Earlier text: General ArticlesRenunciation of Mr. Hayden.
By Editor
REV. CHARLES A. HAYDEN, of Mount Auburn church of Cincinnati, Ohio, has resigned his pastorate on account of a change of views. We think that, on the subject of baptism and of the constitution of the church, he has not improved on the Baptist faith. He claims that the Baptists are inconsistent, in which he is probably correct. On two points his remarks in his farewell sermon possess special interest at the present time. They are as follows:— "Another truth to which I hold, and which I trust I may be enabled to present in all its purity, is that which the Scriptures designate as 'the blessed hope' of the church—the personal, pre-millennial coming of our Lord. Here again is a doctrine which, because of unbelief, and because that in time past it has been abused, has almost entirely dropped from sight. And not only is it neglected, but also there is a strong feeling of prejudice against it. So strongly has the popular idea that the world is rapidly growing better, and that the dawning of the day of its greatest glory is near at hand, taken hold even upon the professing church, that a view which regards this as all a lie of the devil, and recognizes as a teaching of the word, the fact that the time of world-wide apostasy, from the truth, and the prevalence of unparalleled iniquity is rapidly hastening, is looked upon as almost a dream of lunacy. But my study of the Scriptures has led me to the conviction that only by our Lord's personal appearing and glorious reign will his foes be made his footstool, and the millennium of peace and righteousness be inaugurated. I believe that the church's attitude should be that of waiting and watching for the coming of her Lord, who will take her unto himself ere, the day of trial that shall come, upon all the earth shall be ushered in. That there is no prophecy remaining to be fulfilled, and no single event to be regarded as, yet to transpire ere the coming of the Lord to take his church out from the world, and that therefore the duty of him who holds the position of a teacher in the church is to point God's children to this hope, and counsel and urge them to be waiting in readiness for the bridegroom's call. Nor do I believe that the church's position will be that which it should, so long as, this truth is left unproclaimed. Men may cry fanaticism, and professing Christians may say: 'Ah, this is all visionary,' but the word of God, which is our guide, declares this, and I believe a sin will rest upon one who, believing this, and standing as a teacher of the truth, yet neglects to declare it." ANNIHILATION OF THE WICKED.
"Once more—in my study of the word, during the past eight months, I have been convinced that the teaching of the whole Scripture is contrary to the generally accepted view of man's inherent immortality; and consequently is contrary to the dogma of eternal torment. I believe the teaching of inspiration to be, that eternal life is the gift of God, through Christ Jesus, to all who believe in him. Taking the Scripture as it reads, in its plain, simple language, and laying aside all human interpretations, by which life is made something other than life, and death something other than death, I cannot resist the conclusion that immortality is conditional upon the acceptance of him who says 'I am the life,' and declares that he came that we 'might not perish,' but also, like himself, 'have everlasting life.' Convinced that the Bible denies that men have any life in themselves, and that it teaches that life and immortality are alone through faith in Christ, I therefore accept the plain statements of Scripture, that the end of the wicked is to be destroyed, to utterly perish; that 'the day cometh that shall burn as an oven, and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly shall be stubble, and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.' This I believe to be the second death. This is the sinner's punishment, and it is eternal, and these words shall have been fulfilled when sin and misery shall have been put out of the universe, when the serpent's head shall have been crushed by the seed of the woman. Then shall the Son deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and God shall be All in all. And here let me say that since I have been led to see this teaching of God's word, old difficulties have vanished that have always haunted me, and a new light is shed upon the page of Holy Writ, and this whole word glows with a fresh meaning, and has become a new delight." THE BEAUTY OF TRUTH
By G. C. B.
THE highest joys of life to win,
The Talisman 'gainst woe and sin,
The heav'n on earth here to begin,
Is to be true and pure within. So thou, my child, as rolls the years,
With greater hopes and greater fears,
Doubt not, should falsehood cause thee tears,
For light will come; Truth always cheers. As sunshine through the forest leaves,
As sickle 'mid the harvest sheaves,
So truth its pathway surely weaves,
While round it joy and beauty cleaves. Stretch forth thy hand and grasp the shield,
The high and low alike may wield,
To falsehood, foeman, never yield
One inch of truth's broad battlefield. —G. C. B. in Oakland Tribune. Checkley, and His Brothers.
By N. Y. Tribune
A good many criticisms, neither temperate nor just, have been called out from the secular press during the last few weeks by the death in Canada of a clergyman named Checkley. Our readers doubtless know the circumstances. The man's salary, a paltry pittance at best, was not half paid to him; there were five children and their mother to support; the family lived literally on bread for months. The father being a clergyman, and therefore prohibited from earning their living outside of his pulpit, and a gentleman, and therefore too proud to beg, gave his share of the scanty rations to the others, until one day he quietly lay down and died—from starvation. Now, it would not be easy, perhaps, to find in this country an exactly parallel case to this one; food is too cheap, for one reason, and congregations concern themselves too anxiously with the affairs of their pastors to let them die uninterrupted, for another. But, occasional glimpses of the financial system in use in the churches are equally astounding to practical outsiders. For example, in one of the most powerful religious bodies there is a fund set apart for the maintenance of aged and decrepit ministers—a fund which is invariably spoken of as an alms. In another denomination, two months ago, there might have been found on the luxuriously-cushioned pews of the stately churches appeals for donations of clothing, bedding, etc., new or half-worn, for the use of the families of poor clergymen in the church; and letters were published from the former, recipients of this sort of bounty, full of tearful gratitude for the half-worn clothes which evidently had come so opportunely to cover shivering bodies. Now, secular newspapers have nothing to do with the doctrines of religious denominations; neither is it their place to pronounce judgment on the abstract right or wrong of the dealings between the men in the pulpit and those in the pews; but they do have the right to an opinion on the common sense and policy of these dealings. Worse policy, we imagine, could hardly be devised than for an organization which requires the best work from the best class of men to pauperize them at the outset. An unmarried man, possibly, may be so possessed by divine zeal that he can preach with fervor when his stomach is empty and his body half clothed; but if it is his wife and children who are hungry and cold, it is not likely he can put them out of his mind enough to lead the souls of others to holy raptures of devotion. He is not worth the name of man if he can do it. If each different congregation in the sects acted as an independent body in business matters, this criticism would be impossible; but each sect forms a great financial corporation, and it is the salaries paid by these corporations, as a whole, which are so miserably deficient. The contrast is significant between the magnificent temples of the seaboard cities and the missionary on the frontiers with his pittance of $300 per annum. The church delights to call itself an army. What would be thought of the policy in a real army of spending millions on barracks for idle home-guards, and sending out a few starving, shivering men to meet the foe? The ill effects of such a course are seen in the West in the desertion of many able men from the ministry into the ranks of politicians, lawyers, and farmers. One of two things is necessary. Either let the minister, as in the first days of the church and in one or two sects nowadays, support himself by other means, preaching as the Spirit moves him, or let his salary be sufficient to relieve him from the incessant carking care for his family, which must hinder his usefulness, and, if it does not, in poor Checkley's case, shorten his life.—N. Y. Tribune. The Excommunicated Priest.
F. A. VAUDRAY, formerly pastor of a Roman Catholic church at Baton Rouge, preached in Calvary (Dr. Hemphill's) church in San Francisco on Sunday evening Jan. 26, his subject being the "Fate of the Excommunicated Priest." From the Chronicle we take the following extract:— "I appeal to the unanimous testimony of the theologians of Rome themselves to prove that the laws of the Roman Catholic church pronounce living imprisonment and torture upon the priest who leaves the church, and I challenge any intelligent Roman Catholic to deny that. Those laws have never been repealed—they have actually been enforced by the late pope Pius IX., and when king Victor Emmanuel took possession of Rome there were found in the dark crypts and subterranean cells of the Vatican rows of ghastly skeletons, to which still adhered the instruments of torture. These were the remains of those who had incurred the displeasure of the church, and who had been buried alive and left to perish in those terrible dungeons. I am stating facts of recent occurrence—facts which it is high treason for the American press to ignore—for they prove that the inquisition is not a thing of the past, but of the present, and that it flourished in this century, and that it would flourish to-day were the pope to recover his temporal power, for it is and ever has been an integral part of the Papal system. When you hear the Roman Catholic hierarchy of this country say that religious liberty is a plant of Catholic growth, tell them that their church has, indeed, nurtured that plant, but with the blood of millions of victims. To-day the Roman Catholic church has the will, but not the power, except in convents and monasteries, to stretch heretics on the rack or burn them at the stake. The punishment she metes out to the apostate priest is more terrible than any form of physical torture. It is murder long drawn out. She commands 200,000,000 devotees to hold him in abhorrence as a monster of wickedness. She teaches them that the priestly dignity which he relinquishes being greater than that of angels or archangels, so is his disgrace endless and his degradation complete. By means of those brotherhoods and sisterhoods, which she can at all times convert into the most powerful combination for the diffusion of calumny, she closes against the excommunicated priest all avenues of success. She turns the world into a vast pneumatic machine, into a vacuum from which she exhausts all the air and suffocates him. His friends regard him with aversion; those whom he loves turn from him with aversion; sister and brother turn from him with shame, and the father and mother, who so rejoiced and prided themselves on his elevation to the priesthood, gaze at him with horror and change their blessings to curses." The speaker asserted that hundreds of the highest and best of the Catholic clergy, disgusted with the mockeries of the confessional and the gross sensualities attending the institution of celibacy, would be only too glad to renounce their allegiance to the Romish faith, but lack the courage to face the terrible consequences. Coming.
By Pacific Churchman
THE Advent season calls our attention to the great fact that Jesus Christ "shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and dead." It looks forward to the second coming of Christ at the end of the world. It is full of "the last things." The Advent season has not been observed in the church in keeping with its importance in the Christian year. Its real character has not been appreciated—its lessons have not been learned or taught as they deserve. There is no truth more frequently and emphatically revealed in the word of God than that of the coming again of the Messiah. It is foretold by the Old Testament prophets. Christ himself in some of the most vivid language to be found in his gospel, over and over again predicted it, and painted the scene of heavenly glory that should accompany the event. The apostles delighted to refer to it and made it the basis of their admonitions. The early Christians lived in constant expectation of it. And the simplest, plainest interpretation of all this combined testimony is the most consistent, pointing to a literal, personal coming again into this world of Jesus Christ at the close of the Christian dispensation. Why is it that this great truth is so little impressed upon the present age? It is less in the thought of the average Christian than any other article of the faith. Is it of least importance? Surely not, or it would not have been so plainly and repeatedly taught in the word of God. —Pacific Churchman. TREASURES of wickedness profit nothing. Science and Spiritualism.
THERE is one phase of the investigation of spiritualism which does injustice to the truth and to science. Whenever a scientific scholar embraces spiritualism, it is set down as a testimony from science in favor of spiritualism. This is not correct. No one has ever pretended to prove spiritualism by scientific tests, or on scientific grounds. The most that they can say is, that they cannot discover any collusion nor trace it to its origin. They admit its claims because they cannot determine its origin. Now it is evident that this is not the voice of science in favor of spiritualism. It is only a confession on their part that it does not fall within the range of scientific tests. Of course when it is removed from the field of scientific research it becomes, to them, a matter of conjecture as much as to the unlearned. Their testimony is entirely of a negative character. They admit its claims because they are not able to give any satisfactory solution of its mysteries. But this does not prove anything. It certainly does not prove that the claims of spiritualism are correct; it shows only that they do not know anything about it. Whether the testimony of scientists is of any value at all depends altogether on the thoroughness of their investigations. But it must be remembered that their investigations are phenomenal, not scientific; and therefore their conclusions are worth no more than are those of the unlearned who observe the phenomena with equal carefulness. No one has a right to affirm that a proposition is true because he does not know that it is not true. Where science and human reason fail, the Bible comes to our aid. The claims of spiritualism are based on certain phenomena or facts of occurrence. These occurrences are, by careful observation, determined to be of unknown origin, that is, their origin is not from anything natural; they are supernatural. But that which is supernatural is beyond the bounds of science and mere reasoning. It must be established by testimony above nature. Having arrived at this evident conclusion, we must either admit the claims of spiritualism on its own word, or take some other testimony which claims to be above nature. Such testimony we find in the Bible. It claims to be of divine origin; to establish its claims by the fulfillment of its prophecies, by the purity of its morality, by the harmony of its teachings, and by its vindication of divine justice even in dispensing mercy to the erring. In each of these points, spiritualism entirely fails to establish its claim to our acceptance. The teachings of the Bible are elevating; those of spiritualism are degrading. The Bible informs us that there were intelligences created before the creation of man. That they rejoiced in the creation of this world, and guarded the way of the tree of life after the fall of man. That some of them sinned, as man has sinned, and lost their "estate." That under the name of demons (devils), they carry on their deceptions, and their rebellions against God. And that they work miracles or "lying wonders" to turn men away from the truth. The mediums of spiritualism and their works are described in the Bible, and identified beyond all question. Their doctrines are called the doctrines of devils. Spiritualists prove the Bible true by denouncing it, by denying the authority of God, denying Jesus Christ and all means of salvation outside of man's own nature, by denying a future judgment and human accountability, by denying that any action is morally wrong, and by affirming that the purest state of society and the highest morality can only be found in the abrogation of marriage and the unrestrained passional attraction of the sexes! With these facts before us on every hand, why is it that men of education, of good reasoning ability, admit the claims of spiritualism and entirely ignore the testimony of the Bible? This question may be readily answered by any one who has observed the tendency of the schools of these degenerate times. The disposition has some time been growing among men to accept science as the highest possible source of knowledge, and to rule out the testimony of the Bible as of no real value. Indeed they have been placed in opposition to each other, and that even by professed teachers of the Bible, and the testimony of science has been decided positive and determinate, and that of the Bible speculative and uncertain. The Bible has thus been caused to lose its hold upon the popular mind and heart. And when science is found to be at fault, when it fails to measure the supernatural, men are left without a compass, at the mercy of the winds of speculation. Having lost their reverence for the Bible, they have thrown off restraint; and now, when their dependence fails, they would rather float even into the vortex of a whirlpool than to return to the teachings of the Bible, which restrains their selfishness and requires humility. The apostle Paul speaks of "the oppositions of science falsely so called," and says they are "vain babblings." Much that is called science in this age will fall under this head. We often hear men flippantly talk of what "science proves" when not a single well-attested fact exists to support their assertions. Many are but reproducing what the apostle so graphically describes in Rom. 1: "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man," &c. "Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator." The Mormon Abomination.
By Editor
SINCE the United States Supreme Court has decided that the laws against polygamy in Utah and other Territories are constitutional, a delegation of Mormon women has visited Washington to lobby on the subject. Their chief object seemed to be to enlist the sympathies, and thereby the influence, of Mrs. Hayes in favor of their demoralizing practices. In the mean time the church authorities in Utah continue to form unlawful alliances, and utter, in the boldest language, their contempt for the decision of the Supreme Court, and bid defiance to the Government of the United States. And the Utah delegate, an avowed violator of the laws of the United States, sits in his seat in Congress. The plea put forth by these Mormon women with which they confidently expected to move the sympathies of the country in behalf of their institution was this: to carry out these laws would be to declare all polygamous marriages illegal, which again would be a declaration that all children resulting from such marriages are illegitimate. They urge that the feelings of the wives should be respected, and especially that this army of children should not be branded as illegitimates. Is there any weight to their claim? Does reason or justice demand that this Government should listen to their plea? By no means. Their own actions, both past and present, cut them off from all consideration on such grounds. When "Wife No. 19," petitioned for a divorce and alimony from Brigham Young, his rejoinder was that she was not his wife. He had legally married a wife before he took Eliza, the plaintiff in the suit, and this wife was still living; and this was a bar against any other legal marriage. And, of course, if their union was not legal, she was not his wife, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of action in the court. What could the Court do under such circumstances? If it granted her petition it would be under a decision that the marriage between Young and Eliza was legal; which would again place polygamy on a legal footing in our Territories. Hence the Court, holding that the marriage was not legal, denied the petition of the complainant, and sustained the answer of Brigham Young. These Mormon women are altogether too late in making their claim. Their own prophet and head answered their plea several years ago, by publicly declaring that they were not legal wives, which was an open confession that all their children are illegitimate. And this declaration of Brigham Young was sustained by law—by the decision of the Court. We repeat, it is altogether too late for them to deny the position in which their prophet and the law placed them, which is, that they are living in prostitution. But leaving all this out of the question, there is another reason, sufficient of itself, why their plea should not be heard. Their illegal and immoral practice has been decided against by the highest tribunal in the land; and they are well aware that the evil which they deprecate must come on the heads of these women and children, unless the Supreme Court reverses its decision, and the General Government reverses its action. But for this they have no reason to hope. Now if they honestly deplore the contingency,—if they really have any pity for these poor women and their unfortunate children, we should expect they would do all that lies in their power to prevent other women from being subjected to such a humiliating standing under the law, and to avoid increasing the number of innocent children with the stamp of illegitimacy upon them. But their action is the very reverse of this. They come before the public hypocritically pleading for mercy in behalf of these poor women and children, while the abominable "endowment houses" are kept in active service, and they bid defiance to the Government and its laws. When they begin to show some sympathy for these unfortunate classes, and are willing to open their own eyes to their degradation, as declared by their own prophet; when they show some respect for government and law, then it will be time for them to ask for our sympathies. Not till then should either the Government or the people extend one particle of sympathy to these women. And never should any sympathy be allowed to flow out toward that system of illegality and immorality which has its seat at Salt Lake City. It is an insult to our civilization to ask the Government to sanction their practice. And it is an insult to Christianity—which we feel most deeply—to suffer such an abomination to flourish under its sacred name. Wine at Communion.
By Editor
Not long since we heard an eminent minister of the Baptist denomination argue that unleavened, unfermented bread should be used at communion. We were quite well pleased with his argument. But we were much surprised to hear him follow this with an argument—at least, he considered it such—in favor of fermented wine at the communion table. He affirmed that the grape juice—the must—in an unfermented state is impure, and that fermentation is the purifying process by which it casts off its impurities, and comes out clear, pure wine! This, from the brewer's or tippler's standpoint, is a good argument. But we assert that grape juice, fresh and unfermented, is not impure. When decomposition commences then it becomes impure; a certain class of impurities so formed are separated by the process, but alcohol is the result. We should be just as well convinced were we told that distillation is a purifying process, by which the impurities of corn meal are rejected and the product is pure whisky! This reminds us that a wine dealer in California once told us that, in our plan, we had no wine at our communion: that grape juice is not wine until it has undergone the process of fermentation. Granted, and what then? In the market use of the term we do not want any wine at the communion: we insist that it has no right at the communion table. The wines of market contain from 10 to 20 per cent. of alcohol; few of them fall any below 10 per cent. Chambers' Cyclopedia says that in bad seasons, or in any case where the juice lacks sweetness, "a cheap fermentable sugar is added to the sour juice, an adulteration which cannot subsequently be detected by chemistry." Also that "sugar is often added to good grape-juice, in order to obtain a stronger wine than the natural product." Which is to say, that the wine may be richer in alcohol. Those who argue in favor of alcoholic wine at the communion do not seem to be aware that the Scriptures in no case speak of wine in connection with the Lord's supper. Frequently "the cup" is mentioned, but that is indeterminate, meaning the contents of the cup, without indicating what the contents were. There is only one expression from which we can gather anything to determine the truth on this point, and that is where our Saviour called the cup "the fruit of the vine." But we insist that alcohol is no more the fruit of the vine than whisky is the fruit of the cornfield. Alcohol is the fruit—the creature—of distillation or fermentation. This expression of the Lord of the supper absolutely shuts out fermented wine from the communion, because it is not that which he used, or to which he referred,—the fruit of the vine. To some, who are reformed from drunkenness, there is danger in tasting of alcoholic wine in any quantity or under any circumstances. We have always been astonished at the course of some ministers and churches who insist on using fermented or alcoholic wine at communion, when they must know that they are liable to drive some souls away from the Lord's table, or drive them to ruin. The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
What is meant by the word covenant? In the books of the New Testament, the words covenant and testament are used as signifying the same thing. They are, indeed, only two different translations of the same Greek word, diatheke. So that when our Lord says, "This cup is the new testament in my blood" (Luke 22:20), it is the same as if he had said, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Webster thus defines covenant:— "1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract; stipulation." "2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between parties." He thus defines the word contract:— "1. An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises; a mutual promise, upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance; a bargain; a compact." "2. The act by which a man and woman are betrothed, each to the other." "3. The writing which contains the agreement of parties, with the terms and conditions, and which serves as a proof of the obligation." It appears, therefore, that the word covenant has two leading significations; 1. That of agreement, or contract, between parties. 2. That of a writing containing the terms or conditions of such agreement. In the first and fullest sense, a covenant is a contract, or agreement, with the conditions on which that contract is made. In the second and more restricted use of that word, a covenant is the terms or conditions of such contract. Such being the signification of the word covenant, let us now ascertain what it was which constituted the first covenant. We have ascertained who were the contracting or covenanting parties, viz, God and Israel; and when this covenant was made, viz., when God took that people by the hand to bring them forth out of Egypt. But what was the covenant itself into which these two parties entered?45 1. If we take the first definition then, without doubt, it was the mutual agreement, or contract made at Sinai between God and Israel respecting the moral law. 2. But if we take the second definition, it was the law itself; for that embodied the conditions of the covenant. Which of these views is the right one? Those persons who hold that the law of God still remains in force believe that the truth is stated in the first of these two answers. But those who believe that the law was abolished at the death of Christ, do, with equal assurance, maintain that the law of God alone was the first covenant, and that the second of these two answers is the right and proper answer. One party, therefore, asserts that the law of God, or ten commandments, was the first covenant. The other, that the mutual agreement between God and Israel concerning that law constituted that covenant. Let us now trace the acts by which God and Israel entered into covenant. When we have noted all these, we shall be able to determine the truth in this case. Thus we read, Ex. 19:1; "In the third month, when the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai." And the people encamped before the mount. "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Verses 3-6. Here is a definite proposition from the God of heaven: "If ye will obey my voice, . . . then ye shall be to me a peculiar treasure." Next we read the action of Moses, the mediator between these two parties. Having received this proposition from the Lord, he immediately bore it to the people. Thus we read of his action: "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him." Verse 7. The proposition of the Most High was thus submitted to the people of Israel. And now observe their answer: "And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Verse 8. Thus the people with one voice accept the conditions offered them, and pledge themselves to their fulfillment. And now it is the business of the mediator to return this answer to him who had made the proposition to them. And thus we read again: "And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Verse 8. The preliminary contract was thus closed. The remainder of the chapter is devoted to the preparation of the people to hear, and the descent of the Almighty to speak the ten commandments. Verses 9-25. And now the voice of God utters the ten words of the moral law. Ex. 20:1-17:— "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. "Thou shalt not make, unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments. "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain. "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. "Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. "Thou shalt not commit adultery. "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." "These words the Lord spake," says Moses, "unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more." Deut. 5:22. This was the voice of God, which the people had so solemnly covenanted to obey. Ex. 19:5. When the ten words of God's voice had thus been heard, and the people had witnessed the awful display of the divine majesty, then they removed, and stood afar off. And they besought Moses to stand between them and the great God whose voice they had heard, and whose majesty they had witnessed. Ex. 20:18. "And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness where God he was." Verse 21. The remainder of the chapter, and all of chapters 21, 22, and 23, are devoted to statutes and judgments, partly defining man's duty toward God, but principally relating toward his duty to his fellow-man. With these are precepts of a ceremonial character, but the larger part of these chapters is made up of precepts stating the principles of justice among men. These three chapters were spoken to Moses only, who was in the immediate presence of God. Next, the Lord proceeds to the final contract between himself and the people. In the preliminary contract, recorded in Ex. 19, the people had solemnly pledged themselves to obey the voice of God. In Ex. 20, they heard that voice in ten precepts. And now it is worthy of notice how careful was the Most High in this work of entering into covenant with his people, to take no advantage of them. Before hearing his voice, they had pledged themselves to obey it. But the Lord did not treat the contract as closed yet. With an invitation to a large number of persons to come up to him, he sends Moses again to the people. Ex. 24:1, 2. They had heard the voice of God. Do they still stand to their solemn pledge that they would obey it? Lest they had forgotten something of that which God had spoken, and that they might be informed of all that God had communicated to him in the mount, it is next added:— "And Moses came and the people all the words of the Lord and all the judgments." Ex. 24:3. The people have the chance now to refuse to close this most solemn compact if they see cause for so doing. They might have said, "When we agreed to obey the voice of God, we had not heard it. Now that we have heard it, we cannot abide by our promise." And Moses, by repeating every word again, gave them the most perfect opportunity for so doing. But, observe the answer of the people:— "And all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath said we will do." Ex. 24:3. We might suppose that this would close the contract between the parties. But not so. Further acts of ratification were to take place. The whole thing must be put in writing. And thus we read:— "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord." And now the solemnity of a sacrifice to God must take place. So it is added that Moses "rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord." Verses 4, 5. The sacrifice of these victims having been thus made to God by the people, the blood itself is carefully secured for an important purpose. And so the record adds:— "And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar." Verse 6. One half of the blood was offered upon the altar, a direct offering to God. The other half was reserved for another and most expressive solemnity. We learn from verse 4 that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. Now verse 7 tells us what he did with what was written. What Moses now reads is called the book of the covenant. For it contained the covenant between God and the people as far as, at that point, it had been consummated. And observe again the care of the Almighty that the people should understand every word of that to which they agree. Moses reads every word of the whole transaction in the audience of the people. Thus verse 7 states the case:— "And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people." Here is yet another opportunity for them to say that they could not abide by their first promise. But, instead of speaking thus, they give their final and unreserved assent to this solemn compact. And thus the verse continues: "And they said, All that the Lord hath said we will do, and be obedient." This closed the contract on the part of the people. But there yet remained a most expressive act on the part of Moses, and a final, solemn announcement to be made by him, which not only proclaimed the accomplishment of the work, but gave a definite idea of what had been done. And so we next read:— "And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people." Or, as Paul states the case, he "sprinkled both the book and all the people." Verse 8; Heb. 9:19. One half of the blood had been already offered to God upon the altar; the remaining half is that which Moses thus uses. And how solemn and expressive is this act! It is what Paul calls the dedication of the covenant. Heb. 9:18. He sprinkles both the book and all the people. And thus they enter, in the most solemn manner, into the bond of the covenant. And thus the solemn espousal of the people by the Lord of hosts having been consummated, Moses announces the result in words which define the contract with remarkable precision. Having sprinkled the book, and the people, Moses said to them:— "Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words." We have now the first covenant, complete and entire. And certainly it is possible for us to determine what constitutes it. We say that the first covenant was this solemn contract, or agreement, between God and the people of Israel concerning the law of God. Our opponents, on the contrary, affirm that the first covenant was simply the law itself. According to the first view, the first covenant was the contract made at Sinai between God and Israel concerning God's law of ten commandments, obedience to that law constituting the condition of the covenant. J. N. A.