THAT God is safe in pardoning any sinner as soon as he is cured of the love of sin by repentance, is very true. That the death of Christ is the strongest possible expression of his love to us, and the best calculated to break rebellious hearts is also true. Dr. Arnold, Principal of Rugby School, England, when trying to subdue an offending pupil, gave the boy the ruler, and held out his own hand and told him to strike it. The boy hesitated, but on being urged, he struck the Doctor's hand one blow, and broke down in penitence and tears, saying he could never endure to lay the stripes due to himself upon the kindest friend he had in the world. This, although adduced to illustrate the moral power of love for the guilty, has also in it something of the enforcement of law and the demands of justice. It is not probable that any intelligent disciple ever thinks of "the Father punishing the Son," or that the Father and Son had any separate interests in the matter. I never spoke or thought of the sufferings of Christ in that light. Even if the strictest views of law-penalty be allowed, Christ, "laid down his life of himself," and the Father "gave his only-begotten Son;" and if man violated the law, and eternal justice required some adequate expression to "condemn sin in the flesh" in which the whole "God-head" participated, I see no reason for viewing Christ as an unfortunate victim who was compelled into a mere "penal transaction." Dr. A. was not compelled to receive the blow.
The main question seems to be: Was the cross intended to produce the softer moral influences upon the souls of men only, or did it represent also the rights of law and justice? The expression, "that God might be just and the justifier of him who believes in Jesus," seems to say that justice had to be consulted somewhat when Christ was made a propitiation for sins. This implies fairly that there might be circumstances under which it would be unjust to justify the sinner, and Rcm. 3 : 25, 26, fairly implies, I think, that those circumstances would be present in the absence of the death of Christ. But justice implies law, under whose "curse" sin had brought us all. Hence, "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." This seems very much as if the rights of justice were considered in the transaction, and as if the moral influences are only a part of the forces engaged in the reconciliation. If our sins were a debt to justice (and sins are called debts, Matt. 6 : 12), and he became "a curse for us," his death certainly had some relation to justice in our stead. Penalty was hanging over us. Did he undertake to remove this penalty, ignoring justice and the law whose curse we were under? Let us beware of the shallows along here. He was "made of a woman, made under the law to redeem them that were under the law," "that is, under the curse of the violated law, for "cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the law to do them." God's law is the expression of God's justice to us-ward, and to be under the curse of the law must be about the same as to be under the curse of justice. It seems evident that the death of Christ had some reference to both law and justice, and that whatever that reference was, it enabled God to be "just while justifying him that believes on Jesus."
It is well to be modest and feel our way along where the best of minds have gone slowly. If the death of Christ was brought about merely by the collision between the righteousness of his life and the unrighteousness of sinners, somewhat as a martyr's death is brought on, is it plain enough what relation that act bore to our salvation different in kind from the death of a martyr? If he had avoided it and died a natural death, as all martyrs had a right to do if they could, who would say his hold upon the heart of the world would have been the same? But if his death was in no sense vicarious, if he was not "made a curse for us," is not the strength of his appeal to the heart seriously diluted? If he paid a debt for me that I did not owe, or, one he knew that I did not owe, or, to drop the entanglement of the word debt, if he on the cross assumed a legal "curse" for me, that in no sense or in no degree made him my substitute, I fail to see the primum mobile of the cross.
Did the cross manifest divine love and compassion? For whom? Not for us unless he thereby was "wounded for our transgressions" and "bruised for our iniquities." To say that the "marvelous life and death of Christ" is well calculated to "flood the soul with moral light, to create within it a new impulse and to lead it to repentance," is very beautiful, but does this explain how, or in what sense he "bore our iniquities," how "the chastisement of our peace was upon him?" Does it explain how "he bore our sins in his own body on the tree?" Was there nothing legal or penal in this transaction? Had it no reference to law, to justice, to "the curse?"
To suppose that because he "bore our sins" therefore we have nothing more to fear, whatever our life or disobedience, would be simply to borrow ammunition from the armory of Universalism—a mistake no intelligent Disciple will fall into. The old expression, "he paid our debt," for want of proper care, has caused confusion at this point, but we need not therefore ignore the very significant Scripture expressions that indicate something more than a moral influence growing out of a loving life and a martyr death.
May it not be that the moral influence of the death of Christ roots itself back in the legal animus of the cross? He was "made under the law" and came under "the curse" to "redeem them that were under the law" by being himself a curse for them. True, it is said he "redeems" them by "flooding the soul with moral light," and that certainly is a part of the means, but it not sequel to his first movement in "bearing our sins in his own body on the tree," thus laying the foundation for his moral influence? The cross is the fulcrum of all God's moral power in the gospel. "True again," it may be said, "the cross is said fulcrum, but I doubt there being anything penal in it." Then we must have an explanation of all the passages above quoted, and many more that seem plainly to refer to the demands of law and justice. Does the moral influence of the gospel grow out of merely the moral excellence of the life and death of Christ, or does it take root further back in a belief that "He bore our sins," was "bruised for our iniquities," that "by his stripes we are healed," and that without the cross God could not "be just in justifying" us? Tear up the roots of our love for Christ out of this soil and the plant will most likely die. Few converts, indeed, understand or think much about the philosophy of the atonement, but the general impression with them all is that the cross in some way made it possible for God to forgive them. When the pupil found himself laying his own iniquities upon his beloved teacher, it broke down his heart. He knew that he was under the "curse" of a broken law, and that the teacher was receiving the "stripes" due to himself, and, therefore, he melted, and out of this fact grew the moral influence of Dr. Arnold. But suppose the Doctor's stripes had had no penal in them, that is, had had no reference to the demerit of the pupil—nothing in them of the nature of substitution—I fail to see how they would have had the desired effect. Had the pupil not repented, his forgiveness would not still have been possible. And "by his stripes we are healed" only in case the knowledge of his sufferings for us breaks our hearts with sorrow and love, cures us of the love of sin, and makes it proper for God to forgive us. Is "the goodness of God that leads us to repentance" manifested by a crucifixion that was not in line with our condemnation? It is hard to find words to clearly differentiate the thought at so sharp an angle, but how could it be the goodness of God to us unless he died not for the sake of getting a moral influence over us—but "for our sins," as we commonly understand it? To assume any great influence of the kind as growing out of mere heroic martyrdom for the truth, that have been avoided without any damage to the rights of law and justice, and any loss to us, save the loss of an example of high devotion to the right, seems to me wholly unwarranted either by theology or psychology.—Thos. Munnell, in Bible Index.
Religion and Business.
THIS precept of holy writ, that we "be not slothful in business," lays its stress upon every son and daughter of Adam, and especially upon every redeemed child of God. And the full command: "Be not slothful in business, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord," shows there is no discord between business and religion; but on the contrary, that a man may be devoted to his business, diligent and active therein, and thereby serve the Lord. It is a proof that men may be honest, honorable, and Christlike in their daily calling; and the statement in another portion of the Bible, "Seest thou a man diligent in business, he shall stand before kings," shows us religion and success in business are in harmony.
It is therefore weak and useless for men to say they cannot succeed unless they adopt the doubtful and even underhanded methods of their unscrupulous competitors. To be honorable, manly, and true in all one's business dealings is to gain the confidence of the community, and with such a man they will prefer to do business. It is a man's most sure and reliable capital, even as Solomon has said: "A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches." Unscrupulous methods may sometimes bring a more rapid success; but it is like the blazing, brilliant flower that springs up quickly out of its thin soil on the rock—lacking the depth and strength of earth—it is sure to be short-lived. Better in every respect to be honorable and wait if need be, a little longer for a rich and more permanent success.
But not only is business success in harmony with religion, but, more than that, religious enjoyment and service are directly in the path of business. We believe the truest conception of the Christian's life makes it a steady, unbroken outflow and onflow of the spiritual life. It draws no separating line, on each side of which there shall be found only worldly duties, and on the other the so-called spiritual or religious duties. It is a unity, and religion enters into all our work and duties, and glorifies and beautifies them all; and we believe our Lord accepts one as gladly and as fully as another. Does there but appear the light of a devout purpose, the breath of a life hid with Christ in God, then, be the work what it may, and where it may, it is God's service. The farmer who keeps up his fences, cares well for his stock and crops, is not behind-hand with his work, may therein be pleasing his Master no less than he who serves at the altar.
The prompt, reliable, energetic, and honorable business man may be a shining witness to the blessedness of religion in the daily life.
The mother in her quiet home, making that home bright and cheerful, keeping the children tidy and well behaved, and looking faithfully after the thousand and one little daily duties, has a place of Christian labor that shall have the plaudits of Heaven, if not of earth.
And so, wherever the Lord places one of his children, it is for him to be diligent and faithful there, and so to find therein his growth in piety and his truest success.—The Contributor.
Jesus Knocking at the Door.
By Theodore Ledyard Cuyler
ONE of the most wonderful passages in the Bible is this: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock."-Rev. 3 : 20.
To open the heart to Jesus implies activity on your part, and a free, prompt act likewise. He will not burst down the door by violence. He respects the free agency with which your Creator has endowed you. His offer is: "If thou wilt open the door, I will come in and sup with thee, and thou with me." Your will must yield to his will. Your old wicked practice of having your own way must be given up, and Christ be allowed to have his way. If he come in at all it must be to rule you; not as an intruding tyrant, but by the omnipotence of his love.
Be sure of this, too, that if you let Christ come into your soul, he will require a thorough cleaning out of those abominable things that have been too long harbored there. Perhaps there are some snarling spites and ugly grudges that are lying there like surly mastiffs; they must go out. If any dishonest gains have been hidden away in the drawers they must be restored to their lawful owners. When my friend A. was converted, the first symptom of the change was that he went to his neighbor with whom he had an inveterate quarrel, and asked his forgiveness. As Christ came in, that disgraceful quarrel went out. My neighbor B. found that Jesus would not dwell in the same habitation with a brandy bottle. Wherefore he rose in the prayer-meeting, and confessed his sin, and asked us to pray for him that he might have strength to expel the demon drink. He was just in the condition of the rough creature who—in Jerry McAuley's meeting—prayed this most expressive prayer: "O, God! if you really want to help a fellow I have just got round to where I want to have you do it."
That illiterate man hit the point exactly. You will never open your heart to Jesus and let him have control of your will, your affections, your purse and your all, until you have "got round to where you want" him to come in and save you. Turning the favorite sins out is not enough. Conversion is not a mere emptying process. It is not a negative but a positive process. It is the admission of Christ, who will fill your soul with new thoughts, new purposes, new plans, new joys. What you need is the expulsive power of a new affection, and a new faith. The idlest folly in the world is to exhort a covetous man to stop worshiping gold, and give him nothing better to worship—or to urge a tippler to stop the use of his deadly stimulants, with nothing else to fill the void. No heart can be empty. "Nature abhors a vacuum." The love of the world, and the appetites of sensual enjoyments, can only be expelled by the incoming of a higher and purer love which is stronger than they. None but the Lord Jesus Christ is equal to this supernatural work of cleansing a human heart, and keeping it clean forever more.
I beg you, my friend, do not keep the divine visitor waiting one hour longer. Jesus sometimes gives last knocks. He has lingered before your door a great while already. He has waited for you through more than one revival season. Even now, for the last time he may be calling from without: "If thou wilt hear my voice and open this door, I will come in and dwell with thee." Do not, I entreat you, lose a moment. If he depart and leave you to utter hardness of heart, you will by and by hear another footstep approaching! It will be the swift step of death. Then you may rise up affrighted and call for your Saviour with a loud and bitter cry. But it will be too late! He took you at your word. He gave his last knock, and left your house to you desolate.—Dr. T. L. Cuyler.
Insincerity in Confessions.
By C. S. Robinson
WE are not sincere. We profess all horror at wickedness, but we seem to mean wickedness in general, not anything we have really done in particular and in person. It is sin we deplore, not sins. Our words of self-abasement must not be pressed, nor misunderstood.
In the old legend it was no less than a cardinal that once went to confession.
"Oh! I am the very chief of sinners," he murmured in the ear of the priest.
"Too true, too true; God have mercy"—were the words that came back through the grating.
"Surely I have been guilty of every kind of wrong," he continued.
"Alas, my son, it is a solemn fact—have mercy upon him, O Lord."
Thinking that the great enormities admitted, would force at least a deprecation, he went on:—
"I have indulged in pride, malice, revenge, and ambition."
Then he sighed in mournful tones; and in tones as mournful the honest monk answered:
"Yes, alas, some of this I had heard of before; the Lord have mercy."
The exasperated cardinal could stand it no longer.
"Why you fool," he burst out sharply, "do you imagine I mean all this to the letter."
"Alas, alas, the good Lord have mercy," said the pitiful priest, "for it seems his Eminence is a hypocrite likewise!"—C. S. Robinson.
An Interesting Discovery.
SOME time since an order was issued by the Sultan for removing the old walls and fortifications of Jaffa (Joppa). In cutting a gate through a water battery at an angle of the sea wall built by Vespasian, and directly in front of the reputed house of Simon the tanner, the men came on three oval-shaped tanners' vats, hewn out of the natural rock and lined with Roman cement, down very near the sea, and similar in every respect to those in use eighteen centuries ago. There is also a fresh-water spring flowing from the cliffs close by, long known as the town spring. This discovery at least proves that the house on the rocky bluff above, and from which steps lead down to the vats must have belonged to some tanner; and, as perhaps not more than one of that trade would be living in so small a place as Jaffa, some probability is given to the tradition that this is the identical spot where the house of Simon stood with whom Peter was sojourning when he saw his vision.
Battle for Universal Dominion.
Under this heading a contemporary asks: To whom is Afghanistan ultimately to belong? If it is, as some of our savants tell us, not worth our keeping, Russia will certainly absorb it sooner or later. All the larger states are either absorbing their smaller neighbors or being absorbed themselves; while no small states are being created. Meanwhile, as the Standard points out, the disease of Social Democracy is eating out the very life of most of the large European states. Nihilism is at work in Russia, Socialism in Germany; Austria if not a sick man is certainly not a healthy one; France may be said to be always ready for revolution at a week's notice; Italy, the spoilt child of Europe, is fretting for a toy she cannot get, and the symptoms of the throes of 1848 are everywhere discernible.
A Soft Answer Turneth Away Wrath
“A soft answer turneth away wrath.”
The Atonement.
By Editor
We wish to call special attention to the article on the Atonement on the third page of this paper, (whole number 155). It is from the Bible Index, a Disciple paper published in Toronto, Ont., (Canada).
It is seldom we find a more forcible vindication of the law of God as the basis of the gospel; a clearer presentation of truth that the death of Christ met the demand of divine justice in behalf of the sinner condemned by the law. This is the more worthy of note because it is so contrary to the antinomian doctrine held by the body of the Disciple denomination.
Alexander Campbell, in some of his writings, advocated the same truth by substantial arguments. But, unfortunately for his reputation for consistency, he argued the other side with equal urgency. We know of no writer of equal eminence and ability who was so inconsistent on this, and also on some other points, as was Mr. Campbell.
We wish that the arguments presented by Mr. Munnell in the Index might meet the eyes of the whole denomination of Disciples, and lead them to accept a more Scriptural belief than that which they now hold.
Meeting in Oakland.
By Editor
ACCORDING to appointment a meeting was held in Oakland, Cal., May 10, 11. There was a good attendance, considering the time of year. There were represented the churches of Healdsburg, Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Napa, St. Helena, Woodland, Vacaville, San Francisco, Oakland, and Elder Wood represented the churches in the San Joaquin Valley. No other meeting ever held in the State, except a Conference, was so well attended by the influential representatives of the cause.
Elder Haskell's labors seemed to be appreciated. His instructions were suited to our circumstances, and we believe will be the means of giving a new impetus to the work in this State. We regret that his time will be so limited here. But after his return from the Camp-meetings in Washington and Oregon, he will be able to hold a general meeting in Sonoma county, and one in Napa county, and one in Yolo county; these, with the two Camp-meetings, in Tulare county, and the other probably in Sonoma county, will give him a good opportunity to meet all the brethren and sisters in the State.
The Sabbath was given to devotional exercises. Bro. Haskell's sermon was one of practical instruction, and seemed to infuse new zeal and courage into the hearts of all present. In the afternoon six were baptized in Lake Merritt. This was an occasion of peculiar interest to us, as three young men in the employ of the printing house here—two from Salem, Oregon, and one from Arizona—were baptized. The spiritual interests of the young people in the Office are cared for, and the influences surrounding them are jealously guarded.
A committee was appointed to present business to the meeting, consisting of Brn. Wm. Saunders, J. E. White, and T. M. Chapman. They introduced it in the form of the following resolutions:—
1. That we recommend to Brother Haskell to visit the churches in California as far as possible, and instruct our people in the work of the Tract and Missionary Societies, and in all that pertains to the progress of this cause.
2. That, as it will be impossible for him to visit every church on this coast, we recommend the churches to assemble at such principal places and at such times as shall be named by him, so as to learn the best methods of co-operating in the work.
3. That, considering the seaports of San Francisco and Oakland the most important fields of tract and missionary labor, we recommend that one or more persons be selected to take special charge of that department; and further, that a fund of one thousand dollars be raised to carry on the work in these ports.
4. We believe the tithing system recommended by the General Conference is the true Bible plan; and we recommend that a sum equal to one-third of the tithe be raised in addition thereto, for the especial purpose of sustaining the tract and missionary work.
5. That we regard the Sabbath-school work as of the greatest importance to both old and young as a means of instruction in the principles of present truth, and the way of eternal life; that the S. S. Association in California demands more attention and greater unity of action than it has hitherto received; and we recommend that this meeting appoint some person to make the subject of Sabbath-schools a speciality, to assist the churches in their schools and to hold conventions, as shall be deemed advisable.
6. That we recommend a weekly contribution of each one in the several schools to meet the expenses of the Sabbath-school work; and that one-tenth of the money thus raised be sent to the State Secretary to create a State Sabbath-school Fund. Also, that one-tenth of the State Fund be sent to the Secretary of the General S. S. Association, to assist in raising a general fund.
WM. SAUNDERS,
J. E WHITE
T. M. CHAPMAN,
Committee.
Brother Saunders introduced the following resolution:—
That the feeling of union and harmony which seems to prevail among all connected with the publishing house, and the spirit of zeal and sacrifice manifested, are causes of gratification; and that the plan adopted and now being carried out of making each department of the Office self-sustaining, meets our approbation.
In the most harmonious manner all these resolutions were passed.
It was also voted that Bro. J. E. White be requested to take hold of the Sabbath-school work, according to the resolution on that subject.
The matter of tent labor was referred to the ministers and brethren present who represent the churches.
It was decided to hold two Camp-meetings, one in the San Joaquin Valley, to commence, probably, August 13, with C. M. Porter, C. Vermason, and J. M. Loveland, as Committee.
The other commence, probably, Aug. 21, with G. D. Hager, John Custer, and W. A. Pratt, as Committee.
Much consultation was had in regard to the locality for the northern Camp-meeting. The brethren from Yolo and Solano counties said there were no suitable grounds with shade in their sections. It seemed to be the general opinion that Healdsburg is the most suitable place.
While we greatly rejoice that Bro. Haskell has come to our assistance, and he could hardly come in a time of greater need, we regret that he will be able to spend so little time in California. As the time of the Walla Walla Camp-meeting is drawing near, he can not enter upon much labor here before going north. Unfortunately, also, there is considerable interval between the two N. P. Camp-meetings, which could be used to great advantage among us. With the time consumed in traveling there, and returning, he cannot enter upon any effective work here before the second week in July. We do not speak of this, however, to complain, but we appreciate the favor, but we desire to stir up the brethren to the necessity of responding heartily and promptly to the appointments which will be made by him for meetings in Santa Rosa, Napa or St. Helena, and Woodland.
Bro. Rice has a tent now pitched in Willow, Colusa county, and Bro. Morton expects to join him as soon as his work is done in Pacheco. Brn. Healey and Grainger will immediately pitch the large tent in Woodland. Bro. Wood, who has been successfully laboring in Tulare county, made arrangements to go with his tent to Los Angelos county. Being prevented, unfortunately as we now think, he tried to fill some time in Visalia, where he was taken sick and had to stop. He is feeble, but anxious to work, and will probably start out soon.
Question.
By Editor
INFIDELS here claim that Chinese history goes back many thousand years beyond Bible history. Is this false? and if so, has it been exposed?
It is false, and it has been abundantly exposed. If Bible history and chronology were as vague and unreliable as that of the Chinese, the infidels might well laugh us to scorn.
The following remarks we copy from Dr. Nelson's book on Infidelity. They may seem to be severe, but we think they are just:—
“When some travelers in Asia wrote back that the Chinese record made the world many thousand years older than the Mosaic history does, how it rejoiced a host of listeners. Oh, how they clapped their hands! “We thought,” said they, “that the Bible was a fabrication, unworthy of belief. If any wrote, or said to those who were thus becoming scoffers at revelation, Do not be too hasty in your conclusions: how can you tell but that national vanity may have had some share in exciting those who speak of their celestial empire, to claim a spurious antiquity? they turned away or closed their ears with satisfied confidence. They seemed to wish for no further information. After a time some additional items were published from Chinese history, such as the following: They tell the name of their first king, which would sound in the ear of some as a corruption of the word Noah. The time they assign for his reign corresponds with the age of Noah. They speak of this king as being without father; of his mother being encircled with the rainbow; of his preserving seven clean animals to sacrifice to the great Spirit; that in his day the sky fell on the earth and destroyed the race of men, etc. When we remember that the waters of the sky did this in the days of Noah; that Noah was the first of the postdiluvian race, and thus without father; that the rainbow is interestingly connected with his history; that he did take into the ark clean animals by sevens, part of which were offered in sacrifice—we begin to discover that the Chinese account is nothing more nor less than a blotted copy of the truth. See Stackhouse’s History of the Bible.”
We gather from Moses, that between the creation and the deluge there were ten generations of men, surpassing us greatly in longevity. It would be no tortured inference to suppose them vastly our superiors, both in strength and stature. This kind of men, the heathen in ages past were in the habit of calling gods, after their death. The Chinese account speaks of ten dynasties of superior beings who ruled in their country a thousand years each, before the sky fell on the earth. It is not hard to see that this is only a different and a singular manner of relating the same facts. But why did—and do now—many of the seemingly learned choose to suppose that each father ended his race before the son began to live? It was for the purpose of stretching out the time between the deluge and the creation, to ten thousand years. Moses informs us that each of these ten generations did extend near a thousand years; but he lets us know that a son and his father walked much of their earthly race together. The journey of each was long, but it was a simultaneous travel. For the purpose, if possible, of extending the earth’s chronology beyond the dates of revelation, multitudes have taken partial extracts from hearsay records; and then, to prevent these fragments from agreeing with, or upholding the history they hate, have twisted them with labor and ingenuity—failing even then to construct a passable cavil against the truth. What is the reason of this strange hungering and thirsting after mean falsehood, rather than the wonders of glorious truth? It is because men love darkness rather than light.