Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Ostrogoths and the Visigoths.
By A. T. Jones
"The loose discipline of the barbarians always exposed them to the danger of a surprise; but, instead of choosing the dissolute hours of riot and intemperance, Stilicho resolved to attack the Christian Goths, whilst they were devoutly employed in celebrating the festival of Easter. The execution of the stratagem, or, as it was termed by the clergy, of the sacrilege, was intrusted to Saul, a barbarian and a pagan, who had served, however, with distinguished reputation among the veteran generals of Theodosius. The camp of the Goths [A. D. 403, March 29] which Alaric had pitched in the neighborhood of Pollentia, was thrown into confusion by the sudden and impetuous charge of the Imperial cavalry; but in a few moments the undaunted genius of their leader gave them an order and a field of battle; and as soon as they had recovered from their astonishment, the pious confidence that the God of the Christians would assert their cause, added new strength to their native valor. In this engagement, which was long maintained with equal courage and success, the chief of the Alani, whose diminutive and savage form concealed a magnanimous soul, approved his suspected loyalty by the zeal with which he fought and fell in the service of the republic; and the fame of this gallant barbarian has been imperfectly preserved in the verses of Claudian, since the poet who celebrates his virtue has omitted the mention of his name. His death was followed by the flight and dismay of the squadrons which he commanded; and the defeat of the wing of cavalry might have decided the victory of Alaric, if Stilicho had not immediately led the Roman and barbarian infantry to the attack. "The skill of the general and the bravery of the soldiers surmounted every obstacle. In the evening of the bloody day the Goths retreated from the field of battle; the intrenchments of their camp were forced, and the scene of rapine and slaughter made some atonement for the calamities which they had inflicted on the subjects of the empire. The magnificent spoils of Corinth and Argos enriched the veterans of the West; the captive wife of Alaric, who had impatiently claimed his promise of Roman jewels and Patrician handmaids, was reduced to implore the mercy of the insulting foe; and many thousand prisoners, released from the Gothic chains, dispersed through the provinces of Italy the praises of their heroic deliverer. The triumph of Stilicho was compared by the poet, and perhaps by the public, to that of Marius, who, in the same part of Italy, had encountered and destroyed another army of northern barbarians. The huge bones and the empty helmets of the Cimbri and of the Goths, would easily be confounded by succeeding generations; and posterity might erect a common trophy to the memory of the two most illustrious generals, who had vanquished, on the same memorable ground, the two most formidable enemies of Rome. "The eloquence of Claudian has celebrated, with lavish applause, the victory of Pollentia, one of the most glorious days in the life of his patron; but his reluctant and partial muse bestows more genuine praise on the character of the Gothic king. His name is indeed branded with the reproachful epithets of pirate and robber, to which the conquerors of every age are so justly entitled; but the poet of Stilicho is compelled to acknowledge that Alaric possessed the invincible temper of mind which rises superior to every misfortune, and derives new resources from adversity. After the total defeat of his infantry, he escaped, or rather withdrew, from the field of battle, with the greatest part of his cavalry entire and unbroken. Without wasting a moment to lament the irreparable loss of so many brave companions, he left his victorious enemy to bind in chains the captive images of a Gothic king; and boldly resolved to break through the unguarded passes of the Apennine, to spread desolation over the fruitful face of Tuscany, and to conquer or die before the gates of Rome. "The capital was saved by the active and incessant diligence of Stilicho; but he respected the despair of his enemy, and instead of committing the fate of the republic to the chance of another battle, he proposed to purchase the absence of the barbarians. The spirit of Alaric would have rejected such terms, the permission of a retreat, and the offer of a pension, with contempt and indignation; but he exercised a limited and precarious authority over the independent chieftains who had raised him, for their service, above the rank of his equals; they were still less disposed to follow an unsuccessful general, and many of them were tempted to consult their interest by a private negotiation with the minister of Honorius. The king submitted to the voice of his people, ratified the treaty with the empire of the West, and repassed the Po with the remains of the flourishing army which he had led into Italy. A considerable part of the Roman forces still continued to attend his motions; and Stilicho, who maintained a secret correspondence with some of the barbarian chiefs, was punctually apprised of the designs that were formed in the camp and council of Alaric. The king of the Goths, ambitious to signalize his retreat by some splendid achievement, had resolved to occupy the important city of Verona, which commands the principal passage of the Rhætian Alps; and, directing his march through the territories of those German tribes whose alliance would restore his exhausted strength, to invade, on the side of the Rhine, the wealthy and unsuspecting provinces of Gaul. "Ignorant of the treason which had already betrayed his bold and judicious enterprise, he advanced towards the passage of the mountains, already possessed by the Imperial troops; where he was exposed, almost at the same instant, to a general attack in the front, on his flanks, and in the rear. In this bloody action, at a small distance from the walls of Verona, the loss of the Goths was not less heavy than that which they had sustained in the defeat of Pollentia; and their valiant king, who escaped by the swiftness of his horse, must either have been slain or made prisoner, if the hasty rashness of the Alani had not disappointed the measures of the Roman general. Alaric secured the remains of his army on the adjacent rocks, and prepared himself, with undaunted resolution, to maintain a siege against the superior numbers of the enemy, who invested him on all sides. But he could not oppose the destructive progress of hunger and disease; nor was it possible for him to check the continual desertion of his impatient and capricious barbarians. In this extremity he still found resources in his own courage, or in the moderation of his adversary; and the retreat of the Gothic king was considered as the deliverance of Italy."—Dec. and Fall, chap. 30, par. 8, 9. Although Alaric was thus defeated and compelled to retreat to his camp on the confines of Italy; and although his retreat "was considered as the deliverance of Italy," yet it was only a seeming deliverance; and his retreat was only for a season, during which, events were being so shaped that when he returned it was to trace a line of devastation over the whole length of Italy, from the Alps to the straits of Sicily; and Rome herself, which had stood for so many ages the mistress of the world, was visited with such a calamity as to fill with "grief and terror," "the astonished empire," already so familiar with scenes of fearful rapine. And now while Alaric and his terrible Visigoths, chafing bitterly under their defeat, hang like an angry cloud ready to burst from the Illyrian frontier upon the Western Empire, a furious tempest is excited on the coast of the Baltic Sea, and a torrent of barbarous German tribes pours from the north upon the devoted empire, and carries destruction almost to the gates of Rome. Here we must leave the Visigoths for a short time while we contemplate, with curious interest, the nations of the North, and the causes which impel them upon the tottering empire. Hints to Church-Goers.
By Hester Wolcott
"WELL, Hugh, what was the sermon about?" inquired his father, who had been kept from church by a severe headache. "Really, father, I don't know," replied the young man. "It was so very stupid, I gave up listening and thought of something else." Mr. Ryegate looked disappointed. "Did I never tell you, my son," said he, "what a great impression was once made on me by something a distinguished lawyer said to me? It was this, and I want you to remember it: Every time you go to hear a sermon or a lecture, and allow your thoughts to wander, you lose just so much of mental discipline and of the power of concentrating your mind. Why, my boy, you are studying for the law, and do you not know that that gift—the ability to keep your mind on a subject—is one of the greatest helps in your or any other profession? Here is a remark on the same subject which I clipped from a paper not long ago: 'The concentration of the mind on but one thing at a time is the great end of education. If this habit is persisted in, it is surprising what progress can be made.'" "And Hugh," here interposed the sweet voice of his invalid aunt Eunice, "that is only the lowest, most selfish reason for listening to a sermon. I, too, have a quotation for you here in my scrap-book: 'Consider the sermon, no matter who may be the preacher, as a message to you from God, not as an effort of man.'" "Papa," said Hugh's sister Dorothy, after a moment's pause, "don't you think it is just as important to concentrate your mind on the singing as on the sermon?" "Certainly," replied Mr. Ryegate, "and on the prayers as well. No part of God's public worship can be slighted." "Because," continued Dorothy, "I never can forget a lesson I received last summer. A girl stood next to me at evening service when the hymn,—
'Father, what'er of earthly bliss,'
was being sung. As I could not sing on account of a cold, and she was looking over my book, I could not avoid hearing her. She was looking around the church most of the time, hardly resting her eyes on the words at all, and this, as nearly as I can remember it, is the way she sang the first verse:—
'Father, what'er of earthly bliss
Thy a—a—will supplies,
Accepted at thy a—a—a—
Let this position rise.'
Of course, she was not thinking of a word she sang. It shocked me so much that, whenever I find my thoughts or eyes wandering during the singing, I am always brought to myself by the recollection of that girl." "A wholesome lesson," said Mr. Ryegate, as the bell rang for tea; "may we all remember it."—Hester Wolcott, in S. S. Times. The Prayer Meeting Thermometer
By Dr. Prime
I HAVE heard the weekly prayer-meeting called the thermometer of the church. It is said that the numbers attending it indicate the degree of spiritual warmth pervading the congregation. A crowded room would be an infallible sign of revival, as an empty one shows the state of religion to be very low—below zero.—Dr. Prime. The Importance of Earnestness
"WITHOUT earnestness no man is ever great or does really great things." Examination of a Famous Falsehood.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows, 1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord's day? is upon record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny; 2. That no such question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth century; 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed; 4. That in this one case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the Acta Martyrum, in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify relative to the character of this work for veracity:— "As to those accounts which have come down to us under the title of Acta Martyrum, or the Acts of the Martyrs, their authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever." Such is the authority of the work from which this story is taken. It is not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it to theologians. Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for others will have to go with it for possessing the same character. Since the publication of Domville's elaborate work, James Gilfillan of Scotland has written a large volume entitled, "The Sabbath," which has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville, as appears from his statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore acquainted with Domville's exposure of the fraud respecting "Dominicum servasti?" But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville had shown up the matter from the Acta Martyrum, it was necessary for Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan's words:— "From the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their Master and them, and were abettors, wherever they could, of the martyrdom of men such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change of the Sabbath day. The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, Dominicum servasti?—Have you kept the Lord's day?—Baron. An. Eccles., A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc." Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What if the Acta Martyrum has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the Acta Martyrum: 1. That no such question as "Dominicum servasti?" was addressed to any martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years after the time of Pliny. 2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the Lord's day, but to the Lord's supper. Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the truth of the first of these statements; for the earliest instance which he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart's Acta Martyrum, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from that work! Domville's first and most important statement is therefore vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say this in so many words.—J. N. Andrews, in History of the Sabbath. (To be concluded next week.) "Not Dead, but Sleepeth."
By Epsilon
THE great Teacher, who "brought life and immortality to light through the gospel," called death, sleep; and the result of his teaching was, that his disciples preached "Jesus and the resurrection." Sleep implies two things: unconsciousness, and a final waking. The sound sleeper never dreams; and time, long or short, is but a moment to him. In Matt. 9: 23, 24, we have an account of our Redeemer's raising from death the daughter of Jairus:— "And when Jesus came into the ruler's house, and saw the minstrels and the people making a noise, he said unto them, Give place; for the maid is not dead, but sleepeth." Why did Jesus not say that the maid was not dead, but alive in Heaven? Did he not know her true condition? Did he say one thing and mean another? Jesus was a model teacher. Good teachers are thoughtful and use plain language. But what did our Lord say? "The maid is not dead, but sleepeth." Says one, "He meant that the body sleeps." Then, if the body sleeps, it is the body that is not dead. Says the Romanizer, "It is the immortal soul that is not dead." Then if it is the "living soul" that is not dead, it is the "living soul" that sleepeth. The Romanizer may take whichever horn of the dilemma he pleases; for either is fatal to his theory of disembodied spirits. In the eleventh chapter of John, we have an account of Lazarus being called back to life by Him who is "the resurrection and the life." His words are, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go that I may awake him out of sleep." Verse 11. Why did he not say, Our friend Lazarus has gone to Heaven; but I go that I may call him from Heaven? When the weeping sisters met him, why did he not comfort them by assuring them that Lazarus was happy among the angels? His comfort was, "Thy brother shall rise again." Mary understood, for she had sat at the feet of Jesus. The weeping Saviour gave the only comfort that the Bible warrants in such cases. See 1 Thess. 4: 13-18, especially verse 18. The great hope of Job was in the fact that he had a living Redeemer, who would stand upon the earth at the latter day; and that, after being destroyed by worms, he would yet see his Redeemer, when called from his sleep in the dust. He saw nothing but silence and darkness in death. It was in hope of that resurrection-life that he gloried. See Job, chapters 14 and 19. Said he, "I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth." That he had a living Redeemer, made his resurrection sure. The Redeemer himself also said, "Because I live, ye shall live also." John 14: 19. His life made their lives a certainty. They were dead, or, under condemnation of death; but "Your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3: 3, 4. The Judgment is the "Judgment to come." Eternal life is given "in the world to come." The punishment of the wicked is "the wrath to come." All these are still future. The coming of Christ in the clouds of heaven, is the time of rewards and punishments. "The dead praise not the Lord," "know not anything;" "their thoughts perish." Death is called "the land of forgetfulness." The dead "sleep in the dust of the earth." A Personal God.
By T. L. Cuyler, D. D.
Positivism tells us that God is abstract and general; it calls us to worship "a being immense and eternal—Humanity." But when we attempt it, our adoration fixes itself upon a single person, the best and highest we have known, and we escape from the cold inanity of an abstract worship to the warm arms of a personal love. Pantheism tells that he is everything, the one eternal substance which appears as conscious in our thought and as unconscious in nature.—Hegel. But we can no more worship this than the leaf can worship the tree on which it hangs, than the wave can worship the ocean out of which it rises and into which it sinks. Agnosticism tells us that he is unknown and unknowable, "the Power not ourselves that makes for righteousness."—Matthew Arnold. But behind the power we seek the will from which it flows, behind the law we seek the Giver, behind the moral distinctions we seek the Maker in whom goodness, holiness, and truth are forever embodied. Thus, from all these vague abstractions the soul flies, by a natural instinct, to the God of the Bible. He is revealed as the Creator who called all things into being by his word, the Preserver who controls and directs all things by his will, the Redeemer who bends in love and pity above the world, seeking to save it; a God with a heart, who can hear us when we cry, and forgive us when we confess, and bless us when we come to him; a Father, waiting for his lost and wandering children, and rejoicing when they return to him. This is he who hath made us for himself, and in whom alone our unquiet hearts can find rest. Christianity satisfies us only because it is the revelation of a person by a person to a person. John 1:18.—T. L. Cuyler, D. D. The Bible’s Purpose and Work
The object of the Bible is to reveal God and the duty he requires of men. "It is given for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." "It is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The law was to Israel not only a rule of life, but an assurance of life to come through a Messiah prophesied and typified. The Bible is to us the story of a Saviour who has come, and through whom all who believe shall be saved. It is our guidebook, our law, and our gospel. It contains all we need for instruction and salvation.—Sel. Giving According to Ability
In respect to giving, there are very few of us who give according to our ability, or anything like it. The great generosity of the world usually lies below the medium line. Governing Oneself and Serving Through Love
To govern one's self is true glory. To serve through love is Christian greatness.—Sel. Questions on the Church.
By Editor
1. THE deacon of our church was elected elder. Has he thereby lost his office of deacon, and must we elect another deacon in his stead? ANSWER.—The two offices are distinct, yet an elder may perform the duties of a deacon. It is always held that in a church, the higher officer may discharge the duties of the lower, but the lower cannot discharge those of a higher. An evangelist may discharge the duties of a local elder, and a local elder may discharge those of a deacon; but the order cannot be reversed. A deacon may not discharge the duties of a local elder, and a local elder cannot discharge the duties of an evangelist. So much for the authority, or right to act. Whether or not it is necessary for this church to elect another deacon depends altogether on circumstances. If the church is small, and one officer can discharge all the duties which it requires, of course no other is needed. But if it is large, and one could not well serve all the interests of the church, then another should be elected. It is a question to be determined by each church for itself. Even if the church is small, and it has those who are considered qualified to serve, it might be well to have both offices filled, as there are many questions arising where it would be well to have more than one for consultation and joint action. 2. Our church has no elder, as we have no male member who can consistently take the office. A sister leads the meetings, and does it acceptably. But a person wishes to unite with the church, and other matters of business come up; is it proper for this sister to act as presiding officer in the transaction of business? There might be questions raised on such a course which would be liable to lead to unpleasant results. All such questions should be avoided. Therefore we should advise that, if there were any male members in the church, one be chosen to preside for the time, as moderator of that meeting. But if any matters come up which present points of any difficulty whatever, you might better postpone the business and ask the Conference or some minister who may be near, for assistance. Sometimes troubles arise which are not settled for months by unadvised action in matters which might be postponed till help can be obtained. At the General Conference the question of the ordination and powers of local elders was considered by a large committee, and their report was unanimously adopted by the Conference. This decision varies somewhat from the position which we took in our article on "The Church." To show that there is no conflict of opinion, we will state that we drew up the report, and presented it to the Conference. And this again shows the great benefit of general meetings, where brethren can consult and counsel together. "In the multitude of counselors there is safety." The report is as follows:— The Committee to whom was referred the subject of the ordination of local elders, would respectfully report that we find there is a difference of opinion existing, and there has been a difference in practice in different Conferences, in regard to the jurisdiction of local elders, or to the extent of their authority to act. In some places, the jurisdiction and ordination have been looked upon as confined to the church which elected them; in other cases they have been permitted to administer the ordinances wherever they might chance to be, as unrestricted as a minister. We have tried to canvass the ground thoroughly, and find that there are difficulties in both positions if separately traced to their conclusions. All agree that it is to be regarded as purely a matter of church discipline, and we believe there is truth in both positions which may be combined into one consistent system. We therefore offer the following recommendations:— 1. That the jurisdiction of a local elder, or his authority to administer the ordinances, be confined to that church which elected him as elder; the only exception to this is where the Conference Committee deems it advisable to instruct him to go to another church under special circumstances.151 2. If he is re-elected, or properly elected elder of another church, his ordination shall stand good. He need not be re-ordained. 3. But in case of his removal to another church or another Conference, the fact that he has acted as elder over another church should not be considered a ground for calling him to act as elder again. The church should consider his qualifications just as they would if he had never been an elder; and if there is any doubt, inquiry should be made of some minister or of an officer of the Conference, to ascertain whether he filled the office acceptably. 4. It is well understood that a license from the Conference does not authorize the licentiate to celebrate the ordinances, to administer baptism, or to organize a church. And, therefore, if a local elder receive a ministerial license, it does not enlarge his sphere of action as an elder; it gives him no authority to celebrate the ordinances outside of the church of which he is acting as elder. 5. And, finally, though his ordination shall stand good for all time, except in case of apostasy, whenever and wherever he may properly be called to act, he cannot exercise the functions of an elder beyond the time for which he was elected, unless he is re-elected, or elected by another church. But if from any cause there should be a failure to hold an election, he may then act until his successor shall be elected. Worshiping in Letter and Spirit.
By Editor
THERE are views widely differing on the subject of worshiping in letter and in spirit. Those who object to the law, and lay claim to a system of license, for this is what no-lawism amounts to, affirm that to serve God according to the letter of the law is a slavish service, a service of bondage, being bound and hedged in by forms which leave no freedom to the human spirit and will. They say there is a higher and purer service, a voluntary service, one of the affections only, not guided by any expressed rules and regulations, but in which all is left to the choice and will of the worshiper. They declare that where there are legal injunctions and restrictions there is no freedom, and therefore no pure, spiritual worship. This theory appears plausible to many; and to such as love to have their own way it is captivating. But it is both defective as a theory and contrary to Scripture. The true theory of choice, or of freedom of the will, is the choice between that which God requires and that which our own hearts would suggest. This choice God gives to every one. This is probation. Of course true worship is to do that which God requires; false worship is to offer to God that which our own hearts devise, or, in other words, to choose our own way. If we try that theory in the State or in the family circle, we shall find it to be destructive to order, and subversive of every correct principle. A citizen scorns the restraints of legal enactments. His ideas of serving the Government he thinks are far too exalted to be trammeled. He loves the service of his country, but he must be left to serve in a manner dictated by his own mind, and approved only by his own will. If he is a soldier, he refuses to obey the orders of his superior, and maneuvers according to tactics of his own devising, and moves only when he chooses, without regard to the rules adopted for the army. If he is a civil officer, he disregards the statutes and forms for the government of his office, and adopts forms and regulations of his own. If he is a private citizen, he pays no heed to the laws of the State, but acts as the impulse of his own heart may prompt, at all times and on all occasions. Now what shall we say of such a citizen as this? As a soldier, he would soon be tried for insubordination, and punished for his disloyalty. As a civil officer, he would be broken of his office, and have to retire in disgrace. As a private citizen, he would soon end his career in prison. And why not? Is not the best service to the State rendered by obeying the laws of the State? Rather, is not this the only service the State can accept? Certainly it is. Any other course has its origin in self-will, and leads to open rebellion. This much for no-lawism in the State. Take it in the family circle. A child professes great love for his father; he assumes to be very, exceedingly anxious to honor and serve his father. When his father commands him to do a certain thing, he considers it altogether beneath such exalted love as he bears to his father to obey the command; he must do what the father orders in a manner quite different from that in which the father said it should be done, or he must substitute something entirely different in the place of that which is required by the father. He says he loves to serve his father, but his love must not be cramped, nor forced, nor restrained, by rules and restrictions laid down by his father. He must be left free to carry out those plans formed in his own mind, and to follow the promptings of his own heart. This he claims is the only way to manifest pure love for his father. But what shall we say to such love as that? Without hesitation we pronounce it spurious—a mere mockery of love. Such a son would constantly dishonor his father, and become a disgrace to the family to which he belonged. When we refer it to Scripture, we find such a system always and everywhere denounced. Both the word of God and the providence of God have always been against it. This spirit led the priests to offer strange fire before the Lord, instead of that fire prescribed by the Lord. It caused them to offer polluted bread upon his altar, and to change his offerings, substituting the lame and the blind at their own wills. It is the fruit of this perverse spirit of which the Lord asks, "Who hath required this at your hand?" It is such professed service to God which Paul calls "voluntary humility," and of such persons he says: "Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind." Col. 2:18. The "fleshly mind" is the same as the "carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God," which volunteers an offering not required, and withholds that which is commanded. All such is "will worship." Of such voluntary worshipers the Lord says: "Woe unto the foolish prophets, that have followed their own spirits, and have seen nothing. . . . Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken?" Eze. 13:3-7. They declare that to be the will of God of which the Lord hath not spoken. Truly, they have followed their own spirit! They claim this as "true Christian liberty." To do that which the Lord hath spoken, is to them bondage, a legal service, worshiping in the letter, not by them to be borne. But the Lord pronounces a woe upon them. Thus we learn that to be guided by our feelings and our will, and to disregard God's commandments, is will-worship,—is to follow our own spirits. This is not worshiping God in spirit, though by some supposed to be so. Such, instead of worshiping God in spirit, are vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind. There may be a false worship in the letter. For this we never plead. This is a Pharisaical, heartless, outward observance of precepts, without the promptings of love. Some are so blind that they think all obedience to commandments is of this kind. A greater mistake cannot be made. The Lord himself has distinctly assured us, "This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." Obedience is required of the citizen in the State. Obedience of the child is the only evidence of love in the family. Obedience is the only manifestation of love recognized in the Bible. "If I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts." Mal. 1:6. Paul says: "We know that the law is spiritual." Therefore loving obedience to it is spiritual service, the only true worship. To disobey is to deny the Lord the honor and fear which are his due. Professed worship in willful disobedience is will-worship and mockery. It is worth while to notice that this plea against the letter of God's law is invariably urged against the fourth commandment, and seldom against anything else. And they who make this plea will seize with avidity any sentence in the Bible from which they can possibly infer, however forced the inference, that we are taught to keep Sunday. They would cling to the letter if the letter suited them. Theirs is the spirit of self-will, not of obedience. A Question Concerning the Sanctuary.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
A BROTHER sends a letter of inquiries, in which we find the following:— "In reference to the priests taking the blood of the victim into the sanctuary, it seems to me that in case it was for the sin of a priest or of the whole congregation, then the blood was taken into the first room [the holy place]; but if it was for a ruler or one of the common people, the work was all done in the court, by the altar of burnt offering. And if this is true, how were the sins of these lodged in the sanctuary? From Lev. 10:17, I gather that the priests, by eating of those sin offerings whose blood was not taken into the sanctuary, bore the iniquity of the people." The brother is partly right and partly wrong in his conclusions. It is true that the blood of some sin offerings was taken into the holy place, and that the blood of others was not. When the blood was taken into the sanctuary, the body of the victim was burnt without the camp. See Lev. 4:1-21; 6:30. But when the blood of the offering was not taken into the sanctuary, its flesh was taken by the priests into the holy place, and was there eaten by them. See Lev. 6:24, 25. Thus the sin was figuratively taken within the sanctuary,—in one case by the blood, and in the other by the flesh. The wrong part of the conclusion was in supposing that in the latter case the priests themselves bore the iniquity of the people. Lev. 10:16-18 reads as follows:— "And Moses diligently sought the goat of the sin offering, and, behold, it was burnt; and he was angry with Eleazar and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron which were left alive, saying, Wherefore have ye not eaten the sin offering in the holy place, seeing it is most holy, and God hath given it you to bear the iniquity of the congregation, to make atonement for them before the Lord? Behold, the blood of it was not brought in within the holy place; ye should indeed have eaten it in the holy place, as I commanded." A careful reading of the above, especially verse 17, plainly shows that the flesh of the sin offering, and not the priests, was to bear the iniquity of the congregation. What did Moses say God had given to the priests? The flesh. For what purpose had he given it? To bear the iniquity of the congregation. The construction of the sentence absolutely forbids the conclusion that the priests bore the iniquity. The victim represented Christ. He "bare our sins in his own body on the tree." 1 Pet. 2:24. "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6. In his own person he took them into the true sanctuary in Heaven. And as the lamb or goat typified Christ, the sins that were confessed over it were laid upon it as a whole, so that they might be conveyed into the sanctuary either by the flesh or by the blood. The animal was innocent, and might therefore be a type of Christ; but the priest was a sinful, mortal man, and could not therefore himself represent Christ in the act of bearing our sins. We design erelong to give this subject a more extended consideration in the SIGNS. E. J. W.