EVERY person has some god. The heathen have theirs—gods of gold and of silver, of wood and of stone. And those in Christian lands have theirs in various forms. It is a great and a blessed thing to be able to say of the living God, "Thou art my God." Those only can truly say this, who love this God supremely, who make him their trust, and who are cheerfully obedient to his will. They make choice of him as their God in preference to all others, and in so doing he becomes their God. He is theirs in all his infinite and glorious perfection; and infinitely blessed is their condition. They are rich for time and eternity. The God in whom they trust is infinite in power, and can do all things. He is able to take care of them, to defend them from all harm, to provide for all their wants, and to make them perfectly and everlastingly happy. He is infinite in wisdom, and is competent to lay his plans in the wisest and best manner, and for the best interests of those that love him. And he is infinite in goodness, and will employ his power and wisdom for the well-being of all that make claim of him as their God. He is the ever-living and the everlasting God, and he will never cease to be to his friends all that they could desire.
Did the child of God realize the blessedness of his condition in having such a God for his God, he would be unspeakably happy. He would rejoice in the Lord always. He would rejoice with a joy that is unspeakable and full of glory. He would be happy in the midst of his trials; no afflictions would quench his joy. They have not sprung out of the dust, nor have they befallen him by chance, but they are the appointment of infinite wisdom and goodness, and therefore has he cause to say, "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him."
And whatever events may be taking place in the world, it is his God, still infinite in power, and wisdom, and goodness, that is permitting them, and controlling them, and overruling them for his own glory and for the best interests of all that love him. To all the wickedness and all the errors and delusions that abound and prevail, the God that reigns on high says: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." "The wrath of man shall praise thee; the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." "The Lord on high is mightier than the noise of many waters, yea, than the mighty waves of the sea." In the midst of all agitations and commotions, his people may stay their minds on him and be in perfect peace. They may confidently say, "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be moved, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea; though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof."—H. S., in N. Y. Observer.
HUMILITY.
"BE clothed with humility." Let it cover thee as a garment. Let it be seen by all as thy daily habiliment. Let it adorn thy person as a spotless robe. Let it grace thy character with its appropriate completeness. Let it crown thy spirit with its heavenly loveliness. A humble and a contrite spirit God will not despise.
What so befitting as humility for a saved sinner? What grace so sweet and so beautiful for a redeemed soul? O Christian, meekness adorns thee excellently in every relation of life. Be clothed with humility, so that all shall see that thou art in spirit like the Master. Thou mayest not boast of it, for then pride cometh in and it is lost.
Guard this thy crowning grace with the jealousy of a true heart. Let its heavenly fragrance be diffused in gentle ministrations unto all around thee. Then shall Christ be manifest to the world in thee, and thy meek and lowly spirit shall recommend the grace and beauty of his character, and the saving, purifying, transforming power of his religion.—Herald of Holiness.
CONQUER SIN.
By John H. Aughey
THE greatest of all blessings is to be enabled to conquer sin. If we do not conquer sin, it will conquer us. But how can we get this victory? Not by turning over a new leaf, as men say. Some of you have turned over a good many leaves, and they are blotted. You cannot conquer yourself without help from Christ. Alexander could conquer nations, yet died a drunkard when thirty-two years old. But Christ comes to us all; and, if we receive him, he will give us power. Christ in the heart is the only remedy for sin. It is easy to serve God when we learn to love him. The Christian does not have to give up all pleasures, but only those that are sinful and hurtful. I have more pleasure in an hour than the guilty votaries of pleasure have in a week. And this is the testimony of all true Christians. Unbelief is a great sin. It is giving God the lie. It is saying, "I respect you, but I don't believe you."—Rev. John H. Aughey.
WHO WAS MELCHIZEDEK?
By M. C. W.
WE have received a number of inquiries as to who was Melchizedek as mentioned in Genesis 14. The same individual is also mentioned in Ps. 110:4 and in Hebrews, chapters 5, 6, and 7. He is mentioned nowhere else in the Scriptures.
Some have thought that Melchizedek was Shem, and some have said that he was our Saviour. Who was he? The Scripture record is brief. In Genesis 14 it is said that he was king of Salem (Jerusalem) and priest of the Most High God. He placed before Abraham bread and wine, he blessed Abraham, and received of Abraham tithes. The author of Hebrews says of him: "Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation king of righteousness, and after that also king of Salem, which is, king of peace. Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually."
Now what conclusions can we draw from the above and other scriptures which mention Melchizedek?
The words, "without father, without mother," are explained by the words, "without descent," or, as the margin reads, "without pedigree;" that is, there is no recorded pedigree. It is not recorded as to where he was born, where he died, who was his father, or who his mother, or how long his priesthood continued. Dr. Owen, quoted by Adam Clarke, says:—
"It is said of Melchizedek, in the first place, that he was apator, auntor, without father and without mother, whereon part of the latter clause, namely, 'without beginning of days,' doth depend. The next word declares he was genealogotos, 'without descent,' say we. But genealogia is a generation, a descent, a pedigree, not absolutely, but rehearsed, described, recorded. Genealogotos is he whose stock and descent is entered on record. And so, on the contrary, genealogotos is not he who has no descent (ancestry), no genealogy, but he whose descent and pedigree is nowhere entered or reckoned up. Thus the apostle himself plainly expresses this word, verse 6; ho de mē genealogoumenos ex autōn, 'whose descent is not counted,' that is, reckoned up in record. Thus was Melchizedek without father or mother in that the Spirit of God, who so strictly and exactly recorded the genealogies of other patriarchs and types of Christ, and that for no less an end than to manifest the truth and faithfulness of God in his promises, speaks nothing to this purpose concerning him. . . . On the same account is he [Melchizedek] said to be mēte archōn hēmerōn mēte zōēs telos echōn, not having beginning of days or end of life. And yet he was assuredly born, and did no less certainly die than other men. . . . There is no mention therein of the beginning of his days or the end of his life. Whatever therefore he might have in himself, he had none to us. Consider all the other patriarchs mentioned in the writings of Moses, and you shall find their descent recorded, who was their father, and so up to the first man; and not only so, but the time of their birth, the beginning of their days, and the end of their life, are exactly recorded. But concerning Melchizedek none of these things are spoken. No mention is made of father or mother; no genealogy is recorded of what stock or progeny he was; nor is there any account of his birth or death. So that all these things are wanting to him in his historical narration, wherein our faith and knowledge are alone concerned."
It is thus that these words applied to Melchizedek were used by the ancients. See also Professor Stuart, Bible Commentary, Dr. Barnes, and others.
He was king of Salem, which is king of peace. Salem means peace. Melchizedek comes from two words, Melchi, king, and Zedek, justice, or righteousness, meaning, "king of righteousness."
Now, having explained these peculiar expressions, what do we learn from this narrative?
1. Melchizedek was not Shem, for of Shem's father and birth we have a record.
2. He was not our Lord; for it is said: "He was made like unto the Son of God." It would be absurd to say that he was made like himself. Again, Christ is not a priest after the order of himself. "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Heb. 5:6; Ps. 110:4.
Once more it is said that our Lord as priest is "after the similitude of Melchizedek." Heb. 7:15. That Melchizedek was not Christ is proved by the following: "For if he [Christ] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." Heb. 8:4. And again: "The Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holies of all [Gr. "holy places," that is, of the heavenly sanctuary where Christ ministered] was not made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing." Heb. 9:8. That is, Christ had not yet entered upon his priesthood. But it may be said that this referred to the Jewish dispensation. True, but if Christ was a priest before, and was not a priest during the dispensation, and then became a priest again, he was not after the order of Melchizedek, his priesthood was not "unchangeable." But Paul says that it was, or, as the margin reads, "which passeth not from one to another." He did not minister as priest till he offered the sacrifice. Everything in our mind is against Melchizedek's being Christ.
3. Melchizedek was a perfect type of Christ. He was both king and priest. So was Christ; but this was not true of Aaron. The priesthood of Aaron, therefore, is but a partial type of Christ. Christ sits upon his Father's throne, the throne of grace, where man can alone find peace. See Rev. 3:21; Heb. 8:1; Zech. 6:13. Christ is therefore also King of peace. The name of Melchizedek means "king of righteousness," and Christ is also King of righteousness. As his is the only name through which man can be justified and find peace with God (Acts 4:12; Rom. 5:1), so he is the only one through whom the righteousness of God can be imputed to man (Rom. 3:24; 4:5-7); for peace with God comes by man being made righteous before God. Isa. 32:17. Christ is King of peace and King of righteousness.
There was no record of the ancestry of Melchizedek as regards the priesthood, neither was there of our Saviour. Of the tribe from which he sprang, "Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood." Heb. 7:14. Just when he began we know not; we know not when he will close. He was preceded by no priest in the same line, he will be followed by none. He "abideth a priest continually," that is, his priesthood does not pass to another. Verse 24, see margin. Thus in all particulars Melchizedek's priesthood was a type of our Saviour's priesthood, in his name, in office, in position, in the fact that it was preceded or succeeded by no other in the same line.
The greatness of Melchizedek mentioned in Heb. 7:4 did not exist in personal character, but in his exalted office of king and priest.
Then who was Melchizedek? He was an individual who lived in the time of Abraham, king of Salem, and priest of the Most High God, afterward used by Inspiration as a perfect type of the priesthood of our Lord.
Why not leave it here? Why speculate as to whether he was this one or that one? Why not leave it where God's word leaves it? How much thought and study are placed on such questions as the above, and, Who was Cain's wife? etc. The knowledge and profit which would accrue if the same amount of thought and study were placed on what God has revealed, is above estimate. "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." Brethren, study the things that are revealed.
"FIRST-DAY SABBATH."
By Dudley Marvin Canright
UNDER the above heading, our contemporary of this city, the resuscitated Messiah's Advocate and Herald of His Advent, after a demise of eight months, rises, and its first utterance (September) on this wise is:—
"Eight times in the Gospels, Christ's resurrection day is called in the Greek original 'the first of the sabbaths.' There is increasing evidence that this was no slip of the Greek pen, but a solemn declaration that the first-day sabbath was the first sabbath given to man.
"If any sabbath at all was given to man in the beginning, and kept by all the faithful, from Adam the first to Adam the second, it must have been the first-day sabbath. Look down in Egypt. Is there any hint or statement in history, sacred or profane, of any trouble down there between Pharaoh and officers and the Hebrew slaves on account of a sacred rest-day? Various causes of irritation are given, but such an one as this is not intimated. If Abraham kept a seventh-day Sabbath, his devout descendants must have done the same, and there were God-fearing men and women down there among those Hebrew slaves. These must have refused to work on Saturdays, and thus violate a holy command, if indeed there was any such command at that time, as we are supposing. But it is a well-known fact that Egypt kept Sunday as their sacred day, and upon that day they worshiped the sun.
"Now how could Israel have kept one day and Egypt another, and there arise no trouble about it? . . . The eight New Testament instances in which the first day is called 'the first'—or original—'of the sabbaths' ought to settle the matter."
Let us notice this self-confident article, the essentials of which we have quoted:—
1. The "first day of the week," or the Greek original, occurs only six times in the Gospels, eight times in all the New Testament.
2. Sunday was never kept as a Sabbath or sacred day of abstinence from labor until made so by the decrees and anathemas of pago-papal Rome. Its first law for rest was Constantine's, in 321. The Catholic Church adopted the venerable day of the sun, and in 364 cursed those who opposed it. Egypt never kept it as a Sabbath. At the most, previous to this, it was only, as stated by the North British Review, "the wild, solar holiday of all pagan times."
3. We should say that there is a pretty broad hint that there was trouble between Pharaoh and his slaves. See Ex. 5:4-19. This was not because the children of Israel did or did not keep the first day, but evidently because they attempted to keep the seventh day. The Israelites were probably deprived of keeping the Sabbath in Egypt.
4. What a remarkable sentence is the first one of the second paragraph! "If any Sabbath at all was given to man in the beginning, and kept by all the faithful from Adam the first to Adam the second, it must have been the first-day sabbath." Wonderful logic and devotion to the Bible! No evidence whatever is given, while, on the contrary, the Bible expressly declares that God instituted the seventh-day Sabbath in the beginning. Gen. 2:1-3. The same Sabbath was confirmed by the law (Ex. 20:8-11), and was the day preceding the631first day in the Gospels. And this day does not need the opinions of tradition to support it. It is based on the immutable truth of God. "Must have been the first-day sabbath"! Why?—To support men's errors now. Why will men make such declarations when they must know that they are not true? Does not the Advocate know that from Moses to the cross the seventh-day Sabbath was kept by the faithful? Such arguments reveal the weakness of the cause which our contemporary advocates. It is not worth your ink, neighbor. Seek a better cause.
5. Everyone who writes on such a subject ought to know that the Greek adjective mian (translated "first") is feminine gender, singular number, and accusative case. It must agree with some noun expressed or understood, according to the rule that adjectives must agree with their nouns in number, gender, and case. The word which our contemporary says should be translated Sabbath, but which in our version is translated "of the week," is sabbaton in every instance except Mark 16:9, where it is sabbaton, singular. The genitive case in Greek shows that relation indicated in the English by the preposition "of." However we translate sabbaton it must have the word "of" before it, as "of the Sabbath" or "of the week."
Then the phrase stands, "the first of the Sabbath," or "the first of the week." We cannot say the "first Sabbath," because the law of the language forbids applying "first" to "sabbath." It does not agree with it at all. To what does it agree? It belongs to some noun expressed or understood. What is that noun? the first what of the Sabbath, or the first what of the week? The only reasonable view is that adopted by our translators, the only word which in good sense can be supplied, the first day of the week. Day comes from himeran, accusative case, singular number, from the feminine noun hēmera. In Greenfield's Greek Testament, after the adjective "first," in every one of the eight texts, he says in the margin, "Supply hēmera [day];" "the first day of the week."
It may be objected that sabbaton always means "sabbath;" but this is not so, as Luke 18:12 shows: "I fast twice in the week [sabbaton]." It would make nonsense to say, "I fast twice in the Sabbath." So one of the definitions given in all the Greek lexicons to sabbaton is "week," "a period of seven days." The weekly cycle is called sabbath, because all days of the week were reckoned with reference to the Sabbath.
6. All lexicons of note define the Greek in harmony with the translation of our authorized version. All commentators of note are in harmony with this. All translations of any worth agree with this. Now these lexicographers, commentators, translators, are, so far as we know, in every case first-day men. They have been searching for proof for first-day sacredness for years. They knew all about the Greek construction. Why did they not bring out this new light which our contemporary so boldly sets forth?—For the simple reason that they knew that it was not true, and would not bear candid criticism.
The first-day sabbath has no foundation in the word of God. It is a fraud from the beginning. But the true Sabbath is founded on the rock of God's truth.
Now we sincerely hope that our contemporary will permit itself to be instructed. We do not care particularly about the slurs and innuendoes against us as a people found in the first number of its new life. It will suffer most because of them. It is poor meat to feed upon. But for your own sake, neighbor, do not put forth any more such arguments on the Sabbath question. No intelligent person will believe them, and we doubt as to whether you do. Get on the side of truth, and such arguments will not be called for.
M. C. W.
NATURE OF CHRIST.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE humiliation which Christ voluntarily took upon himself is best expressed by Paul to the Philippians: "Have this mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being originally in the form of God, counted it not a thing to be grasped [that is, to be clung to] to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, becoming in the likeness of man; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death of the cross." Phil. 2:5-8, Revised Version, marginal reading.
The above rendering makes this text much more plain than it is in the common version. The idea is that, although Christ was in the form of God, being "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person" (Heb. 1:3), having all the attributes of God, being the ruler of the universe, and the one whom all heaven delighted to honor, he did not think that any of these things were to be desired so long as men were lost and without strength. He could not enjoy his glory while man was an outcast, without hope. So he emptied himself, divested himself of all his riches and his glory, and took upon himself the nature of man in order that he might redeem him. It was necessary that he should assume the nature of man, in order that he might suffer death, as the apostle says to the Hebrews that he "was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death." Heb. 2:9.
It is impossible for us to understand how this could be, and it is worse than useless for us to speculate about it. All we can do is to accept the facts as they are presented in the Bible. Other scriptures that we will quote bring closer to us the fact of the humanity of Christ, and what it means for us. We read in John 1:14 that "the Word was made flesh," and now we will read what Paul says as to the nature of that flesh: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Rom. 8:3, 4.
A little thought will be sufficient to show anybody that if Christ took upon himself the likeness of man, in order that he might suffer death, it must have been sinful man that he was made like, for it is only sin that causes death. Death could have no power over a sinless man, as Adam was in Eden; and it could not have had any power over Christ if the Lord had not laid on him the iniquity of us all. Moreover, the fact that Christ took upon himself the flesh, not of a sinless being, but of sinful man, that is, that the flesh which he assumed had all the weaknesses and sinful tendencies to which fallen human nature is subject, is shown by the very words upon which this article is based. He was "made of the seed of David according to the flesh." David had all the passions of human nature. He says of himself, "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Ps. 51:5.
A brief glance at the ancestry and posterity of David will show that the line from which Christ sprung, as to his human nature, was such as would tend to concentrate in him all the weaknesses of humanity. To go back to Jacob, we find that before he was converted he had a most unlovely disposition, selfish, crafty, deceitful. His sons partook of the same nature, and Pharez, one of the ancestors of Christ (Matt. 1:3; Gen. 38), was born of a harlot. Rahab, an unenlightened heathen, became an ancestor of Christ. The weakness and idolatry of Solomon are proverbial. Of Rehoboam, Abijah, Jehoram, Ahaz, Manasseh, Amon, and other kings of Judah, the record is about the same. They sinned and made the people sin. Some of them had not one redeeming trait in their characters, being worse than the heathen around them. It was from such an ancestry that Christ came. Although his mother was a pure and godly woman, as could but be expected, no one can doubt that the human nature of Christ must have been more subject to the infirmities of the flesh than it would have been if he had been born before the race had so greatly deteriorated physically and morally. This was not accidental, but was a necessary part of the great plan of human redemption, as the following will show:—
"For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. [The Syriac version has it, 'For he did not assume a nature from angels, but he assumed a nature from the seed of Abraham.'] Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." Heb. 2:16-18.
If he was made in all things like unto his brethren, then he must have suffered all the infirmities and tendencies of his brethren. Only so could he be able to help them. So he had to become man, not only that he might die, but that he might be able to sympathize with and succor those who suffer the fierce temptations which Satan brings through the weakness of the flesh. Two more texts that put this matter very forcibly will be sufficient evidence on this point. We quote first 2 Cor. 5:21:—
"For he [God] hath made him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."
This is much stronger than the statement that he was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh." He was made to be sin. Here is a greater mystery than that the Son of God should die. The spotless Lamb of God, who knew no sin, was made to be sin. Sinless, yet not only counted as a sinner, but actually taking upon himself sinful nature. He was made to be sin in order that we might be made righteousness. So Paul to the Galatians says that "God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4, 5.
That Christ should be born under the law was a necessary consequence of his being born of a woman, taking on him the nature of Abraham, being made of the seed of David, in the likeness of sinful flesh. Human nature is sinful, and the law of God condemns all sin. Not that men are born into the world directly condemned by the law, for in infancy they have no knowledge of right and wrong, and are incapable of doing either, but they are born with sinful tendencies, owing to the sins of their ancestors. And when Christ came into the world, he came subject to all the conditions to which other children are subject.
From these texts we are enabled to read with a better understanding Heb. 5:7, 8, where the apostle says of Christ:—
"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Jesus spent whole nights in prayer to the Father. Why should this be, if he had not been oppressed by the enemy, through the inherited weakness of the flesh? He "learned obedience by the things which he suffered." Not that he was ever disobedient, for he "knew no sin;" but by the things which he suffered in the flesh, he learned what men have to contend against in their efforts to be obedient.632
And so, "in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted." "For we have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the feelings of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Heb. 4:15, 16.
One more point, and then we can learn the entire lesson that we should learn from the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." How was it that Christ could be thus "compassed with infirmity" (Heb. 5:2), and still know no sin? Some may have thought, while reading this article thus far, that we were depreciating the character of Jesus, by bringing him down to the level of sinful man. On the contrary, we are simply exalting the "divine power" of our blessed Saviour, who himself voluntarily descended to the level of sinful man, in order that he might exalt man to his own spotless purity, which he retained under the most adverse circumstances. "God was in Christ," and hence he could not sin. His humanity only veiled his divine nature, which was more than able to successfully resist the sinful tendencies of the flesh. There was in his whole life a struggle. The flesh, moved upon by the enemy of all righteousness, would tend to sin, yet his divine nature never for a moment harbored an evil desire, nor did his divine power for a moment waver. Having suffered in the flesh all that all men can possibly suffer, he returned to the throne of the Father as spotless as when he left the courts of glory. When he lay in the tomb, under the power of death, "it was impossible that he should be holden of it," because it had been impossible for the divine nature which dwelt in him to sin.
"Well," some will say, "I don't see any comfort in this for me; it wasn't possible that the Son of God should sin, but I haven't any such power." Why not? You can have it if you want it. The same power which enabled him to resist every temptation presented through the flesh, while he was "compassed with infirmity," can enable us to do the same. Christ could not sin, because he was the manifestation of God. Well, then, listen to the apostle Paul, and learn what it is our privilege to have:—
"For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God." Eph. 3:14-19.
Who could ask for more? Christ, in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, may dwell in our hearts, so that we may be filled with all the fullness of God. What a wonderful promise. He is "touched with the feeling of our infirmity." That is, having suffered all that sinful flesh is heir to, he knows all about it, and so closely does he identify himself with his children, that whatever presses upon them makes a like impression upon him, and he knows how much divine power is necessary to resist it; and if we but sincerely desire to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts," he is able and anxious to give to us strength "exceeding abundantly, above all that we ask or think." All the power which Christ had dwelling in him by nature, we may have dwelling in us by grace, for he freely bestows it upon us.
Then let the weary, feeble, sin-oppressed souls take courage. Let them "come boldly unto the throne of grace," where they are sure to find grace to help in time of need, because that need is felt by our Saviour, in the very time of need. He is "touched with the feeling of our infirmity." If it were simply that he suffered eighteen hundred years ago, we might fear that he had forgotten some of the infirmity; but no, that temptation that presses you touches him. His wounds are ever fresh, and he ever lives to make intercession for you.
What wonderful possibilities there are for the Christian! To what heights of holiness he may attain! No matter how much Satan may war against him, assaulting him where the flesh is weakest, he may abide under the shadow of the Almighty, and be filled with the fullness of God's strength. The One stronger than Satan may dwell in his heart continually; and so, looking at Satan's assaults as from a strong fortress, he may say, "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us."
E. J. W.
SOMEWHAT MIXED.
By C. P. B.
THE Examiner (Baptist) of October 3, has an article entitled, "License They Mean," from which we quote as follows:—
"Recently a party has been forming to resist the passage of a law by Congress prohibiting the running of inter-State Sunday trains. This, too, is stigmatized as an unwarrantable interference with the rights of conscience—a first step toward union of Church and State, and the destruction of religious liberty. It cannot be unprofitable, therefore, to inquire what force there is in these representations. The principle of liberty and the idea of law must intersect each other somewhere; the practically important question is, Where should the line of intersection be, that justice may be secured for all?
"The principle of religious liberty requires only one thing: That all religious beliefs should be placed on an equality before the law, so that no one should be either favored or punished because of his opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed, so that in their public expression breaches of the peace are not provoked. The principle of religious liberty does not require that men shall not be held accountable for overt acts, not directly connected with the worship of God, or even for such acts if they tend to provoke a breach of the peace. The offering of human sacrifices, for example, or immoral orgies, could not be claimed as exempt from civil law on the plea that they were a part of religious worship. But, in a general way, it may be safely said that the State will not, and should not, interfere with any form of religious worship.
"But with respect to the daily conduct of life, the case is otherwise.
"The civil law must, therefore, for the safety of society, prohibit all immoral acts, whether religious sanction be pleaded for them or not. It must punish crime, even if the criminal claim to be the high priest of some religion. It may make unlawful acts, deemed inconsistent with the general welfare—such as unnecessary Sunday labor—without infraction of religious liberty, or taking the first step towards a religious establishment. In short, it may preserve in practice a distinction often recognized in the abstract—the distinction between liberty and license. Liberty is freedom under just law, the freedom to do right; license is freedom without law, the freedom to do wrong. Every man has a right to liberty; no man can claim the right to license."
The proposed law referred to is not so innocent as our contemporary would have us suppose; the designed law would stop not only the running of inter-State trains upon Sunday, but it would prohibit all forms of labor and business upon that day in all places subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. It is not, however, the law, but the principle of such legislation, which we wish to discuss.
It is true, as the Examiner says, that "the principle of liberty and the idea of law must intersect each other somewhere," but it is also true that if the principle of liberty is to be preserved, the intersection must be at a point which will not infringe the natural rights of a single citizen. The question then naturally arises, Has the Examiner indicated that point?—We think not. Certainly the editor of that paper could not have considered his words carefully, or he never would have said:—
"The principle of religious liberty require only one thing: That all religious beliefs should be placed on an equality before the law, so that no one should be either favored or punished because of his opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed."
Would the Examiner agree that perfect religious freedom was enjoyed in a country which permitted the teaching of all the doctrines held by Baptists, but forbade the rite of baptism?—Certainly not. It would insist, and properly, too, that the principles of religious freedom demand not only liberty to believe and teach, but also liberty to practice.
It is objected, however, that "there is not a vice or crime that has not been made a religious duty. The Thugs of India counted murder a holy act, most acceptable to their goddess Kali; the worshipers of Moloch thought it a virtue to cast their babes into the fire; the followers of Ashtoreth and Aphrodite performed a worthy act of worship in sacrificing their chastity." And the question is asked, Shall such things be permitted in the name of religion?—By no means. All of these things, and many others which might be enumerated, are not only immoral, but they are uncivil, that is, they cannot be practiced without infringing upon the rights of others, therefore it is not only the right but it is the duty of civil government to prohibit them; but this it does, not because they are immoral, but because they are in their very nature uncivil.
But the real animus of the Examiner’s article is revealed in the words: "It [the civil law] may make unlawful acts deemed inconsistent with the general welfare—such as unnecessary Sunday labor—without infraction of religious liberty." This is virtually placing Sunday work on the same level with murder and prostitution; but does it belong in the same category?—It does not; for the reason that work is right of itself, while murder and prostitution are always and everywhere wrong and uncivil. If they were right six days in each week, it would be hard to make it appear that they were wrong upon the remaining day; but they are never right; they are never civil.
If Sunday work is in any way evil, it is because of the religious character of the day upon which it is done, and not because there is anything wrong in the work itself. It is this fact which marks the wide difference between it and the offenses against nature with which some seek to class it.
It is very true, as the Examiner says, that "liberty is freedom under just law, the freedom to do right," but is a law that arbitrarily makes a crime on one day that which is laudable upon another, a just law? We answer, No; God alone has the right to command men under penalty of sin, and he alone has a right to judge and punish men for violations of the divine law. Even if it could be shown that the law of God requires Sunday keeping, it would not alter the case in the least; the observance or non-observance of a day, or any number of days, is not a proper subject of legislation.
The Meaning of New Testament Words
By Kingsley
If folks would but believe that the apostles talked not such very bad Greek, and had some slight notion of the received meaning of the words they used, and of the absurdity of using the same term to express nineteen different things, the New Testament would be a much simpler and more severely philosophic book than "theologians fancy." —Kingsley.
Helpers of Your Joy
By Paul
Not that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy.—Paul.