OBJECTIONS TO A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF GEN. III.
Bro. SMITH: I have just been perusing a newspaper handed me by one of my neighbors, entitled the New Church Herald, published in Cincinnati, Ohio, in which I find a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Bagley on the fall of man, in which he labors to show great absurdities in understanding the account given by Moses, in a literal sense, and as Peter said concerning Paul's testimony, there are some things hard to be understood, so it may be with those of Moses; and as I do not wish to wrest them to my own destruction, neither am I willing to abide by the Dr.'s interpretation, I refer them to some one that is better acquainted with the rules of interpretation than myself. As his interpretation is quite lengthy, I shall only give a few of his objections brought to bear against our view.
Objection First. If the seducer was a literal serpent, a beast of the field, which the Lord God had made, as recorded in Gen. iii, 1, and the Devil a fallen angel, how is it that the Devil, the real delinquent, escapes without a word, while the serpent, his innocent tool, is punished.
Objection Second. If the serpent's punishment is to be understood literally, why does he refuse to eat dust any more than other carnivorous animals?
Objection Third. If the serpent was a literal one, are we not to understand it to be the one spoken of in verse 15, of whom it is said, The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's head, and he shall bruise his heel. Then did the serpent live four thousand years, until the coming of the Messiah?
Objection Fourth. If the eating of a literal apple was the transgression of Eve, how can that be harmonized with the words of our Saviour, where he says, It is not that which goeth into the mouth that defileth a man, but that which cometh from the heart.
Objection Fifth. If a literal death was all the penalty inflicted upon Adam and his posterity, for violating his law, and Christ died to redeem us from under that curse, why is it that death has pervaded the human family from that time to this?
I send these objections to get a satisfactory explanation, hoping that our opponents may be benefited also.
Yours seeking after truth.
J. F. Ballenger.
REPLY.—The doctrine of the fall of man and the curses pronounced upon the guilty parties at the time of the transgression, look to us harmonious and consistent, and the more so, the more thought we bestow upon the subject, and the more minutely we examine the record. We can state in few words why we think the questions proposed by Dr. Bagley constitute no real objection to our view.
In regard to the first objection, why the curse was pronounced upon the serpent to the disregard of the real offender, the Devil, we answer: The Devil had previously been concerned in a greater transgression than the deception of man; and his sentence had already been pronounced upon him. It would be absurd to follow up the Devil, and pronounce sentence upon every individual act of malignity which he might commit, when his doom had already been fixed since his first rebellion in heaven. He, with his angels, is reserved under darkness to the judgment of the great day, destined to that fire which is prepared for him and them. Jude 6; Matt. xxv, 41. In this connection it would only be proper to pronounce sentence upon him as far as his connection with the world is concerned, and that was done, as we shall presently see.
But why pronounce sentence upon the serpent, his "innocent tool?" Answer: The law of expediency sometimes requires judgments to be executed upon certain animals. Why under the laws regulating the Jewish polity was the ox that gored a person, put to death? Ex. xxi, 28. It was because the animal was unruly and dangerous, and it was not expedient that it should live. So with some animals at the present day. Safety demands that they be deprived of their powers of doing mischief; and no one questions the justness or propriety of such a course.
So with the serpent in the beginning: He occupied a position in advance of the rest of the animal creation; and his superior powers were employed in accomplishing the greatest and most fatal deception that ever took place; and it was not expedient that he should be permitted to retain those powers longer. So far as the literal serpent is concerned, we believe that the sentence only contemplated the depriving him of his elevated position, and was fulfilled in that act. But why does he refuse to eat dust any more than other carnivorous animals? We reply that it is not necessary to the literal character of the narrative as a whole, to understand this expression in its most literal sense. Upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat, denote doubtless the humiliating position to which he has been reduced. Just as a writer would describe the success of a warrior, by saying that he made his enemies "lick the dust," or "bite the sod," not denoting that he literally made them do these acts, but overcame or humbled them; and no one would think of questioning the literality of the narrative on account of these expressions.
Did that serpent then live till Christ? Ans. We understand that the curse of verse 15 refers directly to the Devil, as he is connected with this world. A glance is made from the literal to the figurative, and a curse pronounced through the serpent directly upon the Devil. Such use of language is not uncommon. Similar instances are frequently to be met with in the Scriptures. See, for example, the prediction against Babylon, in Isa. xiii. This was addressed to the literal city on the banks of the Euphrates; much of it has its application there; yet the prophetic eye strikes forward to the more comprehensive and stupendous judgments of mystical Babylon, which tower up in the back ground, and of which the literal city and its punishment, was a fitting and instructive figure. Compare Isa. xiii, with Rev. xviii. So the sentence pronounced upon the serpent, glances from him to that greater being whose instrument he was, and whose fitting representative he therefore became.
In regard to the fourth objection, we can only ask in astonishment, if indeed the Dr. wrote that! It is enough to put folly to the blush, to see men whose names are top-heavy with the titles of Reverend Doctor, descend to such puerilities. It was transgressing God's command that brought guilt upon our first parents; and any other act besides eating of the forbidden tree, would have brought them into equal condemnation, if God had forbidden it, and they had transgressed his command.
The fifth objection inquires why death has pervaded the human family till the present time, if literal death was the penalty of Adam's sin, and Christ died to redeem us from under that curse. The reason is simply this: Christ did not die to annul the sentence pronounced upon Adam, but to redeem us from its effect; and this he will do in bringing the whole race back to life from the death which we now die through the sin of our first parents.
TENT MEETINGS IN N. Y.
By R. F. Cottrell, J. N. Andrews
Our last tent meeting for the season was held at Somerset Niagara Co. We held meetings here from Aug. 31 to Sept. 16. We also had meetings in the place in a commodious hall, on Sabbath and first-day, Sept. 22 and 23, making in all thirty-three meetings. Our congregations were small in comparison with what we have had in other places, but orderly and attentive. Three have taken a decided stand to keep the Sabbath, one of them formerly an advent believer, and another an elderly Baptist minister. This brother having formerly adopted the Protestant rule of faith and practice, when he had listened to the Bible argument on the Sabbath, at once admitted the truth, and moved forward in obedience. Other points of truth he is investigating. May the Lord lead him into all truth, and make him a burning and shining light to this last generation. The Methodist minister of the place also attended many of our meetings. He appears to be a candid Christian, devoid of that prejudice with which so many are filled. But he had appointments to fill on first-days when our most important subjects were presented. Many others were convinced, but have not, as we know, decided to obey. May God help them to realize the importance and necessity of obedience and enable them to make a full sacrifice. Indeed it seems they must and will decide157that they will serve the Lord. We trust that our labors in the place will not be in vain, but that a goodly number will rally around the standard of truth.
It has been a season of toil, but we have been richly recompensed in that our labors have been, in some measure blessed of the Lord. We have had the tent pitched each Sabbath through the season, have had evening meetings each evening when pitched, and in short, have not failed of one of our appointments during the whole season, though sometimes when the weather was bad, we have held the meetings in houses. The brethren have been prompt and liberal in their support, so that we have not lacked for means, for which we thank God and his people. There are some however, that have not paid in what they designed to give. These will hand it in at the State conference, or send it by mail to R. F. Cottrell, Olcott, Niagara Co. N. Y.
Dear brethren, may the Lord give us a part in this work until it shall be consummated, and we be gathered with all the saints to the everlasting kingdom.
R. F. COTTRELL.
J. N. ANDREWS.
Sept. 24.
BATTLE CREEK CONFERENCE.
By Editor
OUR brethren may be expecting in this week's paper some notice of the General Conference just convened in this place. But having been occupied with the business matters of the Conference and the brethren, till the present date (Tuesday, Oct. 2) which is one day later than this paper is usually put to press, only a few brief remarks can here be given.
We were gratified to see quite a full representation of preachers from different parts. Among these were Brn. M. Hull and M. E. Cornell from Iowa, Wm. S. Ingraham from Wis., Joseph Bates, J. H. Waggoner, James White, J. N. Loughborough, J. B. Frisbie, R. J. Lawrence and J. L. Edgar, from Mich., T. J. Butler and G. W. Holt, from Ohio, E. A. Poole, from N. Y., and also J. N. Andrews and C. W. Sperry, from their labors in that State the past summer.
Many brethren met for the first time at this meeting, whose cordial salutations and beaming countenances bespoke their joy at meeting, their union of heart and their love for the truth. As the hour arrived for religious exercises at the commencement of the Sabbath, the house was densely filled with the brethren and sisters who had come up from different States to this happy gathering to wait upon the Lord and receive his promises. An instructive and stirring discourse was given by Bro. Hull from Titus ii, 11-14. In the social meeting from 9 o'clock to half-past 10, the following morning, the time was well filled up with many short and spirited testimonies, from hearts warm in the truth and beating high with hope of immortality. Preaching followed by Bro. White from Phil. ii, 5, and context, being a very timely discourse on the relation that brethren sustain towards each other, and the feelings and union that should exist among them. It was forcibly set home to the hearts and consciences of those present, and we trust will be lived out by them as they go to their respective homes.
Another short and interesting season of conference meeting was enjoyed previous to a discourse in the afternoon of the Sabbath from Bro. Sperry, from Zeph. ii, 1-3, in which he portrayed the scattering that has been accomplished among the people of God, and showed that now the time has come for the gathering of the remnant.
There was further preaching on first-day forenoon by Bro. Hull, and in the afternoon by Bro. Ingraham which completed the religious exercises of the Conference.
That interesting feature of such gatherings as this, namely, the prayer and conference meetings, was cut short by the business meetings which it was thought necessary to hold before the brethren from a distance might be obliged to leave. The time of the Conference, therefore, with the exception of the exercises already mentioned, was occupied in deliberating upon those important questions mentioned in the notice of Conference in REVIEW No. 17, such as the proper manner of holding church property, the wants of the Office of publication, &c., and in adopting such measures as would enable us to act more efficiently in time to come, in the promulgation of the truth we love.
The report of the business proceedings will be given, providence permitting, next week.
TENT MEETINGS IN OHIO.
By G. W. Holt; T. J. Butler
Sickness and feeble health prevented the tent operation in this State, until the first of Aug. We then raised our tent in Royalton, Cuyahoga Co., a pleasant village with a thickly populated country around it. Our meetings opened favorably, with large and attentive congregations, although considerable prejudice existed against us in consequence of some misrepresentations of our faith and practice by some persons who were here on a visit from Michigan, who were very zealous in notifying the people that we were the followers of a woman, that lived in Battle Creek, who had visions directing us what to do, which we received as divine : upon which we built our theory. Ministers and people nevertheless came out to hear our position explained.
After hearing numerous quotations from the prophets, apostles, and Jesus Christ, their prejudice gave way, and many became deeply interested in the harmonious system of truth which we advocate. Infidelity yielded to divine truth; and men who before were considered rank infidels now became our warmest friends and advocates of the Holy Bible, the great foundation of our most ardent faith.
A preacher of the Disciple church commenced opposition to the law of God. He gave us however no new light o the no-law subject. His positions were taken up in the tent, and made to appear in the light of truth, in their natural darkness. He then requested of us the stand to make another attempt, which was granted him. His first sally this time was with what he supposed to be the weapon that would lay to the ground the whole code of moral precepts written by the finger of God, and forever put an end to the controversy! We were notified beforehand that Eld. C. had something wonderful against our position that we did not think of. Of course we were prepared for a dreadful shock. At the hour appointed the man appeared with the instrument in his hand! It was a paper entitled, Western Christian Advocate, out of which he read with great emphasis concerning a tent in Iowa, that was moving from place to place in that State, accompanied by one Cornell and others who preached dangerous doctrine, &c. He then attempted to patch up a former discourse of his, and somehow he got nine of the ten commandments, after they had been dead and buried, raised to life and placed in the epistles. This he accompanied with considerable slang, closing up with an air of triumph, pledging us his horse, "as fine an animal as he ever drew a line over," if we could find "Jewish Sabbath" in the epistles. He then retreated, with as many as preferred the narrow platform of the epistles alone to the broad foundation of the apostles and prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. None followed him except his church.
Several from a distance attended our meetings with interest, and bought books with the conviction that we had the truth. Five young converts were baptized, and fifteen or twenty have decided to obey the truth; while many others are satisfied we have the truth and remain our warm friends. We ardently hope they will take up the cross, and go with us to mount Zion.
The church of God in Royalton will meet on the Sabbath of the Lord, for worship in the Freewill Baptist meeting house.
G. W. HOLT.
T. J. BUTLER.
WHO WAS NEANDER?
By John Nevins Andrews
DEAR BRO. ANDREWS: While laboring in Marquette, Wis., an Eld. Lang endeavored to cast a slur on the testimony of Neander as a man of no note. His intention was to show that Neander's testimony in our Sabbath works was entitled to no credit. He several times asked the question, "Who was Neander?" It would be quite a gratification to me and many readers of the Review for you to answer the question, Who was Neander?
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
RESPONSE.—Neander was a German theologian and ecclesiastical historian of the highest eminence. I quote the following from Blake's Universal Biographical Dictionary.
“Neander, Johann August Wilhelm, one of the most celebrated modern authors of ecclesiastical history was born at Gottingen in 1789. His parents professed the Jewish religion and removed to the city of Hamburg when their son was quite young. He was indebted to the excellent seminaries of learning in this place for much of his education, and for his subsequent fame; and it is thought that while residing at that place in 1805, he became a convert to the Christian faith. He was extremely poor, and had to struggle against obstacles to his progress in the acquisition of knowledge, that would have completely discouraged persons gifted with a smaller amount of mental vigor. After his conversion he studied at Halle, and subsequently at Gottingen; his reputation at each place being in proportion to his genius and energy—of the highest order. In 1811 he went to Heidelberg, and commenced the life of an author, his first work having been a historical memoir of the emperor Julian and his age, which was favorably received, and it is probable, led to his being appointed professor of theology in the university of that city in the year 1812. The same year, a few months subsequently, he was nominated for a similar professorship in an university just established at Berlin as the colleague with Marbeinecke and Schleiermacher, in the duties of which station he was unremittingly occupied for the remainder of his life. In addition to the instruction of his classes he wrote and published a history of the Christian church, and other works of great merit, which will long perpetuate his memory. Although his manners were simple, he was not wanting in energy; and notwithstanding he was somewhat eccentric, he was beloved by those who knew him. He died in 1850 at the age of 61 years.”
Edition of 1856, p. 897
The following from the Encyclopædia Americana presents all that need be said respecting this writer:
“Neander, John William Augustus, one of the most distinguished German Protestant theologians, professor at the university at Berlin, Prussian counsellor of the consistory, &c., was born at Gottingen, Jan. 16, 1789, of Jewish parents. He received his first instruction in the gymnasium of Hamburg. In 1805, he went to the university of Halle; and, when this university was broken up by Napoleon, he went to Gottingen, where he remained until he had finished his philosophical and theological studies. The latter he pursued with an earnest desire to discover the truth. He was, however, not as yet converted to Christianity. In 1811, he settled at Heidelberg, as a theological teacher, having previously embraced Christianity, when he also adopted his present name, to indicate his entire change (vεος ανθρω, new man). In 1812, he was appointed professor extraordinarius of theology in the university, and soon appeared before the public with his learned work, The Emperor Julian, and his Time (in German, Leipzig, 1812). In 1813, he was called to a professorship at Berlin, and published, in the same year, his St. Bernard, and his Age (in German, Berlin, 1813),—a work rendered particularly interesting by his liberal criticism of Abelard, the distinguished contemporary of St. Bernard. In 1818, he published an Exposition of the most important Gnostic Systems (in German), and, in 1821, his Chrysostom, and the Oriental Church in his Age (likewise in German). In 1822, he undertook the publication of a periodical under the title of Denkwürdigkeiten aus der Geschichte des Christentums und des Christlichen Lebens (2d ed., Berlin, 1825, 8 vols.), in which he strives to explain the history of the six first centuries. In 1825, he published his Antignosticus, Spirit of Tertullian, and Introduction to his Writings (in German, Berlin, 8vo.), in which he strove to show the antipeculative direction of Christianity, of which Tertullian was the representative, as he had in his former work on the Gnosis (q. v.) shown the visionary and mystical direction which Christianity had taken with the Gnostics. He then undertook the execution of a work which he himself calls the center of his endeavors,—a General History of Religion and the Church (in German), of which the first volume appeared in 1825 (Hamburg), and of which two volumes have appeared, in several divisions, beginning with the end of the apostolic age, and reaching to Gregory I. He promises a history of the apostolic age, as a separate work. He says, in the preface to the first volume, the "chief aim of his life, from an early period, was to represent the history of the church of Christ as a speaking proof of the divine power of Christianity, as a school of Christian experience, and a voice sounding through all ages, of edification and warning for all who are willing to listen." A volume of small theological treatises has appeared in a third edition (1829). All these works prove indefatigable zeal and vast erudition. Neander is also a most active teacher in all branches of historical theology, and is, besides, engaged in several avocations connected with his science, and deserves to be called a zealous laborer in the vineyard of the Lord. His example is that of a most pious Christian, who abhors party controversies in religion.”
WHAT RESULTED FROM ONE MEETING.
By J. Clarke
I WAS just thinking as I cast my eye over Bro. Czechowski's letter of Aug. 22 (Review No. 16), of the good providence of God. A few years ago the Ohio tent was pitched at Findlay, and Bro. Cornell fought bravely there, and a goodly number came out on the present truth. But a few months seemed to blast the work there, and the little company at Findlay, either discouraged or overpowered, or both, seemed to dwindle away (mostly), and we have often thought with sorrow of so good a beginning, meeting with so sad a reverse.158
But it was not all a failure: there are a number, Bro. S. of Cass, sisters J. and S. of Findlay, who are still persevering in the glorious cause, who first heard the truth at Findlay; and through various and trying experiences, these dear jewels are pushing their way forward; and at this meeting, too, some individuals from Gilboa first got a glimpse at the glorious future, and invited the brethren with the tent to visit Gilboa, where the glorious work still moves on.
Here a few individuals from Cass (six miles northeast of Findlay) heard a few lectures, and concluded to try the toilsome path; and now a resolute few are struggling to be free in that vicinity.
A few weeks since Bro. and Sr. Van Gorder and myself spent the Sabbath with them. Most of them seemed to be striving to rise with the message. Their meeting was free and interesting. They often allude to the labors of Brn. Cornell, Dorcas, Holt, &c., among them, and they greatly desire to have the messengers visit them, particularly Bro. and Sr. White.
It was good to see the expressive countenance of our blind Bro. Francis there (who had a letter in No. 15), zealous in the good cause. A few years ago he came to this place as a musician to a ball, and it was here too, he afterwards heard Bro. Cornell debate with Bulger, which confirmed him in present truth. He lives twenty, not a hundred and twenty, miles from this place, as was published. Bro. F. loves the glorious message.
J. CLARKE.
TENT MEETING AT CHERRY GROVE, ILLS.
By John Norton Loughborough; T. M. Steward
This meeting was also one of interest, although we labored under some difficulties, which were cold weather, and a strong opposition which had been mostly created by the ungentlemanly course of those who under the name of Adventists had preached the Age-to-come doctrine. This prejudice was so strong that it was with difficulty that we could get a place to pitch the tent. We pitched it however in a back place, but after two or three discourses we were urged to move it to the spot where we first wished to place it.
We held this meeting till the weather was so cold it seemed to forbid continuing longer. The interest was good. Several subscribed for the Review, and some $15 worth of books were taken; and some stated their determination to obey the truth.
The conference on the last Sabbath and first-day of the meeting was excellent, especially our social meetings and business conference. The brethren present who were mostly from Northern Ills., contributed freely for the support of the tent, and for those who had labored with the tent. They made arrangements to meet the $30 borrowed on the tent, but as money was still pledged in Wis., which had not been paid, it was thought best to use that to pay the tent debt, and let those who had already doubled and trebled their pledges pay their fourth pledge towards the support of the tent another season.
As this closed our tent season, we would say that we feel to thank the Lord for the union of feeling we have felt in laboring together the past summer. We would also express gratitude to our brethren for their faithful co-operation with us, especially to Bro. Baker of Mackford, who freely volunteered to go as tent-master, with no other compensation than his expenses from place to place.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
T. M. STEWARD.
WILL GOD ACCEPT OF SUBTERFUGES?
By E. B. Saunders
Mankind act as though they believed the Lord would accept of that which he has not commanded. Their actions look as if they thought that the Lord was under obligations to accept of their little gratuitous subterfuges instead of his requirements. Obedience is better than sacrifice. Men seem to think it a very little thing to disobey God; but then fearing that all is not right, they offer some trifle of their own invention in place of his requirement. Speak to them of their course, and they will say, "God looketh on the heart," "If our hearts are only right," "I think as long as my conscience does not condemn me, God will accept of it," and many pleas of a similar nature, thinking that because they feel safe, while they put out their eyes and hide their heads in such sand, they are actually secure.
Yes. God looketh on the heart, neither can he be blinded by any amount of counterfeit worship. The heart God requires is that which will obey him and love to keep his commandments. God governs by his law; and as long as the heart hates God's law, it hates the government of God; and if it hates his government, it will be rebellious even if it were in heaven. Such hearts are not right. Though they may deceive some and make them feel safe, yet it is carnal unless willing to be subject to the requirements of its Maker. Neither will God accept of something that he has not required. And especially will such an offering become very offensive when the will of God is known to him who offers it. There is one sentence to such as know his will and do it not, but instead offer him a substitute of their own invention; it is to be punished with many stripes.
The notion seems to prevail to a great extent that God does not mean just what he says; that if we only do something similar to his command, it will answer just as well. This idea originated with mankind very early, probably in Eden, when our first parents thought God did not mean just what he said, when he told them they should surely die if they ate of the forbidden fruit. Perhaps Cain thought so too, when he brought an offering of the fruits of the ground. Before Christ came and died for sin, man was required to bring an offering of a clean beast to show his faith in the great Offering God was to send into the world. Abel understood this, and therefore offered a lamb for a victim, to show his faith in the Lamb of God that was yet to come. Perhaps Cain argued that God looks on the motives, or heart, and that a bloody offering was not necessary; that the blood of a lamb could not take away sin, and that God only meant that he should manifest his faith in the promised Messiah; so he, full of human reasonings, brought an offering of the fruits of the ground. Did God accept of it?
Now shall we, living since Christ died, come to God with just such vain human reasonings, and instead of manifesting faith in Christ by the gospel ordinance of baptism—burial in the likeness of Christ's death, reason that God does not mean just what he says; all he requires is an application of water in the name of the Trinity. Think you that God will accept of such a subterfuge?
Doubtless Nadab and Abihu had hearts full of just such reasonings and wicked thoughts, when they offered strange fire before the Lord. Perhaps they thought and argued that God only required fire off the altar to be used because it was near by; and that he did not mean that they should always take of it; besides, common fire would burn the incense just as well. It may be that they thought that they were on such familiar terms with the Lord, and that he had blessed them as in times past, that they need not do just as he had commanded. But did God accept of them? See Lev. x, 2.
But, says one, if God punished them so at that time for doing that which he commanded them not, why does he not punish us now if we are equally as bad? Doubtless God has not punished every one that has offered an abomination in place of his commands, but simply gave us an example to warn us not to trifle with him. Rom. xv, 4.
The command to keep holy the seventh day is just as precious in the sight of God as it ever was; and God will not accept of a day that he has not sanctified, in place of it. I do not see why a day offered to God as a substitute for his holy Sabbath-day, if persisted in when we know his will, is not just as great an abomination as it would be to offer a dog in place of a lamb, for a burnt-offering; or strange fire when he had not commanded it. Nadab and Abihu willfully offered to God that which he commanded not, and were destroyed. If we willfully offer to God a Sabbath which he commanded not, shall we escape a punishment equally severe. We can never obey God by doing that which he has not required; and if the willing and obedient, only, eat the good of the land, how can we partake also if we disobey? The blessing is only on such as do his commandments. Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
E. B. Saunders.
Eagle Harbor, N. Y.
THE PROMISES OF JESUS.
By D. HILDRETH.
THE promises of God are precious to the believing soul; but there is something peculiar to the promises which Jesus uttered with his own lips while here on the earth. Their coming from the lips of him who was then devoting his time and his life for the salvation of men, is probably the reason why they are so peculiarly touching. Matt. xviii, 20. "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
Some promises are not fulfilled till after this dispensation; but this promise is designed for the benefit of the church in her present state; consequently it is a constant source of comfort and encouragement to the people of God. This promise, like all others, is conditional. Jesus will not meet with two or three unless they come together in his name. Whenever we meet in Jesus' name he is there in the midst; for this is the only condition of the promise. It is unnecessary to ask Jesus to verify this promise to us after we have met in his name; for no such condition is stated. Our faith in this promise is what prompts us to meet together, and our meeting together is only acting out our faith; for we should not meet in his name unless we believed that he would be there. If we go there from curiosity, or because it is customary, or merely to keep up appearances, we do not meet in his name, and have no right to claim this promise. We read this promise, and believing that Jesus will be there if we go for no other purpose but to glorify his name and enjoy his presence, we meet together and Jesus meets with us. When we meet together in this manner, there will be no failure; Jesus will be there when we get there.
Let us further examine the conditions of meeting in Jesus' name. 2 Tim. ii, 19. "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." If we are knowingly breaking one of God's commandments we have no reason to expect that he will meet with us; for he hates the wicked. If he calls upon us to believe and practice a truth, and we refuse to obey, we break the first commandment and cannot reasonably expect Jesus to meet with us unless we obey him. Jas. iv, 6. "God resisteth the proud." If we meet together from motives of pride or self-glory, Jesus will not meet with us; for we meet in our own name, not in his. We must have a single eye and then he will accept us.
There are many gatherings professedly in Jesus' name; but he is not in the midst; for they fail to come up to the conditions of the promise, and the result is, another spirit presides in the meeting. It is singular that the clause, "and that to own and bless," is added to this promise by many in their prayers. This is not praying with the Spirit and the understanding. 1 Cor. xiv, 15.
It is quite common to suppose that a joyful meeting is a particular sign of Jesus's presence; but this is the evidence of feeling and not of faith. Instruction, correction and reproof are tokens of his presence as much as joyful blessings. He meets with us for the same purpose that he met with people when he was on earth, namely, to make us wiser and better. When he sits upon us as a refiner and purifier of silver [Mal. iii, 3], his presence may not always seem joyous. Heb. xii, 11. It almost seems while wading through darkness and trials that he has forsaken us; but all his promises stand sure. Heb. xiii, 5.