Earlier text: The Signs of the TimesWhat the Atonement Is.
By Editor
We might quote much to show the prevalence of the error, that the Atonement was made on the cross, but that is not necessary. The “Manual of the Atonement,” from which we have before quoted, says:— “When he had completed his mediatorial work, he meekly yielded himself up into the hands of his heavenly Father, saying, ‘Into thy hands I commit my spirit.’” So far from his “mediatorial work” being completed when he was on the cross, it had not yet commenced. The mediatorial work is the work of the priest, which he had not entered upon when he died. Paul says he entered into Heaven “by his own blood,” “now to appear in the presence of God for us.” But if his mediatorial work was completed when he was on earth, even before his death, as the above quotation would have it, then he cannot be a mediator now! and all that the Scriptures say of his priesthood on the throne of his Father in Heaven, there making intercession for us, is incomprehensible or erroneous. By thus confounding the sacrifice or death of Christ with the Atonement, the latter is supposed to be a general work, made for all mankind. With this we cannot agree. That Christ died for all, is distinctly stated, but we have seen that that was only preparatory to the Atonement, and it is in the Atonement that application is made of the blood to the full removal of sin. This is shown also in the type. The goat of the sin offering was slain for the people, and, of course, was offered to meet the wants of all; but while the priest made the atonement, they were required to “afflict their souls,” or come as humble penitents before the Lord, and whosoever did not should be cut off from among the people. Lev. 16:29; 23:27-29. This, then, was required of them individually, in that day, in order that their sins might be atoned for by the priest; for we cannot suppose that they would be cut off whose sins were actually blotted out, or removed from the presence of the judge, by the blood of the offering with which the sanctuary was cleansed from sin. The same is also taught by Peter, who says that God exalted Jesus, who was slain, to be a prince and Saviour, to grant repentance and forgiveness of sins. Acts 5:30, 31. Now that “he died for all” there can be no question; and his death is absolute and without condition. But not so the Atonement; for Peter says again, “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord,” &c. Acts 3:19. We have found that, when the priest made the atonement, he took the blood and cleansed the sanctuary of God from the sins wherewith it had been defiled; and this is the only act which will answer to the expression of blotting out the sins, for blood was the only thing that would remove them. Hence, while the blood of Christ was shed for all, the efficacy of that blood in atoning for, or blotting out, sin, is contingent, it availing only for those who will repent and be converted. He died for the world—he died for all; and he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him. Heb. 7:25. But he will save no others. Another cause of confusion is this, that reconciliation and the Atonement are often supposed to be the same; and where the distinction is recognized their relation is not always observed, a disregard of which tends to about the same result as a denial of the distinction. Thus it has been said: “The Atonement may exist without reconciliation, but reconciliation cannot exist without the Atonement.” This is exactly the reverse of the true order, and the error is the result of confounding the death of the offering with the Atonement. It is quite true that reconciliation has the Atonement in view, but it must precede the Atonement. The death of Christ opens the way for reconciliation to all, but no one can have his sins actually atoned for or blotted out who rejects the offering of Christ, or who is not reconciled to God. It is admitted that there is a close relation between the two; but nearness of relation does not argue identity. The death of Christ, the offering of his blood, opens the way for reconciliation. Reconciliation secures an interest in the Atonement; and this in turn is made with the blood previously shed. The offering of Christ is the corner-stone of the whole work, for “without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” It is for this reason that we are so constantly directed to the cross of Christ. Without this, there could be neither reconciliation nor atonement. But that the relation and order of the work is as we here state, namely, that his death, and reconciliation through his blood, look forward to his priestly work of atonement, is proved by the words of Paul in Rom. 5:10. “For if when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” Reconciliation first; salvation as the result. Two views are held by different classes of theologians on the subject of reconciliation. One, that reconciliation is on the part of man only; the other, that reconciliation is mutual—that God is reconciled to man as well as man to God. It very frequently happens that controversy arises between men from a misapprehension of each other's meaning, and this is doubtless much the case on this subject. If it be shown that reconciliation must be on the part of an enemy or of the offending party only, then the first-named view is correct. But if by reconciliation is also meant that the justice of God must be appeased in behalf of the offender, the last view is the true one. We might say that both are correct, according to the two constructions put upon the word; and reasons can be given for both, as most words allow of different shades of meaning. On this subject Dr. Barnes makes a very strange statement. He says:— “Reconciliation” is in fact produced between God and man by the atonement. God becomes the friend of the pardoned sinner.”—Atonement, p. 268. Passing over his reversion of the actual order, we remark that this is equivalent to saying that God is not the friend, but the enemy, of the sinner before he is pardoned. But how, then, is pardon effected? The Saviour said that “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Did he, as our enemy, love us? was he, as our enemy, in Christ, reconciling us to himself? and does he, as our enemy, pardon us? and does he only become our friend after he has pardoned us? Now as Dr. Barnes was what is termed a “representative man,” it would be natural for any one, on reading such remarks from him, to judge that the doctrine itself was absurd. While it is beyond denial that God loved the world and gave his Son to die for the world, it is equally true, and very evident, that the death of Christ does not take anything from our actual guilt. We are as deserving of punishment as if he had never died. And, if we are not reconciled to God; if we do not so accept the offering of Christ as to appropriate it as our own, and to cease our violations of the divine law, that offer avails nothing for us. The justice of God stands arrayed against us as really as if his Son had never died. His death is an offering to the divine law—a vindication of the integrity and justice of the divine Government, but not so as to make our pardon inconsistent with free grace. Andrew Fuller, the eminent Baptist author, says:— “Free grace, according to Paul, requires a propitiation, even the shedding of the Saviour's blood, as a medium through which it may be honorably communicated.” And again, speaking of sacrifices for sin, he says:— “All agree in the idea of the displeasure of the Deity being appeasable by an innocent victim being sacrificed in the place of the guilty.” This must be the correct idea. The justice or displeasure of the Deity is rendered appeasable by the sacrifice, but is really appeased by the mediation of our High Priest. If reconciliation may be used in this sense, then our version of Eze. 16:63 may be allowable: “And I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt know that I am the Lord; that thou mayest remember, and be confounded, and never open thy mouth any more because of thy shame, when I am pacified toward thee for all that thou hast done, saith the Lord God.” Though we think it would admit of a translation somewhat different, we see no reason for objecting to this, considering that God's justice must be appeased (pacified); in other places represented as the turning away of his anger from the violator of his law. We have no disposition to find fault with the “Authorized Version,” that is, the commonly received translation, of the Scriptures. We have great reason to be thankful for it, and for the great blessing it has proved to the world. But all must admit that it has defects, and these are in some cases of such a nature as to obscure a truth which might be made plain by a more judicious rendering. On the subject before us we must commend the Revised Version of the New Testament as giving much the clearer view. Thus, in Rom. 5:11, the A. V. translates katallagee, atonement, which is incorrect. The Revision properly renders it, reconciliation. In Heb. 2:17, the A. V. renders hilaskomai, to make reconciliation, which is also incorrect. The Revision renders it, propitiation; it might properly be rendered, atonement. Whiting's Translation so renders it. Other translations agree with the Revision in both texts. In both Testaments the reader will find some difficulty in understanding this subject if guided by the translation only, as it is not always easy to express the various shades of meaning in a translation; and in this matter it appears evident that the translators of the A. V. did not closely mark distinctions which clearly exist. As evidence of this, we notice that the word “atonement” occurs but once in this version of the New Testament, Rom. 5:11, and there by a mistranslation, as has been noticed. Neither it nor its relative, expiation, properly occurs in the version. But the fact, the thing expressed by these terms is referred to directly by the writers of the New Testament. Nothing but a careful study of the Levitical law can give us a clear understanding of the doctrine. It is for this reason, as we believe, that the closing words of the Old Testament, in a prophecy referring to the very last times of the present dispensation, say, “Remember the law of Moses.” The law of Moses gives us a faithful “pattern,” or “shadow and example” of the work of our High Priest in Heaven, so important for us to understand who live in the time when his work is soon to close, and his coming is near, to save all “who look for him,” and to take vengeance upon them who know not God and obey not the gospel. Heb. 9:28; 2 Thess. 1:7-10. Whatever may be thought of the application of the word “reconciliation,” all must admit that there is a vast difference in the position of the parties. Man is a rebel, an enemy to his Maker. God, though he loves man in his ruined condition, is a just Governor. His love can certainly go no farther, and grant no more, than justice can permit. Justice must be appeased; and while the offering makes it possible to pardon consistent with justice, it leaves us guilty, worthy of the condemnation under which53 we rest. A complete vindication of the righteousness of the law is found in the sacrifice of the Son of God; but, as concerns the sinner, personally, he rests under condemnation still, until the mediation of Christ brings him into such harmonious relations with the divine Government that it will not endanger its principles, nor reflect dishonor upon the Governor, to freely forgive him and take him back into his favor. When we consider that the sacrifice is the means whereby the Atonement is made, we can readily understand how hilasmos is used in 1 John 2:2, defined by Liddell & Scott, a means of appeasing, an expiatory sacrifice. Jesus Christ is the propitiation—the sacrifice to divine justice, for all. It is by means of his intercession, his pleading his blood, that probation is given and mercy offered to the whole world. But it cannot too often be pressed upon the mind of the impenitent that probation, and the offer of mercy through the blood of Christ which was shed for all, does not secure the salvation of all. Says David, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity.” Ps. 32:1, 2. This blessing does not come upon all, but it is placed within the reach of all by the death of Christ. And whose sins will be covered? Evidently theirs who have confessed and forsaken their sins, or who have been reconciled to God. This is exactly the order of the work described by Peter in Acts 3:19. “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” This blotting out is by the blood which the High Priest brings into the sanctuary to cleanse it from sin. We cannot, for a moment, suppose that the sin of any will be blotted out or covered, who still maintains his opposition and enmity to God; but he who confesses and forsakes shall find mercy; that is, he who is reconciled shall have his sins forgiven and blotted out. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. “He that covereth his sins shall not prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” Prov. 28:13. As the work of the high priest under the law in making atonement for all the people, was but the work of one day, a short time compared to the continual work of intercession, and that day clearly specified, so is the atonement by our High Priest, Jesus Christ, in the antitype. It is accomplished just before his second coming. If this be made to appear it will be another and a strong proof that reconciliation is distinct from it, and must precede it. But this will be examined when we come to speak of the Judgment. EDITOR. The Penalty of the Sabbath.
By W. N. Glenn
It is asserted against the perpetuity of the seventh-day Sabbath, that there is no penalty for its violation; or, that those who observe it are inconsistent in not attaching the death penalty as commanded by Moses. A recent writer says that “no law can remain in force without its penalty, and as it is admitted that the penalty for the violation of the Mosaic Sabbath law has ceased, therefore that law has ceased also.” Now we admit that a law without a penalty would be virtually inoperative; and if it can be shown that the penalty of the Sabbath law has been abolished, we must yield the point that the law itself is void. But where is the proof that the penalty has been abolished? So far as we have seen or heard, no evidence has been adduced other than the mere fact that Sabbath-keepers do not punish violators with death. We do not claim the right, nor have we the disposition to be executors of the law. Our province is to obey. The commission to Moses to execute the death penalty upon offenders against the Sabbath ceased with the law of which it was a part. It was not a part of the moral law; it was not written on the tables of stone, nor spoken by Jehovah as was the decalogue. This argument against the Sabbath law would hold equally as well against any other commandment. Most Christian denominations admit the binding force of the seventh commandment. Now Moses was as explicitly commanded to put adulterers to death as he was to execute Sabbath-breakers. Ex. 20 : 10, 11. Why then is not the penalty commanded to Moses carried out in the churches? The apostle Paul was particularly severe upon adulterers and fornicators (see 1 Cor. 5 : 1, 9 : 6 : 9, 10), but he does not assume to put them to death according to the law of Moses. And the Lord Jesus himself, although recognizing the full force of the law, even to a “jot or tittle” (Matt. 5 : 17, 18), did not execute the penalty against the woman taken in adultery. John 8 : 3–11 So with the fifth commandment. Ex. 21 : 15, 17; Deut. 21 : 18–21; Matt. 15 : 4. Why do not our Christian brethren who hold to the operation of the parental statute, execute the death penalty against disobedient children? “O consistency, thou art a jewel.” We have shown above that Christ acknowledged and endorsed the whole decalogue, yet did not summarily execute its penalty, even under the Mosaic dispensation. And that Paul recognized its force, although not assuming the responsibility of inflicting the penalty. John also testifies to its obligation and effect: “Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law, for sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3 : 4. James taught that the law was in force, and identified it thus: “If thou kill thou art become a transgressor of the law.” Jas. 2 : 11. And in verse 10 we are assured that to offend in one point is to be guilty of all. So much for the active operation of the law. But how about the penalty? Can that be void while the law is in force? Certainly not. Paul assures us that “the wages of sin is death.” Rom. 6 : 23. See also Jas. 1 : 15. Then why do we not execute the penalty in this dispensation? We have no commission as executioners. We are to preach reconciliation. 2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19. God has provided for the execution of the penalty in his own way, and in his own time. He has given authority to his Son to execute judgment. John 5 : 22, 26, 27; Acts 10 : 42. Then why did he not execute it summarily? His first advent was “not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12 : 46–48. When his disciples would have called down fire from heaven upon a certain village, “even as Elias did,” the Lord told them that “the Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them.” Luke 9 : 56. The penalty, however, is none the less sure, because not executed immediately, as Moses was commanded. A time has been appointed for the purpose. In Acts 17:31 we learn that God “hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.” See also Rom. 2 : 12, 16; Eccl. 13:14. No, the penalty of the Sabbath, or of any part of the law, has not ceased. But God is long-suffering “not willing that any should perish.” Yet his Spirit will not always strive with man, and he “knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of Judgment to be punished.” 2 Pet. 2 : 9. The trouble with a certain class of Sabbath opposers lies in this: “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Eccl. 8 : 11. An Example of Perseverance.
BISHOP SIMPSON, in one of his “Yale Lectures,” related the following touching incident:— “I shall never forget an exhibition I once attended. Shortly after schools for the imbecile were commenced in Europe, a young man, moved with benevolence, crossed the ocean to examine their mode of operation and success. Assured of their utility, he returned and commenced a similar institution. He advertised for the most idiotic and helpless child that could be found. Among those brought to him was a little boy four years of age. He had never spoken or walked, had never chewed any hard substance, or given a look of recognition to a friend. He lay on the floor, a mass of flesh, without even ability to turn himself over. Such was the student brought to this school. The teacher fruitlessly made effort after effort to get the slightest intentional act. Unwilling, however, to yield, at the hour of noon he had the little boy brought to his room, and he lay down beside him every day for half an hour, hoping that some favorable indication might occur. To improve the time of his rest, he read aloud from some author. One day, at the end of six months, he was unusually weary and did not read. He soon discovered that the child was uneasy, and was trying to move itself a little, as if to turn toward him. The thought flashed upon his mind, It misses the sound of my voice. He turned himself closely to it, brought his mouth near the child’s head, and after repeated efforts the little fellow succeeded in placing his fingers on the teacher’s lips, as if to say, make the sound again. The teacher said that moment he felt he had the control of that boy. He gained his attention, and by careful manipulation of his muscles, succeeded in teaching him to walk, and then to read; and when I saw him at the end of five years he stood on a platform, read correctly, recited the names of the Presidents of the United States, and answered correctly a number of questions on our national history. Application! what patience! what devotion!” A Common Deception.
By Dr. C. S. Robinson
THE wavering Christian often thinks that the church regulations are too restrictive and severe; does not even the Bible say something about being righteous overmuch? This is the Devil's work, if only one could be made to see it. Satan often urges that religious people should be more lenient and less austere; he insists that prejudices are aroused against piety because a few church-officers push their authority beyond what is polite. There is an old Greek parable which comes in here with an honest lesson in it. On a time an embassy came from the wolves to the sheep, assuring them of their friendliness and positive respect for wethers and ewes and lambs, indeed everything inside of a decent shepherd's fold; but the spokesman begged leave to mention that the conduct of certain dogs connected with the fold had of late become exceedingly exasperating. These dogs had always in one way or another made bad blood between sheep and wolves; it was plain to all the world that sheep were most amiable and inoffensive creatures, and must be loved by every one of refinement; but these dogs kept up the disturbance, and if they could just be dispensed with, peace would be made at once. The silly flock listened, and the watchful guardians were dismissed. Then, after a day of false quiet, as might be expected, the sheep were devoured right and left, at the pleasure of even the poorest whelp in the pack.—Dr. C. S. Robinson. Martha, Mary, and Household Pride
EVEN a small pride of house-keeping has laid open a troubled Martha's heart to temptation, so that she has deemed it unreasonable for Mary to be so devotional at the feet of Jesus. “Sharpness” in the Gospel.
It is not generally recognized that ministers have authority to use “sharpness” under certain circumstances; at least it is nearly always complained of when they do. True, it is an authority that may be, and no doubt sometimes is, used indiscreetly. It is authorized only for edification, and not to destruction. 2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10. Peter used sharpness when Bro. Ananias and Sr. Sapphira were struck dead for lying; and it was for the edification of the church. It cannot be said that it was for destruction because they were destroyed. They could not have been edified or saved by withholding the censure, and the church would have been greatly endangered by their retention. PAUL's first letter to the Corinthians was quite severe upon offenders; and the second (chap. 1:23) shows that he would probably have been more so had he gone in person. Chap. 13:2, 10 shows that for the same reason he again chose to write instead of visiting them. Chap. 7:8-11 demonstrates the good results of his severity. Yet there were no doubt some in the church who thought he was terribly overbearing and unchristian; these were “sorry” as well as the truly penitent, but not with a “godly sorrow.” Theirs was “the sorrow of the world,” which “worketh death.” Verse 12 shows that the object of the sharpness in his letter was for the good of the main body, which should always have the principal consideration. For the same purpose the apostle enjoins Titus, regarding the Cretans, “Rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.” Titus 1:13. Paul’s Sufferings and Christian Perseverance
THE lesson of these experiences of the most active and prominent of all the apostles, is of great value to Christians in these last days. There is a class of professors, and by no means a small class, who make much ado about their trials—what they have had to suffer for the truth’s sake; and some, while claiming to be very zealously inclined, will even express fears that they will have to give up the service in order to make a living. Such should make daily perusal of such scriptures as are here referred to, and remember that Paul called all these bitter experiences but “light afflictions which are but for a moment.” Chap. 4:17. Although “in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness,” he never once contemplated going back. Far from it. On the contrary, he says, “If I must needs glory, I will glory of these things which concern mine infirmities.” Chap. 11:30. WITH the examples of the Saviour, the apostles, and martyrs before us, it is the height of unreasonableness for us to expect that we can bear the same witness against a guilty world and escape the consequences; or that we may bear an unpopular truth in the face of a bigoted church without our portion of persecutions. But who would wish to labor without the legitimate results? Tribulation and suffering is one of the conditions of eternal life. If we suffer with Christ, we shall also reign with him. It was a prominent exhortation of Paul to the churches, that “we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.” Acts 14:22. BUT let no one suppose that all the suffering is in the ranks of the people of God. The severest famines, the heaviest earthquakes, the most terrible judgments, have been upon those who have rejected the counsel of God or turned themselves unto idols. And in our large cities, those out of employment, or in destitute circumstances, are nearly all people of the world. The servants of Satan are not all living in luxury by any means. “Fear not, little flock;” be faithful and your bread and water shall be sure; and “it is the father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.” LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—FEB. 2.
For what did Saul, a “young man” whose prospect in this life was apparently very flattering, forsake it all and become a humble lifelong follower of the lowly Nazarene? Not a far-off, fair-weather, personal-convenience follower; but one who unflinchingly heeded duty’s call, even though he knew that “bonds and afflictions” awaited him “in every city.” Acts 20:23. He tells us in 2 Cor. 4:14 that he suffered all these things “Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.” The preceding verses give some idea of his constantly straitened and dangerous position. Then what shall we say to those who claim to preach Christ in these last days—so near to the consummation of the hope of the gospel,—and utterly ignore or practically deny the resurrection? When they tell us that the soul is immortal, that it goes to Heaven at death, that the resurrection will not be literal, and all such vain philosophy and modern theology,—shall we believe it? If so, what shall we say of Paul’s risking so much for a doctrine, which, if true, could only (in such light) be of minor importance? Surely he unnecessarily risked his life and suffered many hardships; and Festus was not far wrong when he said, “Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.” Acts 26:24. But Paul knew whereof he spoke. His was not a second-hand or time-corrupted doctrine. Hear his assurance to the Galatians: “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. 1:11, 12. And so strong was his faith in the doctrine he received in that manner, and so boldly preached, that he pronounced, and emphatically repeated, a curse upon “any man” or “an angel from Heaven” who should preach any other. Verses 8, 9. Surely they run a fearful risk who do so, as also those who follow them. Paul's Trials and Afflictions.
THE peculiarity (we might say privacy) of Paul's call to the apostleship was such as to cause it to be often called in question. This accounts for the frequency of his reference to it by way of defense, and completely exonerates him from any charge of boasting. So with reference to his recounting the many afflictions and persecutions he had undergone for the sake of the gospel, as recorded in 2 Cor. 11:24-33. He had to meet the bitter opposition of “false apostles,” who were endeavoring to mislead the Corinthian church in furtherance of their own selfish ends, and a comparison of the false and true was absolutely necessary. We have reason to be thankful for this record, as it is an important item of history which is nowhere else given. PAUL was in the service of the Master about thirty years. His initiation was by affliction, and the Lord said to Ananias at Damascus, “I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.” Acts 9:16. In this letter to the Corinthians he gives us an idea of how the word of the Lord was being fulfilled; and in the Acts we have mention of further trials of the same character—particularly at Jerusalem, at Cesarea, and on the voyage to Rome—during the succeeding eight years of his life, which ended in martyrdom. THERE is probably not a more fitting injunction in the New Testament for the present time than is found in 2 Cor. 13:5: “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates.” It is not a very satisfactory undertaking, but it may prove a profitable one. What is the affections set upon? What do the thoughts run upon? What is the real inward ambition? If you were given a choice of something to ask, and be sure of getting immediately, what would it be? How do you feel toward the brethren—all of them? Is the “conversation in Heaven”? Does the eye lust after the gaudy things of earth, and the heart crave the satisfaction of the flesh? What is the influence of the daily actions? Is the law of the Lord a delight? What kind of company is most enjoyed? Are the motives selfish or charitable? Is the pursuit after temporal or eternal things? “Do I love the Lord or no,
Am I his, or am I not?” Or am I a “reprobate”? These are hard questions; but an immediate solution may save shame and confusion in the future. The Apostle's Benediction.
By W. N. Glenn
“THE grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” 2 Cor. 13:14. These are the three grand requisites of the Christian. With these at his command, what need he fear? The fact that an inspired apostle prayed for these for the church, is evidence that they may be had for the asking. Then, if we undertake to run the race in our own strength, when such help is available, whose fault is it if we go stumbling along to the end, and finally fail? NOTE the fact, that there is no invocation to the Virgin Mary, or any of the departed spirits of prophets or disciples of Christ. Although Moses and Elias, and those whose graves were opened simultaneously with that of the Lord, were doubtless known to the apostle to be in Heaven, yet he makes no appeal to them. This was not a doctrine of the church in that day. When John fell at the feet of an angel to worship him, he was promptly checked: “See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow-servant, . . . worship God.” THE worship of saints, and communion with spirits of the dead, and all kindred doctrines, are the inventions of the “mystery of iniquity,” of which the same apostle prophesied in his second letter to the Thessalonians; and which we see developed in these days. The only spirit ever commissioned from Heaven to lead the church, and teach them all things, is the Holy Spirit—the Comforter. John 14:26. All other teaching is antichrist. None but “itching ears” could desire to hear the truth of God in any other than his appointed way. Grant us the prayer of this benediction, and we are content.
W. N. GLENN. Gentlemen and Tobacco
By Edward P. Jones
IT is interesting, but not always pleasant, to sit at the window of my studio and notice the different phases of humanity as they pass upon the street. There goes a young man—a gentleman—smoking a cigar. Yes, he would pass for a gentleman. He looks clean, wears fine clothes, doffs his hat to young ladies, and walks with a firm, manly step. Now there comes another—a man smoking an old, weather-beaten pipe. The man looks weather-beaten, too. I knew him ten years ago, when he was as much a gentleman as the one who just passed. But now his clothes look rough and dirty, his nerves are shattered, his step has lost its firmness and elasticity. He gives the ladies a whiff of smoke instead of a bow; he is negligent and slovenly in his habits, and would pass for an ordinary man—very ordinary, and filthy too. Of all bad habits, none so conduce to uncleanness and to a disregard for the rights of others, none so surely destroy the gentleman, as the use of tobacco. Young men who are scrupulously neat in person and attire when they first commence, and who for a long time use it so cautiously that few of their friends detect them, are seen a few years later with the black streaks on their lips and black stains on their garments, and as they grow careless in person they become indifferent to those obligations toward others which are enjoined by common politeness. Cautious at first not to offend, they gradually abandon restraint, and finally lose altogether that nice sense of propriety which marks the true gentleman in all the relations of life. Nothing more forcibly demonstrates the demoralizing influence of tobacco than the carelessness it engenders in this respect. It is the bane of good manners. Ladies and gentlemen cannot walk the streets without being compelled to inhale its sickening fumes. The smoker cannot walk the street without causing discomfort to others. But he soon learns to think of himself alone, and ignores the possibility of offending. The baneful habit blunts all the finer feelings of his nature, and drives him through all restraints—expressed or implied. These tobacco-users may talk about their rights, but they have no right to impose upon the rights of others. Every individual owes to society a certain amount of attention to his personal appearance. He has no right to make himself repulsive to those with whom he comes in contact. He has no right to be a nuisance or a fraud. He has no right to gratify evil passions, or indulge in error or vice. The world has a claim to the services of a true manhood, and to attempt to fill the bill with a wreck of tobacco or strong drink, is downright robbery! The smokers are a big crowd, but they smell bad, and that is improper; they spit, and that is nasty; they are nervous, and that is unmanly. We would shun smoking-girls, because we like them sweet and clean, and they would like us sweet and clean. But they try to be agreeable—even to smokers—and keep still about the horrid breath. But if smoking wasn’t so common they would let us know that their noses are as good as ours. I know that fashion tolerates it, and even sanctions it. Nothing is too absurd to be approved by her tyrannic majesty. But fashion is a fool, and a very foolish fool at that. If the young were taught that what is wrong for girls is wrong for boys; if boys would never permit an act in themselves which they would be ashamed to have their sisters see or imitate; if young women would require in marriage that purity which they are ready to give in return; if husbands and fathers were as pure as wives and mothers are expected to be; if, in short, we had a single code of morals for both sexes, I think that tobacco would be less fashionable; fashion would be less vulgar; men would be more manly, and we should all feel better, happier, and more noble.—Edward P. Jones.