must notice it a little further. Some of the best reading which it contains remains to be noticed!