Earlier text: General ArticlesModern Spiritualism.
By Editor
DR. A. B. CHILD is one of the most popular Spiritualist authors. He fully confirms the above. He is the author of a work entitled, "Christ and the People," recently published at the office of the Banner of Light, which is thus highly recommended in Hull's Monthly Clarion for May, 1866:-- "Everybody knows that Dr. Child never speaks without saying something worth hearing. In this book he has thrown out some of his best thoughts." In the Banner of Light's office advertisement of the book is the following very strong indorsement:-- "This book should find its way to every family. . . . Its liberality reaches the very shores of infinity. It is born of Spiritualism, and reaches for the manhood of Christ. It is the most fearless presentation of the folly of the present moral and religious systems of the land of any book yet written. It is free from fault-finding; but its truthful description of self-conceived goodness everywhere, in morals and religion, are withering. Through sacrifice and sin it shows the open gate of Heaven for every human being." The following extracts show the tendency of its teachings:-- "The present laws of marriage, that now give birth to regrets and sorrows unnumbered, to prostitution, with its long train of curses and agonies, will be abandoned for a holier, purer, diviner revelation that will ere long be given to the people." page 27. "A religion more spiritual will be discovered and acknowledged . . . a religion without written laws, without commandments, without creeds—a religion too sacred to be spoken, too pure to be defiled, too generous to be judged, resting upon no uncertain outside standard of rectitude, upon no dogma of another, no purity of earthly life, no glory of earthly perfection—a religion that every soul possesses by natural endowment, not one more than another." "This religion is simply desire. . . ." "With every one desire is spontaneous and sincere, pure and holy; no matter what the desire is, whether it be called good or bad, it is the natural, God-given religion of the soul." Pages 28, 29. He occupies a chapter in deriding justice; he scoffs at holiness, and exalts sin, as the following brief extracts show:-- "Ere long, man will come to see that all sin is for his spiritual good. . . . To see that holiness lays up treasures on earth. . . . Sin destroys earthly treasures, and causes them to be laid up in Heaven." Pages 32, 33. "There is no criminal act that is not an experience of usefulness. The tracks of vice and crime are only the tracks of human progress. . . . There has been no deed in the catalogue of crime that has not been a valuable experience to the inner being of the man who committed it." Page 137. "Man has yet to learn and yet to admit that all sins which are committed are innocent, for all are in the inevitable rulings of God." Page 175. "He who wars with sin leaves nothing lovely in his tracks." Page 191. These extracts will serve to show the character of the book. Doubtless the Banner of Light is correct—"It is born of Spiritualism;" it could have had no other origin! and yet the Banner of Light affects to repudiate free-lovism and to plead for morality. Such morality, of course, as it recommends in Dr. Child's book! John M. Spear is a noted medium through whom popular spirit works have been indited; but, like a practical Spiritualist that he is, he became the father of an illegitimate child. Some even among Spiritualists, were so infected with what A. J. Davis calls a "sort of Atheism" as to blame him for this fact! But he was safe among his friends—he found plenty of defenders. A Mr. Stearling wrote two articles, which were published in the Spiritual Telegraph, in vindication of Mr. Spear, and Miss H., his affinity. The following is an extract from this defense:-- "Suppose, then, Miss H. has become a mother. Does that fact warrant you in calling Mr. Spear a libertine or a debauchee? May he not, after all, have acted in this affair in perfect consistency with all his past life, a pure, good man? Again, does this fact of Miss H.'s maternity necessarily imply wrong or corruption in the movement? She desired to be the mother of a child; but she was not willing to become a legal wife, in which relation she might be compelled not only to give birth to unwelcome children, but also to yield her body to the gratification of unhallowed passion. Now, sir, will you, believing this, condemn such conduct? I cannot—will not! I deem it a matter with her own soul, and the one she loved, and her God, with whom she is at peace. The smiles of Heaven have been upon her: her religious nature has been greatly blessed; her spiritual vision has been unfolded, and her prospects of health and happiness, and especially of usefulness to her race, greatly augmented, and she feels to bless God that strength and courage have been given her to walk thus calmly, deliberately, and peacefully, in a path ignored by a corrupt and unappreciative world." Such a defense of crime—such a mingling together of mock reverence for God with a total disregard of his authority, and insult to the purity of his government, cannot be found outside of Spiritualism. But Miss H. has also spoken—she asserts her rights as follows:-- "I will exercise that dearest of all rights, the holiest and most sacred of all of Heaven's gifts—the right of maternity—in the way which to me seemeth right; and no man, nor set of men, no church, no State, shall withhold me from the realization of that purest of all inspirations inherent in every true woman, the right to beget myself when, and by whom, and under such circumstances, as to me seems fit and best." One would think by the above that woman's most sacred rights were being invaded by both church and State; but it is enough to astonish Heaven and earth that a woman should rise up in this enlightened age and covet the honor of martyrdom for the cause of prostitution! Adin Ballou, though a Spiritualist author, has not progressed beyond the common decencies of life. He has pointed out exactly what is developed in the above action and defense; he says:-- "They will receive revelations from high-pretending spirits, cautiously instructing them that the sexual communion of congenials will greatly sanctify them for the reception of angelic ministrations. Wives and husbands will be rendered miserable, alienated, parted, and their families broken up. There will be Spiritual matches, carnal degradations, and all the ultimate wretchedness thence inevitably resulting." Warren Chase describes Mr. Spear as "Highly eccentric, and devotedly honest and philanthropic of all mediums. The Lone One was greatly pleased with and strongly attracted to this man, and received through him the singular title of the 'Elementizer,' and a commission to do great things if he could, mentally and experimentally, with the elements."—Life-Line, page 213. But of Mr. Ballou, who seems to grieve over the licentiousness of Spiritualists, he speaks in tones of pity, as follows:-- "He goes as far as the creed he has set up will allow, but dare not step one point over. He is not like a convict, with ball and chain, but like a martyr, tied to a stake, from which he cannot escape."—Life-Line, page 217. Those who are acquainted with the course of Warren Chase (self-styled the Lone One) will not be astonished that he is much more strongly attracted to the libertine and fornicator than he is to a man who yet retains respect for the Bible and for purity of life! No one, perhaps, in the whole clan of disorganizers, has done more to lower the standard of right and purity, and to destroy respect for the institution of marriage, than Warren Chase. As a representative, he stands prominent. He is not as boldly outspoken as some; he is too crafty for that; but he will do tenfold more harm by his smooth, insinuating manner than the more open advocates of lewdness, though they are laboring for the same end. And, as claimed by a Wisconsin paper some years since, he has prepared the way, in many communities, for the theory and practice of licentiousness in its most repulsive form. He is a very popular lecturer, his popularity proving that his views are indorsed by that people. He never lets slip an opportunity to speak disparagingly of the marriage institution, and to revile the Bible and all that pertains to Bible religion. In his autobiography, or "Life-Line," speaking of his own marriage, he says:-- "The priest said God put two beings together so that no man should dare to put them asunder. If God did do it, then the priest surely did not; and if God did not, then the priest surely did not; and hence his act was useless either way, except as a license to society to call them man and wife." Page 67. But if the marriage rite is useless, it is evident that men and women may, as he quotes approvingly, "trust their attractions" without any restraint to protect society. And to carry out the idea of the uselessness of the marriage rite, he publicly and privately advises to disregard its obligations where it has already been solemnized. Thus with the present wife of A. J. Davis-- if it be proper to call her his wife-- he was the first, according to his own showing, to advise her and her husband to separate, though living peacefully together, but as he says, only legally married-- not otherwise! It is doubtful whether he ever stopped in his wild career to reflect that by that act he was instrumental in bringing grief to more than one Christian household of sorrowing relatives. He seems to pride himself on his expertness in discovering family difficulties (which he does by denouncing marriage and thus enlisting the favor of the restless and reckless), and his forwardness in advising separation. And he is not only quick to discover, but he, too, has done somewhat to create such difficulties, if we are permitted to judge by reports and circumstances combined. True, he pleads innocent, and lauds his own purity of life and motive to the last degree of egotism; and so do all of that class. But what does purity of life mean among anti-marriage or free-love people? Read the defense of Mr. Spear for an answer. That he has given occasion for these reports he cannot deny. But he is too shrewd and discerning not to know that to abolish legal marriage, in the present and prospective state of society, would be to bring upon our sinful race the greatest possible calamity; that without the restraints of law over the vicious, society, as such in any civilized sense could not exist. What, then, are his motives for persistently opposing the legal relation of marriage? What substitute will he offer? The law of attraction, or the "religion of desire," as Dr. Child has it? But there is one name we must mention in this connection, and we do it with especial regret. It is that of Moses Hull. Having associated with him on fraternal terms, having loved him as a brother, and esteemed him as a Christian, we can but lament the course he has pursued and the position he occupies. Eccentric and impulsive, he needs the restraining influence of Christianity to be useful to society. We have intimately known him when he believed the Bible, and loved and defended its truth; then he highly honored and appreciated the institution of marriage. But he embraced Spiritualism, and where is he now? Let his own words answer. He has written and published a pamphlet entitled, "A Few Thoughts on Love and Marriage," which the Banner of Light recommends as "a very worthy pamphlet." In it, he says:-- "Whether there are wrongs in the marriage relation or not, people are very generally getting the idea that it is so. The idea is proving contagious, and when the American mind gets started, who can tell where it will stop? Nothing short of revolution—of anarchy—of an opposite extreme, even to the total annulling of the marital tie, will be the result." "When we look at the commotions ahead merely as a revolution, we pray, 'O God, stay the elements;' but when we look at it as being the work of disintegration, the preparatory work for the soul union, the true marriage that shall follow we say, 'Let the battle rage, and if necessary put us in the front.' The result will be cheap enough." "Enough of this. If we continue, our readers will say, 'He has turned prophet.' Not so; we only judge of 'coming events' by the 'shadows cast before,' and where are there no shadows? where are there not evidences of dissatisfaction in the marriage bonds? One only has to pick up the daily papers to find the history of infidelity of husbands to wives and wives to husbands. Read the record of the suits for divorce, the elopements, prostitution, lewdness, and almost every other imaginable crime, which can be traced directly to the inharmonies of the matrimonial relations of the parties. Such things can do no less than result in a conflagration. Let its fires purify the institution, nay, let it consume the institution, and give us the true marriage in its stead."—Love and Marriage, pages 4, 5. If these were the sentiments of some lone fanatic, they might be passed by as unworthy of notice; but when we reflect that there are thousands upon thousands, and their numbers fast increasing, who are all pressing to the "front" in this horrid warfare, it is enough to make the heart sick. He may well call it a "rebellion," tending to "anarchy;" it is a rebellion as much worse than that against our nation, as Heaven is higher than earth; a rebellion against the authority of God, who created man, male and female; who instituted marriage, and ordained that the "woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth." More recently, in a paper called the Crucible, Mr. Hull informs us what he thinks is the true marriage:-- "We believe that true marriage is the union of two souls, the blending of two natures; that where this soul-blending does not obtain, no priest can make men and women husbands and wives; that where it does obtain, no priests are needed to make men and women husbands and wives; the marriage lasts while the blending lasts, and no longer; when the blending ceases, the law of divorce steps in and does its work without the aid of judges or jury." I'm waiting for Thee,
Thy beauty to see,
I'm waiting for Thee—for Thy coming again.
Thou'rt gone over there,
A place to prepare,
Thy home I shall share, at Thy coming again.
'Mid danger and fear,
I'm oft weary here,
The day must be near, of Thy coming again.
'Tis all sunshine there,
No sighing nor care,
But glory so fair, at Thy coming again.
Whilst Thou art away,
I stumble and stray,
Oh! hasten the day of Thy coming again.
This is not my rest,
A pilgrim confest,
I wait to be blest, at Thy coming again.
Our loved ones before,
Their troubles are o'er,
I'll meet them once more, at Thy coming again.
The blood was the sign,
That mark'd them as Thine,
And brightly they'll shine, at Thy coming again.
E'en now let my ways,
Be bright with Thy praise,
For brief are the days, ere Thy coming again.
I'm waiting for Thee,
Thy beauty to see,
No triumph for me, like Thy coming again.
—Words of Grace, Melbourne. THERE are persons whom you can always believe, because you know they have a habit of telling the truth. They do not "color" a story or enlarge a bit of news in order to make it sound fine or remarkable. There are others whom you hardly know whether to believe or not, because they are so accustomed to "stretching" things. A trifling incident grows in size, but not in quality, by passing through their mouth. They take a small fact or slender bit of news and pad it with added words, and paint it with high-colored adjectives, until it is largely unreal and gives a false impression. And one does not like to listen to folks when so much must be "allowed for shrinkage." Cultivate the habit of telling the truth in little things as well as great ones. Pick your words wisely, and use only such as mean what you wish to say. Never "stretch" a story or a fact to make it seem bigger or funnier. Do this, and people will learn to trust you and respect you. This will be better than having a name for telling wonderful stories or making foolishly and falsely "funny" remarks. There are enough true funny things happening in the world, and they are most entertaining when told just exactly as they came to pass. One has well said, "Never deceive for the sake of a foolish jest, or to excite the laughter of a few companions at the expense of a friend." Dear young friend, be true. Do the truth. Tell the truth. There are many false tongues. Let yours speak the things that are pure, lovely, true.—S. S. Advocate. The Christian Life.
By John De Witt
THE religion of the moralist is of the world, and so differs from that of the Pharisee. It is also in the world, and so differs from that of the monk. The Pharisee says, "I will hold the two lives entirely separate." The monk says, "I will perform the duties of the religious life alone." The moralist says, "I will perform those of the daily life alone." The Christian says, "While the religious life and the worldly life do not exclude each other, the most important is the religious life; and it is only rightly conducted when it elevates the conduct of the daily life;" when with the apostle it can say, "The life that I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the son of God." He whose life is thus conducted lives his daily life by his religious life. The latter guides the former. His faith determines his daily walk. His Christianity furnishes both the purpose and conduct of his whole course of action.—John De Witt. The Invisible Power of Goodness
The wind is unseen, but it cools the brow of the fevered one, sweetens the summer atmosphere, and ripples the face of the lake into silver spangles of beauty. So goodness of heart, though invisible to the material eye, makes its presence felt; and from its effects upon surrounding things, we are assured of its existence. The Enduring Pleasure of the Mind
MENTAL pleasures never cloy; unlike those of the body, they are increased by repetition, approved by reflection, and strengthened by enjoyment. DEAN STANLEY confesses that baptism in the apostolic age was immersion; that this "is the very meaning of the word baptize;" and that "on philological grounds it is quite correct to translate John the Baptist by John the Immerser." He also says that the subjects of apostolic baptism were believers only; and that infant baptism and the use of affusion and aspersion arose in post-apostolic times. This would seem to condemn both the theory and practice of the English church, to which the Dean belongs. So it does in fact; yet the Dean himself does not. How can he avoid it, after such an avowal? His position is that "the spirit which lives and moves in human society can override even the most sacred ordinances." The N. Y. Independent "raises a question" on this, and says, "If one party can justly change both the form and subjects of the ancient rite, it may be asked why 'the spirit which lives and moves' in another party may not (with the Quakers) dispense with water baptism altogether." It will be noticed how readily the wisest men who call themselves Protestants take the ground of the Catholics when they try to justify a departure from the letter of the sacred word. "The power of the church," is the ground of appeal with the Romanist. Dean Stanley has not at all improved it when he refers the right and power to "the spirit which lives and moves in human society." What if this spirit in human society should choose to dispense with this ordinance, as here suggested, or with all the ordinances, or with the whole Bible, and dictate a way of its own choosing instead? Will not this be just as well? It will only be carrying out the principle laid down by the eminent Dean, and followed by the multitude, both Catholic and Protestant. We strongly distrust this "spirit which lives and moves in human society," which presumes to amend and professes to improve the ways of the Lord's appointment. It seems to us to be very closely allied to "the spirit which now worketh in the children of disobedience." Eph. 2:2. If we "try the spirits whether they are of God," 1 John 4:1, we shall find it to be the "spirit of error." And why? because it teaches to err from the divine precepts. The Pope, in all his presumption, never essayed to do more than this,—to release from that which the Lord has said, and to bind to that which the Lord has not said. The Independent applies this principle to other subjects, and among them, to the Sabbath. It clings to Sunday, and yet tells some honest truth which ought to wake up the dormant sensibilities of some who are daubing a slight wall with untempered mortar. It says:— "The discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day is another case in point. True, there are grounds for sanctifying the first day; but how do these furnish a reason for the abandonment of the observance of the seventh? That Christ rose on the first day and that the disciples assembled for worship on that day may make that day sacred; but how do these things make the seventh day less sacred? The consecration of the new day would not necessarily make it 'take the place' of the old day of rest; but would simply give an additional sacred day. Indeed, the Apostolic Constitutions command the keeping of both days. They say (Book vii, 22): 'Keep the Sabbath and the Lord's Day festival, because the former is the memorial of the creation and the latter of the resurrection.' And again (viii, 32): 'Let the slaves work five days; but on the Sabbath day and the Lord's day let them have leisure to go to church for instruction in piety. We have said that the Sabbath is on account of the creation, and the Lord's day of the resurrection.' Those who laid down these rules evidently regarded the Lord's day as not superseding the ancient Sabbath; but merely as additional to it. The fact is, there is not a line of Scripture to justify the discontinuance of the observance of the seventh day. It must be justified, if at all, on extra-scriptural grounds." Here it seems, with the majority of authors on this subject, to labor under a strange misapprehension as to what it takes to sanctify or make holy a day for observance. The fact that a certain event took place on a certain day does not prove that the day is sanctified. The resting of the Lord on the seventh day did not make it holy; but the resting furnishes the reason for its sanctification—not by the people, but—by the Lord himself. Thus we read in Genesis: "And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested." The act of sanctifying was entirely distinct from the resting. Again, in the commandment:—"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day [the day of the rest], and hallowed it." To show a parallel reason for observing Sunday, it is necessary, not merely to prove that Christ rose on the first day of the week, but, to show that God blessed and hallowed the first day because of that event. Who has yet made the attempt to show that Jehovah sanctified the first day as an act supplementary to the resurrection of Christ? Until this is done, let no one claim reasons for keeping the Sunday equal with those for keeping the seventh day—the sanctified rest day of Jehovah. And we deny "the power of the church," in the premises. We deny that "the spirit that lives and moves in human society" has any right to lay its hands upon the statutes of the Most High. Is it possible that Protestants shall join with the "mother church" to fulfill every part of Dan. 7:25? It surely looks that way now. A LETTER from a sister east of the mountains, in conversation with a brother, in which he referred to the commandments, said:— "I am glad to hear you say these things; but I do not see how the commandments can be kept. The disciples after the Saviour's death broke the ten commandments, and it is impossible to keep them now." Let us notice this extraordinary statement:— 1. The ten commandments did exist, and were kept by the patriarchs and other godly men in all previous ages, or the Saviour would not have said, "it was written." Therefore it was a wrong thing then, as well as now, to commit adultery, to steal, to murder, to covet, bearing false witness, etc., as much now exist, as ever they did. And I bid the writer show me any text that did where the Saviour said they did so,—if they were abrogated, so prevalent to the present time, the law does not sanction a wrong requirement, in the premises. And as to that which the writer says concerning it, it does not rest on the law; and certainly not the law "which was set forth by Moses." The law from the beginning was holy, and how is it that the Saviour commands to observe it, if it has become dead? The truth is, the law of commandments of that law, is the rule of life and error. Let us notice this both abide. The fact that both abide, and possess the same vitality, we can perceive it. 2. The writer calls it "the law," and "the law of commandments," and it is presumed that he means by "the law" the ten commandments, themselves; and it is a fact that the preacher in his place, takes the position that the ten commandments are a noise; after having himself undertaken to keep the fourth in the position. We now invite the writer to take his pen, and to consider the subject of the law in the Old Testament. He has declined. We will here state that the position which the writer has taken, is this assumption: That the law was abrogated by the Saviour. Let the reader read the article again, and see that the claim that the law is dead, is false, as we do indeed. The fact is, we see that no such thing ever happened as that no law was given from Sinai; as one that has been abrogated is a false position, which we now have. And anyone who will read the article in the New ... ...tinction, and "the law" is alive. Remember, the writer says, the death of the Saviour has often been called the abolition of "the law," but it has no such law in it. It is a mere dialogue to the writer, and the truth is not in him. "The law" is the law of commandments; clearly the moral law, [not the ceremonial law], and it was never abrogated. That "the law" is the moral law, is justified by the fact that the Gentiles, who never had the law, speaks of the deeds of the law, which is the law of commandments, and the doing of those deeds of the law are required by the Gentiles. The "things of the law" are the things of the law of moral precepts, having the work of the law in their hearts, and showing the work of law in their lives. The (the death of the Saviour) circumcision of the flesh, which was of the ceremonial law, was uncircumcision, the keeping of the law, which is the letter of the law, Romans 2:14, 2:29. Now, let the reader who did read the article in the last article, and we will oppose to him the... Law, and The Law.
By Editor
A LETTER from a friend in one of the States east of the Rocky Mountains, relates a conversation with a prominent Disciple preacher, in which he endeavored to show that the ten commandments are not now binding. It says:— "I asked him if it is lawful to do those things now which were forbidden in the ten commandments. He said, No; that the principles are still in force, but their set form, as the ten commandments, is now done away; and it is law now—not the law." Let us briefly notice the two points in this statement:— 1. The principles of the commandments still exist, and therefore it is now wrong to worship other gods, and to bow down to, and adore, images, or to profane the name of God, exactly as it was when the law was in force. It is now wrong to dishonor parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness, and to covet, because the principles of these precepts now existing bind to the same duties and forbid the same sins which the precepts themselves did when they were in force. Now if this be so,—if the principle is in every respect equivalent to the precept in each of these cases, why does not the principle of the fourth commandment, in like manner, bind to the same duty which the commandment itself enjoined? If it does not, who can tell why not? The reason certainly exists still. If the abolition of the "set form" of the decalogue did not release from the duties enjoined in that instrument, how is it that we are not now under obligation to observe the Sabbath day of the decalogue? The truth is, there is a lameness in the logic of that position which at once brands it as an error. Those who assume the position affect both ability and knowledge. If they really possess that to which they pretend they must perceive the weakness of their argument. 2. There is a distinction claimed between "law," and "the law." Law, in the abstract, is presumed to embrace the "principles," while "the law," is presumed to embrace the precepts themselves. Eld. Vogel, a very well-known preacher of that denomination, argued this position in a discussion which he held in Illinois; afterward, in a discussion with us, he undertook to appropriate the benefit of the position to his side of the question. But when we invited him to assume the position openly, and to offer his proof on such use of the article in the Greek of the New Testament, he declined. Why will any man try to use a position which he will not try to defend? We will now make a statement regarding this assumption which we think we can justify by the Scriptures. It is this: No man who can read the Greek of the New Testament can honestly claim the benefit of this distinction. If any think that we do injustice in this statement, we answer, that no greater injustice can be done to any one than he does to himself who assumes a false position respecting the word of God. And any one who has examined the Greek of the New Testament, knows that no such distinction exists as that claimed between "law" and "the law." See the proof. Remember, it is assumed that "the law," the definite article being used, refers to the ten commandments, not now binding; and that "law," in the absence of the article, refers to law in the abstract, to principles, not the decalogue. Now Paul says, "the carnal mind is not subject to the law; Rom. 8:7. That "the law is spiritual;" and he delighted in the law; ch. 7:14, 22. That we "are not under the law, [principles] but under grace;" ch. 6:14. That "by the deeds of law shall no flesh be justified;" while "all the world," Jew and Gentile, is guilty before God when the law speaks; that the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law; and that we are justified by faith without deeds of law; ch. 3:19, 20, 21, 28. That when the Gentiles which have not law, do the things which are contained in the law, these having not law are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts; that they who make their boast of law (principles), through breaking the law (the decalogue) dishonor God; if the uncircumcision, the Gentile, keep the righteousness of the law, it shall be counted to him for circumcision—he will be accepted of God; the uncircumcision by nature, if it fulfill (keep) the law, shall judge or condemn those who by the letter and circumcision transgress law; ch. 2:14, 15, 23, 26, 27. Now we are willing to rest it with the candid reader that the use (or omission) of the article in these texts does not at all help the opposers of the decalogue; and that if such a distinction as they claim did exist, it would stand against their position on the assumed abolition of the law. The truth is that the use and omission of copulatives in the originals of the Bible is largely idiomatic or euphonic, as every reader must know. A little examination of the texts here cited will convince any one that "law" and "the law" (law with and without the article), in Paul's letter to the Romans, refers to one and the self-same instrument—the decalogue, or ten commandments. After years of study and careful examination of objections and assumptions we are convinced that the more antinomianism shows itself, the more it exposes its own weakness. It is a maze of darkness which bewilders those who walk in its ways. "For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Prov. 6:23. They who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus will be accepted of the Saviour in the day of his appearing. Rev. 14:12-14.