Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Future.
By Charles S. Pomeroy
Is IT not high time for all to learn that the future, whether here or hereafter, never creates any advance, improvement, progress, but only exhibits them, only intensifies them? The future is only, invariably, eternally, a resultant, a consequence. It is nothing but the outgrowth of the present. It is a casting in the mould of to-day. The future is the period when we reap what we have been sowing in the present. Many people imagine that the future has some charm which can reverse, neutralize, overcome the tendencies of the present. They think to shake off their sins, infirmities, unbelief, in the healthier atmosphere of the future. They regret those sins, wish they were subdued, but they will not grapple with them. They think “to-morrow shall be as this day, and yet more abundant”—more abundant in its opportunities, motives, relief from hindrance. Then they will be different; then they will advance. But such to-morrows never come to such people; for their yesterday has done nothing in the world to bring them. To-morrow or the coming year, or any number of years and to-morrows, are no moral alchemists to transmute sins into virtues, selfishness into charity, covetousness into benevolence, unbelief into piety, the lust of the flesh or the pride of life into purity and peace. It is only power of manifestation that is weakened in us by the passing time. When last year was the future for us, do we remember how we thought that coming time was going to bring us, somehow, a better life? Somewhere in it there was going to be a favorable opportunity to make Christ our Saviour, Friend, Master. Somewhere there was going to be a cessation of certain sins and a way out of certain injurious companionships and hazardous temptations. That vision, perhaps, was hopeful of some other easier, more magical method of escape from those enemies than the simple, old-fashioned Bible way of rising up and leaving them in settled penitence and trust. Now that the future has become the past, how stands the record? Has the blessing come? We need to discover that the future is only a result, not an actor. All that to-morrow brings us is the summing up of the actions and experiences of to-day.—Rev. Charles S. Pomeroy, D. D. Respect for God’s Word and Worship
RESPECT for God's word involves respect for his worship. Men who appreciate the Bible and keep the Sabbath do not “forsake the assembling of themselves together,” nor lightly esteem the ordinances of God’s house. Respect for the Bible means respect for the church and for all the means of grace.—Sel. Confessing Christ Before Men
“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in Heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. 10: 32, 33. Examination of a Famous Falsehood.
By J. N. Andrews
Domville's second point is that Dominicum, when used as a noun, as in the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord's Supper, but never signifies Lord's day. He establishes the fact by incontestable evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which Domville had exposed. So he turns from the Acta Martyrum in which the compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius. Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the martyrs were tested by the question, "Have you kept the Lord's day?" No matter, then, as to the Acta Martyrum, from which Bishop Andrews first produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no avail as proof that Pliny's stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord's day. But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of Saturninus and his company in Northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the very story which Domville has cited from the Acta Martyrum, and Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they were celebrating the Lord's sacrament according to custom. The following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated the Collectam Dominicum, against the command of the emperors. The proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the Collectam, and he replied that he was a Christian and had done this. Another says, "I have not only been in the Collecta, but I have celebrated the Dominicum with the brethren, because I am a Christian." Another says, "We have celebrated the Dominicum, because the Dominicum cannot be neglected." Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house. The proconsul, questioning again one of those already examined, received this answer: "The Dominicum cannot be disregarded, the law so commands." When one was asked whether the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, "In my house we have celebrated the Dominicum." He added, "Without the Dominicum we cannot be," or live. To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the Collecta. His reply was, "As if one could be a Christian without the Dominicum, or as if the Dominicum can be celebrated without the Christian." And he said further to the proconsul, "We have observed the Collecta most sacredly; we have always convened in the Dominicum for reading the Lord's word." Another said, "I have been in [literally, have made] the Collecta with my brethren; I have celebrated the Dominicum." After him another proclaimed the Dominicum to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the others, he exclaimed, "I have celebrated the Dominicum with a devoted heart, and with my brethren I have made the Collecta, because I am a Christian." When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he had conducted the Dominicum, he replied that he had, because Christ was his Saviour. I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set before the reader the references therein made to the Dominicum. It is to be observed that Collecta is used as another name for Dominicum. Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord's day? It so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven definitions. When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, he there defines these words as follows: "By the words Collectam, Collectionem, and Dominicum, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass." After recording the words of that martyr who said that the law commanded the observance of the Dominicum, Baronius defines his statement thus: "Evidently the Christian law concerning the Dominicum, no doubt about celebrating the sacrifice." Baronius by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass refers to the celebration of the Lord's Supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, he again defines the celebration of the Dominicum. He says: "It has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment." He presently defines Dominicum again, saying, "Though it is a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum, that only the sacrifice of the Mass can be understood." Observe this last statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can only signify the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus under Collecta is this statement: "The Collecta, the Dominicum, the Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix." Under Missa: "The Mass is the same as the Collecta, or Dominicum [A. D.] 303, xxxix." Under Dominicum: "To celebrate the Dominicum is the same as to conduct the Mass [A. D.] 303, xxxix; xlix; li." It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that Dominicum signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the sacrament of the Lord's Supper concerning which they were tested, and for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word Dominicum signifies "the sacred mysteries," as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius in seven times affirming this definition, though acknowledging that it has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that in this record, it can have no other meaning than that service which the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all this; yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were tested by the question, "Have you kept Lord's day?" He could not but know that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands. Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the fact that the sentence, "Dominicum servasti?" does not occur in the Acta Martyrum, a different verb being used every time. But this is the popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdoms in A. D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the Acta Martyrum. "Dominicum servasti?" does not occur in that historian, and Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of Lord's day under the name of Dominicum, Gilfillan stands convicted of inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.—J. N. Andrews, in History of the Sabbath. The Power of a Living Bible.
NOWHERE is it more true than in the Christian life that actions speak louder than words. A young man had become an infidel, and would no longer read the printed Bible, but he could not help seeing the fruits of faith in the life of another. In his father's house resided a young lady who was a relative of the family. Her fretful temper made all around her uncomfortable. She was sent to a boarding-school, and was absent some time. While there she became a true and earnest Christian. On her return, she was so changed that all who knew her wondered and rejoiced. She was patient and cheerful, kind, unselfish, and charitable. The lips that used to be always uttering cross and bitter words, now spoke nothing but sweet, gentle, loving words. Her infidel cousin George was greatly surprised at this. He watched her closely for some time till he was thoroughly satisfied that it was a real change that had taken place in his young cousin. Then he asked her what had caused this great change. She told him it was the grace of God which had made her a Christian and had changed her heart. He said to himself, "I don't believe that God has anything to do with it, though she thinks he has. But it is a wonderful change that has taken place in her, and I should like to be as good as she is. I will be so." Then he formed a set of good resolutions. He tried to control his tongue and his temper, and kept a strict watch over himself. He was all the time doing and saying what he did not wish to do and say. And as he failed time after time, he would turn and study his good cousin's example. He would read this living Bible, and say to himself, "How does it happen that she, who has not so much knowledge or so much strength of character as I have, can do what I can't do? She must have some help that I don't know of. It must be, as she says, the help of God. I will seek that help." He went into his chamber and prayed to that God whose very existence he had denied. He prayed earnestly. God heard him, helped him, and he became a Christian.—Young Men's Christian Magazine. "Under His Wing."
By F. R. Havergal
"Under his wings shalt thou trust!" not "shalt thou see!" If a little eaglet wanted to see for itself what was going on, and thought it could take care of itself for a little, and hopped from under the shadow of the wings, it would neither be safe nor warm. The sharp wind would chill it and the cruel hand might seize it then. So you are to trust, rest quietly and peacefully, "under his wings," stay there, and not be peeping out and wondering whether God really is taking care of you. You may always be safe and happy there,—safe, for "in the shadow of thy wings will I make my refuge;" happy, for "in the shadow of thy wings will I rejoice." Remember, too, that it is a command as well as a promise; it is what you are to-day, all day long. "Under his wings shalt thou trust!"—F. R. Havergal. Confirming the Covenant.
By Editor
THE following letter comes from an esteemed friend:— "I am a little puzzled on Dan. 9:27, about Christ confirming the covenant for one week. I have always understood that this was the new covenant, and that it was made when the Lord's Supper was instituted. If so, how could it be confirmed for a week when half the week was passed when it was made? Heb. 2:2 speaks of the disciples confirming what began to be preached by the Lord at first; I suppose when he first began to preach. I do not find where he said anything about a covenant, unless it was in teaching the law of God. I wish you would speak of this in the SIGNS. W. P." The writer seems to be troubled over the word confirmed, and also as to what is meant to make the covenant. Greenfield's Lexicon says that covenant means "any arrangement, institution, or dispensation." The word is very broad in its signification and very extensive in its application. The first covenant was that arrangement with the children of Israel, consisting of mutual promises and conditions, found recorded in Ex. 19:5-8. The promises which the Lord made were conditioned upon the obedience of the people, which they promised on their part. The new covenant is more largely of promises, inasmuch as in it the obedience which was promised in the first is the effect, rather than the cause, of the fulfillment of the promises. These promises are found in Jer. 31:33, 34, and are quoted by Paul in Heb. 8:10-13. The angel said to Daniel, "Seventy weeks are determined [cut off] upon thy people;" that is, the first or old covenant with Israel should yet continue seventy weeks, and the last of these weeks was also devoted to confirming the new covenant with the same people. And in the midst, or middle, of the week the Messiah should cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease; that is, he would render those sacrifices void by the sacrifice of himself. His sacrifice ratified the new covenant; but the last week of the seventy was only half fulfilled, and that week, as well as the sixty-nine, belonged to that people. The ministry of Christ was three years and a half, and he confined his labors to "Judah and Israel," according to prophecy and promise. He said he was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and when he sent forth his disciples, he said to them: "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather167 to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." The ministry of Christ and his disciples was according to the promises which God had made; it was a part of the process of giving effect to those promises. Hence it was a confirmation of those promises, and of course of the covenant which consisted of the promises. There was no absolute dividing time between the two covenants. They actually overlapped each other during that week. Though the sacrifices and temple service of the old were of no effect after the death of Christ, and the new was in full effect after that event, both covenants had an interest in that one week—the last of the seventy weeks. The new was preached by the Saviour and by his disciples, while the old was in full force. The new was ratified at the cross; but the old covenant had not then utterly passed away, for the people of Israel had not yet been rejected from the special privileges which they enjoyed as children of that covenant. When the Saviour gave the commission to his disciples, after his resurrection, they were told to begin their work at Jerusalem. The door to the Gentiles, by which they were placed on a full equality in privileges with Judah and Israel, was not opened until the end of that week. The text to which the writer of the above letter referred, Heb. 2:2, really answers his whole question. Yet we thought best, for the benefit of many readers, to bring out some of the facts on this subject. The whole ground is covered in our argument in the pamphlet containing a refutation of the "Age to Come." Bible Doctrine of Future Life.
By Editor
A VERY common error, into which many eminent writers and speakers have fallen, is that of taking every expression found in the Scriptures which speaks of a future life, and using it as evidence that "the soul is immortal and cannot die." Future life does not necessarily indicate continuous life. The Scripture declarations of death and a resurrection forbid the idea of continuous life. Where there is continuous life and no death, there can be no resurrection of the dead. And thus it is that wherever the belief of the immortality of the soul strongly prevails, faith in the resurrection declines in a corresponding degree. The doctrine of the immortality of the soul has become almost all-prevailing in Christendom, and, as a natural result, the doctrine of the resurrection is no longer dwelt upon and valued as it was in the early church. Thus Dr. Clarke speaks in his comment on 1 Cor. 15:— "One remark I cannot help making; the doctrine of the resurrection appears to have been thought of much more consequence among the primitive Christians than it is now! How is this? The apostles were continually insisting on it, and exciting the followers of God to diligence, obedience, and cheerfulness, through it. And their successors in the present day seldom mention it! So the apostles preached, and so primitive Christians believed; as we preach, and so our hearers believe. There is not a doctrine in the gospel on which more stress is laid; and there is not a doctrine in the present system of preaching which is treated with more neglect."
And that which was so plainly seen when Dr. Clarke wrote, is still more prominent now. The Spiritualists, who have no foundation but that of natural immortality, very consistently deny the resurrection, and reject the scriptures which teach that the dead will be raised. The Catholics, who place so much stress upon purgatory, practically deny the resurrection; for they really ignore it, and make the doctrine of continuous life, or the immortality of the soul, one of the most profitable factors in their vast financial system. As Luther said, it has made the pope's pot boil, and probably brought more money into his treasury than all other causes combined. That church could dispense with the intercession of Christ, but would become bankrupt without the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Many popular religious teachers of this time, such as H. W. Beecher, and probably the majority with him, deny the resurrection of the dead. Upon those scriptures which speak of a resurrection, they place the same construction that the Spiritualists do, namely, that they only indicate that there will be a future life, which is really by a continuous life, or by reason of our natural immortality; and that the resurrection from the dead means that the soul leaves the body when the body dies. But scarcely a word is needed to show that this is not the Bible idea of the resurrection. "Them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake." The dead were raised by the Saviour; not by his taking their souls from their dead bodies! but by restoring to life those dead bodies, in one case after the body had lain four days in the grave. Jesus himself was raised from the dead the third day after his death. Thus the resurrection and the future life taught in the Scriptures is not a continuous life, but a renewed life. And some theologians have gone so far as to assert that the fact that we do live is proof that we shall live in the future. And this they call Christian philosophy! Such assertions are proof only of the folly of those who make them. The fact of living is equally a fact in the case of all animals. The elephant lives, and displays a large measure of intelligence. Is that proof that he is immortal—that he will continue to live, or that he will have a future life? It is no proof in any case. And no man would offer it as proof who had evidence upon which he could rely with any confidence. But the theory which we call in question affirms that it is only the soul, not the body, which continues to live. Let it be so. Is it not the soul of the elephant which displays such remarkable intelligence? Is it not the soul of the dog which manifests sagacity, faithfulness, affection, joy, fear, hatred, etc.? Or have these suddenly become "properties of matter"? The truth is that, according to the Scriptures, the term soul applies to all animals, even to the reptiles that creep upon the earth. Do they therefore live forever, or have a future life? All that can properly be affirmed of man, as far as the term neh-phesh, or soul, is concerned, can with equal propriety be affirmed of all living creatures. But it is asked, Has not man the promise of eternal life, which is not promised to the lower animals? Is not man, therefore, superior to the brutes in regard to the matter of a future life? Yes; man has the promise of eternal life, but not the promise of a continuous life, or an eternal continuance of the present life. There are a number of important considerations connected with this matter of eternal life. 2. Eternal life is conditional, to be given to those who seek for it. Rom. 2:6, 7; John 5:40. The incorrigibly wicked have no promise of it. 3. Eternal life is not an attribute or condition of our nature. It is the gift of God, and is laid up for us "in his Son." 1 John 5:11; John 3:36, etc. 4. The soul—whatever it may be—has no relation to our eternal life, and gives no assurance of eternal life. If it did, the wicked would have eternal life; for they, by nature, are exactly as the just. Faith in Christ, or grace, gives eternal life, and makes all the difference between the righteous and the wicked. 5. The soul, whatever it may be, has no relation to a future life, and gives no assurance of a future life, either limited or eternal. Otherwise all animals, down to the very lowest, would have a future life; for the term living soul is applied to every one of them in exactly the same manner and the same sense in which it is applied to man. A future life is not based on the soul, or on man's nature, but on the promise of God through Jesus and the resurrection of the dead (for all die). Herein, and not in nature, is shown the distinction between man and the lower animals in respect to the future, or to a future life. Christ died for man, "for every man." He took hold of the seed of Abraham. Heb. 2:9, 16, margin. He was "the second Adam," or man. We learn that he did not die for the fallen angels; he did not take hold of them. Heb. 2:16. We do not learn that he died to resurrect the lower animals. The grace of God in the gospel of Christ raises man above the lower animals in respect to a future life. It also raises the righteous above the wicked in respect to eternal life. The doctrine of natural immortality obliterates all distinction of nature, in respect to eternal life, between man and the lower animals. It proves all to be equally immortal. Or the denial of immortality to the lower animals, because of their natures, is also a denial of it to man, if it be rested on his nature, or on the possession of a soul. And this is true whether we look to philosophy or to the Scriptures for proof. The doctrine of conditional immortality exalts and ennobles man, magnifies the gospel, and gives to Christ all the glory of our exaltation and eternal life. From Adam we inherit a mortal nature, and consequent death. All our hope of the future rests upon Christ. He is our life. Col. 3:4. He is the only life-giver. Why will the professed followers of Christ adhere to that which really degrades man, and deny that which glorifies the Redeemer in our exaltation? Why will professed Christians cling to the superstitions of the heathen, and reject the truth of the divine word, which shows our dependence and the ground of our hope? "An enemy hath done this." Perverse human nature has always preferred human inventions to the right ways of the Lord. Man, in the pride of his heart, is pleased to find his hope and his nobility in himself, rather than to acknowledge his frailty and his dependence, and that he owes all to Christ. The prayer of David is becoming to us mortals: "Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is; that I may know how frail I am." Ps. 39:4. Only Half Way Out.
By Editor
THE Baptist Flag says: "The Protestant branches of the church of Rome, to be consistent, must go back to their mother Rome, or come out to the Baptists. Which will they do?" We will not presume to answer the question; but we would like to ask the Flag why it concludes that those who do not become Baptists must, to be consistent, go back to the Romish Church. The answer, which is implied, will be that infant "baptism" and sprinkling rest solely on the authority of the church of Rome, and not at all on the Bible, which demands immersion. Very good; we agree. But here is another thing. There is not a line or a syllable in the Bible to uphold the keeping of Sunday. The Bible declares, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." The sole authority for Sunday observance is the Roman168 Catholic Church, which claims the right to appoint holy days and to change laws and ordinances. The keeping of Sunday is a legacy which the Protestant churches have received from Rome; and the keeping of Sunday is a virtual acknowledgement that the church of Rome has power to make laws for Christians. Homage to Rome is shown no less by Sunday observance than it is by sprinkling and so-called infant baptism. And so after the Protestant churches have become Baptist, they must take another step and become Sabbath-keepers, if they would cut loose from Rome. How is it? Will the Baptists show their consistency by returning to Rome, or by coming out from her entirely? Doers of the Law.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IN previous articles we have laid down some of the fundamental principles of the law. We have found that the moral law of ten commandments, spoken from Sinai, is perfect, holy, and good; that it is the instrument which enables us to judge between good and evil; that it is "the righteousness of God," so that there is no goodness or morality to be found outside of it; that it is also called "the way," "the way of peace," "the truth," "the testimony," "the word of the Lord," etc., and that it is the expression of God's will; that the transgression of it is sin, which makes it necessary for the gospel to be preached, so that whoever admits the existence of sin, and the necessity for the preaching of the gospel, virtually testifies to the existence of the law; more than this, we have learned that, as the righteousness of God, it is the foundation of his throne, the basis of his government of the universe, and that it was therefore in full force before this world was brought into existence, and that it will continue in force as long as God's throne endures, the delight of all the redeemed, throughout eternity. These points must be borne in mind as we proceed to their application in the examination of special texts. In this examination the points mentioned above will be strengthened, if it is possible to strengthen a position already so strong. We have already quoted Rom. 2:13: "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." This statement of the apostle's is unqualified, and admits of no qualification. The doers of the law shall be justified. The statement is positive and emphatic. There can be no qualification nor exception. Think a moment. It is the righteousness of God, the perfection of holiness. Must not the keeping of it, then, as Solomon says, be "the whole duty of man"? And if a man does his whole duty, and is a partaker of the righteousness of God, can he be condemned? Not by any means. God himself has declared, through his inspired apostle, that "the doer of the law shall be justified." Wherever in the universe a being is found who is a doer of the law, he is just in the sight of God. Already I hear some one exclaim, "He thinks that man can save himself by his own works, and leaves no room for Christ." Not so fast; do not pass judgment upon a piece of work until it is completed. Perhaps the proposition will seem clearer if we consider what constitutes one a "doer of the law." Let us illustrate: A father goes from home, leaving his son a certain amount of work to perform. There is a portion of work for each hour,—enough to keep the son constantly employed. Suppose that the son works faithfully for an hour or two, and then consumes the remainder of the time in play; has he done what his father commanded? Certainly not. But suppose that he works faithfully every hour but one, and leaves the work allotted to that hour unperformed; can he now be called a doer of his father's will? He evidently cannot. Unless he can truthfully say, "I have done what my father left for me to do," he cannot be called a doer of his father's will; and he cannot truthfully say that he has done what his father gave him to do, unless he has done all that was enjoined upon him. This is more than a simple illustration; it is a plain statement of fact. The boy cannot be said to have done what his father told him to do, if he has not done it all; a man cannot be said to have traveled the road from one point to another, if he lacks a mile of it; even so no man can be called a "doer of the law" of God if he has ever violated one of its precepts. If there be a man who has kept every commandment but one, and has violated that one but a single time, he cannot be called a doer of the law, and hence cannot be justified by the law. He would be almost a doer of the law, but there is no promise of justification for those who simply almost do the law. Right in this connection we must read the words of James: "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said [or that law which said], Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." James 2:10, 11. Many people, in their shortsightedness, have thought that this is unjust. There is no injustice in it; it is simply a statement of what exists from the very nature of things. The apostle does not say that the man who breaks only one commandment shall be considered as guilty as he who should violate every one, although he is guilty of all. There are degrees of sin. The law is sometimes likened to a chain having ten links. Now if only one link be broken, the chain is broken, and, until that link is mended, is just as useless as though all the links were broken. So if a man breaks one commandment, he has broken the law, and it is just as impossible for the law to justify him as it would be if he had broken every precept. The following from Dr. Chalmers is direct on this point:— "In order that you [may] feel the force of the apostle's demonstration, there is one principle which is held to be sound in human law, and which, in all equity, ought to be extended to the law of God. The principle is this,—that however manifold the enactments of the law may be, it is possible, by one act or one kind of disobedience, to incur the guilt of an entire defiance to the authority which framed it; and therefore to bring rightfully down upon the head of the transgressor the whole weight of the severities which it denounces against the children of iniquity. To be worthy of death, it is not necessary to commit all the things which are included in the sad enumeration of human vices, any more than it is necessary for a criminal to add depredation to forgery, or murder to both, or a capital sentence go out against him from the administrators of the law upon which he has trampled. You may as effectually cut with a friend by one hostile or insolent expression, as if you had employed a thousand; and your disownal of authority may be as intelligibly announced by one deed of defiance as by many; and your contempt of Heaven's court be as strongly manifested by your willful violation of one of the commandments, as if you had thwarted every requirement." "The man who has thrown off the allegiance of religion, may neither have the occasion nor the wish to commit all the offenses which it prohibits, or to utter all the blasphemies which may be vented forth in the spirit of defiance against the Almighty's throne. And yet the principle of defiance may have taken full possession of his heart, and irreligion may be the element in which he breathes. And in every instance, when his will comes into competition with the will of God, may the creature lift himself above the Creator; and though, according to the varieties of natural temperament, these instances may be more manifold and various with one man than with another, yet that which essentially constitutes the character of moral and spiritual guilt may be of equal strength and inveteracy with both. . . . Ungodliness, in short, is not a thing of tale and measure; it is a thing of weight and of quality."—Chalmers on the Romans, Lecture VI. The above is a good exposition of James 2:10, 11. We learn, then, that when a man willfully violates one commandment, it is not respect for the law, nor for the Lawgiver, that restrains him from violating all of them. He has shown his contempt for the authority that gave them, and thus becomes guilty of all. Now when we recall the fact that each one of these commandments reaches the thoughts and intents of the heart, we may have something of a sense of what it takes to be a doer of the law. If it is thought that there is even one human being who merits that title, read the following plain declarations:— "For we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." Rom. 3:9-19. After reading the above, you will have no difficulty in understanding why the apostle immediately adds:— "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20. It seems hardly possible that any one should now imagine that there is any disagreement between Rom. 2:13 and Rom. 3:20. It is a fact that all must recognize, that the law will justify all doers of it; and it is just as certain that by the deeds of the law no flesh can be justified, because there is no one of whom it can be said, He is a doer of the law. It is not the fault of the law that it will not justify anybody; it would do so if it were possible; it is the fault of man that it cannot. E. J. W.