Earlier text: Luther in the WartburgThe Divine Government.
By Editor
This expression, "under the law," does not mean, under the obligation, but under the condemnation of the law. Thus Paul says to the Galatians, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. 3:13. But it were surely absurd to speak of redeeming from the curse of a law which is abolished. An abolished law can inflict no curse. Now if the ungodly are not under law, it is because there is no law for them to be under; if they are under grace, they are on the same plane with the godly. Indeed, if such were the case, the distinctions of godliness and ungodliness could not exist; and the scriptures which say that sin is the transgression of the law, and, by the law is the knowledge of sin, would have no place in this dispensation. Even such a text as this: "Sin is not imputed when there is no law," would be valid proof of the truthfulness of Universalism. Then to save from sin would be to save from the possibility of sinning; and to put away sin would be putting away that which proves sin to be sinful. See Rom. 3:20, and 7:13. That "under the law" has respect to the condemnation and not to the obligation of the law, is sufficiently proved by Rom. 3:19. After showing that all, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners, the apostle adds: "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." It is the guilty, those who are convicted by the law of sin, who are under the law. If man had never sinned, he would never have been "under the law" in the sense in which Paul uses the expression. He would never have been "subject to the judgment of God," as the margin of Rom. 3:19 reads. The experience of the Psalmist would then have been the happy experience of all: "I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts." Ps. 119:45. Compare Jas. 1:25; 2:10-12. The truth is that they only are under grace, in the sense of Rom. 6:14, who are in Christ; who are converted, and have received the grace of the gospel. All who are not Christ's, who are sinners, who are rejectors of this grace, are under condemnation—under the curse of the law—"under the law" in the sense of the text. But no one is naturally a Christian; all are "by nature the children of wrath." Eph. 2:3. Therefore all who are converted, who become Christians, in their experience pass from being under the law to being under grace. Before conversion, sin has dominion over them; after conversion, it has not. But we must not forget that "sin is the transgression of the law." Now what is the position of a man when the transgression of the law has no dominion over him? It is that of yielding obedience to the law. We care not what may be his profession, as long as he transgresses the law, so long sin has dominion over him. This is undeniable. The position of the antinomian perfectionists on this point is weak and deceptive; it is opposed to the whole scope of the gospel, and subversive of that system of grace which has its foundation in immutable justice. Thus the so-called perfectionists say: "Sin has no dominion over us; we are under the sole dominion of Christ, who frees us from the law; we are no longer bound to keep the law, but it is not in us who are in Christ." The fatal defect in this statement is that it denies the plainest truths of the Scriptures, and builds up that which it calls a Christian character on a false basis. It denies the Scriptures by its utter disregard of the inspired declarations: "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and, "Sin is the transgression of the law." They use the term "sin" without any regard to Scripture definitions. According to the above-quoted texts, a man cannot transgress the law and not be a sinner. If we would know what is sin, we must go to the law for the knowledge, according to Rom. 3:20. And when a man disregards or breaks the law, he is proved a sinner, according to that text. There is no possibility of evading this truth. And if faith in Christ absolved us from obligation to keep the law, then Christ would be the minister of sin. But he is not; he is the minister of righteousness, which is equivalent to obedience, as will be further seen by our remarks on Rom. 10:4. But we have something on this point which is conclusive without any argument. It is the declaration of the apostle in the context. Following the verse on which the objection is raised, he says: "What then? shall we sin [transgress the law], because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" This declaration is a finality on the subject. Sin is the transgression of the law, and transgression leads to death, even though we have been under grace. Obedience leads to righteousness, through faith in Christ. The law cannot justify without faith, because by transgression we have fallen under its condemnation. Rom. 3:19, 20. And faith does not make void the law, but establishes it, Rom. 3:31, which is in perfect harmony with the undeniable principles of justice laid down in our remarks on the Moral System and its requirements. The grace of Christ to man is a system of favor made necessary by violation of the divine law. It is "a remedial system"—a means of pardon. The apostle's argument is highly reasonable; he says that pardon does not make void the law, and that we again fall under condemnation if we sin after we are placed under grace. Pardon is not license. God must be just in the justification of the believer. Rom. 3:26. And he will be just whether man is justified or not. This is proved in the case of every sinner lost. God could save all mankind, believing or unbelieving; obedient or disobedient. But he will not, because he cannot do it and be just. Oh, what a perversion of the gospel is that which tramples down the justice of God, professing to find a warrant for so doing in the gospel of Christ! Rom. 10:4. "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." There are three points in this text which claim our attention. 1. Christ is not the end of the law in the sense of abolishing it; for he says himself that he came not to destroy it, and Paul says it is not made void. The word "end" is here used as it is in Jas. 5:11: "Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord," that is, the design or intention of the Lord. See also Rom. 14:9. Paul says the commandment was ordained unto life, which agrees with the scriptures which have been quoted in reference to the law. But we have merited death by transgression, for "the wages of sin is death." Christ now fulfills the object or design of the law, by granting the forgiveness of sin, and bestowing eternal life. In this sense, and in this only, is Christ the end of the law. This view is confirmed by the other points in the text. 2. He is the end or object of the law for righteousness. Unrighteousness is sin, and sin is the transgression of the law; this shows righteousness to be the equivalent of obedience. And Christ brings the sinner to obedience, as it is said in Rom. 5:19, "By the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," or obedient. He kept His Father's commandments, and calls upon us to follow him. He said, "Thy law is within my heart," and promises in the new covenant to write it also in the hearts of his people. Ps. 40:8; Heb. 8:10. 3. This is only "to every one that believeth." He is not the end of the law in any sense to the unbeliever. This proves that it does not mean the abolition of the law, for when a law is abolished it is abolished to everybody alike. It shows that the object of the law is not accomplished in the unbeliever. Gal. 3:13, 14. "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree; that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." If Christ abolished the law it would not then be true that he redeemed us from its curse, for, as we have seen, abolition of law and pardon cannot go together. And we have also seen that to abolish the law which curses the transgressor, or condemns sin, is subversive of government, and does not reform the evil-doer, or save him from sin. Again, this redemption from the curse of the law is necessary, that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. Two important ideas are presented in this declaration. 1. The curse of the law rests on the Gentiles, which proves that the Gentiles were and are amenable to it, as is also proved by Rom. 3:9-19. 2. The curse449 of the law stands between the transgressor and the blessing of Abraham. Of course the law is the basis of the Abrahamic promises or blessings. Some deny that the blessing of Abraham has any relation to the law; but if they were right, how could the declaration of this text be true? If they were not related the curse of the law could no more deprive us of the blessing of Abraham than the curse of Russia could deprive us of American citizenship. When God gave the promises to Abraham, he connected them with his commandments. Thus he said to Isaac: "Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; . . . because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. 26:3, 5. And the same is taught in 1 Chron. 16:15-18: "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance." See also Ps. 105:8-11. This scripture contains two things—closely connected, but entirely distinct in their nature—namely, a law, and a promise. Both are embraced in the Abrahamic covenant, according to the words just quoted, both in Gen. 26, and 1 Chron. 16. God's promises are based on conditions. He made the promises to Abraham and his sons because of his obedience to his law. If it be asked, What law was it that he obeyed? the reply is found in the quotation above. It was that law which was confirmed to Jacob, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. Although there are many covenants mentioned in the Scriptures, of promises, agreements, etc., there is but one covenant mentioned in the Bible which is solely a law, and that is the ten commandments. See Deut. 4:13: "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." This is that law upon which the promises to Abraham were based; it was confirmed to Jacob for a law; to Israel for an everlasting covenant; it is the word commanded to a thousand generations. And if we would inherit the blessing of Abraham we must "walk in the steps of that faith which Abraham had," or keep that law upon which the blessing was based. But having already broken that law (for all have broken it, both Jews and Gentiles, see Rom. 3:9-19), and therefore incurred its penalty, we have forfeited all right to the blessing which can only be restored through Christ, who redeems us from the curse of the law that the blessing of Abraham may come upon us, as says our text, Gal. 3:12-14. The text says also that the Gentiles can receive the blessing by having the curse of the law removed from them. This is further proof of what Paul said to the Romans, that the Gentiles are amenable to that law, and by it are cursed as transgressors. But why should such an evident fact need proof? Are not the Gentiles all sinners? Is not God's law universal? Is he not the "Supreme moral Governor?" Are not all of Adam's race alike moral agents, traveling to the same Judgment? And is not "the whole duty of man" marked out in his commandments, or law? All men, of all nations, are naturally carnal, naturally opposed to the law of God (Rom. 8:7), and to be reconciled to God must become converted by and to the law of God. Some will not admit that the law of God has any agency in conversion. But no one can be truly converted without conviction of sin; and no one can have thorough and intelligent conviction of sin without knowledge of the law, "for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Hence the Scriptures are strictly true (they are always true) when they say, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Ps. 19:7. In this age of superficial conversions many may consider this passage obscure, and some endeavor to change its terms. We believe that President Finney was altogether correct in his expression of the opinion that the multitude of superficial conversions of late years is owing to the practice which is becoming so prevalent, of preaching a system of pardon without any heartfelt conviction, the conscience of the sinner not being aroused by a faithful presentation of the claims of the broken law. Genuine repentance is of sin; repentance for the transgression of the law. Therefore where the claims of the law are not recognized there can be no real conversion. True conversion is not merely emotional; not alone a matter of the feelings. It is a radical change of life; a turning from wrong to right. And how shall this be effected unless we are guided by the divine rule of right? By it alone is wrought that conviction which will lead us to Christ, who only can set us right. Lesson for Pacific Coast.—October 13.
IT is the opinion of the best critics that the epistles to the Thessalonians were written from Corinth. When Paul was forced to cease his labors in Berea, he was conducted by the brethren to Athens, but Silas and Timothy remained at Berea. Acts 17:13, 14. As soon as he reached Athens he sent word for his fellow-laborers to join him. Verse 15. It seems evident that they did join him at Athens, and that Timothy was sent from Athens to Thessalonica, to learn the condition of the brethren. The following Scriptures imply this: Acts 17:16 says that “Paul waited for them at Athens.” He had sent them a command to come to him with all speed, and if they obeyed, he would not have to wait long. In 1 Thess. 3:1, 2 we read: “Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left at Athens alone, and sent Timotheus, our brother and minister of God, and our fellow-laborer in the gospel of Christ, to establish you, and to comfort you concerning your faith.” This strongly implies that Timothy was sent from Athens to Thessalonica, but he was not the bearer of the epistle to the Thessalonians, for it is in Paul’s first epistle that he speaks of having sent Timothy. It was in consequence of the good report of their constancy that Timothy brought, that Paul wrote his first epistle. Nothing is said about Silas being sent with Timothy, and he may have been sent on some other errand, but Acts 18:5 shows that they returned from Macedonia in company, and found Paul at Corinth. It was then and there that Paul wrote his first epistle to the Thessalonians. ALTHOUGH Silas and Timothy are associated with Paul in the opening sentence, we are not to conclude that they had an equal share with him in the writing of the epistle. It simply shows that they endorsed what Paul wrote. This would not be a minor matter, for the Thessalonians were, doubtless, better acquainted with Silas and Timothy than with Paul. On the other hand, if Paul were well known, and his worth as an apostle of Jesus Christ were fully appreciated, to mention his helpers in connection with himself, would increase their influence among those to whom he wrote. And this was what Paul desired, for he had no petty fear that he should not be appreciated, and he also expected and intended that these younger men should succeed him in this work. THE comments of Dr. Clarke on 1 Thess. 1:3 are so good that we give them entire:— “This verse contains a very high character of the believers at Thessalonica. They had faith, not speculative and indolent, but true, sound, and operative; their faith worked. They had love, not that gazed at and became enamored of the perfections of God, but such a love as labored with faith to fulfil the whole will of God. Faith worked; but love, because it can do more, did more, and therefore labored—worked energetically—to promote the glory of God and the salvation of men. They had hope; not an idle, cold, heartless expectation of future good, from which they felt no excitement, and for which they could give no reason, but such a hope as produced a satisfying expectation of a future life and state of blessedness, the reality of which faith had descried and love anticipated; a hope, not hasty and impatient to get out of the trials of life and possess the heavenly inheritance, but one that was as willing to endure hardships as to enjoy glory itself, when God might be most honored by this patient endurance. Faith worked, love labored, and hope endured patiently. “It is not a mark of much grace to be longing to get to heaven because of the troubles and difficulties of the present life. They who love Christ are ever willing to suffer with him; and he may be as much glorified by patient suffering as by the most active faith or laborious love. There are times in which, through affliction or other hindrances, we cannot do the will of God, but we can suffer it; and in such cases he seeks a heart that bears submissively, suffers patiently, and endures as seeing him who is invisible, without murmuring or repining.” “FOR from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad.” Verse 8. There can be no better recommendation of a Christian than that by his life the word of the Lord is sounded forth. This is more likely to be the case in heathen than in so-called Christian countries, because, as did the Thessalonians, they receive the word “in much affliction.” Those who live in a land where Christianity is popular, are very liable to fall in with that type of Christianity that is popular, and that is not a kind that will recommend them either to God or to man. THAT the Thessalonians did suffer severe persecution, we learn from the 14th verse of the second chapter. “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus, for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews.” The record in Acts, having to do only with Paul, states that the Jews set the whole city in an uproar on account of the apostles. But after the mob once became aroused, we cannot suppose that they would quietly settle down without proceeding to acts of violence against those who had received the apostles’ doctrine. In this case, as in others, the Jews were the instigators of the persecution, but took no active part in carrying it on. WE are not left in doubt as to what doctrines Paul preached to the Thessalonians. From Acts 17:2, 3 we learn that he preached only Scripture doctrine. He was not content with mere assertions, but he reasoned. A reasoning sermon is a good sermon; but the reasoning must be Scriptural reasoning. The trouble with too many sermons of the present day is that human reason enters into them too largely. Paul preached “that Christ must needs have suffered and risen from the dead,” but did not leave his hearers with this. He also taught them to wait for his coming from Heaven. 1 Thess. 1:10. Without this last part, his preaching would be incomplete. Any preaching of the gospel that leaves out Christ’s second advent, is not Scriptural preaching. The death and resurrection of Christ afford the Christian a strong ground of hope of salvation; but since that salvation is to be revealed only at Christ’s second coming, John 14:1–3; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 1:5; Heb. 9:28, etc., if that coming should be studiously concealed, the hope aroused by the knowledge of the resurrection of Christ would be turned into despair. Should Christ not come, then the plan of salvation would be as much a failure as it would have been had he never risen from the dead. But Christ is coming again, and this thought should be to us an ever-present blessed hope. INEXPERIENCED Christians are liable to be misled by the statement of their teachers that the Christian life is one of peace and joy, and that happiness can be found nowhere else. This is true, but some think that therefore they should have no trials, but should find everything easy and pleasant. When afflictions come they think that God must certainly be displeased with them, or has forsaken them. The trouble is that they do not realize that the Christian finds joy and happiness in a far different manner from what the worlding does. Paul feared that the Thessalonians might become discouraged by their persecutions, so he sent Timothy to comfort them, “That no man should be moved by these afflictions; for yourselves know that we are appointed thereunto.” Chap. 3:3. He would have them learn to “glory in tribulation;” to take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake. When they come for this cause we may rejoice; but no one should feel elated over trials that are brought on by his own perverseness. Shame is called for in such a case. The following, by a writer in the Christian Union, is commended to those individuals who plead poor memory as an excuse for ignorance of the Scriptures or absence from the Sabbath-school:— People are wont to complain of a defective memory, but unreasonably. The truth is (idiots and the insane excepted), the memory of one individual differs from that of another in direction rather than in degree. The miser hoards his gold, the book-lover treasures up some rare old volume, the botanist carefully lays away a curious specimen of the floral kingdom, because each is respectively the one thing for which he has an especial regard. Let a person become thoroughly interested in any subject, and he will readily garner its most minute details into the storehouse of his mind, where he can lay hold upon them at a moment's warning, however much he may forget other matters. There have been those who seemed blessed with marvelous power of memory, but none of them possessed a mind sufficiently comprehensive to embrace an infinite variety of subjects. Indeed, they have almost always excelled—mnemonically—in the direct line of their avocation, thus illustrating the correctness of the view above taken. Mithridates, King of Pontus, could express himself fluently in the language of each of the twenty-two nations over which he ruled. He frequently forgot an appointment to confer with an ambassador. Magliabechi, librarian to Cosmo III., Grand Duke of Florence, was never a hundred miles from that city. But if given the title of any important book he would instantly state in what particular library it was to be found. He could not remember the names of the streets of his native city. Asked by a friend who was reading Thucydides the meaning of a word, Richard Porson, the eminent Greek scholar and critic of England, repeated the entire passage in which it occurred, and then told what, and what only, it could mean in such a connection. "How do you know that is the passage I was reading?" inquired the gentleman. "The word is found but twice in Thucydides; once on the right-hand page, again on the left, of the edition you use. I saw on which page you looked, and knew the passage." Very many like anecdotes are narrated of him. But a geometrical demonstration he was with the utmost difficulty able to master. In 1874 Mozart promised to furnish an original composition to be played by himself and a distinguished violinist before the Emperor Joseph at Vienna. Appearing in the royal presence, he found he had neglected to bring his own part; but, placing a blank sheet of music-paper in front of him, he played his part from memory without a mistake. It is well known that on more than one occasion he forgot whether or not he had dined. Henry Clay could call each of a score of persons by name, correctly, to whom he had been introduced a month before, and had not seen nor heard of in the interim. This faculty was probably one secret of his great popularity, as everybody is pleased to be remembered. Historical facts, however, with him sometimes became strangely confused. If, then, one would strengthen his memory, let him cultivate a taste for and pursue with zeal any subject with reference to which he regards it weak. Having mastered this, other subjects are to be treated similarly. Astonishing results will follow. There is hardly any limit to the growth of memory. Most people believe that it is a natural gift which cannot be cultivated to any great extent; on the contrary, it may be strengthened and developed in any direction. A gentleman who five years ago believed himself to possess a very inferior memory has cultivated it to such a degree that he can now speak extemporaneously for an hour, giving fact after fact without any mistake, and without consulting notes. The Furnace of Affliction
By Colton
It is not until we have passed through the furnace that we are made to know how much dross there is in our composition.—Colton. Order of the Ordinances.
By Editor
SOME time since a highly esteemed friend asked our opinion as to whether a believer should be baptized before partaking of the Lord's Supper, or, whether a candidate for baptism may be invited to partake of the supper. For reasons our own, we have hesitated somewhat to answer the question, though we are not in doubt as to how we should answer it. We are decidedly of the opinion that the Lord's Supper is for the members of the church, and that no one is a member of the church before baptism. The question is often asked, Do you not believe that persons may be converted and accepted of God before baptism? Of course we do. Then if so, are they not as children of God entitled to the privileges of the Lord's Supper? It is not difficult to answer that question. We may be permitted to ask in return: Is the church a divine arrangement, or is it not? And, Is the Lord's supper a church ordinance, or does it equally belong to those outside the church? We believe that church relationships were established by the Lord himself; that there is great virtue in associated effort, in Christian union, and that this fact has been recognized by the Lord in many ways. And there is no method more sure of breaking down this arrangement, and of losing its benefit, than that of granting the privileges of church membership to those who are not church members. No matter what our thoughts or feelings may be concerning the conversion of any person, we cannot recognize him, in our capacity as a church, as entitled to the privileges of the church. We may, as individuals in the United States, have the fullest confidence in the integrity of our foreign-born neighbor, and of his devotion to our Government. But in a Governmental capacity we cannot recognize him as possessing any claim to citizenship until he has publicly and in legal form filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen. Any other course tends to subversion of the Government. And so it is in the case of any organization, a church not excepted. We do not believe that Christian perfection is reached at a single bound, or that all the evil tendencies of our natures are eradicated in conversion. Christian life is a warfare, and there is always abundant room for growth in grace; always danger of human nature asserting itself, even in the convert. It is not difficult to imagine many examples where it would be preferable, judging from a selfish stand-point, to remain outside the church, and never become a member, and thus avoid many duties or burdens which are unavoidable in church membership, if all the privileges of the Lord's house may be enjoyed without entering. And if it is the privilege of an unbaptized person, one who is not a church member, to partake of the Lord's Supper, who is to determine the limit of that privilege? or may it be unlimited? If it is the privilege of one, it is the privilege of many, and of all. Thus a person, or any number of persons, may enjoy the privilege of the supper for a lifetime, and never be baptized, and never enter the church. There may not be any immediate danger of the privilege being so far abused. But small innovations have led to great abuses in the past, and they may again. Indeed, the tendency in the direction of such a state of things, at the present time, is by no means weak or small. We never had any confidence in the practice which so largely prevails of inviting "all persons in good standing in sister churches" to partake of the supper. We have known great abuses to grow out of it. Thus, a member of a church becomes a proper subject of discipline, and, as such, he is not entitled to a place at the table until the question of discipline is disposed of. He leaves the church, perhaps in open ill-will to its members, and unites with a neighboring church. Then, as a member of another church, he comes to the Lord's Supper in the church which he left. There it is known that gospel discipline would compel him to remain away, but that discipline they cannot apply because of their loose method of inviting to the supper. It may be said that there is far less danger of such an abuse among Seventh-day Adventists than among most other denominations, which is and will be true as long as we place proper limitations upon our invitations to the supper; but it will not be true if we adopt the same loose methods which are adopted by many other denominations. We do not attach much importance to custom or "general consent." But we notice as a fact that there is scarcely any other point of church belief upon which there is so great uniformity among all professing Christians, of every name, as this, that baptism precedes full church membership. Uniformity of practice is impossible only because of the widely diverse views of baptism. We think the uniformity in belief is owing to the order of statement in the New Testament, which cannot be accidental. Thus, in the commission, Matt. 28, is the following order: 1. Discipling the nations. 2. Baptizing them. 3. Teaching them to observe all things commanded to the disciples. In Acts 2 is found the same order. 1. They gladly received the word. 2. They were baptized. 3. "They continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers." A word in regard to baptism. We have not the least possible faith in the doctrine of "baptismal regeneration," as held, necessarily by those who practice infant baptism, and by some others. But we do believe that, in its proper place and significance, it was held in much higher esteem in the gospel system in the immediate teaching of the apostles, than it is in this age. It was invariably preached, invariably required, and never long delayed after gladly receiving the word. It was plainly stated as one of the conditions of salvation, by Christ himself. It was held equally important by Peter in Acts 2, on that day of pentecost. It was taught by Philip in his first and only sermon to the Ethiopian eunuch. It was given like prominence in the message sent to Cornelius. It was taught by Paul and Silas in that memorable night's instruction to the jailer in Philippi. Paul asserts that it was the method whereby they "put on Christ" before the world. Peter again gives it an important place by likening its benefits to the saving of Noah and his family in the ark. It was made the unvarying badge of acceptance of, and loyalty to, Christ and his gospel. We had no intention of extending our remarks to such length, but perhaps the questioner will be the better satisfied that it is so. Beyond our Comprehension.
By Editor
WE are quite willing to acknowledge that we do not and cannot know everything. And we do not consider that we do any discredit to the Bible when we say there are some things in it altogether beyond our comprehension. Of the great aggregate of truth, we know but little; of the infinite number of facts presented to us, both in revelation and in nature, we understand but little. We cannot comprehend how a spire of grass grows. When we hear people complain that they cannot understand the God of the Bible; that his being is beyond the range of their philosophy or reason, we are led to wonder if they ever stopped to consider what kind of a god it would be which they could understand. Dr. Hare was an infidel, but he took a more sensible view of such matters than do most of that class. He said it was no more difficult for him to accept the idea of an inscrutable God, than of inscrutability everywhere without a God. It is true that we cannot account for God; but we can account for nothing whatever without God. We cannot understand ourselves; we cannot explain our frames or our volitions. How, then, should we expect to understand one infinitely above us? We have lately received a letter from a distant State which suggests these remarks. It says:— “I am not troubled about how our great and good Father effected the incarnation of his Son, our blessed Saviour. What I desire light upon is how to meet the objection that ‘Divinity cannot die.’ It is said that whatever possessed that was divine, that much could not die. J. M. Stephenson on the Atonement, pages 127, 128, says, ‘Christ was divine in his nature, and therefore immortal.’ But that which is immortal cannot die. Is it not possible that Jesus was not made immortal until the resurrection? John 10:18.” 1 They who say that that which is divine cannot die, assume to know what is possible with God, when in truth they know nothing at all about it. All that any one can say with safety is that that which is divine is incorruptible in its nature. Now if one knows that God cannot change the nature of any being, then he may safely assert the conclusion contained in the objection. But no one knows that. 2. To suppose that Christ was not immortal until his resurrection is to suppose (1) That Christ did not personally exist before his birth in Bethlehem, which is certainly contrary to the Scriptures, or (2) To suppose that that holy one who was glorified with the Father before the world was, and by whom all things were made, was a mortal, corruptible being. They may suppose this who can; we cannot. 3. We know positively that God can and will change the nature of many individuals, from mortal to immortal. How such a change can be effected, we cannot understand. It is far beyond our comprehension. We know it only by faith in his word and promise. 4. To assume that it is more difficult for God to change the nature of an immortal being to mortal, than that of a mortal being to immortal, is presumption; no one can possibly know it, for no one can comprehend the change in either direction. Neither can be effected except by infinite, and therefore inconceivable, power. 5. We have reflected much upon the subject of the incarnation, and firmly believe that it will never be understood or comprehended by finite minds. It is the great mystery of godliness, 1 Tim. 3:16, the wonders of which we may adore through all ages. We believe that the human race has very faint conceptions of the greatness of the plan of salvation; of the wisdom and mercy in which it was devised, and of the love and power by which it is carried into effect. May the Lord help us to consider it with reverence and so to live that we may study, and admire, and praise to all eternity.