Earlier text: Constantine.—IThe Evil of Beer-Drinking.
By H. D. Clarke
THE following extract calling attention to the insidious power of the beer-drinking habit is timely: "There are many well meaning and professedly Christian men who see no danger in the feeders and rather advocate the use of a beverage which is found to be the greatest of all appetizers for rum and gin. We speak of beer. The reason many indirectly advocate its use is obvious, as we have learned in many ways since our last two articles on hop-growing. One editor whose subscription list is increased somewhat by the space devoted to the hop market, has taken us to task, and in one breath says he would like to make the paper a temperance organ, but it would not receive the proper support, and in the next proceeds to speak eloquently of "pure beer," etc. Another friend urges that "as hops in no way injure the quality of beer," therefore, the business, as carried on, is perfectly legitimate. Another says that if men drank beer the traffic in rum would decrease." This, perhaps too lengthy article, is not penned for the purpose of censure nor debate, but to correct, if possible, an erroneous view taken in regard to the use of beer. Our friends may be sincere but the facts will not bear them out in their oft-repeated statements. The rum-seller does not go out into the streets inviting young men to take of his soul destroying beverage. Very few beginners could be induced to burn their throats with the stronger drinks. They must be educated to it by degrees. The vast traffic in alcohol has been chiefly built up by the brewers. Tens of thousands who never think of sipping brandy will drink beer, for it is thought to be mild and comparatively harmless. Every rum-seller knows these men are deceived. They know alcohol is in beer and they put it in there purposely. They want young men to believe that beer is harmless, but they are particular to make it otherwise. With just enough of alcohol in it to create an appetite for something stronger, they know when a man begins its use he is their victim. They have gone about this wicked business systematically and physiologically, and with beer gardens and beer saloons at every corner and even stretching out into the woods for the benefit of nearly every Sunday-school picnic, their work is complete. With beer in every billiard hall, skating-rink, and dance-room, with beer in nearly every city grocery and in ten thousand country stores, offered as a premium to their customers, the rum-sellers know that for every sixty thousand they kill annually there will be many more that number of new recruits. Statistics will show that the increased use of beer has a corresponding increase in the use of rum. Beer-venders begin the work of desolation and rum-sellers complete it. We said rum-sellers do not go out soliciting customers, but beer-sellers do, and are very successful. Having captured their bird they hand him over to the rum-seller with a hellish smile that is full of meaning. Fathers, mothers, beware of the man who offers your boy beer or tells him it is harmless. He is either ignorant or a well-paid emissary of the rum demon.—H. D. Clarke, in Sabbath Recorder. HYDROPHOBIA is our word to express an insane horror of fresh water; we ought to have a word to express the much more common horror of fresh air. Oxygen is as essential to good blood as is food; and it is freely given, but we carefully shut it out. There is nothing which God seems more determined to bestow upon his children than a “draft,” and nothing which they seem more determined not to accept. He wraps the world in air, and wonderful are his contrivances for keeping it always in motion; and ingenious are our contrivances for escaping from the breeze which he creates to give his children life. He sends the fresh air in from the ocean; he sweeps it across the plains and the hills; he fills it with freshness from the snow-clad mountains, and the verdure-clad meadows; he bids it find its way to our lungs to take the death out which every moment we exhale, and put new life in, which he means that every moment we should inhale; it comes knocking for admission at every door and window of our houses, and we put up double windows, and weather-strips, and build a roaring fire in an air-tight stove, and set lamp and fire to burning up all the little oxygen we admit, and grumble at our drafty house, if, in spite of all our efforts, some of the life and health gets in through crack and crevice. Men and women who would turn with disgust from dirty water will take into their system dirty air without a thought of repugnance. There is no pool so filthy, with green scum on top and mud beneath, as the atmosphere of every smoking-car, some public halls, many school-houses, and some churches.—Christian Union. Rules for Selecting Canned Fruit.
REJECT every can that does not have the name of the manufacturer or firm upon it as well as the name of the company and the town where manufactured. "Standards" have all this. When the wholesale dealer is ashamed to have his name on the goods, fight shy of him. Reject every article of canned food that does not show the line of resin around the edge of the solder of the cap, the same as is seen on the seam at the side of the can. Every cap should be examined, and if two holes are filled in it, send the can at once to the Board of Health, with the contents and the name of the grocer who sold it. Press up the bottom of the can; if decomposition is commencing, the tin will rattle the same as the bottom of the oiler of your sewing-machine does. If the goods are sound, it will be solid, and there will be no rattle to the tin. Reject every can that shows any rust around the cap on the inside of the head of the can. If housewives are educated to these points, then muriate of zinc amalgam will become a thing of the past, and dealers in "swells" will have to seek some other occupation.—Sel. More colds are engendered by the abuse of clothing than by cold. The Church. No. 3.
By Editor
REFERENCE has been made to the wrong of laying hands suddenly, inconsiderately or unwisely, upon any one who may thereby be placed in position in the church of God. And we ought to extend the consideration to the injury which may be done by unwisely encouraging any one to take upon himself any sacred office for which he has not the proper qualifications. The principle is the same, whether it be applied to a local elder or a minister. Such an action is injurious to the church, to the individual, and of course to the cause of Christianity: A man once solicited a license to preach. At one Conference he was put off, as none but himself believed that he had any duty in that direction. At the next Conference he was yet more persistent; and one of the elders remarked that such cases were hard to cure without a trial, and advised to give him a license, as a license for one year would probably put an end to his asking. Unfortunately, as we thought, this advice was followed. The man had a family, and a home for them; a small farm, with plenty of fruit, and a comfortable house. Having unbounded confidence in his success as a preacher if he could have a suitable field, he sold his home and moved to a more new section of the country. But his efforts to preach were complete failures, and, as is too often the case, he ascribed his failures to every cause but the right one. He soon became involved in some difficulty, with one or more of the believers, and thereafter devoted all his energies to vindicating himself and to showing that the others were all wrong. He paraded these matters before every congregation that he met until all classes became disgusted with his course. The last time we saw him the money for which he sold his home was all gone; his family were destitute of the comforts of life; he was complaining of everybody—of the individuals with whom he got into trouble; with the church members because they would not uphold him and condemn the others; and of the Conference because they suffered him to expend all his means and did not come to his support. And in such a condition there was not much more hope that he would ever live a Christian life than there was that he would ever become a successful minister. It may, indeed, be said that he alone was to blame for the sadness of his condition, because the Conferences always give licentiates to understand that the first giving of a license is only a trial, an experiment, which is not to be considered as a pledge of much, if any, pecuniary support. But this is not altogether a correct view of the case. By giving him a license they strengthened his conviction that it was his duty to preach, and increased his confidence in his own ability, inasmuch as he was caused to think that others saw in him those qualities which he imagined he saw in himself. His worldly matters were deranged and his family brought to destitution; the churches in the field of his work were disheartened and weakened; and the cause was reproached before the world, as he was taken as its representative, coming there under the sanction of the Conference, holding a license under it. All this might have been avoided by a more judicious and consistent course; by giving the man proper counsel and refusing to give him a license. Another instance. A young man apparently had a call to the ministry. And it appeared, to those having the oversight of the work, advisable to send him to a field somewhat distant. And if he were sent to that field it was suggested that it would be advisable to have him ordained, that he might meet the wants of the cause in every phase in which it might be presented. Some expressed doubts of the propriety of the course suggested, but the suggestion was acted upon. He was ordained and sent into the field. His case differed from that of the other man, because he had ability as a speaker, and under a judicious course of instruction and training he might have made a useful laborer. But he was elated with the dignity of position suddenly thrust upon him. He became puffed up, haughty and overbearing in his demeanor, and injured the cause wherever he went. He soon became restive under the counsel of the officers of the Conference and unwisely chose his own places and methods of labor. After some time of worse than useless labor, when all distrusted his calling to the position he occupied, we advised him to go into a new place, secure a hearing, and hold on in that place until he had raised up a church and established it in the truth. Only in that way could he satisfactorily settle the question of his call to the ministry. His reply to this remark gave us the clue to his entire failure. He said, "That question was settled when I was ordained." He made shipwreck of his faith, after shaking the confidence of many in the stability and nature of our work, and especially in the correctness of our Conference organizations. The whole amount of the injury done to individuals, to the churches, and to the cause at large by this one injudicious act of laying hands suddenly on this man, will never be known to us until the great day shall reveal the secrets of all hearts. A certain church held an election, and chose for the elder a man who had been some time a professor of the faith, who appeared to have abounding zeal, but of whom this particular church knew but little, as he had not been long a resident of that place. We were present. We had the most friendly feelings toward the man, but were firmly convinced that the church had acted unwisely,—that he was not qualified to serve them in the position to which they had chosen him. Under such circumstances it sometimes becomes a serious question what course the attending minister should pursue. In this case we knew that the individual elected was sensitive, and it would have been hazardous to say to the church that they had made a mistake. He would have settled back in complete discouragement and attracted sympathizers to blame us for his overthrow. Upon reflection we decided to waive the ordination, and absented ourselves from the place for a few weeks that the case might develop itself. On our return we found that no argument was needed to convince the church that they had acted indiscreetly. Already the elder elect was at variance with the members, and it was painfully evident that the prosperity of the church depended upon a reversal of their action. When he laid before us his complaint against the church, for he was the first to complain, we advised him to decline the office. As he had not been ordained, and as he had convincing proof that he could not serve them acceptably, we told him that he had it in his power to give an easy solution to the difficulty, by declining the office, and requesting them to elect another. And then he further proved his unfitness to bear responsibility in the church by utterly refusing to take this advice. Had he accepted it and acted upon it, he would have raised himself in the estimation of his brethren, and restored good feeling in the church. But his refusal to do so widened the breach between them, and they were compelled to rescind the vote by which he was elected. This leads us to speak of another error which often obtains in the churches. Brethren sometimes feel that, because it is their privilege to choose their officers, therefore it is an infringement on their rights to offer advice in regard to their choice. Had the church, or the leading brethren, consulted us in the matter, we could have given them information which would have saved them from all this trouble. But they did not consult us; they asked no advice; and we could give them none, because we had no means of knowing whom they were about to choose. In order to act freely in our choice it is not necessary to vote blindly, to be moved by caprice or humor, or by some personal feeling. All should act as intelligently as possible, having in view the honor of God and the best interests of his cause. And they should seek the best information and advice they can get in order to thus act. These instances are quite sufficient to illustrate and enforce the lesson which we have before us: "Lay hands suddenly on no man; neither be partaker of other men's sins." If we do that which naturally tends to lead others to injure themselves, their brethren, and the cause of truth, we are to some degree responsible for the injury so done. Again the apostle says: "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men." But in order to fulfill this injunction we must know that they are faithful; they must be proved. And what is true of the elder, in this respect, is true also of the deacon. He should be a man of experience, a man of judgment; not excitable, not one whose judgment is easily swayed from the right, and whose sympathies are easily perverted. Such weaknesses in a deacon are often as dangerous to the peace and prosperity of the church as they are in an elder. As will be seen in the consideration of their qualifications, the deacons have often to deal with some of the most difficult and delicate questions which come before the officers of the church. The duties of the clerk are more easily defined; and his qualifications are more easily determined than those of either of the other officers. They are such as almost every intelligent person, capable of transacting ordinary business, may be supposed to possess. Yet we are sorry to say that, as a general thing, the duties of church clerks are most sadly neglected, or very imperfectly done. We have found comparatively few, in all our travels, whose books gave satisfactory knowledge of the doings and the standing of their respective churches; few who are prompt and thorough in making their reports to the Conference. We shall be highly pleased if our efforts shall cause an improvement in this respect. Sunday's Troubled Friends.
By Editor
IN the whole round of religious dogmas there is nothing upon which the religious world is so well agreed as the observance of Sunday. And there is nothing upon which they so thoroughly or widely disagree as upon their reasons for observing it. At first view it might be supposed that this disagreement would prove a disturbing or weakening element in their efforts to obtain a law for its universal observance; but that is not the case. This disagreement about the reason for observing Sunday is because there is no rule nor obligation concerning it found in the Bible; no reason for observing it can be drawn from the Bible. And the fact that there is no Bible law requiring the keeping of Sunday makes them all the more clamorous for a human law which shall compel men to keep it. Could they find a Sunday law in the Bible, they would rest more upon that, and less upon a human law. Religious persecutions have generally been more in the cause of church opinions or traditions than of plain Bible truths. There are some who are so little acquainted with137 the current literature of this subject that they accuse us of denying the force of the testimony which they can produce in behalf of Sunday; and some, who know better, are so swayed by their prejudices and their feelings as to call us "uncharitable" when we say that they are all in confusion on the subject,—in a condition well represented by the word "Babylon." But on this point we do not have to make assertions; they furnish the testimony ready to our hands. The following report is copied from a San Francisco Chronicle of last month. It is a specimen, but by no means a rare one:— "At the meeting of the Ministerial Union yesterday morning Rev. Dr. McLean presented the subject of Sunday law and desired to have an expression of opinion on the part of the members of the union as to the feasibility of attempting to secure the re-enactment of the late Sunday law of the Penal Code, or one similar to it. He said he appeared as chairman of a committee, appointed by the Pastors’ Union of Oakland, to confer with the Ministerial Union and take such action in the matter as might be thought advisable. The four other members of the committee were present and would speak for themselves. For himself he would say that while he felt deeply the necessity of a law for the protection of Sunday from desecration, he had serious and increasing fears that such was the present condition of political parties and such the state of public opinion on the subject, that any effort made at this time to secure the passage of such a law as was needed would prove fruitless. But this was certain, at least, that the subject ought to be presented by the pastors in their pulpits, and the public conscience brought up to that point where such a law could be enacted and enforced. The other members of the committee expressed their views, most of them in favor of immediate and vigorous action for the re-enactment of the Sunday law and hopeful of its success. Several members of the union followed with brief remarks, chiefly in favor of entering upon an immediate agitation of the subject, looking to the enactment of a penal Sunday law by this Legislature, and, on motion, a committee of five was appointed from as many different denominations to act at once in the matter, preparing petitions to send through the State, and also a draft of such a law as was desired. This committee is composed of Rev. Dr. McLean (Congregational), Rev. Dr. M. M. Gibson (Presbyterian), Rev. Dr. Sinex (Methodist), Rev. Dr. Gray (Baptist), and Rev. Mr. Githens (Episcopal). "In the afternoon the Congregational Club held its usual monthly meeting. The discussion turned on the same general subject, but took a theological turn, the principal point being the ground upon which Sunday observance should be based. Rev. Mr. Macy, of the Green-street church, opened the proceedings with a paper in which he based the observance of Sunday strictly on Scripture authority, treating it as the legitimate successor of the Sabbath and made binding by the fourth commandment. "Several of the clergy who followed differed with him widely. Rev. Professor Mooar, of Oakland, said he did not rest the observance of Sunday upon any positive command. The observance was a voluntary tribute, on the part of Christians, to the memory of Jesus and his resurrection. If there had been a transfer of Sabbath obligations from the seventh day to the first, it would have been so stated, plainly, somewhere in the New Testament. "Rev. John Kimball agreed with Dr. Mooar, and so did Rev. Dr. Sexton, of London, England, a visitor to the club. He said it was an historical fact that the early Christians were wont to go from their Sunday meetings to their ordinary labors. "Rev. Professor Dwinelle took a different view, and said the observance of one-seventh of the time, or one day in seven, was a cosmic law and of imperative obligation. "Rev. Joseph Rowell said he agreed with Dr. Mooar and thought that Justin Edwards, in his ‘Sabbath Manual,’ had unconsciously misquoted the Christian Fathers on this point. "Several other clergymen took part in the discussion, but no action was taken or resolution passed on the subject." We could easily deduce a fair system of truth from the statements of these ministers. 1. The observance of one day of the week is a cosmic law, and of imperative obligation. 2. There is no law or obligation expressed in the New Testament for the observance of Sunday. 3. They who keep Sunday do it as a "voluntary tribute" to the memory of certain historical facts. (This may remind the reader of what Paul says of "voluntary humility" and "will worship.") To confirm these statements it is said:— 4. "It is a historical fact that the early Christians went from their Sunday meetings to their ordinary labors." 5. Justin Edwards in his "Sabbath Manual" misquoted the Christian Fathers on this point. From these we necessarily deduce the following:— 6. This "cosmic law," this "imperative obligation," is expressed in an imperative manner in the fourth commandment, given by the voice of Jehovah himself. It is not out of place to remind Dr. Mooar, and those who agree with him, that a voluntary gift to the Lord of that which he does not require, is not a sufficient ground for setting aside an important obligation, an institution which he does require. It is generally argued that the requirement of the new institution set aside the old; but if there is no new sabbath instituted in the Scriptures, and no change from one to another, by what authority is the commandment of God set aside? We think it is not at all out of place, at this time, to adopt the words of the psalmist: "It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law." Ps. 119:126. Mercy and Justice.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It is quite generally held that in what is termed the old, or the Jewish, dispensation, God ruled according to stern justice, holding men to a strict account for everything; but that in the "Christian dispensation" mercy has predominated in his dealings with men; that justice has now stepped down from the throne, and that mercy has taken its place. This idea has taken almost universal hold on the minds of the people. Let each reader examine his own mind, and he will find that at some time in his life he has entertained this idea. We have before us a statement to this effect, made by a Doctor of Divinity, in the Sunday-school lesson notes of a prominent religious journal. The statement is as follows:— "Since the days of Christ’s assumption of mediatorial power, ‘old things are passed away, and all things are become new;’ and souls are now saved only through the grace of Him to be in whom is to be a new creature." This statement may be taken as a fair representation of the prevailing opinion. Let us examine the theory, and see how well it represents the God of the universe. On general grounds we should condemn it, because it is derogatory to the character of God. It represents him as a changeable being, one who is swayed at different times by different impulses; but we know that with him there is "no variableness, neither shadow of turning." The Lord says (Eze. 18:25) that his ways are equal; but this theory makes them decidedly unequal. As it is commonly held, it actually charges God with injustice; for the opposite of justice is injustice, and if at any time God should relax his justice, to that extent he would be unjust. No Christian would think of openly charging God with being unjust, yet this is exactly what is done by every one who says that at the present time God dispenses mercy at the expense of justice. This evidently erroneous position is taken as a consequence of the mistaken notion that strict justice and tender mercy are incompatible. It is because men have so perverted truth that justice is hated. In short, men regard justice as injustice. This idea carried out to its extreme, makes anarchists and nihilists,—men who regard justice as tyranny. We shall endeavor to show not only that justice and mercy are compatible, but that they must exist together if they exist at all. That which would be mercy in a just man, is simply weakness and imbecility in an unjust man. God has always possessed both these attributes to exactly the same extent that he does now, and will possess them the same to all eternity. When God had created the earth, beautiful and in every way perfect, he gave it to man. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen. 1:26–28. Adam was given dominion over the earth and all that it contained. That is, he was made its lord or ruler. The earth was to be his kingdom, he, of course, to be subject to the great Creator. Since Adam was to be subject to God, there must of necessity be something to test his loyalty, and his fitness to be confirmed in the dominion that had been given to him in trust for the Lord. God created him for immortality (2 Cor. 5:4, 5), but before he could be made immortal his worthiness for that inestimable boon must be proved. It never would have done to make man immortal, incapable of death, before his character was tested. That would have been taking the risk of perpetuating sin, the very existence of which God abhors. Should the man prove unworthy, he would necessarily lose the dominion which had been intrusted to him; and since this great gift,—an eternal inheritance,—was to be the reward of his faithfulness, it was but fitting that a corresponding penalty should be administered if he should prove disloyal. Accordingly we find that God laid on him the following injunction, with the penalty attached:— "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." Gen. 2:16, 17. How long the man remained obedient, we have no means of knowing; but in the next chapter we find the record of his disobedience. And now, according to the previous declaration of God, in spite of Satan’s lie (Gen. 3:4), Adam must die. He must "pass from an animate to a lifeless state;" he must "cease to live;" he must "suffer a total and irreparable loss of action of the vital functions;" for that is what is signified by the word "die." But "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. Here the infinite mercy of God was displayed in the very beginning. Man had basely and ungratefully betrayed the trust given him; he had rebelled against God. He had surrendered to God’s enemy, and had thus become the enemy of God. But God had no enmity in his heart toward man. He has no pleasure in the death of him that dieth (Eze. 18:32), and so he provided a way for man’s escape. In the statement that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head (Gen. 3:15), there was the promise of the Messiah, by whose death man might become reconciled to God. Rom. 5:8–10. The penalty was not revoked, but the execution of it was stayed, in order to allow all to lay hold on the means of becoming reconciled to God, if they chose to do so. That penalty still hangs over the human race; and since the Son of God was given so that those and only those who believe in him should not perish, it follows that the penalty will be allowed to fall upon those who do not believe in him. In proof of this Paul states that those who know not God, and who obey not the gos138pel of our Lord Jesus Christ, "shall be punished with everlasting destruction." 2 Thess. 1:7-9. The Bible reveals to us the sad fact that the number of the saved will be small in comparison with the number of those who will be lost. Matt. 7:13, 14. The vast majority of mankind have chosen to remain in rebellion against God, yet there will be among the saved some from "every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." There will not be one, however, in all that vast throng, who has been saved in any other way than by belief in the only begotten Son of God, for he is the only way. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. From the depths of his anguish Job exclaimed, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." Job 19:25. And Isaiah proclaims the glad truth that "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." Isa. 53:5. Although Isaiah wrote more than seven hundred years before the sacrifice was actually made, he could justly use the past tense, since the Lamb was "slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8. A promise from God, who cannot lie, is the same as though the thing were already performed. Thus far God’s mercy. From the fall to the day of redemption it is the same. It was no less six thousand years ago than it is now, for it was then that Christ was given for man’s redemption. It was no light thing for God, who loves with an infinite love, to consent to deliver up his only Son to be insulted and murdered. But he made the sacrifice, and did it at the time when it was needed, when destruction to man was imminent. Now since there is in the universe no greater gift than the Son of God, it follows that God gave at the first all that he had to give, and consequently it was simply impossible for any greater manifestation of his mercy ever to be made. And so the present dispensation contains no more mercy that there was in the patriarchal age. No one can dispute these propositions. But some may say that God’s mercy will be suspended when, according to his word, he destroys the wicked. Few can see any mercy in the punishment of sinners, and many deny that there is in it any justice. We believe that there is both; that God’s justice, as well as his mercy, "endureth forever." 1. "Can God justly punish the wicked?" Certainly; because he has said that he will, and said it before any sin had been committed. Then the question is really this: "Has God the right to attach a penalty to his laws?" The answer must be, He has such a right, if he has a right to make laws, for a law without a penalty attached is a nullity. A law, for the violation of which no penalty is provided, has no force, and is worth no more than the material on which it is written. Blackstone, the eminent jurist, whose "Commentaries" are standard authority in both hemispheres, says:— "Of all the parts of a law, the most effectual is the vindicatory. For it is but lost labor to say, ‘Do this or that,’ unless we also declare, ‘This shall be the consequence of your non-compliance.’ We must therefore observe that the main strength and force of a law consists in the penalty attached to it."—Cooley's Blackstone, Vol. 1, p. 55. That God has a right to make laws for his creatures, follows from the very fact that he is the Creator of all things. Any individual has a right to make laws for another just to the extent that that other is dependent on him. Now since in God "we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28), and are entirely dependent on him, it follows that he has, by right, the supreme control of us. Not only has he the right to make laws for his creatures, but he is bound to do so; for no intelligent creatures can exist unless they have respect to some common standard. There must be something to regulate their actions, otherwise they would encroach upon each other’s rights, even if they had no malice in their hearts, and confusion if not extermination would be the result. This standard is called law. God is indeed the only one who can really make laws. Human laws derive their force from the fact that they are in harmony with the law of God. Blackstone says that we are in duty bound to violate any human law that runs counter to the law of God. The Bible teaches the same thing. 2. Since God has the right to make laws and to affix penalties, mercy as well as justice demands that those penalties be executed if the laws are violated. If God has brought subjects into existence, and has given laws for their mutual good, and for the maintenance of the rights of each, he is bound to support and protect those subjects in the enjoyment of their rights. But if any one breaks the law, he destroys this evenly-balanced condition of things, and infringes directly on the rights of others. And now some of God’s subjects are being oppressed by the rebels. Shall he let them suffer? If he does, he will justly incur the charge of being unmerciful. He must punish the guilty, in order to assure the loyal ones of his power and his willingness to protect them. Should he allow the laws to be transgressed with impunity in one part of his Government, his subjects in another part would be in constant fear lest rebellion should spring up in the midst of them, and their lives thereby be endangered. Take human laws for an example. Every civilized country has a law prohibiting murder. Now suppose there is a country which never punishes the murderer, what will be the result? The people will either take the laws into their own hands, or else they will flock to a country where their lives will be protected. People instinctively recognize the fact that there is no safety except in the enforcement of the laws, and the punishment of evil-doers; and a Government which does not do this, receives nothing but contempt, and soon ceases to exist. This enables us to understand psalm 136. The psalmist says: "O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good; for his mercy endureth forever. . . . To him that smote Egypt in their firstborn; for his mercy endureth forever; and brought out Israel from among them; for his mercy endureth forever," etc. The Egyptians were fearfully wicked. They were in rebellion against God, and were wickedly oppressing his people. They had received warning after warning, but to no purpose. For God to leave Israel in that hard bondage, would have been cruel. But the Egyptians would not let them go until they were forced to do so by the severe judgments of God. The Egyptians had, by their obstinate and insolent rebellion, forfeited all claim upon God, and his mercy was displayed in a remarkable manner in the deliverance of his people. And so God’s mercy will be shown even in the final destruction of sin and sinners. By that act he will show his loyal subjects in all of his dominions that he has a care for their welfare, and will protect them. His mercy endures just the same, even while he is punishing the guilty; they, however, have voluntarily rejected it. One more question will arise in the minds of some. It is this: "Why did not God destroy the wicked ones in the beginning, when the first sin was committed, and then create a new race?" That would have been allowing Satan to triumph, and besides, the new race would also have been obliged to stand a probation, and would have been as liable to fall as was the first. But the great reason is found in God’s love to the creatures of his hand. "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. They who ask why God did not at once destroy the sinner, have a very limited idea of the love which God has for his creatures. That millions will finally be destroyed, is not the fault of God, but of man. God has done all that infinite love could do. There was no necessity for any to perish, for such was not God’s will. 2 Pet. 3:9. It must also be remembered that this earth is not the whole of God’s dominion. We must not be so thoughtless as to suppose that this little world takes up all of God’s attention. More than one world (Heb. 1:2) owes allegiance to the Maker of all. "The Lord hath prepared his throne in the Heavens; and his kingdom ruleth over all." Ps. 103:19. The telescope reveals worlds many thousand times as large as ours. And here, in this little speck of the universe, puny man has dared to lift up the standard of rebellion against God’s Government! A wonderful and a horrible thing! Think of it; rebellion against God! Shall he put it down? Most certainly; the integrity of his Government demands it. In mercy and justice to his loyal subjects in other portions of the universe, he must show that he can and will maintain order. But first he must let all see the terrible consequence of rebelling against his just decrees. Says Paul (1 Cor. 4:9): "We are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men." This is as true of all the world as it is of the apostles. While all the creatures in the universe behold the wonderful spectacle of one province (so to speak) in rebellion, they learn "that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God;" that God will "by no means clear the guilty;" and thus, while they learn to trust more fully in his protecting arm, and praise him for his mercy, they are effectually deterred from ever presuming to rise up against him. As God permits the rebellion to fully develop itself, they see the terrible hideousness of sin, and the justice of God in finally blotting it from his universe. And when this shall have been accomplished, "every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them," will with glad accord join in ascribing "blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever."