IN some articles published a few months ago we carefully considered the distinction between the moral and the natural system, and certain principles of Government which are universally accepted, and arrived at the conclusion that substitutionary sacrifice is the only means whereby a sinner can be relieved from condemnation. And from this conclusion, if the principles are carefully considered, we cannot see how any one can dissent. But a substituted sacrifice is the basis of all atonement; and hence we conclude that an atonement is consistent with reason. The principles of Government and the recognition of divine justice, demand an atonement or the entire destruction of a sinful race, confronted as it is with the declaration, "The wages of sin is death."
In later articles we have, thus far, examined the principles of the divine Government as revealed in the Bible, in behalf of which the Atonement must be made. For, an atonement is a vindication of justice by an offering to the broken law. And we have examined the nature of the offering made for man's redemption. That "the Son of God died" there can be no doubt, except with those who prefer their own theories to the plain testimony of the word of God. That in his death he suffered the penalty, the full penalty, of the law; there seems to be no ground to dispute, unless the scripture is directly denied which says, "The wages of sin is death." That he died for "the world," "for all," that he "tasted death for every man," is expressly declared; and of the sufficiency of the offering there can be no doubt, admitting the declarations of the Scriptures concerning the actual death of that exalted being who is called the Word, who "was in the beginning," who was in glory "with the Father" before the world was. According to the most commonly received views these points about exhaust the subject, it being taken for granted that the death of Christ and the Atonement are the same thing. But they are not identical. True, there can be no atonement without the death of a sacrifice; but there can be the death of the sacrifice without an atonement.
While we have endeavored to vindicate the truth that the death of Christ was vicarious—a truth which we cannot see how any can deny and yet profess to believe the Scriptures—we have avoided using the common term, "vicarious atonement." That which is done by substitution is vicarious; and as Christ makes atonement for others, not for himself, it is also called vicarious. But the word is properly used in a stricter sense, as of substitution only; as that Christ does for us just what the law requires of us. The law requires the life of the transgressor, and Christ died for us; therefore his death was truly vicarious. But the Atonement is the work of his priesthood, and is not embraced within the requirement upon the sinner; for it is something entirely beyond the limit of the sinner's action. A sinner may die for his own sins, and thereby meet the demand of justice; but he is then lost, and we cannot say any atonement is made for him. The action of the priest is not in the sinner's stead, for it is beyond that which the sinner was required or expected to do; and in this restricted sense it is not vicarious, as was the death of Christ. By this it is seen that there is a clear distinction between the death of Christ and the Atonement, and as long as this distinction is lost sight of, so long will the term "vicarious atonement" convey a wrong impression to the mind. Many diverse views of the Atonement exist; and there are many whose views are vague and undefined; and we believe that both confusion and error arise on this subject from a disregard of the above distinction, more than from all other causes combined.
We have seen in the Scriptures that when a man brought an offering, he was required to lay his hand upon its head; if the people had sinned, the elders of the congregation were required to lay their hands upon the head of the offering; but in every case the priest made an atonement. See Lev. 4:20, 26, 31, 35; 5:6, 10, 16, 18; 6:7; 16:30, 32, and others. "When a ruler hath sinned . . . he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish; and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering. . . . And the priest shall make an atonement for him." Lev. 4:22-26. Three things in this work we notice in their order: 1. He shall lay his hand upon the head of the offering. 2. He shall kill it. 3. The priest shall make an atonement. Here it is plainly seen that the killing of the offering and making the atonement are distinct and separate acts; and we shall find that in every case when a sin offering was brought to the priest, he took the blood to make an atonement, according to the word of the Lord: "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." Lev. 17:11.
In regard to the ceremony of laying hands upon the head of a sin offering, Rollin, in his remarks on the Religion of the Egyptians, says: "But one common and general ceremony was observed in all sacrifices, viz., the laying of hands upon the head of the victim, loading it at the same time with imprecations, and praying the gods to divert upon that victim all the calamities which might threaten Egypt." Thus we see that the idea of substitutionary sacrifice, or vicarious death, was not confined to the Hebrews, but was recognized wherever the efficacy of sacrifices was acknowledged, which must have been revealed immediately after the fall of man.
Passing over many instances of the use of the word, we turn to Lev. 16, to the prescribed order on the day of atonement, which specially typified the work of our High Priest and Saviour. On the tenth day of the seventh month, the high priest made an atonement for all the people. The Lord fixed it as a statute, "to make an atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins once a year." Verses 29, 34. First, he made an atonement for himself and for his house, that he might appear sinless before God when he stood for the people. But this first act did not typify anything in the work of Christ, for Paul says he was separate from sinners, and therefore need not offer for himself. Heb. 7:26, 27. As the high priest entered the most holy place on the day of atonement, it will be necessary to take a brief view of the sanctuary to understand this work.
The book of Exodus, commencing with chapter 25, contains an order from the Lord to make him a sanctuary, with a full description thereof, together with the formula for anointing the priests and inducting them into their office. The sanctuary was an oblong building, divided into two parts; the first room was called the holy, which was entered by a door or vail on the east side. The second part was called the most holy, which had no outside entrance, but was entered by a door or vail at the back or west end of the holy, called "the second vail." The articles made and placed in the sanctuary were an ark of wood overlaid with gold, and a mercy-seat, which was the cover of the ark. On the mercy-seat were made two cherubim of gold, their wings shadowing the mercy-seat. In the ark were placed the testimony, or tables of stone, containing the ten commandments. See Ex. 25:16-21; 31:18; 1 Kings 8:9. The ark was put into the most holy place of the sanctuary, and was the only article put therein. In the holy place, or first room, were the table of show-bread, the golden candlestick, and the altar of incense.
When the commandment was given to make the sanctuary, the object was stated by the Lord, that he might dwell among them. A holy dwelling-place, or dwelling-place of the Lord, is given as the signification of the word sanctuary. In accordance with this design, the Lord said he would meet with the high priest above the mercy-seat, between the wings of the cherubim, there to commune with him of all things that he would give him in commandment unto the children of Israel. Ex. 25:22. But by other scriptures we learn that he would meet with them in the most holy place only once a year, on the tenth day of the seventh month, which was the day of atonement.
He promised also to meet with them at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, or holy place, where there was a continual or daily offering. Ex. 29:42, 43; Heb. 9:6, 7. Let it be borne in mind that although the glory of God was to abide in the sanctuary, it was manifested only in two places as specified: at the door of the holy where the table and candlestick were set, and in the most holy, above the ark, over the wings of the cherubim. Sometimes the glory of God filled the whole sanctuary; but when that was the case, the priests could not go in to minister. See Ex. 40:34, 35; 1 Kings 8:10, 11; 2 Chron. 5:13, 14; 7:1, 2. These few facts are sufficient to guide us in our examination of the atonement; and the reader is requested to examine them with care, and get them all well fixed in the mind.
Having made an atonement for himself, the high priest took two goats from the people, and cast lots upon them, one to be chosen for a sin offering, the other for a scape-goat. The goat upon which the Lord's lot fell was then slain, and the priest took its blood and went into the sanctuary and sprinkled it upon the mercy-seat and before the mercy-seat, in that manner making an atonement for the children of Israel, by blotting out their sins and removing them from the presence of God. That this was the true idea and intent of that work, we learn from Lev. 16:15-19, wherein it is not only said that the priest made atonement for the children of Israel, but that he also made atonement for the holy places, cleansing them and hallowing them from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. The uncleanness or sins of the children of Israel could never come directly in contact with the holies of the sanctuary, but only by proxy; for they (the people) were never permitted to enter there. The priest was the representative of the people; he bore their judgment. Ex. 28:30. In this manner the sanctuary of God was defiled; and as the blood was given to make atonement, the priest cleansed the sanctuary from their sins by sprinkling the blood upon and before the mercy-seat in the divine presence. That this process is called the cleansing of the sanctuary we learn in the plainest terms from this scripture. We quote as follows:—
"Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat. And he shall make an atonement for the holy place [Heb. the sanctuary] because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins; and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remained among them in the midst of their uncleanness. . . . And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel." Lev. 16:15-19. From this language there can be no appeal.
It has been seen that the sinner brought his offering; that it was slain; and that the priest took the blood and made the atonement; and here it is further established that the atonement was made in the sanctuary. This most clearly proves that the killing of the offering did not make the atonement, but was preparatory37to it; for the atonement was made in the sanctuary, but the offering was not slain in the sanctuary.
These things, of course, were typical, and have their fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. That he is a High Priest, and the only mediator in the gospel, will be readily admitted; but the order and manner of his service must be determined by the Scriptures. The apostle states that he is a priest after the order of Melchisedec, that is, a kingly priest, on the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens, a minister of the sanctuary and true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man. Heb. 8:1. Of course this is the antitype of the earthly sanctuary, of the tabernacle pitched or made by man. He also affirms that if he were on earth, he would not be a priest for the evident reason that the priests of the earthly sanctuary were of the tribe of Levi, while our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood, and of which no man gave attendance at the altar. Heb. 7:13, 14; 8:4. This will correct a mistake very often made, that the priesthood of our Lord commenced on earth. If he had entered on the work of his priesthood at his baptism, as has been said, he would have acted with those who were types of himself; and if as a priest he had officiated in the temple, it would have been to make offerings typical of his own.
That Christ was a "prophet, priest, and king," many of us have learned from our early childhood; but comparatively few ever learn the true relation these offices sustain to each other. He was "that prophet" while on earth; and Paul's testimony given above shows that he filled no other office. Many suppose that his priesthood is connected with that kingdom which is given to him as the Son of David. But this is utterly forbidden by plain declarations of Scripture. Aaron had no kingship, and David had no priesthood; and Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron (Heb. 7:11), so is he not a king on the throne of David (i. e., during his priesthood). It is "after the order of Melchisedec," who was both king and priest, that Christ is a priest on his Father's throne. At different times, he occupies two different thrones (See Rev. 3:21); and the throne of his Father in Heaven, which he now occupies as priest, "he shall have delivered up" at his coming. 1 Cor. 15:23-28. Then, in subjection to his Father, he will take his own throne, called also the throne of David, on which he will reign forever—without end. Luke 1:32, 33. But then he will no more be a priest, his priesthood being altogether on the throne he now occupies. The reader is requested to examine these points carefully, as a misunderstanding of them has given rise to much confusion in the "theological world."
Having shown the distinction between the earthly and heavenly sanctuaries, Paul proceeds to set forth the relation which the ministrations in each sustain to the other, saying of the priests on earth: "Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Heb. 8:5. As the earthly is the shadow and example, we may compare it with the heavenly, the substance, by which we may gain a clearer idea of the latter than is afforded us by any other means. Indeed, the comparison is made to our hand by the apostle. Note the following text, in which the distinction here claimed between the death of Christ and his work as priest to make atonement, is clearly recognized: "For the bodies of those beasts whose blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate." Heb. 13:11, 12. Thus we learn definitely that, as priest, he makes atonement; but his priesthood is not on earth, but in the sanctuary in Heaven; and that he did not
suffer in the sanctuary where atonement is made. It was not necessary, in the type, for the priest to slay the offering (see Lev. 1:4, 5); but it was necessary for the priest to take the blood and with it enter the sanctuary of the Lord to make an atonement. Jesus did not shed his blood as priest; it was shed by sinners. But he did by "his own blood" enter "into the holy places" not made with hands, of which the earthly were figures, "to appear in the presence of God for us." Heb. 9:12, 24.
EDITOR.
(To be concluded.)
“Is the Lord among Us?”
By Raymond F. Cottrell
“AND he called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?” See Ex. 17:1-7.
Though the Lord was invisible, and not present to the senses like the idols and graven images of the heathen, yet he had given sufficient evidence of his presence and protection in bringing them out of Egypt and through the sea. These unmistakable evidences should not have been forgotten in a day. We all now think they should have trusted God, who had displayed such wonders in their behalf, and should not immediately, when brought into trial, have given themselves to unbelief and murmuring, and skeptically asking, Is the Lord among us or not? Such unbelief we all now condemn. We think, Had we been there, we should have trusted our merciful and powerful Deliverer.
But have we learned, my brethren, believers in present truth, the lesson of perfect trust? In addition to the light of the past which has been put on record for us, God has led us to our present position by the prophecies and their fulfillment, and the help of the Holy Spirit. The evidences given we have been compelled to accept, and we have started out to walk in the light, and prepare for the coming of the King in his beauty. Our work is mentioned in prophecy, and those who “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” in these last days are a prophetic people. We cannot deny the truth of the position to which God has led us any more reasonably than the Israelites could doubt that God was leading them according to the promise made to Abraham: “And also that nation whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance.” Gen. 15:14. Yet how often doubts and fears are indulged, and come to the surface, if not in open apostasy, in such significantly skeptical questions as, “Whither are we drifting?” As individuals, we may be drifting into infidelity, which will end in perdition; but the work of God is going forward to the promised end. What God has promised is being fulfilled, and it will all be fulfilled. We need not tremble with fear of the failure of this message, which is already going to “many peoples, and nations, and kings, and tongues.” We need not fear that this cause will drift downward. We need not doubtfully ask, “Is the Lord among us?” All we have to do is to work in harmony with this work, believing the promises of God, and relying on their fulfillment.
The Lord is with us if we are with him. Individually, we have a work to do; and if we faithfully perform the work allotted to us, we shall witness the fulfillment of all that God has promised. His work will finally be successful, though thousands may fall through unbelief. “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Heb. 4:11. R. F. COTTRELL.
Avarice and Honest Poverty
It may be remarked, for the comfort of honest poverty, that avarice reigns most in those who have but few good qualities to recommend them. This is a weed that will grow only in barren soil.—Hughes.
When to Be Watchful.
By Charles Haddon Spurgeon
WHEN cast by Providence among sinful persons who respect us, we ought to be peculiarly watchful. The hatred of the ungodly, when poured upon Christians in the form of persecution, is seldom harmful to their spiritual nature, but the friendship of the world is always to be suspected. When the servants of the high priest allowed Peter to warm his hands at the fire, had Peter been a wise man, he would have been afraid that evil would come of it. We are disarmed by kindness, but it is never safe to be disarmed in an enemy's country. “Who,” says the old proverb, “could live in Rome, and yet be at war with the pope?” Who can have much to do with sinners and not have something to do with their sins? The smiling daughters of Moab did more mischief to Israel than all Balak's frowning warriors. All Philistia could not have blinded Samson if Delilah's charms had not deluded him. Our worst foes will be found among our ungodly friends. Those who are false to God are not likely to be true to us. Walk carefully, believer, if thy way lie by the sinner's door, and especially if that sinner hath acted a friendly part to thee.—Spurgeon.
Be in Earnest.
By John Matteson
It is wonderful how many calls there are for laborers, and yet the laborers are so few. How important that all who love the truth should become laborers to some extent. Sabbath-keepers, above all others, should be in union with Christ, and in earnest about seeking eternal life. The keeping of the Sabbath is a sign of loyalty toward God. It becomes us to be more humble, zealous, godly, and self-sacrificing, than any other class of professed Christians. And moreover, believing as we do in the soon coming and kingdom of our blessed Lord, how careful we ought to live, that we may not be stumbling-blocks to other people, but be an honor to the truth, and a blessing to the cause which we love, and to our fellow-men living about us. How sad if they should rise up against us in the Judgment to condemnation; but how joyful to bring some of them with us as sheaves into the heavenly garner.
Could we only more fully realize the final issue, how much more we would be in earnest. How carefully we would watch and pray. It is life and death that is set before us. We will either gain a crown of everlasting glory; or shame and contempt will be our miserable portion in the lake of fire, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. We will have an abundant entrance into the heavenly city of our God, or be found outside of the city with the whoremongers and liars.
What a dangerous time we are living in! What stupor Satan and the world will throw over us! How strong and numerous are the temptations of these last days! What persevering efforts are needed to keep alive in the Lord! But the crown is worth all this, and a thousand times more. We can well afford to pray, and toil, and suffer, if we can only at last obtain that far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.
Cheer up, dear brethren and sisters. Cry earnestly to God, that you may be made free in the Lord. Let no day pass by without seeking the Lord. And if you are sometimes overcome, do not stop there. Try, try again. Keep trying. As long as you struggle on, there is hope. But when you cease to strive, your light goes out. Oh! that the angel of the Lord may point you to the crown of glory, and the Spirit of the Lord kindle within you such love for Jesus, and longings for his coming and kingdom, that you may be victorious in the great day of the Lord, and that we may meet on the shores of the heavenly Canaan, to sing the sweet praises of God and the Lamb forever.
JOHN MATTESON.
Some Striking Contrasts.
By W. N. G.
THE writings of Paul abound in contrasts of things pertaining to the old and new dispensations, the types and antitypes, of carnal and spiritual things, of the true and false, etc. He lived in the transitional age, when there was a call for a radical change in the "form of doctrine." He preached a gospel, and presented a religion, new to both Jew and Gentile. Hence reasoning, deducing, comparing, and contrasting were always necessary. Several important contrasts appear in 2 Cor. 3.
IN the beginning of the chapter there is a threefold contrast: (1) The false apostles had brought letters of commendation; the apostle and his co-workers had brought none and asked none, depending entirely upon their own efforts and the witness of the Spirit to establish their character. (2) The letters of their opposers were of the ordinary kind, written with ink; the church at Corinth, known and read of all, far and near, raised up by the aid of the Spirit of the living God, was Paul's letter or testimonial. (3) These Judaizing teachers still, to a certain extent, claimed allegiance or connection with Moses, whose divine commission had been witnessed by the tables of stone; Paul's testimonial from the Spirit was even more enduring, being written in the hearts of those who believed through his instrumentality.
VERSE 6: "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament [covenant]; not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." Much doctrinal confusion has arisen from a misconception of this text. It is commonly construed as a contrast between the letter and spirit of the ten commandments. But such an idea is out of the question, for no such contrast could exist in a "perfect" law (Ps. 19:7). Again, it is used by some who believe the law still in force, as an excuse for laxness in its observance; they plead that it is possible to be too tenacious in its outward observance, and thus the spirit be voided. Now the letter of the moral law, or any criminal law, could not kill any but violators of its provisions, and its spirit could not give them life. Nothing but a pardoning power could do that. And this would make nothing against the law, but for it; for if it contained within itself a pardon for the crime it condemned, it would be self-stultifying and of no force whatever. On the other hand, the man who implicitly obeys the law is free from its condemnation. One cannot overdo obedience to the law; beyond the point of legitimate obedience is disobedience. We seldom find any fears of being "killed" by the "letter" of the ten commandments, excepting in cases where an apparent self-interest would fall a little short of obedience.
WHAT, then, is the letter and spirit of, that are here contrasted? The apostle plainly says, of the new testament. The old covenant had its letter and spirit; so has the new. The Jews had been wrecked upon the letter of the old, not properly discerning its spirit; so the Corinthians were hanging upon the outward forms of Christianity—their apostasy showing that they had little conception of its true spirit. As is conspicuously the case to-day, in fulfillment of a prophecy of the same apostle, they had a "form of godliness," but not the "power," 2 Tim. 3:5. Paul was a minister not merely of the outward forms, but of the spirit and power of the gospel.
VERSES 7-11 carry out another contrast: "But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious," &c. These verses contain a contrast of the two ministrations, the apostle holding that the ministry entrusted to him was more glorious than that entrusted to Moses, for the latter was to be done away. This idea kept in view will preclude the error that many fall into of construing this scripture into a doing away of that which was "written and engraven in stones"—the moral law.
EVERY one at all familiar with the subject knows that the ministration was not graven on the stones. Nothing but the moral law was written there,—here called death. A ministration is something to be performed, not written. Why is the law called death? Because its penalty was death. Everything pertaining to the ministration of Moses was death. It was not a remedial system; there was no pardon attached to it, only in figure. It was also called, appropriately, the "ministration of condemnation." Hence the contrast: Under that ministration, men were condemned and put to death; under the ministration of the Spirit, pardon and life are proclaimed. "If the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory." Verse 9.
MUCH labor has been bestowed upon the fruitless task of proving by this chapter that the decalogue was abolished with the Mosaic ministration. The phrase "done away" occurs in verse 7, and refers plainly to the glory of Moses' countenance. Again it occurs in verse 11, and as plainly applies to the "ministration of condemnation." In verse 13, the word "abolished" has the same reference; and in verse 14, this same vail that Moses put over his face [verse 13] is said to be "done away in Christ." This vail could not have been the decalogue, for the vail was over Moses' face, and the tables of the law were in his hand. The vail was to cover the glory, and the law was to make manifest God's will.
IN Eph. 2:15, this same apostle says Christ "abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." And in Col. 2:14 he uses this expression: "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross." If there are any ordinances contained in the decalogue then we must admit that it was abolished; otherwise we feel compelled to yield obedience. Notice also, Rom. 3:31: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." The words "make void" used here are the same as "abolished" in 2 Cor. 3:13.
ANOTHER contrast is presented in verses 12 and 13: "Seeing then we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech; and not as Moses, which put a vail over his face," &c. There is no obscurity about the gospel; all types and shadows, and the vailed glories connected therewith, have passed away, and plainness of speech is in order. Dr. Barnes truly says:—
"The doctrine of the passage is, that such is the clearness and fullness of the Christian revelation, arising from the fact that it is the last economy, and that it does not look to the future, that its ministers may and should use clear and intelligible language. They should not employ language abounding in metaphor and allegory. They should not make use of unusual terms. They should not draw their illustrations mainly from science. They should not use mere technical language. They should not attempt to veil or cloak their meaning. They should not seek a refined and overwrought style. They should use expressions which other men use; and express themselves as far as possible in the language of common life. What is preaching worth that is not understood? Why should a man talk at all unless he is intelligible? Who was ever more plain and simple in his words and illustrations than the Lord Jesus?"39As to the vail over Moses' face, verse 7, as also the account in Ex. 34, gives the idea that it was merely to cover the intense brightness of his countenance which the Israelites could not look upon while he spoke to them; but verse 13 indicates a further design,—"that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." There was something here designedly hidden from them. They were not prepared to comprehend the greatness of that which was typified by their institutions, and it was hidden from them.
THE remainder of the chapter draws still another contrast. Of the Jews it is said, "until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament;" they read it as they always did. Their minds were blinded to such an extent that the vail is even "upon their heart." They cannot discern their own prophecies, or the meaning of their ceremonies. But this "vail is taken away in Christ." "Nevertheless, when it [Israel] shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away." Verse 16. That is the only chance. "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Verse 17. See also, Rom. 8: 1-7. "But we all, with open [unveiled] face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." Verse 18. Rom. 8: 29. Macknight says, "we all reflecting as mirrors the glory of the Lord." Locke renders it, "with open countenances, as mirrors, reflecting the glory of the Lord."
THE apostle uses this expression to indicate that God has not merely given his word of promise but has given us a pledge, or part pay in advance, as an assurance that he will faithfully perform his part of the contract. It is a business custom familiar to men in all ages, and always implies an honest intention to act in good faith. The expression is used in 2 Cor. 1 : 22; 5 : 5, and Eph. 1 : 13, 14, in such a manner as to show plainly its meaning, and indicates the reasonableness and anxiety of our heavenly Father in his efforts at man's reconciliation through the word of his Spirit. This "earnest" is called the "first-fruits" of the Spirit, in Rom. 8 : 23. The importance attached to this most valuable pledge may be learned from John 14 : 15-17, 26; 15 : 26; 16 : 7; where it is called "the Comforter."
Forgiving the Penitent.
THE apostle, in his first letter to the Corinthians (chap. 5:1), refers to a most aggravating offense on the part of a member of the church. This caused him much anguish of spirit (2 Cor. 2:4), and in the chapter first mentioned, he recommends severe measures in such cases. This affair caused him great anxiety while at Troas, waiting for Titus (2 Cor. 2:12, 13), who had been sent to rectify matters at Corinth as also at Philippi, until Titus came with a favorable report. In chapter 7, he commends the church for their action, and says, verse 11, "In all things ye have approved yourselves clear in this matter." They had promptly dealt with the offender, and cleared themselves of his guilt. And the punishment had been "inflicted of many," showing that no official had taken the responsibility alone. There was nothing like excommunication by a priest, or conclave of officials. It was the act of the church as a body.
BUT, the offender having repented, the apostle pleads for his restoration in verses 6-11. On verse 6, we quote the comment of Dr. Barnes:—
"The object of Paul here is to have him again restored. For that purpose he says that the punishment which they had inflicted on him was "sufficient." It was, (1) A sufficient expression of the evil of the offense, and of the readiness of the church to preserve itself pure; and, (2) It was a sufficient punishment to the offender. It had accomplished all that Paul had desired. It had humbled him, and brought him to repentance. As that had been done, it was proper now that he should be again restored to the privileges of the church. No evil would result from such a restoration, and their duty to their penitent brother demanded it. Mr. Locke has remarked that Paul conducts this subject here with very great tenderness and delicacy. The entire passage from verse 5-10 relates solely to this offending brother, yet he never once mentions his name, nor does he mention his crime. He speaks of him only in the soft terms of "such a one" and "any one;" nor does he use an epithet which would be calculated to wound his feelings, to transmit his name to posterity, or to communicate it to other churches. So that though this epistle should be read, as Paul doubtless intended, by other churches, and be transmitted to future times, yet no one would ever be acquainted with the name of the individual. How different this from the temper of those who blazon abroad the names of offenders, or make a permanent record to carry them down with dishonor to posterity!"
Danger in Smoke.
By Editor
KANSAS is mourning over the death of one of her most valued citizens, Congressman D. C. Haskell. The Kansas City Times speaks of the causes of his death as follows:—
“Mr. Haskell died from two causes only: First, overwork. Second, oversmoke. He ought to have lived; he might have lived, with reasonable husbandry of his resources, until seventy-five or eighty years would have still found him in the harness. . . . He delighted in physical exercise, and had tremendous muscular powers, until, within a few years, hard work broke him down, and cruelly, wantonly, wasted his energies.
“At the early age of 41 he dies a victim to the two causes named above. . . . During the long hours of the night that he devoted to the study of industrial questions he was an inveterate and constant smoker. Even during the sessions of the House he persisted in his ‘day smoke,’ and the inevitable chewing of the stump of the cigar.”
Schuyler Colfax would have been in his grave years ago if he had not stopped smoking. He was on the point of breaking down, when he listened to wise counsel and threw away the cigar. And Stephen A. Douglas robbed the world of twenty years of his labor by inattention to the laws of health; in a word, by intemperate habits. And many a youth of to-day will sink into an early grave, after a useless life, by reason of the abominable practice of smoking cigarettes, even as many have gone already.
But words of warning will do no good to such. Smoke has a terrible power to blunt the sensibilities, as is manifested in the selfishness of smokers, who seem to have no manner of regard for the feelings of others, but remorselessly puff the nauseating fumes into the faces of men, women, and innocent children. We have known husbands and fathers, who pretended to have much affection for their families, who would persist in smoking a dirty pipe in the room where a wife or child was suffering with lung diseases! Such conduct is worthy only of barbarians. If their sensibilities could be aroused, we would that some of them could see these words, and be led to consider the crime which they are committing.
SIGNS.
Sabbath-School Giving.
GIVING is as clearly a duty as praying; and that Sabbath-school which does not inculcate the duty of giving is unworthy of the name. As to the claim that “all the scholars” in any Sabbath-school “are too poor to give,” there is not enough of truth in it to make it worthy of respect. When you can convince the dramshop keepers, and the tobacco venders, and the candy dealers, and the peanut and pop-corn peddlers, that the “poorer classes” are all too poor to buy anything except the absolute necessaries of life, then it will be time to ask a fair discussion of that point from Sabbath-school workers. But, meantime, it will be found that that excuse is not made by the poor themselves, nor yet by those who are most familiar with the poor, and who have largest sympathy with the poor. It commonly comes from those who are so unused to the blessedness of denying themselves in order to Christian giving, that they do not more than half believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” Those persons who have had widest experience in mission-school work are all agreed that added interest and added profit come to any and every school through encouraging and training its scholars to a part in liberal giving. If, indeed, there be a single scholar, who is a helpless pauper, without the possibility of earning anything, or saving anything, or sparing anything, in proof of his love for his Lord, by all means let that scholar understand that he is exempt from giving; but don’t keep all the rest of the school from a share in the blessedness of giving because of his incompetency. You might as well give up all singing in Sabbath-school, because one of the scholars is deaf and dumb and blind.—S. S. Times.
Sabbath-School Teaching and Preaching
The Sabbath-school teaching that does not tend to secure increased attendance upon preaching is not of the right kind. Everything that keeps people away from Christ is antichrist. In the cause of evangelization nothing can be safely substituted for the public proclamation of the gospel. The world is to be saved by the foolishness of preaching. There is an unction and a power about a well-delivered gospel sermon to be found nowhere else.—Sel.