THERE can but one objection be raised against the future fulfillment of the promise of the land to Abraham and to his seed, which has any degree of plausibility. That objection is based on Josh. 21 : 43–45.
"And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers; and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass."
Now, while it is admitted that all that was promised to them as a separate people when the Lord brought them out of Egypt, or that was promised to them as the natural descendants of Abraham, was fulfilled, we cannot admit that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled. To claim that, is to deny the promise itself, as well as a number of the plainest declarations of the New Testament. Let us bear in mind that the promise looked to two parties: (1) To Abraham; (2) To his seed. If it can be shown that it was fulfilled to one party, and yet was not fulfilled to the other, then, as God’s word is truth, it awaits a future fulfillment. Notice the passage in Joshua; it says, "The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers." And if it can be shown only that it was not given unto their fathers, then it remains to be fulfilled, or it must fail entirely. That it cannot fail, we refer the reader again to Paul's words in Heb. 6, on the immutability of God's promise to Abraham.
But first we notice Paul's quotation of, and argument on, Ps. 95. "So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest." Heb. 3 : 11. The term "rest" is here applied to the peaceable possession of the land. This is plainly referred to in the quotation from Joshua. The points of the averment are these:—The Lord gave them the land; he gave them rest round about; and there stood not a man of their enemies before them. The same is referred to by Jacob in his blessing of Issachar, Gen. 49 : 15: "And he saw that rest was good, and the land that was pleasant." And by Moses, in his charge to the two tribes and a half which took their possession on the east of Jordan:—
"The Lord your God hath given you this land to possess it; ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that were meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle (for I know that ye have much cattle), shall abide in your cities which I have given you; until the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which the Lord your God hath given them beyond Jordan; and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you." Deut. 3 : 18–20.
Again, Moses said to Israel, before they passed over Jordan:—
"For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there." Deut. 12 : 9–11.
Joshua reiterated the same thing in his address "to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh," as follows:—
"Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, The Lord your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass in before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; until the Lord have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the Lord your God giveth them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the Lord's servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising." Josh. 1 : 13–15.
Thus it is made plain beyond the chance of doubt, that the rest which was promised and given to the children of Israel, was the peaceable possession of the land. Moses refers to it as "the rest and the inheritance." To this David refers in Ps. 95 : 7–11:—
"To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness; when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways; unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."
Paul's comment in Heb. 4 : 1–9, is to this effect: That the Holy Spirit appeals to Israel, in the days of David, not to harden their hearts, as their fathers did, to whom the Lord sware they should not enter into his rest. They were not permitted to see "the rest and the inheritance." But Paul argues that the same hope that was set before Israel in the wilderness was held out to their children in the days of David, from which he concludes that Joshua did not give them the rest contemplated in the promise; that "there remains a rest to the people of God;" and that this rest bears the same relation to that given to Israel that Moses and Joshua bore to Christ, and that Israel, the literal descendants of Abraham, bore to the church of Christ, the members of which are children of Abraham by faith in Christ.
From this argument, it is quite evident that the apostle did not consider that the children of Israel had received the rest—the inheritance—which was the subject of the promise; for, as he well says, "If Joshua had given them the rest" (so Whiting's translation), "then would he not afterward have spoken of another day;" that is to say, that, although the children of Israel were then in the land which Joshua gave to their fathers, they were yet warned to beware of the example of their fathers whose provocation kept them out of the inheritance. His conclusion is that the true rest is remaining to be possessed. And this establishes our declaration that the land of Canaan bears the same relation to the true rest and inheritance that Joshua bears to Christ. One is the figure or type of the other.
But we are not left to mere deductions on this subject. We have the plainest and most positive statements to the effect that the promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. The reader will bear in mind that the promise was to two parties: to Abraham, and to his seed. The argument in Heb. 4 goes to show that it was not fulfilled to the descendants of Abraham. We will now consider the positive statements of the New Testament in regard to Abraham and his seed, as related to the fulfillment of this promise. Said Stephen:—
"Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken: The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child." Acts 7 : 2–5.
This testimony of Stephen is decisive so far as Abraham is concerned. But Paul confirms it thus:—
"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he later should receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. * These all died in faith, having not received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." Heb. 11 : 8, 9, 13.
In these verses, Paul denies that the promise of the land was fulfilled to Abraham, or to Isaac and Jacob; and, though he should "after receive it for inheritance," he did not, for he "died in faith, not having received the promises." And that the promise of the land was a part of "the promises" which were not fulfilled to him, is still further shown in that he and others to whom the same promise was made, lived as "strangers and pilgrims on the earth." This language certainly does not apply to those who lived in the possession of an inheritance which was said to continue forever; to be to them for "an everlasting possession."
But Paul goes much farther. After enumerating the most faithful of Abraham's descendants, including Moses, Joshua, David, Samuel, and the prophets, and many others who dwelt in the land of Canaan after the time of Joshua, he says:—
"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect."
This does not mean that God has provided some better thing for us than was promised to them; but that he has provided some better thing for us than they received before their death. For they are perfected, not without us, but with us; and our hope is inseparably connected with theirs, for we are constantly referred, in the Scriptures, to the promises given to them, as the basis of our hope.
But it has been objected that "the promise" which they did not receive was not the promise of the land, but the promise of Christ; that they did receive the former, but not the latter.
The first part of this objection has been sufficiently answered by the words quoted from Stephen and Paul. The second part is answered with equal certainty in Gal. 3:16.
"Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises [plural] made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ."
And thus it appears that the promises were not so much of Christ as to Christ. And as Abraham, to whom the promise was first made, dwelt in the land as a stranger and pilgrim, not having conferred upon him a title to land enough to "set his foot on," so Christ, the seed, the heir of the same promise, dwelt in that same land, not having "where to lay his head."
Thus it is expressly declared that Christ is heir to the promises made to Abraham; and if we are his, we must share in his blessings; as it is said:—
"We are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." Rom. 8:16, 17.
That this heirship with Christ takes hold of the inheritance promised to Abraham is proved by a text before quoted:—
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29.
EDITOR.
The Pope’s Extraordinary Jubilee
THE Pope, replying to an address from the Cardinals on the third anniversary of his accesion, said he entered with great trepidation on the new year of his pontificate, for the violence of the tempest had increased and new perils threatened the mystic barque of St. Peter. In all parts of the world the liberty of action of the church is interfered with. The aid which the church of Rome could give towards the salvation of society, and which he had tendered to the rulers of the people in the first days of his pontificate, had not been welcomed. As regarded himself, the sacred college had daily experience of the deplorable condition to which he was reduced—a condition unbefitting his dignity and the divine mission which Christ had, for the advantage of the universal church, trusted to his vicar. Nevertheless, his hope and courage were not lessened. The church was accustomed to conflicts. He would continue to consecrate his strength and life in defending her interests, honor, and rights; and, persuaded that opportune help must come from heaven, and remembering that in times of peril the church was accustomed to command public prayers and works of penitence, he had resolved to open in this year to all Christianity an extraordinary jubilee, in order that the Lord, in his clemency, might prepare better times for the church.—Selected.
After the disciples of John had departed, Jesus addressed the multitude concerning John, "What went ye out into the wilderness for to see? A reed shaken with the wind?" Jesus knew that a reed trembling in the wind was the very opposite of John's character. John could not be moved by flattery, nor be deceived by prevailing errors. Neither could he be turned aside from the work he came to do, by rewards or worldly honors. He would preserve his integrity at the expense of his life. Steadfast as a rock, stood the prophet of God, faithful to rebuke sin and crime in all their forms, in kings and nobles, as readily as in the unhonored and unknown. He swerved not from duty. Loyal to his God, in noble dignity of moral character, he stood firm as a rock, faithful to principle.
"But what went ye out for to see? A man clothed in soft raiment? Behold they that wear soft clothing are in kings' houses." The people whom Christ addressed well knew that the apparel worn by John was the opposite of that worn in royal palaces. Christ virtually asked: What motive induced you to flock to the wilderness to hear the preaching of John? The wilderness is not the place to find those who live delicately, and who clothe themselves in rich, soft apparel. Christ wished them to observe the contrast between the clothing of John and that of the Jewish priests. The prophet wore a plain, rough garment, possessing no beauty, but answering the purpose for which clothing was first designed. In marked contrast to the garments of John, was the gorgeous apparel of the Jewish priests and elders.
These officials, thinking that they would be reverenced in accordance with their external appearance, adopted great splendor of dress, making a rich display of costly robes and dazzling breastplates. They were more anxious to win the admiration of men than to obtain spotless purity of character and holiness of life, that would gain the approval of God. Christ admonished his disciples, and also the multitude, to follow that which was good in the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees, but not to imitate their wrong examples, nor be deceived by their ambitious pretensions.—Spirit of Prophecy.
A Pharisee of the name of Simon, who seems to have been in good social position, had met with Jesus in some of the Galilæan towns, and had been so attracted by him that he invited him to his house, to eat with him. This was a mark of high consideration from one of a party so strict, for a Pharisee was as careful as a Brahmin is, with whom he ate. Defilement was temporary loss of caste, and neutralized long-continued effort to attain a higher grade of legal purity, and it lurked, in a thousand forms, behind the simplest acts of daily life and intercourse. To invite one who was neither a Pharisee, nor a member of even the lowest grade of legal guilds, was amazing liberality in a Jewish precisian. It would seem as if the courtesy had already excited timid fear of having gone too far, when Jesus accepted the invitation,—and had given place to a cold patronizing condescension, which fancied it had conferred, rather than received, an honor by his presence.
In the earlier ages of the nation it had been the habit to sit at meals on mats, with the feet crossed beneath the body, as at present in the East—round a low table—now, only about a foot in height. But the foreign custom of reclining on cushions, long in use among the Persians, Greeks, and Romans, had been introduced into Palestine apparently as early as the days of Amos, and had become general in those of Christ. Raised divans, or table couches, provided with cushions and arranged on three sides of a square, supplied a rest for guests, and on these they lay on their left arm, with their feet at ease behind them, outside. The place of honor was at the upper end of the right side, which had no one above it, while all below could easily lean back on the bosom of the person immediately behind. Hospitality among the poor was prefaced by various courtesies and attentions to the guest, more or less peculiar to the nation. To enter a house except with bare feet was much the same as our doing so without removing the hat, and, therefore, all shoes and sandals were taken off, and left at the threshold. A kiss on the cheek, from the master of the house, with the invocation "The Lord be with you," conveyed a formal welcome, and was followed, on the guest taking his place on the couch, by a servant bringing water and washing the feet, to cool and refresh them, as well as to remove the dust of the road and give ceremonial cleanness. The host himself, or one of his servants, next anointed the head and beard of the guests with fragrant oil, attention to the hair being a great point with Orientals. Before eating, water was again brought to wash the hands, as the requirements of legal purity demanded, and from the fact that the food was taken by dipping the fingers, or a piece of bread, in a common dish. "To wash the hands before a meal," says the Talmud, "is a command; to do so during eating is left matter of choice, but, to wash them after it, is a duty."
With all Jews, but especially with scrupulous formalists like the Pharisees, religious observances formed a marked feature in every entertainment, however humble, and as these were duly prescribed by the Rabbis, we are able to picture a meal like that given to Jesus by Simon. Houses in the East are far from enjoying the privacy we prize so highly. Even at this time, the strangers pass in and out at their pleasure, to see the guests, and join in conversation with them and with the host. Among those who did so in Simon's house, was one at whose presence in his dwelling, under any circumstances, he must have been equally astonished and disturbed. Silently gliding into the chamber, perhaps to the seat round the wall, came a woman, though women could not with propriety meet at such entertainments. She was, moreover, unveiled, which, in itself, was contrary to recognized rules. In the little town every one was known, and Simon saw, at the first glance, that she was no other than one known to the community as a poor fallen woman. She was evidently in distress, but he had no eyes or heart for such a consideration. She had compromised his respectability, and his frigid self-righteousness could think only of itself. To eat with publicans or sinners was the sum of all evils to a Pharisee. It was the approach of one under moral quarantine, whose very neighborhood was disastrous, and yet, here she was, in his own house.
A tenderer heart than his, however, knew the deeper aspects of her case, and welcomed her approach. She had listened to the words of Jesus, perhaps to his invitation to the weary and heavy-laden to come to him for rest, and was bowed down with penitent shame and contrition, which were the promise of a new and purer life. Lost, till now, to self-respect, an outcast for whom no one cared, she had found in him that there was a friend of sinners, who beckoned even the most hopeless to take shelter by his side. In him and his words hope had returned, and in his respect for her womanhood, though fallen, quickening self-respect had been once more awakened in her bosom. She might yet be saved from her degradation; might yet retrace her steps from pollution and sorrow, to a pure life and peace of mind. What could she do but seek the presence of one who had won her back from ruin? What could she do but express her lowly gratitude for the sympathy He alone had shown; the belief in the possibility of her restoration that had itself restored her!
The object of her visit was not, however, long a mystery. Kneeling down behind Jesus, she proceeded to anoint his feet with fragrant ointment, but as she was about to do so, her tears fell on them so fast that she was fain to wipe them with her long hair, which, in her distress, had escaped its fastenings. To anoint the head was the usual course, but she would not venture on such an honor, and would only make bold to anoint his feet. Unmindful of her disorder, which Simon coldly noted as an additional shame, she could think only of her benefactor. Weeping and wiping away the tears, and covering the feet with kisses, her heart gave itself vent till it was calmed enough to let her anoint them, and, meanwhile, Jesus left her to her lowly, loving will.
The Pharisee was horrified. That a Rabbi should allow such a woman, or, indeed, any woman, to approach him, was contrary to all the traditions, but it was incredibly worse in one whom the people regarded as a prophet. He would not speak aloud, but his looks showed his thoughts. "This man, if he were a prophet, would have known what kind of woman this is that touches him, for she is a sinner."
Jesus saw what was passing in his mind, and turning to him, requested an answer to a question. "There was a certain creditor," said he, "who had two debtors. The one owed him five hundred pence, the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me, therefore, which of them will love him most?" Utterly unconscious of the bearing of these words on himself, the Pharisee readily answered that he supposed he to whom the creditor forgave most, would love him most. "Thou hast rightly judged," replied Jesus. Then, like Nathan with David, he proceeded to bring the parable home to his conscience.
Turning to the weeping, penitent woman at his feet, and pointing to her, he continued, "Simon, seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house; thou gavest me no water for my feet, as even courtesy demanded; but she has washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with her hair. Thou gavest me no kiss; but this woman, since the time I entered, has not ceased to kiss my feet tenderly. Thou didst not anoint my head with oil; but she has anointed my feet with ointment. I say unto thee, therefore, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much, but one to whom little is forgiven, loves little." Then addressing the sobbing woman herself, he told her, "Thy sins are forgiven. Thy faith has saved thee: go in peace!"—Geikie's Life of Christ.
I KNOW THAT MY REDEEMER LIVETH.
By M. E. D. G.
OFTEN I saw in the market place
A tall, old man with a careworn face,
Changing the moans of the weak and sad
To songs and shouts of the strong and glad.
Unceasing and bold, his voice was heard
Giving the heedless a warning word,
Denouncing the Pharisee's vile pretense,
The blatant blasphemer's want of sense,
The traders who cheat, and schemers keen,
Working men's ruin with friendly mein,
Calling for justice on kings to fall,
The same as that dealt to robbers small;
Tearing away from the judges high,
The ermine that hides the well-paid lie;
Active his hands were, and strong and clean,
Smiting the proud, and raising the mean.
But once on a dark and stormy day,
The walls of the gathering rage gave way,
And the dreadful tempest that fell on him,
Crushed the love and life out from heart and limb.
Bruised and bleeding, his poor corpse lay,
Untended, alone, that dreary day;
So I sat down in the mourner's place
To honor and guard the careworn face;
And waiting, I wept in wrath and shame
His noble life, and dishonored name.
Then cried my heart from turbulent deeps,
"The love of God like his vengeance sleeps
On the whole broad earth, beneath his eye
The smoke of man's torment hides the sky,
The smoke of his torment, black with sin;
In vain have the pangs of martyrs been,
If craft will stab, seeming fair and cool,
If truth lies crushed, and oppressors rule."
Thus deep in grief I hid my aching eyes,
When at my side I heard a song arise,
From low notes, circling as the brown lark flies,
Then strong and joyful sprang up to the skies:—
"I know that my Redeemer lives, and yet,
Shall come to earth when judgment thrones are set,
Then, satisfied, like him, shall I arise,
To see the Lord I love, with mine own eyes."
This was the martyr's answer to my fears,
And hearing it I dried my rebel tears;
And the white dove of peace that came that day
Far from those clouds, I keep alway.
—M. E. D. G., in Golden Censer.
Talking Sunday School Superintendents
By Editor
It is evident from a contribution to the Baptist Teacher that talking superintendents are not all cured.
"I was in a school a few weeks since," says the writer, "in a general exercise, and the superintendent was 'one of the talkers.' He talked between every verse of the song, before and after prayer, before and after reading the lesson, before and after every address—sandwiching in his little nothing, which he seemed to think very wise—and finally, during one of the addresses, he broke in to warn the children of inattention, which so disturbed the speaker that he forgot what he was trying to say."
The Christian Life Is Not Gloomy
By Blaise Pascal
LET it not be imagined that the life of a good Christian must necessarily be a life of melancholy and gloominess; for he only resigns some pleasures to enjoy others infinitely better.—Pascal
DECEPTION.
SAYS the proverb, "He that hateth, dissembleth with his lips, and layeth up deceit within him. When he speaketh fair, believe him not, for there are seven abominations in his heart." Prov. 26:24, 25. It is the inevitable lot of a deceitful person not to be believed "when he speaketh fair." Time and space would both fail, to point out all the testimonies in God's word against deception. A hypocrite is a most odious character in the sight of God and man. He may think he can gain something by deception; but all he gets at the last is a bad name, and will not be believed when he tells the truth. A person who once tells a lie is distrusted and suspected; but a deceitful person—one who has cultivated a habit of falsehood in both word and life, cannot be believed, and is always shunned by the honest. No sin has been more severely denounced in the Scriptures, and none more certainly brings evil consequences even in this life; because it is not only an evil in itself, but it is the refuge and hiding place of all other sins. It is the accessory of all crimes.
The case of Jacob deceiving his father to secure a blessing affords an illustration of this. It is worthy of remark that Jacob suffered most severely in after life because of this sin.
When he had served the appointed years for Rachel, and "they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her," how must his heart have sunk within him to find that his ardent affections had been trifled with by the deception of Laban, who had brought one unto him whom he had never loved. We can scarcely imagine anything more cruel than this.
And again, his own sons caused his heart to bleed when, with deceit and falsehood, they brought to him the coat of his dearly-beloved son, and made him believe that an evil beast had devoured him. Long years he mourned his son as destroyed, because of this deception, though Joseph was both living and prosperous. As by his own deception he was long separated from his father's house, so by the deception and treachery of his children was his son long separated from him. Thus his sin followed him.
But it may be asked, Why did Jacob suffer thus for his crime if he was truly penitent, and so forgiven? Because God would show his abhorrence of the sin of deception, and let him suffer in this life, though he was granted mercy and life in the world to come.
A family in England, somewhat noted for piety, was yet very unhappy in their family relations; calamities greatly befell them. John Wesley was asked the reason of this, as it seemed to many to be a denial of the providence of God over his servants. Mr. Wesley replied that he had known them from their childhood, and that, as a family, they had been very disrespectful and unkind to their parents, and therefore the like had been meted out to them. He further said that he had often noticed that, where persons had been guilty of sins peculiarly abhorrent to God, they had been left to suffer the bitter consequences in this life, though God had accepted their repentance and given them assurance of life eternal.
Many such cases are found in the Bible, besides that of Jacob. Though King David was in all else honorable, upright, frank, and generous, and repented sincerely for his crime, yet the sin of adultery was so odious to God that it could not be altogether passed over. He caused him to suffer deeply in consequence of it. Had David been of an opposite character; had he been deceitful and vain, instead of being frank and humble, who can tell what might not have been the result of such a sin? But noble as he was in all his life beside, even a man to govern Israel after God's "own heart," he had to feel the rod for his departure from the commandment of God.
No sin can be so secret that God cannot see it. Deception will not avail before him who knows the heart. And though a person may flatter himself that his schemes have succeeded, and his plans been too deeply laid to be detected, he will be sure to find at last that "The way of the transgressor is hard."
ONE LITTLE SIN.
By Uriah Smith
“ONE leak will sink a ship; and one sin will bar us out of Heaven.” Such is the declaration that we often hear; and as often as we hear it, we tacitly, at least, give assent thereto. But do not many who thus assent, show by their course of life that there is, lurking in their hearts, a secret skepticism in reference to the sentiment thus expressed? Else why the persistent clinging to some sin, the constant pursuing of some course, which is perhaps the only obliquity in an otherwise consistent Christian life? Such may be yielding to the false logic of temptation, pleased and charmed with the sophistry which proposes to grant them the indulgence of some favorite sin, and yet bring them out all right at last. They perhaps reason boldly with their own hearts what they would not like to express openly, that it cannot be that the Lord will reject them for one little sin; that they have given up many wrongs, have ceased from many sins, deny themselves in a great many respects, bear many crosses, and do much for the Lord; and it is not possible that he will reject them at last, and doom them to perish in the lake of fire, for one little sin which they so desire to retain, one little indulgence which they find it so hard to discontinue.
Perhaps God will not reject you at last for that one sin especially; but do you suppose that you will come up to the Judgment with that one sin alone upon you? Do you suppose you can retain that one sin and keep yourself free from everything else to the last? Let us reason. The Lord wants the whole heart. The Holy Spirit requires an entire surrender. Yet you have some little idol in the heart, which bars the Saviour out. The Holy Spirit strives with you for the surrender of that sin; but you resist. It calls upon you to dethrone every idol from your heart; and you perhaps often sing,
“The dearest idol I have known,
Whate’er that idol be,
Help me to tear it from Thy throne,
And worship only thee.”
Yet you make a mental reservation in behalf of some little idol which you would fain persuade yourself is not of much consequence, and you can safely retain. The Holy Spirit continues to strive; yet you hold on to your sin. Will this state of things always continue? No. There comes a time when the Spirit will say, I can strive no longer. Then what position does this little sin assume? It becomes one of infinite magnitude. No one can charge blame upon the Spirit of God for finally ceasing to plead, when its pleas are persistently rejected. And you reject its pleas that you may retain that sin. You thereby declare that you set more value upon that little sin than you do upon all that the Holy Spirit proposes to do for you, and all the promises that are made to the overcomer.
The Holy Spirit being thus grieved away, what follows? You are exposed to the enemy on every side. You cannot stand. Seven spirits worse than the first are ready to crowd in and take possession of the house you had kept so thoroughly swept of every sin but one. Rapidly you descend in the ways of evil; and when the day of retribution comes, you stand condemned, not then for one little sin, but as an unpardonable apostate, a monster of iniquity. So much comes from one little sin. Thus one little sin bars us out of Heaven. It may have been a tiny seed at first; but you cherished it; and cherished, it would grow; and, growing, its nature was to choke, root out, and cover, all else with its deadly shade; for sin, when it is finished, no matter how small its beginning, bringeth forth death.
One little leak will sink the ship. Why? Because by that leak the ship is brought into identically the same condition at last it would have been in, had a whole plank been removed from its bottom from bow to stern. So through the avenue of one little sin, the sinner becomes as full of iniquity as though he had forever wallowed in its foulest depths.
One little sin cherished keeps open an avenue between yourself and the enemy. Kept open long enough, he is sure of full possession. There is no safety till this is closed. For this, the Lord entreats, the Spirit pleads. Reader, beware of the one little sin. It may look little and harmless now; but it will develop into the deadly Upas; and when it reaches such a state as to alarm you with undeniable tokens of danger, it will be beyond your power to eradicate the evil or check its growth. Put it away now. Let the last sin go. Dethrone the last idol. Be entirely the Lord’s. Serve him with a perfect heart, and follow him fully; or you may as well not follow him at all. U. S.
PRECEPT AND PRACTICE.
By Ellet J. Waggoner
BY E. J. WAGGONER.
An insuperable objection, in the minds of some against the Sabbath of the Lord, and a reason for the observance of Sunday, is the supposed example of the apostles. It is quite a commonly received opinion that the apostles were in the habit of meeting together for worship on the first day of the week, and of using the Sabbath as a secular day. Even a superficial reading of the New Testament, by an unprejudiced person, would show the utter fallacy of any such supposition. If apostolic example were our only guide, the weight of evidence would be in favor of the Lord's Sabbath, for we have accounts of many meetings held on the Sabbath, while we have the record of only one meeting on the first day of the week. But it is urged that the apostles met to preach on the Sabbath because then only could they gain access to the people in the synagogues. This again has hardly the shadow of a supposition to support it, for we read that on one occasion Paul and his companions, on a Sabbath day, “went out of the city by a river side where prayer was wont to be made,” and spoke to the people. Acts 16:13.
But it may well be said on either side, that mere example without any precept is not sufficient ground upon which to base faith and practice. To this we heartily agree, and would that our first-day friends would ever abide by it, for precept for Sunday observance is even less than supposed example.
But again, our friends say that even though there may be no law in the New Testament for Sunday keeping, there is none for the Sabbath, and, therefore, Christians may do as they please. “If Christ and his apostles,” say they, “had designed that people under the new dispensation should keep the Sabbath, they would have made formal declaration of some law to that effect.” The fact that the law was not thus formally re-enacted is claimed as proof that it was intended259to be ignored. Let us see if this is reasonable. Ninety-two years ago the United States' Constitution, the fundamental law of the land, was ratified. Officers were chosen who administered in the affairs of State, under that Constitution. Since that time there have been nineteen different dispensations, and not once has the Constitution been re-enacted. No one has seemed to think it necessary to do so. An act which in the days of Washington would have been treasonable, would be punished as such to-day, and by the same authority now as then. Now if the Constitution of the United States holds good through nineteen dispensations, surely the law of God must remain valid through two. Indeed, a moment's reflection would convince any one that a law must be in full force until it is formally annulled. And since in the case of the law of God, as in the Constitution, no repeal of the law had been made known, a re-enactment would have been labor thrown away.
But some one, following out the illustration, will say that, although our legislators do not, at every session or new administration, re-enact the Constitution, they have to affirm their allegiance to it. True, and we shall find exactly the same thing in regard to the law of God in the Christian dispensation. At the very outset we find Christ stating his position in regard to it: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” Matt. 5:17. Then with divine authority he states that whosoever should break one of these commandments, and should teach men so, should be counted of no esteem in the kingdom of God. Christ's teaching was ever in accordance with this declaration. See Matt. 19:17; 22:36-40; Ps. 40:7, 8; Isa. 42:21.
We come now to the apostles, and we shall see that they likewise acknowledged their allegiance to the law. Paul was the most prominent among them, and being the “apostle to the gentiles,” he certainly would consider himself exempt from its observance if any of them could. Hear him declare his faith before Felix: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.” Acts 24:14.
We have here the expressed belief of Christ and Paul. Now who dare say that their practice was different from their teaching? Did not Christ live out his own precepts? It was said of him (Ps. 40:8) that he came to do the will of God, and that God's law was “within his heart.” Was Paul a hypocrite? No one would dare make such an assertion, and yet those who claim that he desecrated the Sabbath, virtually call him a hypocrite professing one thing and doing another. When Paul said that he believed “all things which were written in the law,” we cannot have the slightest doubt but that he practiced all things contained in the law, the Sabbath with the rest.
This testimony is not ambiguous. It is clear and explicit. None need fail through ignorance. As a last stand, does any one plead force of habit, old associations, inconvenience, or the ridicule of friends? Christ says “What is that to thee? follow thou me.” “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”