Earlier text: General ArticlesAn Atonement Consistent with Reason.
By Editor
By examining the foregoing points, it will be perceived that the acts of abolishing the law, and pardoning the transgressor, cannot in any case be united. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. This will be better appreciated when we consider the conditions under which pardon may be granted, and how the Government (which must ever be the first and chief concern) will be affected thereby. § III. PARDON SUPPOSES OR RECOGNIZES, 1. The guilt of the condemned. This is evident. To pardon an innocent man would be preposterous. Human Governments sometimes professedly do this, as when it is ascertained that a man, who is in prison for a term of years, is innocent of the crime of which he was convicted, the Governor issues a pardon as a means of his release. But it is a misnomer, and really an insult to the innocent man. The law should make provision for release from unjust confinement without subjecting a man to the disgrace of receiving a pardon when he had committed no crime. 2. The power of government. This is equally evident. To pardon is to remit a penalty which might be inflicted. It would be a mere farce to offer a pardon to those whom the Government had no power to punish. 3. The justice of the law transgressed. This is nearly parallel with the first proposition, and like it, evident; for to pronounce a man guilty is to say that he has done wrong. And if a violation of law be wrong, the law violated must be right. An unjust law is, in a moral view, a nullity. When a law is found to be unconstitutional, or a nullity, the prisoner under it is not really pardoned; he should be released from false imprisonment; and such release is of justice, not of mercy. But pardon is of favor. Thus it is clear that the justice of the law is acknowledged in the article of pardon. Now as pardon supposes the guilt of the prisoner, the power of the Government, and the justice of the law, in all these it may be made to honor the Government and vindicate its integrity. But there are other principles involved. The act of pardon recognizes the claims of law, by recognizing its justice. Thus far it honors the Government. But the question still remains, Are those claims satisfied as well as acknowledged? According to a plain truth before noticed, the sinner ought to be punished; justice imperatively demands it. How then can pardon be granted, and strict justice be administered? In this case there will arise two conflicting interests; one of sympathy for the accused, leaning toward mercy; the other, strenuous for the integrity of the Government, leaning toward justice. How can these principles be reconciled? Can both parties be satisfied? Here is a difficulty; and this will lead us to notice the conditions or restrictions under which pardon may be granted with safety. For an indiscriminate, unconditional pardon is dangerous to the Government. Closely examining this subject we find § IV. WHAT THE GOVERNOR MUST DO IN GRANTING PARDON. He must do one of the following things:— 1. Disregard the strict claims of law and justice. But this, of course, is evil in its tendency, giving license to crime, and favoring lawlessness, rather than restraining it, which latter must remain the true object of government. This, indeed, is the very thing we have all the time been guarding against. We cannot admit this, it being dangerous to the Government. Because if the claims of the law may be disregarded in one case, they may be in many—they may be in all; and then government is at an end. And if the executive sets the example of disregarding the claims of the law, others may thereby be led to follow his example, or all may; and the result is the same—lawlessness and anarchy. And all this from following the example of him who occupies the throne of justice! The very thought is, in the highest degree, abhorrent. Only one way remains possible by which pardon may be granted without trampling on justice, and endangering the Government; that is 2. Make satisfaction to the law by voluntary substitution. If the substitution be voluntary, so that the substitute be satisfied, and the full penalty of the law be inflicted, so that the law and justice be satisfied, all must be satisfied—all conflicting interests and feelings must be reconciled. Let no one say, to oppose this, that such is not the case when pardon is granted in human Governments; for these are imperfect, and instead of conforming strictly to justice they can only hope to approximate it. The interests above referred to are never harmonized in human Governments. In these, if the prisoner is punished less than the penalty indicated by the law, then the law is deprived just so much of its due. In such case, justice is not reconciled or vindicated; it is suspended. All must see at a glance that the means herein proposed alone obviates all difficulties. Let us further examine its effects. § V. VOLUNTARY SUBSTITUTION, 1. Recognizes the claims of law. We have supposed substitution wherein all parties are satisfied—all conflicts reconciled. But if the law were unjust, if the accused were not really guilty of a wrong, the act of condemning would be tyrannical. There could then be no satisfaction, either to justice, or to the condemned, or to his substitute. Hence, to obtain the desired result, there must be acquiescence in the justness of the proceeding, which is a recognition of the justice of the law which condemned. 2. It honors and maintains the Government. It must be admitted that every infringement on the claims of law, every departure from strict justice, is a violation of common rights, and endangers the Government. Whatever honors and vindicates the claims of law and justice, tends to maintain the Government; and of course to vindicate personal rights under it. This voluntary substitution does, as has been shown. 3. It dispenses mercy, which could not otherwise be offered consistently with the great principles of right and justice. Hence, all the objects of government—justice and mercy, truth and love,—meet in this arrangement. This is precisely the idea of an Atonement—not a thing to be deprecated, as some have vainly imagined, but to be loved and esteemed, as a certain vindication of right and justice, and a beneficent dispensation of love and mercy. In the examination of principles thus far we have found that the Atonement affects our relation to the Government in two respects, looking to the past and to the future. To the past, in that it frees from condemnation for past offenses; and to the future, in that it recognizes the claims of the law, thus binding us to future obedience to the law. But some affect to discover no harmony between these objects, though it is plain that a proposed Atonement which should lose sight of either would leave the sinner condemned, or dishonor the Government. It may, however, be noticed further, § VI. WHY AN ATONEMENT IS NECESSARY. 1. Future obedience will not justify the guilty. To argue this seems hardly necessary, as it has been shown that justice and mercy meet in no way but by an Atonement. But some deny the use, by which it is presumed they mean the necessity, of obeying a law which will not justify the guilty. But the deficiency lies only in their own oversight. They make no distinction between justifying the innocent and the guilty. The innocent are justified by law; the guilty cannot be. But the innocent are justified by law only if they remain innocent; that is, if they continue to obey. While the transgressor, already condemned, is not freed from condemnation of past offense by future obedience. In this, no more is claimed than is settled as a principle of action in legal and even in commercial transactions. He who killed, last year, cannot offer in justification that he has not killed, this year. The judge has no right to listen to the plea of the thief, that he has not recently stolen, while the evidence of his past guilt is clear. It does not release a man from a debt to pay for what he buys to-day. Present justice and present morality simply answer a present demand, leaving the past unsettled. But we have a question to ask to those who think it is not required to keep a law because it will not justify the transgressor. If the law condemns a thief, and he can only be cleared by pardon, does the granting of a pardon release him from obligation401 to keep the law, and leave him free to steal thereafter? 2. We have no ransom to bring. The demand of the Government is obedience; and the duty is perpetual. Any cessation or suspension is a break in the chain that we cannot restore. We cannot on one day perform the duties of another, in such a manner as to suspend obligations on that other day. Presenting this idea on a moral basis purely, we will be better able to appreciate it. The obligation to love God with all our heart binds us every day of our life. Suppose we fail on one day, it would be absurd to say we could make amends by another day's obedience; for that would be to love God that other day with more than all the heart, so as to apply some of our superabundance of love to the past! Hence the transgressor could not save himself, even though he retained all his original strength to obey; but the following truth is well known:— 3. We are incapacitated by immoral practices. In this, appeal is made to the consciousness of every candid, reflecting mind. We all acknowledge ourselves to be subjects of temptation, and often find in ourselves a proneness to do that which our convictions forbid. If we allow ourselves to do wrong, these feelings become still stronger, and we are less able to resist the temptation. Wrong-doing becomes a habit, hard to resist or overcome. Thus, he who has a moderate desire to drink ardent spirits will find that desire greatly strengthened by indulgence; and it will finally, if indulged too far, bring him completely under its control. This is the tendency of all wrong-doing. Now we all feel conscious of having done more or less wrong; and it is but reasonable to say we have done more than we are conscious of, inasmuch as we have not been sufficiently tenacious of the right, nor very watchful to observe our own wrongs. And, according to the plain truth herein stated, we have become weak according to the wrong we have done, and so much the more need the assistance of a third party to set us right with the power we have offended. An Atonement must not only unite justice and mercy, and reconcile the transgressor to the law, but the perpetuity and stability of the Government should be the first consideration, as they are first in importance in our relations and duties, because on them the perpetuity of all private relations and rights depends. We all assent to this, that public good should be held paramount to private interest. But these only come in conflict when we place ourselves in opposition to the Government. Hence, if our interest conflicts with the Government, which is the conservator of general rights, it is proved to be a selfish interest. For, had we honored and sustained the Government in our lives or actions, it would justify or sustain us; but if our rights are forfeited by disobedience, wherein is the Government to blame? Because the transgressor has sacrificed his own rights, it is not therefore reasonable to ask that justice be dishonored, and the rights of others be sacrificed for his benefit. As right should be the first consideration in all transactions, the interest of the Government, which is right, should certainly be held paramount to the good of the transgressor, who is wrong. Therefore, in making an Atonement, the upholding of law—the maintaining of governmental authority—should be held as of the first importance. This is the only manner in which an Atonement can honor the Government in behalf of which it is made. By a single violation of law, we forfeit our rights and privileges; but by persisting in such violation, or inducing others so to do, and thus disregarding the authority of law, we take the rank of rebels or traitors against the Government. Our relation to the Government while we are in that position, and our relation to the means of our restoration, should be considered with great carefulness and candor. § VII. THE SINNER MUST ACCEPT, NOT MAKE, CONDITIONS. This proposition must be evident to all, for 1. Treason is the highest crime. He who commits murder takes a life, but he who seeks to subvert the law, seeks the destruction of life's safeguard, of that which is to protect life by preventing and punishing crime. Hence, it is the aggregation of all crimes. 2. The Government has the sole right to free therefrom. By this is meant that the Government has the sole right to dictate the terms or conditions by which rebels may be restored to citizenship. This is true, also, in regard to all crimes for which pardon is desired. And this right, Government ought to exercise. No criminal has any right to dictate the terms of his own pardon, or the means by which he may be restored to the favor of the Government. And no one who has any regard for violated rights, for down-trodden justice, for the sacred principles of law and order, could be willing to see the traitor unconditionally restored to place and favor. No Government would be safe pursuing such a course; neither could it command respect. 3. He who will not accept the conditions is a traitor still. If the Government has the sole right to dictate terms to rebels, which all must allow, then the transgressor can only change his relation to the Government by accepting those terms; and if he refuses to accept them, he, of course, persists in maintaining his position in rebellion. Or to substitute terms of his own would be no better, but rather an insult to the Government, a denial of its right and authority. If a criminal were to dictate how crimes should be treated, government would be a farce and become the contempt of honest men. Therefore two things must be required of a transgressor or rebel, which only can be accepted, to wit:— 1. UNQUALIFIED SUBMISSION TO THE LAWS WHICH HAVE BEEN TRANSGRESSED, and, 2. A HEARTY ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN OR CONDITIONS OFFERED FOR HIS RESTORATION. (To be Concluded.)
EDITOR. Lesson for Pacific Coast.—Sept. 15.
Immediately after the council at Jerusalem, Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, accompanied by Judas and Silas, who were prophets, and delivered to the church the decision of the apostles and elders. After performing his mission, Judas returned to Jerusalem, but Silas chose to remain in Antioch. “Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.” V. 35. Among the others who were at Antioch was Peter. This we learn from Galatians 2. At this time an incident occurred that ill accords with the Catholic dogma of the supremacy of Peter in the church. From Paul's statement to the Galatians we learn that Peter, in accordance with the decision of the council at Jerusalem, and with his practice before that time (Acts 11:3), mingled freely with the Gentiles, and ate with them. But as soon as some Jews came down from Jerusalem, “he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Gal. 2:13. This was not done for the purpose of saving a weak brother from stumbling, but from fear of the accusations which the Jews might bring against him. It was a slight manifestation of the spirit which had moved him to deny his Lord. His act was contagious, many of the Jews doing likewise, and even “Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.” “They walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel.” Then it was that Paul “withstood him to the face,” saying before them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Having thus fully exposed Peter's dissimulation, he showed that forms and ceremonies are lost in faith in Christ. It is not likely that there were any hard feelings on either side. Paul simply did his duty, and Peter readily acknowledged his fault. But how can our Catholic friends harmonize this affair with the theory that Peter occupied the same position in regard to the early church that the pope of Rome does to the Catholic Church? Imagine Cardinal Newman addressing Leo XIII. as Paul did Peter. If he should dare to do such a thing, it is very certain that the pope would not take it so meekly as Peter did. From the account of the dispute between Paul and Barnabas, Dr. Barnes draws the following lesson:— “This account proves that there was no collusion or agreement among the apostles to impose on mankind. Had there been such an agreement, and had the books of the New Testament been an imposture, the apostles would have been represented as perfectly harmonious, and as united in all their views and efforts. What impostor would have thought of the device of representing the early friends of the Christian religion as divided, and contending, and separating from each other? Such a statement has an air of candor and honesty, and at the same time is so apparently against the truth of the system that no impostor would have thought of resorting to it.” We have here an opportunity to test the value of mere apostolic example for any custom. Peter dissimulated, and Paul and Barnabas indulged in heated contention. Now many profess to base their observance of Sunday on the example of the apostles. To be sure they cannot prove that any of the apostles ever kept Sunday, since the Bible nowhere intimates that they did, but no matter; that does not affect the popular claim. They can point to one religious meeting held on Sunday, Acts 20:7, and Paul was there. From this they build up the following: “The apostles kept Sunday (as we infer); the majority of the world now keep Sunday, therefore it must be right.” Reasoning on the same scale, we derive this: “The apostles contended (as we know); an overwhelming majority of the world also dispute and quarrel to a greater or less degree; therefore quarreling is right, and we ought to engage in it.” The truth is, it is not the apostles' practice, but their teaching, that we are to follow; and even their teaching would be invalid if it did not agree with that part of the Scripture that was already written. It is easy to find a precedent for any wrong practice, if that is all that is desired. It would seem that one would need only to read the arguments in favor of infant baptism, drawn from verses 15 and 33 of chapter 16, to be convinced that that custom has no solid foundation whatever on which to rest. For instance, Dr. Barnes says on verse 15:— “‘And her household.’ Greek, her house (ho oikos autees), her family. No mention is made of their having believed, and the case is one that affords a strong presumptive proof that this was an instance of household or infant baptism. For (1) her believing is particularly mentioned. (2) It is not intimated that they believed. (3) It is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed. It was the offering of her family to the Lord. It is just such an account as would now be given of a household or family that were baptized on the faith of the parent.” But what right has the Dr. to say, “household or infant baptism”? Is a household necessarily composed exclusively of infants? If “household” and “infants” are, as he implies, synonymous terms, then wherever the word occurs it means only infants, to the exclusion of adults, and that is absurd. A household is simply those dwelling under the same roof; and, although Dr. Clarke says, “We can scarcely suppose that the whole families of Lydia and the jailer had no children in them,” we have known of many households in which there was not a child under ten years of age, and such cases were not considered remarkable. Dr. Clarke seems to have forgotten that although infants are children, children are not necessarily infants. We firmly believe in the right of children to be baptized when they are old enough to express a desire for that ordinance, but this is not infant baptism. But, leaving conjecture, what warrant is there for saying of the household of Lydia that since “it is not intimated that they believed, it is manifestly implied that they were baptized because she believed”? Christ in commissioning the apostles said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” The apostles placed believing and baptism together, as is shown by Acts 2:38 and 8:37. John the Baptist also refused to baptize the unbelieving and unrepentant Pharisees and Sadducees. Matt. 3:7-10. To suppose that they baptized any who did not believe, is to claim that they violated their commission. And even if they had done so, what profit would it have been to those so baptized? Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The mere ceremony of baptism confers no blessing on any. For an unbeliever to be baptized is solemn mockery. Those who do not believe will be lost whether they have been baptized or not. The terrible delusion of the ancient Jews, and of the modern Catholics as well, was in ascribing virtue to a round of ceremonies performed without one thought of that which they symbolized. Protestantism has largely followed in the same path, and as a consequence the church is burdened with nominal professors, who have no just appreciation of the principles of the gospel, and who base their hope of salvation on the mere fact that they have been baptized. After all, Dr. Clarke, in his comments on verse 32, dares make no stronger statement in favor of infant baptism than that “it is pretty evident that we have in this chapter presumptive evidence that children were received into the church in this way,” i. e., by infant baptism, so called. One would hardly expect that that sage conclusion was preceded in the same paragraph by this statement concerning the jailer. “And it appears that he and his whole family, who were capable of receiving instruction, embraced this doctrine, and showed the sincerity of their faith by immediately receiving baptism.” From this we conclude that the Doctor found it difficult to bring his reason and his prejudices into harmony. We can only ask, in leaving this subject, Why do the advocates of infant baptism indulge in such absurd conjectures, which, as we have seen, often directly contradict the Scriptures, if they have any direct Bible authority to offer in support of the custom? It is sometimes asked, “Why did Paul rebuke the damsel possessed of the spirit, since she told nothing but the truth?” We answer, For that very reason. Had she heaped abuse upon the apostles, it would not have been half so damaging to them. For (1) the Jews who were in the city would conclude from her testimony in favor of the apostles that they were moved by the same spirit that she was, and would therefore be hardened against the gospel; and (2) the Gentiles would also naturally conclude that the teachings of both were a part of the same system, and that therefore they had nothing to learn from the apostles. Her testimony was calculated to bring the gospel into bad repute. The truth always suffers more from the professed friendship of wicked men than from their enmity. A man who professes Christianity, and still lives contrary to its teachings, brings reproach upon it; and the more loudly he declares his belief, the more does the cause suffer. Christians may well rejoice when they are the subjects of calumny by wicked men. The only record we have of Paul's singing was when he was in the jail at Philippi, lying on the cold floor, his back bruised and bloody from the “many stripes” it had received. At midnight they “prayed and sang praises unto God.” With what propriety he could afterwards exhort the Philippians to “be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God,” and what weight his testimony must have had. He had set them an example of “rejoicing in tribulation.” Without any misgiving he could say to them, “Those things which ye have both learned, and received, and seen in me, do;” and we are not surprised that the believers at this place were the most faithful of any of Paul's converts. They had prayed for light, before Paul was sent to them, and they did not refuse to accept it when it brought persecution. The Good Shepherd Leads
By Methodist Recorder
The good shepherd leads his flock; some under-shepherds think only of driving the flock. The good shepherd calls his sheep by name—their proper name; under-shepherds sometimes call them by harsh and ugly names, if they do not drive submissively. The good shepherd provides tenderly for the wants of his flock; under-shepherds often scramble for all that can be obtained from the flock, and leave them if the fleece becomes light. SOME one has said: "To tell a lie, and then defend it with other lies, is like digging a cellar and making it large enough to hold all the dirt that is displaced." "GOD IS LOVE." He is the same from everlasting to everlasting. With him "is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Jas. 1:17. It is a serious mistake, into which many have fallen, to suppose that God has changed with the changes of man's relation to his Government; that he is different either in purpose or disposition in the fall of man, or in the changes of dispensations, from what he was from the remotest ages of eternity. Many speak as if God were only a cool debliberator in the work of creation, having no deep and earnest feelings of sympathy and love for his creatures; that he was but a rigid lawgiver in the Levitical dispensation; and that he manifested himself as love only in the gospel dispensation. Nothing could present a greater misrepresentation of the character of God than such a view as that. He has uttered words of strong reproof to those who think that he is such an one as themselves. Ps. 50:21. And in nothing is this error committed more than in representing him as changeable in character, in purpose, and in feeling. God is love; he always was love. All his works have been and are done in love. When man sinned, it was the same that prompted his creation that prompted the institution of means for his redemption. The promise was made that the seed of the woman—who had been beguiled to her ruin—should bruise the head of the serpent, her deceiver. And from that time the loving Father multiplied instruction to lead the race into the knowledge of the great plan which he had devised to destroy the enemy and his works, and to restore man to the position unto which the Lord had appointed him in the beginning. And thenceforth the hope was held out in signs and symbols, in types and figures, of the coming of the hope of the world, the Anointed One. The altar, the sacrifice, the prophet, the priest, and the king, all announced, and all likewise represented, the promised Messiah. And when the nations were multiplied, and all had chosen their own way,—"did not like to retain God in their knowledge,"—his love still followed them. He separated Abraham and his seed from the nations, to make them the special depositaries of his truth, missionaries to the world, the people among whom his knowledge might be perpetuated, and among whom the Lord's Christ should be revealed. With much anxiety this "chosen people" looked forward to the time when the Deliverer should appear. All their service took character from this hope: "Christ shall come;" the Lord's Anointed shall be revealed. This was the watchword of Israel through the ages. But with the passing of centuries they grew weary of waiting. Many times they turned to their own way, and God left them to the power of their foes. Many calamities befell them. And when the "nation of fierce countenance" (Deut. 28:50) overflowed the land, they, as the nations around them, made an alliance with the conquering power, in hope of finding that peace and security for which they had not faith and patience to wait in the fulfullment of God's all-wise plan. God had purposed that Israel should "not be reckoned among the nations;" Num. 23:9. And so it was that the tie unto which they had consented became irksome. That to which they looked for relief became a burden. In their sorrow they longed exceedingly for deliverance, and came at length to make freedom from the Roman yoke the chief end of Messiah's coming—the object of their hopes and the burden of their prayers. As their hope degenerated to a worldly object, they became worldly in their religion. They longed for the restoration of the kingdom, but it must be by methods of their choosing, or in a way to gratify their ambitious desires. The Roman yoke was heavy upon them; but the bondage of sin, the corruptions of a fallen nature, and the carnal heart, they did not feel. But God did not leave himself without witnesses. He gave abundant evidence of the time, and the nature of the work to be accomplished by the coming of his Son. Born in obscurity, not as the kings of the earth, not in a manner to meet the minds of the ambitious and the worldly, Jesus had yet a heavenly host to herald his advent, and to sing, "Glory to God in the highest," over his despised birth-place. Holy, waiting ones were inspired to announce that the infant Jesus was the hope of Israel, and a great prophet. John the Baptist was specially commissioned to formally present him to the people, and to declare that in his day the axe was laid at the root of the tree, and that the fruit of righteousness was required in order to find acceptance with the Lord and his Anointed. In due time he appeared before the people. Instead of seeking the display and pomp of power, he was meek and lowly, and announced that the kingdom of Heaven was for the poor in spirit; and that such righteousness as that possessed by the scribes and Pharisees (who were reverenced of all the people for their supposed sanctity), gave no title to it. He told them that exalted positions in the church, a desire to be counted scrupulously pious, already have their reward in the praise of men, which they are seeking, and that they could not believe in him while they received honor one of another, and sought not that honor which comes from God. To us in this day it looks marvelous that, with the prophecies so plainly pointing to his coming; with inspired ones then living who declared he was the salvation of God, the hope of Israel; with the testimony of John (in whose light they for a time rejoiced) that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world; with the witness of the Spirit, which rested visibly upon him at his baptism; with the testimony of the Father speaking from Heaven, saying, this is my beloved Son; with the evidence of his own miracles, which seemed to put all doubt out of question,—we say it looks marvelous that Israel, the church of God, his own chosen people, should shut their eyes against all these evidences, and reject him, and even demand his shameful death. It shows the great danger of perverting or neglecting the words of the prophets, and of lowering our religion to a worldly plane so that it shall embrace exalted position in this world. By wicked hands he was crucified and slain. In the bitterness of their disappointment his disciples, despised of men and fearing for their own lives, forgot the words of the prophets, and the instruction they had received from their beloved Teacher. Their hope was gone. He whom they had trusted should redeem Israel, lie in the grave. "But God raised him from the dead." Acts 13:30. With a revival of their joy in his presence, their hope was revived in the immediate restoration of the kingdom to Israel. Acts 1:6. But they were told that they must wait; that they must be his witnesses to all nations to gather out a people to the glory of his name. And he was parted from them, and returned to his Father in Heaven. Then was renewed by heavenly messengers the promise which he had made to them, that, after he has prepared mansions for them in his Father's house, he will come again and receive them unto himself. From that time his second advent was, to his longing people, "the blessed hope." Titus 2:13. It was their hope of salvation. Heb. 9:28. They looked forward to it as the time when they shall appear with him in glory. Col. 3:4. When they shall be like him, and see him as he is. 1 John 2:4. When they shall receive a crown of life. 1 Pet. 5:4. When they shall put on immortality and triumph over death and the grave. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. When they shall be restored to the sweet companionship of their loved ones who had fallen asleep. 1 Thess. 4:13-18. And to "love his appearing" was made an assurance of receiving "a crown of righteousness." 2 Tim. 4:8. All hope, all joy, all glory, clustered around the promise of his "second advent." But strange things were revealed to them. They were told that there would be an apostasy, and the church would go into a wilderness state; that not only by the irreligious and the profane, but by those professing to be his own church should his true disciples be persecuted unto death. And though "for the elect's sake" he would hold the persecution within bounds, and cause the truth to greatly triumph in the earth, yet even "in the last days" there will be such a declension from the paths of genuine piety that the love of many will wax cold, Matt. 24:12, and the power of godliness will be very generally denied by those who have its form; 2 Tim. 3:1-5; that they would join with the world, even worse than did the scribes and Pharisees at the first advent, for they led only a cold and formal church, but here a cold and formal church will not only seek to be exalted in the present world, but will "eat and drink with the drunken," and join the profane in scoffing at the doctrine of the coming of the Lord. Matt. 24:48-51; 2 Pet. 3:3, 4. Oh, sad day of formality and sin! Oh, unhappy church of God! to put away "the blessed hope;" to smite those who watch and wait for the coming of their Lord and who faithfully proclaim it "near, even at the doors," Matt. 24:32, 33; who suffer that day to come upon them as a thief because they do not love his appearing. But the mercies of God are unfailing. His word of truth is as firm as his eternal throne. Though all men should deny him he cannot deny himself. "God is love." He is long-suffering, not wishing that any should perish (Revised Version), but that all should come to repentance. 2 Pet. 3:9. He has never done any great work for or among his people "but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. He has never brought sore judgments upon the earth without sending a warning and giving the inhabitants a chance to escape. It was so in the time of the flood; so in the case of Egypt; so with Nneveh; so with the nation of Israel, whom he would gladly have saved from ruin; and so it will be in the last days. He has commanded that an alarm shall be sounded before the great day of the Lord shall come. Joel 2:1. Messiah gave signs which should precede his second coming, whereby we may know when it is near, even at the doors. Matt. 24. He has revealed to his people that although the wicked will not understand (Dan. 12:4), and that day shall come as a thief upon the world and a world-loving church, even as the flood came unawares to those who did not accept the warning, his watching ones shall not be in darkness that that day shall come upon them as a thief. 1 Thess. 5:1-4. As in the case of the first advent, so in that of the second. The Lord institutes sufficient means to warn the world, and so to leave all without excuse, and to comfort his people—to fortify them against the prevailing deceptions of Satan, to purify them, and to prepare them for translation. He gives them a series of messages, the last one the most stirring, the most terrible in its terms that the children of men ever heard or will hear. To his own chosen ones he reveals a plain duty, a shield from the coming wrath. Rev. 14:6-12. And because there is a time of trouble coming, such as never was since there was a nation, Dan. 12:1, with the special duty he bestows a most gracious favor—such as he bestowed at the first advent—to prepare his people for his appearing, he grants them "the testimony of Jesus," which is "the Spirit of prophecy." Rev. 12:17; 19:10. This was greatly needed at the first advent; much more will it be needed before the second. At his first advent he came to offer himself a ransom for the world, and to enter upon his work of intercession for man. At his second advent he will have left the throne of his priesthood, finished his work of intercession, and will come to redeem only those who are fully prepared, and to take vengeance upon the ungodly. Before he ceases his work of intercession, his people will need a special work done for them, Rev. 7:1-3; they will need the Spirit's gifts and power, to unite their hearts and their faith, to shield them from the power of Satan, and to be a "covering" in the time when the wrath of God in the seven last plagues is manifested. Rev. 14:9-12; 15:1-5. The long-suffering of God has long waited; his loving-kindness has been long insulted. Justice cannot always stay; blasphemers cannot always provoke him with impunity. But his "little flock" will be kept in the time of trouble. Ever since the last message of Rev. 14 has been going to the world—the message which brings to light the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and which immediately precedes the coming of the Son of man to reap the harvest of the earth, Rev. 14:9-14—this most needed gift (1 Cor. 14:1-4), "the Spirit of prophecy," has accompanied its proclamation. Thousands now living joyfully attest how precious it has been to them in their pilgrimage; and some have fallen asleep who passed away blessing God for the privilege given to the "remnant" of keeping the commandments of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. 12:17. There could seem to be no question as to how we shall receive that which God in mercy bestows. But he has spoken directly on that point to those who are waiting for his Son from Heaven. 1 Thess. 4 and 5.