Earlier text: General ArticlesTHE inclination of the natural heart is toward the earth and earthly things. There is in it no attraction Godward and Heavenward; no affinity connecting it with the divine and eternal. Its love is all for the vain and perishable. It is low in its graspings, and clings to the corruptible as the source of its joy and happiness. It seeks the world and not God; it finds no delight in its Creator. What can change it? What can make it the opposite of what it is? And this must be done, or it can never be the temple for the Holy Spirit to dwell in, the abode of Christ. It must be made to hate the things it has loved, and to love the things it has hated. What but the unlimited power of the Holy Spirit can effect this change? The human will, in its opposition to God, must be broken down. The proud and stubborn heart must be humbled and subdued; the longing for earthly pleasures destroyed, and a love for heavenly things begotten in the soul. Nothing short of this power and work will produce a "new creature in Christ Jesus." This is the foundation of conversion, and is laid by the Holy Ghost. If there be not this foundation, there is no true conversion. If God does not begin this work of preparation, and, moreover, carry it forward, there can be no birth into the new life. All profession without this radical work in the heart is deceptive and void of reality. A genuine conversion is the beginning of a new life, which is so nearly related to the coming eternal life that no power of men or devils can break the connection, or separate the two. It is the "laying hold of eternal life," and the "crown of righteousness," even before they are actually bestowed. This is entirely a work of grace. It is begun in the heart of the sinner unsolicited by him. He has never asked for such feelings—such an exercise of mind. He is suddenly alarmed at the condition in which he sees himself,—sinful, wretched, condemned, lost. The world has lost its charms; its beauty has faded; its pleasures have become tasteless and vain. Nothing is inviting, nothing is satisfying. Within, there is a void never before felt. He is forced to pray, to cry for mercy. He wants pardon, salvation, Christ. This is all the work of God. This is the preparation, the foundation of the sinner's salvation. He now yields, believes and is reconciled to God. His sins are forgiven; the Spirit witnesses that he is born again. He is made new; old things are passed away. —Sel. The Lord Is My Strength and Song
"The Lord is my strength and song." THE great congregation is waiting before the Lord in his house. The minister reads with solemn emphasis the weighty words of a familiar hymn. A multitude of voices take up the words and the melody, and a thrilling burst of inspiring song fills the room,—
"Nearer, my God, to thee,
Nearer to thee,
E'en though it be a cross
That raiseth me!" These are the words they sing—words full of passionate desire after the living God, and breathing a spirit of burning devotion and complete submission. How many of the singers know and feel what they are saying to the Lord? Do they know that to be raised nearer to God on a cross is painful? Do they count the cost of crucifixion in their desire to be lifted nearer the heart of the loving One? Here are the youthful, the gay, the merry, who hardly know what a cross or a sorrow means. Their laughing lips have never tasted the cup of wormwood and gall. Their shining eyes have seldom been dimmed with other tears than those of joy. What can they know of pain by which chastened souls rise nearer to God? Oh, it is a terrible thing to say, "E'en though it be a cross that raiseth me!" Perhaps they would turn back with a shudder if they saw the cross before them. Here are also mature Christians who have borne the burden and heat of the day. They have suffered with Christ in the fellowship of love and service. Do even they realize what they are singing? Nearer to God—nearer at any cost or sacrifice—and nearer through sorrow's sharpest discipline. Are they "able to drink of that cup" which the Master pressed to his pallid lips in the days of his agony? There can be no doubt that intimate fellowship with God is worth infinitely more than anything and all that it can cost. It would be worth purchasing even at the cost of life itself. In prisons and exile, in tortures and deaths, have multitudes rejoiced in the blessedness of that wonderful fellowship with which God so richly overpays our poor human sacrifices and losses and pains. Nothing is worth keeping that hinders the soul's approach toward God. The best things become dross when they shut out the true riches from the heart. Then let the beautiful heart-song be sung. There is no way of approach to God so dark that he will not light it with joy. There is no cross of crucifixion so cruel that he cannot make it more than tolerable; and the higher it is, the nearer it will lift the sufferer to God. Never can we doubt his great love to us, or fear the outcome of his discipline. "Still all my song shall be,
Nearer, my God, to thee!" How TRULY impossible it is for the human heart to give up pleasing itself and please God. Here is where the human race is lost. How impossible for mankind of themselves to overcome themselves—their inherent natural selfishness—and become like Christ, desiring only to do the will of God. So deeply rooted in the soil of man's nature is self-love and self-gratification, that nothing but the almighty power of the Creator can eradicate them from the heart. To be free from these is to be like God; and no one is in his moral image who has not ceased to please himself, and delights in pleasing his Creator. It is a great step out of self into Christ. To be in him is to be free from the shackles of a selfish nature. What a deliverance! In Christ there is no covetousness, no idolatry, no world-love. None of the things born of the human heart can be carried with us into Christ. They must be given up and left behind when we enter in by the door into the fold. What a mistake to suppose that we are abiding in Christ, when, on account of our self-love, we are not in him! How can we abide in him unless we have been brought into him, and so made like him? Is it possible for an unsanctified, selfish soul to dwell with the One who is all sanctified, and all benevolence? What union is there between two such hearts?—Sel. THE following interesting extract is from a letter written by an American missionary in Corea:— “On the 5th inst. [February], that is on the second day of the Corean new year, His Majesty issued an edict abolishing slavery in his kingdom. The decree reads that the guild which furnishes slaves to the Government be abolished, as well as the slaves connected with the various royal palaces. The books and lists of slaves held by the masters must be burned. Henceforth there can be no slaves in Corea save those who voluntarily, because of poverty or otherwise, sell themselves into bondage; but the children of all such are free-born. This seems to be the gist of the law, though ‘lawyers’ here, as in other places, are inclined to put their own interpretation on it. It is safe to say that the backbone of slavery in Corea is broken; and this noble act of her ruler places him side by side with our own Lincoln, and Alexander III. of Russia. His course is the more to be admired because there were no Garrisons and Phillipses to arouse public sentiment (no such thing exists) on the subject. The king plainly states that his predecessor, who reigned about 1820, thought to alleviate the sufferings of the slaves, and he now congratulates himself on being able to give them freedom. This emancipation proclamation will draw the people to their king. It is estimated that upward of half the population of the kingdom are slaves. Of this number many, because of ill-treatment or other reasons, have deserted their masters, fled to the country, and are successful farmers or tradesmen. The system as it was, enabled the son, or any male descendant of the family of the old master, to seize the property of any slave or his descendants who were at any time connected with the family. Couple this with the well-known laziness, haughtiness, and cruelty of the average slave-master, and the evil of slavery in Corea must have been very great.” The Captive Birds.
By Thomas Guthrie
WE have somewhere read of a traveler who stood one day beside the cages of some birds that were exposed for sale, which ruffled their sunny plumage on the wires, and struggled to be free. A wayworn and sun-browned man, like one returned from foreign lands, looked wistfully and sadly on these captives till tears started in his eyes. Turning round on their owner, he asked the price of one, paid it in strange gold, and, opening the cage, set the prisoner free, and thus he did with captive after captive, till every bird was away soaring to the skies and singing on the wings of liberty. The crowd stared, and stood amazed; they thought him mad, till to the question of their curiosity, he replied: "I was once myself a captive; I know the sweets of liberty." And so they who have experience of guilt have felt the serpent's bite, the burning poison in their veins, who on the one hand have felt the sting of conscience, and on the other, the peace of faith, the joys of hope, the love, the light, the liberty, the life, that are found in Jesus,—they, not excepting Heaven's highest angels, are the fittest to preach a Saviour, to plead with man for God, or with God for man.—Guthrie. God’s Mercy Is Above All Sins
By Thomas Adams
It is disowning my belief, wronging my soul, and giving the lie to God, to think but for a moment that his mercy in Christ is not above all my sins.—Rev. T. Adams. Daniel Adown the Centuries.
By John Monroe Buckley
THE influence of the book of Daniel upon the early Christian church was greater, perhaps, than that of any of the prophets. It has been said, and I think with truth, that it would be hard to conceive the possibility of the book of Revelation without the book of Daniel. Observe the reference made by our Lord in Matthew 24:15: "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place (whoso readeth, let him understand)," which introduces the appalling description of the destruction of Jerusalem, and of the end of the world, repeated by Mark, it is not wonderful that the book should have made so profound an impression upon the thought of the Christian church. The references also to Daniel in the book of Ezekiel are of the most striking character. In the fourteenth chapter, when the idolators in Israel are rebuked, the prophet, speaking in the name of God, says: "Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, . . . they shall but deliver their own souls." This is twice repeated; namely, in the eighteenth and twentieth verses, while a fourth reference in the twenty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel is even more striking, when the prophet describes Tyrus, and pronounces the judgments of God upon that type for all time of proud commercial prosperity: "Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God." This passage, awful in severity, and penetrating in its satire, culminates as follows: "Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee." The character of Daniel has also been impressed upon literature. Twice in Shakespeare does "the man of God" appear, in the "Merchant of Venice:" "A Daniel came to judgment; yea, a Daniel, . . . a second Daniel, a Daniel, Jew! Now, infidel, I have you on the hip." And the infidel responds, "I thank thee, Jew, for teaching me that word." The tales of the Apocrypha are also quite in harmony with the character of Daniel as set forth in the book of Daniel, especially the vindication of Susanna. A famous sentence of Gibbon (History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) illustrates the remarkable influence of the imagery employed by Daniel, exerted upon a mind which could be reached only through the appropriateness of the symbols employed,—which appropriateness in the mouth of the prophet so many centuries before furnishes to us a strong incidental confirmation of his claims to divine inspiration: "The armies of the republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, of silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome." Some years since, the writer, spending a summer Sabbath with a friend at his country place, was asked by the children and some of their little friends to preach them a sermon on Sabbath evening. He consented to do so on condition that they would meet and agree upon a text. After long meditation, and taxing their little minds, they announced that they had agreed, and asked for a sermon on "Daniel in the lions' den." To the theologian, the historian, the critic, and to children, "this Daniel" will ever remain one of the most striking and absorbing figures in the panorama of the age.—J. M. Buckley, D. D. A Popular Fallacy.
By Editor
THE article in the Michigan Christian Advocate, to which we referred last week, in the closing paragraph said:— "The first covenant, then, was that made to Moses on Sinai, consisting of circumcision, Sabbath days (not the Sabbath rest itself; for that was a permanency in religion before Moses was born), priesthood, sacrifices, and offerings for sin."
We waive the error on the subject of the covenant to notice the very prominent error of trying to disconnect the "Sabbath rest itself" from the "Sabbath day." It is much to be regretted that men, claiming a good degree of piety, will misrepresent and pervert the Scriptures to maintain a theory to which they have attached themselves. In all the round of theological falsities there is none more evident or more mischievous in its tendencies than that which we have quoted above. Evident, because it has not the least shadow of Scripture proof to sustain it, and is contrary to the most direct Scripture declarations; and mischievous, because it not only leads to the violation of the commandment of God, but it subverts the commandment and makes it of no effect. In such teachings the authors place themselves side by side with "that man of sin," of whom Paul spoke in 2 Thess. 2. He does not call him "a sinning man," or "a sinful man." There are so many men of that kind that it would be almost impossible for any one man or set of men to show a specially bad pre-eminence among them. But he is "that man of sin;" he stands out peculiar and eminent as one who not merely commits sin—transgresses divine law—but who legalizes sin; who sits in judgment on God's great instrument which condemns sin; who legislates in favor of sin and against the law; who affects to make it a mark of piety, a Christian duty, to sin. Now we insist that every one who teaches that the law is abolished, or who perverts it so as to lead to its violation, or destroys it in substance and substitutes something else in its place, not only indorses the actions of that man of sin, but forms an alliance with him; makes himself an accessory in the act. This language is not unjust; it is not too strong for the circumstances. The light on this Sabbath question is greatly on the increase; the mists of the traditions of the dark ages are being swept away, and the harmony between "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus" is being clearly shown. It is becoming more and more evident that the opposition to the fourth commandment is an out-growth of prejudice and worldly religion, and that, in the sight of Heaven, opposers are without excuse. Do the Scriptures give any warrant for separating the Sabbath day from the Sabbath institution? Or, coming more directly to the subject presented in the words we have quoted, Do the Scriptures show that "the Sabbath rest" preceded, as a religious institution, the appointment of the seventh day? This is the question now to be considered. We affirm (1), That it is not possible to separate the Sabbath day from the Sabbath rest or institution. And (2), That if it were possible to separate them, then priority or preference would stand in favor of the day. This part of the subject is not difficult to settle by Bible proof; because the proof is compact, and very positive and decisive. We do not have to range over a large field of statements, and examine inferences. The statements are few, plain, and clear, and there is not a point on which to suspend an inference against the plain word. All the Scripture proof that we have concerning a Sabbath rest before the days of Moses, is found in Gen. 2:1-3. We quote the verses entire:— "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."
God made the heavens and earth in six days, dating from "the beginning." And he rested the seventh day. He blessed the seventh day. He sanctified the seventh day. He blessed and sanctified the seventh day because it was his rest (Sabbath) day. This is the sum total of the evidence concerning God's holy day, before the day of Moses. This is how and when "the Sabbath rest itself" became "a permanency in religion before Moses was born." By this it will be seen that the day is the institution. There was no Sabbath rest aside from the seventh day. The rest commemorated the work; and the work was that of creation in six days. The work was constituted of seven days—never more, never less. The last, the seventh, was the rest day of the Creator, and because "he hath made his wonderful works to be remembered" (Ps. 111:4), therefore he blessed the seventh day; and he sanctified the seventh day, "because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Nothing was blest, nothing was sanctified, nothing was instituted, apart from "the day." And the commandment of Jehovah, given to all his people by himself, exactly corresponds to this "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." The most literal rendering is—Remember the day of the Sabbath, the day of the rest. Sabbath means rest; remember the rest day. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." We find nothing at all in the history, nothing in the commandment, aside from the day. "Keep it holy." The pronoun "it" refers to the day. How did the day become the Lord's Sabbath? "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." But learned men (in the wisdom of this world) have said that the fourth commandment was twofold in its nature; that it was partly moral and partly positive. And they tell us that the moral part referred to a rest, a Sabbath, an institution, without regard to a particular day; while the positive part located the Sabbath on the seventh day. This theory was invented in order to enable the devotees of "the venerable day of the sun" to crowd the Sabbath day of Jehovah out of his commandment, and to insert their own day in its stead. On this we ask the question: Is a moral duty dependent on a positive law? Every one must answer, No. If there is a moral duty, it must stand independent of positive duty; it would be in force if the positive law were entirely abolished. Now we propose to accept, for the present, this theory, and to obliterate the positive part of the commandment, leaving the moral part to stand on its own footing. In doing this, we must drop out the word "day," the words "rest day," or Sabbath; for the Lord said: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," and when he says Sabbath day or rest day, he means the day of his rest, the seventh day; and we must drop out the pronoun "it;" for it refers to the day upon which the Lord rested, which he hallowed. This we have sufficiently shown. Now for the moral part of the commandment:— "Remember — — to keep — holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but — — is — of the Lord thy God; in — thou shalt not do any work. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested — — —, wherefore the Lord blessed — — — and hallowed —."
How would any one learn a duty from this moral part (?) of the commandment? He would readily discover that it referred to creation, and going back to the record he could fill the blanks according to the facts. But of course he would have to insert "the seventh day;" without that the commandment is a nullity. But suppose we can, by some means not yet made known, drop the seventh day out of the law, what then? Why, of course, we can transfer the obligation to the first day—the very object of all this twisting and perverting the law of God. At least we can try the experiment. It will then read thus:— "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." So far, good; now for the reason. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the first day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
All very satisfactory except in one point: it makes the commandment tell a falsehood! But this falsehood is a necessity of the case. That is to say, that it is impossible to make the fourth commandment enforce the first day of the week without making it also teach an untruth. We might follow this subject further, but what is the need? It certainly requires but brief examination of the proofs, and not a very high order of intellect, to perceive that to enforce the keeping of the first day of the week by the Sabbath commandment which the Lord gave to man, is "to pervert the right ways of the Lord." Acts 13:10. And if we cannot succeed in turning men away from a work which must be offensive to God, we can discharge our duty in exposing their fallacies, and leading the honest-hearted to cease to trust in the multitude of mighty men (Hos. 10:13), and turn with all their heart "to the law, and to the testimony." Isa. 8:20. National Prejudice.
By Editor
THE measure of the missionary spirit in the church is the measure of the spirit of the gospel which it possesses. The Saviour said to his disciples, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." He told them that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations." And the redeemed throng are represented to be "of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues." And this is necessary to meet the necessities of man's condition. All are fallen; all are sinners; all are subject to disabilities brought upon them by our common representative head—Adam. For it is written that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." As Christians, as missionaries of the cross, it is not permitted us to harbor race prejudices. If we differ from others, it is of the Lord's mercies; it is by the power and of the riches of his grace. The present agitation of the labor question is leading to feelings of injustice toward those who are laboring for the conversion of the Chinese. We honor them, and especially those who are struggling to keep up the Chinese missions in California. It is a wonder that any are ever converted under the weight of unfavorable influences which surround them. But we are assured by those who know, that the Chinese who are Christianized in America are among the boldest and most steadfast Christians247 when they return to their native land. This is certainly to the praise of God's grace; it is an attestation of the power of the gospel. These thoughts were suggested to us on our reading the following in the San Francisco Chronicle:— "An English missionary named C. T. Studd has certainly carried out the Biblical injunction to the letter. He had a fortune of half a million dollars, but this he made over to the China Inland Mission and then accepted a position as a neophyte. It takes a man of great enthusiasm and small knowledge of the world to devote himself to Christianity in the Chinese, as they have thus far proved to be the most stubborn of pagans." The Chronicle is a good, enterprising news-paper, but we should be slow to accept it as authority on the subject of Christian mission work. Its experience in that direction has not been extensive enough to qualify it to give a reliable judgment. There is no class of men better qualified to judge on such questions than the Bishops of the Methodist church; their office brings them in contact with missions; they are overseers of missionary work. No one could doubt that Bishop Wiley was well qualified to speak advisedly on this subject, and his words were directly contradictory to those of the Chronicle. We heard Bishop Wiley say that the Methodist mission in the Foochow district was established about the same time that the Methodists commenced effective work in California. There they had race and caste prejudices to meet, and the darkness of paganism to contend with; but he said the converts in the Foochow district numbered about the same as the Methodists in California; their native Christian preachers about equal the number of Methodist preachers in California. And they were all well-tried, faithful, devoted Christians. Let the editor of the Chronicle read the life of Dr. Judson; let him read what that devoted apostle of missionary work suffered in Burmah; let him consider how long he labored to plant the standard of the cross in that land, and compare that with the success of the work in various parts of China, and he must, if fairness is allowed any place in the decision, confess that he has spoken unadvisedly concerning the Chinese as subjects of missionary effort. Such words as those we have quoted from the Chronicle do not lead us to doubt the power of the gospel, but they rather lead us to distrust the candor of the man who wrote them. We greatly fear that he was led by a popular cry, to do injustice to Christianity, to Christian workers, and to those for whom Christ died and for whom he is now pleading in the high court of Heaven. We wish to record our protest against one rule of judgment that is adopted by certain classes when making their decisions on this subject. They hold up "our American civilization" in contrast with the paganism of the Chinese. But there is no such contrast as they seem to suppose. We believe that a just judgment will be rather in the favor of the heathen. Very few of those who are now pursuing the Chinese so relentlessly lay any claim to being Christians; certainly they do not show the true spirit of Christianity. Now we hold that an enlightened, educated American infidel, whether he meets Christianity with opposition or regards it with indifference, is a far worse man, considered from a Bible standpoint, than the benighted pagan of China. And every one who is acquainted with the ethics of the Bible will sustain that decision. Civilization, culture, refinement, are no substitutes for Christianity. When they become the pride of their possessor, and puff him up to look with scorn upon the uncultivated and benighted who have never enjoyed his privileges, they then are an abomination in the sight of God. It will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of Judgment than for those who boast of their civilization, their education, and their refinement, who yet deny the Spirit of Christ, who labored and died for the lowly of earth, and places himself beside "the least" who believe and trust him. Let us not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment. The Handwriting of Ordinances.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"AND you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 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 his cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." Col. 2:13-17. This text, like Eph. 2:15, 16, is often misapplied; it cannot, however, be applied to those things contained in the ten commandments, unless the texts which show the enduring nature of that law are either forgotten or ignored. The ten commandments were graven on tables of stone, by the finger of God. See Ex. 32:15, 16; Deut. 4:12, 13. Now the Bible is a consistent book, and has respect to the fitness of things; but it is evident enough that there would be no fitness in speaking of "blotting out" something that was chiseled in the rock. Neither is it an appropriate figure to speak of nailing tables of stone to a cross. Therefore even if the Bible did not assure us that the commandments of God "stand fast forever and ever," we should know that the apostle has in this text no reference whatever to the law of God. The things which God gave through Moses were written in a book, and only in a book; consequently it is perfectly appropriate to speak of blotting them out. If it be objected that the ten commandments were also written by Moses in a book, we reply that that makes no difference; since the ten commandments were engraved in stone, they could not be blotted out even though all the books in the world were destroyed. The fact that the thing here spoken of came to an end by the cross of Christ, should cause us to conclude that the same thing is here spoken of that is spoken of in Eph. 2:15, 16 as having been abolished "in his flesh." In this text it is said to have been "contrary;" in the other it is called "enmity;" and Peter called it a burdensome yoke. This, Paul says, was "against us." But the law of God is holy, and just, and good in its requirements. We conclude, therefore, that the "handwriting of ordinances," which was nailed to the cross of Christ, was the Levitical law. The ceremonies were typical of the sacrifice of Christ, and when that sacrifice was actually made on the cross, the types at the same time ceased. We notice that because these ordinances have been blotted out, therefore we are not to be judged concerning certain things. This indicates that those things were part of the ordinances. Paul enumerates them as meats and drinks, feast days, new moons, and sabbaths; "which are a shadow of things to come." The very enumeration of these things shows us that the law of God is not here under discussion, for none of these things formed a part of it. It is true that the fourth commandment is concerning the Sabbath; but the Sabbath of the fourth commandment dates from creation (compare Ex. 20:8-11; Gen. 2:2, 3), before the fall of man made the coming of Christ a necessity; while the sabbaths mentioned in Colossians were shadows of things in the work of Christ. These sabbaths are given in Lev. 23, in the ceremonial law. They occurred only once a year, and were—the first and seventh days of unleavened bread (Lev. 23:5-8); the day of Pentecost (verses 15-21); the first day of the seventh month, being the memorial of blowing of trumpets (verses 24, 25); the tenth day of the seventh month, or the day of atonement (verses 27-32); and the first and eighth days of the feast of tabernacles. Verses 34-36. All these days, as is seen at once in the case of the passover and the day of atonement, were feast days typifying certain parts of Christ's mediatorial work for sinners. Of them the Lord said: "These are the feasts of the Lord, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, everything upon his day." Lev. 23:37. Notice: The Lord said to Moses, "These are the feast days . . . which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations." These are some of the things which God gave by the hand of Moses (Neh. 9:14); but the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was proclaimed by God's own voice. This distinction is plainly marked, for after enumerating the ceremonial sabbaths which were to be observed by the people, the Lord added, "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23:38. This shows beyond all question that the sabbaths which ceased when the "handwriting of ordinances" was blotted out, were the ceremonial sabbaths, and consequently that it was not the moral law, but the ceremonial law, which constituted that "handwriting of ordinances." In addition to these proofs, it may not be amiss to cite the following statements of learned commentators, to show that the same proofs were conclusive to their minds also. Says Dr. Clark:— "The apostle speaks here in reference to some particulars of the handwriting of ordinances, which had been taken away, viz., the distinction of meats and drinks, what was clean and what unclean, according to the law; and the necessity of observing certain holy days or festivals, such as the new moons and particular sabbaths, or those which should be observed with more than ordinary solemnity. . . . There is no intimation here that the Sabbath was done away, or that its moral use was suspended, by the introduction of Christianity. I have shown elsewhere that, 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy,' is a command of perpetual obligation." Dr. Barnes also says on the same point:— "There is no evidence, from this passage, that he would teach that there was no obligation to observe any holy time, for there is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to declare that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding on mankind. If he had used the word in the singular number—'the Sabbath,' it would then, of course, have been clear that he meant to affirm that that commandment ceased to be binding, and that a Sabbath was no longer to be observed. But the use of the term in the plural number, and the connection, show that he had his eye on the great number of days which were observed by the Hebrews as festivals, as a part of their ceremonial and typical law, and not on the moral law, or the ten commandments. No part of the moral law, no one of the ten commandments, could be spoken of as 'a shadow of things to come.' These commandments are, from the nature of moral law, of perpetual and universal obligation." A few words now concerning the different relations which the people sustained toward the moral law and toward the ceremonial law. The moral law was of primary obligation, and it was binding upon all men alike. The Gentile as well as the Jew was under obligation to worship God, to keep his Sabbath, and to abstain from murder, adultery, and theft. It was the moral law which convicted men of sin (Rom. 7:7), and which showed all the world to be guilty before God. Rom. 3:19. The ceremonial law, on the other hand, was not of primary obligation. Having reference only to the mediatorial work of Christ, it had no existence before man fell. Moreover it was not of universal obligation. It would have been thought sacrilegious for an uncircumcised person, an idolator, or an atheist, to attempt to engage in the Jewish ceremonies. Yet whenever a Gentile accepted the true religion, he was, through circumcision, admitted on an equal footing with the Jew. Where, then, in8 individual experience, did the ceremonial law come in? Read what Paul says of Abraham, in this connection:— "We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Rom. 4:9-11. From this we learn, what none will deny, that circumcision and its kindred ceremonies, while they pointed forward to the real work of Christ, did not precede faith in Christ. They were the means by which the people signified that faith which was necessary before they could participate in them. To the man who had never heard of Christ, those ceremonies were meaningless; but to the one who had faith in Christ and his promised work for man, they were a beautiful means of expressing that faith. The moral law, being of primary and universal obligation, would be impressed by the Holy Spirit on the heart of a heathen. By it he would see himself to be a sinner. Earnestly seeking freedom from condemnation, he would find that the Messiah for whose coming the pious Jews looked with longing hearts, was the only one who could take away his sin. Joyfully seizing upon this hope, he would separate himself from his heathen associates; by circumcision he would signify the putting off of his old sinful habits; and henceforth, so long as he retained his faith in Christ, he would gladly manifest that faith, and with each manifestation thereof quicken it into renewed activity, by celebrating the ordinances which prefigured the promised sacrifice and atonement of Christ. But when the reality came, the types ceased. Not so the moral law, the ten commandments of God. Being the foundation of God’s Government, there was nothing in them of a fleeting or shadowy nature. They still remain of primary, universal, and eternal obligation. They still convict of sin; and he who by them is convinced of his need of One who can save from sin, may still come to a Saviour who has suffered for sin, and may obtain pardon. Through the ordinances of the Lord’s house,—baptism and the Lord’s Supper,—he may show his faith in a sacrifice already made, until his promised redemption is consummated by the return of his Lord; and then from Sabbath to Sabbath he may worship before the Lord, and see his face; and the law, which stands fast forever and ever, will witness to his loyalty to the Creator. E. J. W.