IN the attempt to unify by harmonies, much of the true scope of the Gospels is lost sight of. The evangelists differ, but do not disagree. Dean Stanley says that few persons have any idea of the distinct features of any one of these four records. The opinions of some men are that these differences are to be accounted for by the apostles' copying from one another, by each one's supplying the omissions of the preceding writers, or by the fertility of their memories, or the fact that accounts were obtained at second hand. But these opinions entirely deny the divinity of the Gospels.
In the beginning we must rest on the foundation that God is their author. They stand in their right order, in the right relation to each other, beginning the canon of the New Testament. Matthew, Mark, and Luke give the outward and earthly work of Christ, and John his inward and heavenly works. The four great countries of that time, Palestine, Italy, Greece, and Asia Minor, were the places where the Gospels were written. Matthew is the Jewish Gospel, connecting the Old Testament with the New Testament, and is written to prove the Messiahship of Christ. Mark is written to the Gentiles, and its theme is Christ's ministry, his works. Luke applies universally to both Jew and Gentile, and brings out Christ's humanity; while John's is an essentially spiritual Gospel, dealing wholly with the divinity of our Lord.
The first speaks of Christ as the Son of David, hence his genealogy is given complete (1:1-16); in Mark there is no genealogy, for there he is spoken of not as a son at all, but as a servant. Luke calls Christ the Son of man, and gives so comprehensive an account of his birth as to defer the genealogy to chapter 3: 23-38, while John begins with it and calls Christ the Son of God. In Matthew he is said to have been born king of the Jews; in Luke the good tidings are of the birth of a Saviour, and John proclaims him pre-existent. The key to each Gospel, giving its theme, may be found in Matthew 1:1, Mark 10: 44, 45, Luke 19: 10, John 20: 31. In the first Gospel, Christ is described as a king, in the second as a worker, and in the other two as a philanthropist and as God manifested, respectively.
The central truth emphasized in Matthew is righteousness, in Mark power, in Luke sympathy, and in John divine glories. The great discourse of Matthew is the Sermon on the Mount, and that of Luke is the sermon on the plain, and that of John the gospel in the upper room, which extends through chapters 13-17. This very fact shows the inspiration of the Scriptures. All four evangelists heard this discourse, but it was left to John to describe it. The great subjects of the Gospels are respectively law, labor, love, and life. Matthew always introduces a quotation with "that it might be fulfilled;" Mark, with "as it is written;" and John, with "as said Esaias." Luke seldom makes any introductory references.
Matthew prefaces the parables with reference to the kingdom of heaven; Mark, to the kingdom of God; Luke makes it impersonal by beginning, "A certain man;" while John emphasizes their importance by saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." The parables are grouped in Matthew, and given in order in Luke. In Mark only two are recorded, and in John new parables not mentioned by the others are recorded. The character of Matthew as a writer is topical, that of Mark is chronological, of Luke biographical, and of John metaphorical. The ministries of Matthew and Mark were Galilean; that of John, Judean; and that of Luke partook of the characteristics of both. Christ is said to have come to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel in Matthew; in Luke, it is "all flesh," and in John, "whosoever will."
The most important of all is the conclusion. Here is seen the development in the Gospels as they are arranged in the New Testament. Matthew announces that Jesus is risen; Mark, that he is risen and ascended; but Luke goes further and adds the promise of the Holy Spirit; while John is beyond them all in declaring Christ's promise to come again.—Rev. W. W. Clark.
The Blessing of Benevolence
TRUE benevolence is, in every respect, a blessing to him who practices it; for what goes out to others for their good, comes back and enriches the soul whence it sprang. They who impart most of good themselves receive most.
CHRISTMAS AND SUNDAY.
By W.
Soon after the holidays, the following item entitled "Christmas," appeared in Messiah's Advocate, a journal published in Oakland:—
"We have paid no attention to this day in the Advocate. We have no idea that the 25th of December is the anniversary of our Saviour's birth, but that Christmas is purely a Popish festival, and we think the sooner Protestants cease to adopt Papal customs, the wiser and better they will be."
We heartily agree with our contemporary; we believe that Christmas is purely a Popish festival, and we think that Protestants ought to have nothing to do with Papal customs. Yet we are sorry to know that the greater portion of professed Protestants, do follow the customs of Rome. Since our neighbor professes such a dislike for Popish customs, we have thought that a little comparison of Christmas and Sunday might not be amiss. We shall show that both are Papal institutions, having been borrowed, like all other customs of the Romish Church, from paganism.
Concerning the origin of Christmas, McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia says:—
"The observance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it of New Testament origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot be ascertained from the New Testament, or, indeed, from any other source. The Fathers of the first three centuries do not speak of any special observance of the nativity. The institution may be sufficiently explained by the circumstance that it was the taste of the age to multiply festivals, and that the analogy of other events in our Saviour's history, which had already been marked by a distinct celebration, may naturally have pointed out the propriety of marking his nativity with the same honorable distinction. It was celebrated with all the marks of respect usually bestowed on high festivals, and distinguished also by the custom, derived probably from heathen antiquity, of interchanging presents and making entertainments. At the same time, the heathen winter holidays (Saturnalia, Juvenalia, Brumalia) were undoubtedly transformed, and, so to speak, sanctified by the establishment of the Christmas cycle of holidays; and the heathen customs, so far as they were harmless (e. g., the giving of presents, lighting of tapers, etc.), were brought over into Christian use."
Chambers' Encyclopedia says:—
"It does not appear that there was any uniformity in the period of observing the nativity among the early churches; some held the festival in the month of May or April, others in January. It is, nevertheless, almost certain that the 25th of December cannot be the nativity of the Saviour, for it is then the height of the rainy season in Judea, and shepherds could hardly be watching their flocks by night in the plains. . . ."
"Not casually or arbitrarily was the festival of the nativity celebrated on the 25th of December. Among the causes that co-operated in fixing this period as the proper one, perhaps the most powerful was, that almost all the heathen nations regarded the winter solstice as a most important point of the year, as the beginning of the renewed life and activity of the powers of nature, and of the gods, who were originally merely the symbolical personifications of these. In more northerly countries this fact must have made itself peculiarly palpable, hence the Celts and Germans, from the oldest times, celebrated the season with the greatest festivities. At the winter solstice the Germans held their great Yule-feast, in commemoration of the return of the fiery sun-wheel; and believed that, from the twelve nights reaching from151the 25th of December to the 6th of January, they could trace the personal movements and interferences on earth of their great deities, Odin, Berchta, etc. Many of the beliefs and usages of the old Germans, and also of the Romans, relating to this matter, passed over from heathenism to Christianity, and have partly survived to the present day."
Prof. J. G. Müller, the author of the article on the worship of the sun, in the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, after mentioning that the sun was worshiped by the Persians, under the form of Mithras, which finally became the Sol Deus Invictus of the Romans, says:—
"The Mithras-worship even exercised its influence upon the fixing of the Christian Christmas-festival in December. As the new birth of the sun-god was celebrated at the end of December, so, likewise, in Christ, the new Sun, in the field of spiritual life was adored."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, after mentioning the obscurity in which the origin of the Christmas festival rests, says:—
"By the fifth century, however, whether from the influence of some tradition, or from the desire to supplant heathen festivals of that period of the year, such as the Saturnalia, the 25th of December had been generally agreed upon."
Another item pointing to the heathen origin of Christmas is the fact that the mistletoe, which was regarded by the ancient Druids with the highest veneration, has always been, especially in England, a favorite Christmas decoration. McClintock and Strong’s Encyclopedia (article Christmas) says that the dressing of houses with mistletoe on Christmas day is “a custom probably as old as the Druidical worship.” Druidism, it may be remarked, was the worship of the ancient Britons; it was allied to the East or sun worship of the Phoenicians, and, like it, was accompanied by human sacrifices.
Bingham, in his “Antiquities of the Christian Church” (book 20, chapter 4), gives the following account of the status of Christmas in the ancient church:—
"As to the manner of keeping this festival, we may observe that they did it with the greatest veneration. For they always speak of it in the highest terms, as the principal festival of Christians, from which all others took their original. Chrysostom styles it the most venerable and tremendous of all festivals, and the metropolis and mother of all festivals, . . . and we may observe that the day was kept with the same veneration and religious solemnity as the Lord’s day. For they had always sermons on this day, of which there are many instances in Chrysostom, Nazianzen, Basil, Ambrose, Austin, Leo, Chrysostom, and many others. Neither did they let this day ever pass without a solemn communion."
"Finally, to show all possible honor to this day, the church obliged all persons to frequent religious assemblies in the city churches, and not go to any of the lesser churches in the country, except some necessity of sickness or infirmity compelled them to do so. And the laws of the State prohibited all public games and shows on this day, as on the Lord’s day."
If it be asked how the Christmas festival came to be adopted by the church, we can answer only in the following words of Dr. Killen’s in the preface to his “Ancient Church”:—
"In the interval between the days of the apostles and the conversion of Constantine, the Christian commonwealth changed its aspect. The bishop of Rome, a personage unknown to the writers of the New Testament, meanwhile rose into prominence, and at length took precedence of all other churchmen. Rites and ceremonies of which neither Peter nor Paul ever heard, crept silently into use, and then claimed the rank of divine institutions."
That is undoubtedly the way in which it was introduced. If it be asked why this was allowed, we shall let Mosheim answer in the following words:—
"It is certain that to religious worship, both public and private, many rites were added, without necessity and to the great offense of sober and good men. The principal cause of this I readily look for in the perverseness of mankind, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and pageantry, than with the true devotion of the heart, and who despise whatever does not gratify their eyes and ears. But other and additional causes may be mentioned, which, though they suppose no bad design, yet clearly betray indiscretion."
"First, there is good reason to suppose that the Christian bishops purposely multiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and the pagans more friendly to them. For both these classes had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and had made no question of their constituting an essential part of religion. And hence, when they saw the new religion to be destitute of such ceremonies, they thought it too simple, and therefore despised it. To obviate this objection, the rulers of the Christian churches deemed it proper for them to be more formal and splendid in their public worship."
"Secondly, the simplicity of the worship which Christians offered to the Deity, had given occasion to certain calumnies, maintained both by Jews and the pagan priests. The Christians were pronounced atheists, because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp, in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist. For unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets their eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian doctors thought they must introduce some external rites, which would strike the senses of people, so that they could maintain that they really had all those things of which Christians were charged with being destitute, though under different forms. . . ."
"Fourthly, among the Greeks and the people of the East, nothing was held more sacred than what were called the mysteries. This circumstance led the Christians, in order to impart dignity to their religion, to say that they also had similar mysteries, or certain holy rites concealed from the vulgar; and they not only applied the terms used in the pagan mysteries to the Christian institutions, particularly baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but they gradually introduced also the rites which were designated by those terms. This practice originated in the Eastern provinces; and thence, after the times of Adrian, (who first introduced the Grecian mysteries among the Latins), it spread among the Christians of the West. A large part, therefore, of the Christian observances and institutions, even in this century, had the aspect of pagan mysteries."—
The object was, in short, to gain converts from among the pagans. The same thing also applies to the Sunday festival, the heathen origin of which we shall now proceed to show. W.
(Concluded next week.)
THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST. NO. 12.
ONE point more remains to be noticed in the work of antichrist. In the remarkable discourse concerning the signs of his second coming, our Saviour first said: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." Matt. 24:4, 5. This was given in answer to the question, "What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" The Saviour's language plainly indicates that attempts would be made to counterfeit his second coming, and so successfully made as to deceive many.
Again he says, speaking of the time following the great persecution: "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Verses 23, 24. This shows that the counterfeit will be very close. From these statements and warnings, we can come to no other conclusion than that just before the coming of Christ, his great adversary, Satan, will, as far as is possible, counterfeit all the wonderful signs that Christ has said would attend his coming. This conclusion is stated in express terms, in 2 Thess. 2:7-10. The apostle Paul says:—
"For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let [hinder], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming; whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness."
The run of the apostle's argument is very clear. The whole chapter is devoted to the time of the coming of the Lord. Some unscrupulous person had written a letter to the Thessalonian brethren, telling them that the Lord's coming was close at hand, and had signed Paul's name. See verses 1-3. Compare also chap. 3:17. Paul wrote to them that that day could not come until after the great apostasy, and the setting up of the Papacy, and reminded them that when he was with them he had told them so. Paganism then hindered the complete establishment of the Papacy, but soon that would be taken out of the way, and when that was done, then should the Papacy be fully revealed, to be destroyed by the brightness of the coming of Christ. And the coming of Christ to destroy the Papacy, would be, he said, just after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders.
We inquire, Is there any present prospect that these predictions of Jesus and Paul, concerning Satan's counterfeiting Christ's second advent, will be fulfilled? Our answer must be, There is. Spiritualism is even now planning such a campaign, one that is calculated to turn the attention of people away from Christ's literal coming. In the World's Advance Thought (published at Salem, Oregon) of April 5, 1886, there was the following editorial utterance upon the subject of "A Coming Messiah":—
"In a recent Harmony Hall lecture on 'The Messianic Idea,' the necessity for a new messiah, and the certainty of his early advent, were philosophically considered, as well as prophetically proclaimed.
"The messianic idea is involved in the theory that all the phenomena of spiritual manifestations, however diverse and widely separated, may be referred to a single mediumistic source of distribution. The time has already come for logically arranging the authenticated facts which shall demonstrate it.
"There are regular cycles of spiritual progress, of truth unfoldments; and we are now passing from one into another. Another 'Sun of righteousness' is called for on earth, and the messenger cannot be far off whose life mission it shall be to practically illustrate the new truths that will be vouchsafed. He will not be a mere racial messiah, to which class belonged Buddha, Zoroaster, Pythagoras, Mahomet; nor a half-world messiah, as was the great Nazarene; but steam locomotion and lightning communication, and the harmonizing influences of commercial intercourse, have made a whole-world messiah possible, and such the next one shall be. Though themselves ignorant of the fact, as a body, the great and multiplying army of mediums are his avant-couriers."
In the same paper a lecture delivered in Harmony Hall, Salem, Oregon, by Judge H. A. Maguire, is reported thus:—
"I say, 'as one having authority,' Spiritualists, and all, may see a hope, that shall be a realization to this very generation, of the higher spiritual forces getting control over and governing all the institutions of earth. Silently and invisibly to the worldly-wise, these forces have been, and are being, under the direction of a divine intelligence, extended into every department and station of human life, and the culmination is near at hand,—the ushering in of a new messiah and a new spiritual dispensation."
The editor of the Golden Gate, of April 2, 1887, in an article entitled, "Significance of Prophecy," speaks as follows concerning the second advent:—
"It is now thought by all who believe in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures—except a small portion who adhere to the literal but strained and illogical interpretations thereof—that the prophecies pointing to a second coming of Christ, do not contemplate a personal return to earth of the gentle Nazarene whom the Jews crucified; but rather the advent of the Christ spirit to the world—the unfoldment of a new spiritual dispensation.
"Now these prophecies, by several lines of computation, were demonstrated by Miller and his coadjutors to point to the year 1843 as the time when the great cataclysm, the destruction of the world, was to take place. By a revision of their data the time was afterward brought down to 1848, the year when direct and positive communication was opened up between the two worlds—the advent of modern Spiritualism.
"From that time to the present, the believers in a literal second coming of Christ have been daily and hourly looking for his appearance in the heavens, accompanied by a mighty host of angels. The mighty host are here, and the Christ spirit comes with their teachings; hence, may it not be that the prophecies have been fulfilled."
The well-informed reader knows full well that by no "revision of their data" was the time for the coming of the Lord ever brought down to 1848; but that does not invalidate the fact that Spiritualists expect that all the prophecies concerning the second advent are to be fulfilled by Spiritualism.
But one Ben Franklin French, of Los Angeles, Cal., is still more positive, and in an article entitled, "Who Are the Real Adventists?" written March 18, 1887, he claims that Spiritualists alone are the true Adventists, and that those who are looking for Jesus from Heaven have no right to the name. He says that he was a '44 Adventist, that he did not give up his faith when the time passed, but waited, believing that the prophecy would be fulfilled, although it might tarry, and that the introduction of Spiritualism in 1848, was the fulfillment of Daniel's vision. So the premises of the coming of Christ are all to be fulfilled only by Spiritualism! And professed Protestants, by claiming that the coming of Christ is to be a spiritual coming, are preparing themselves for Satan's deception on this point.
We believe that the Scriptures most plainly teach that Satan will appear in glory surpassing anything that men have seen, and that he will have a host of his followers with him, and that this will be claimed as a fulfillment of the prophecy that "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels." Then the warning, "If any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not," will apply.
But will Satan find any who will acknowledge his claims to be Christ? Yes; all who have not received the love of the truth, will follow him. Those who are looking for Christ to take the reins of this Government, will flock to the standard of this usurper.
To show how ready people are to follow anything that offers them present happiness, we quote the utterance of the editor of the National City (Cal.) Record, in commenting upon a sermon in which the preacher had declared Spiritualism to be real, but of the devil:—
"We have not yet been allowed the privilege of witnessing a materialization of the dead; have not been so fortunate as the Elder in that respect; but whether they are agents of the devil or not, so the spirits had the appearance of being good spirits, it would matter not, we would go a long way to see the same, and forever after worship the devil."
We have in our possession a letter from an infidel, touching the attitude of infidels toward the National Reform movement. Says he:—
"If Jesus will come and sit visibly on the throne where we can see him, and talk to him, there will be no unbelievers, and all will obey."
Thus the way is preparing for Satan's last, overmastering deception.
w.
HISTORICAL NECESSITY OF THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE. NO. 2.
THE death of Luther (February 18, 1546) left Melanchthon at the head of the Reformation in Germany; and his views on the Supper were almost, if not entirely, identical with those of the Reformed, i. e., the Swiss reformers as distinguished from Lutherans. His love of peace and his respect for Luther had caused him to hold his views in abeyance while Luther lived; but after Luther's death, this very love of peace led him into a war that lasted as long as he lived. For, holding views so favorable to those of the opposition, and believing, besides, that even in the widest difference of opinion on this subject, there was nothing that justified any division, much less such bitter contention, between the friends of the Reformation, his desire for peace induced him to propose a union of Lutherans and Zwinglians. This immediately caused a division among the Lutherans, and developed what Mosheim calls the "rigid Lutherans" and the "moderate Lutherans,"—the moderate Lutherans favoring union, and the rigid Lutherans attacking with renewed vigor all together, and Melanchthon in particular.
Just here also another element of contention for the rigid Lutherans was introduced. Calvin appeared as a kind of mediator between the Lutherans and Zwinglians; and he proposed by modifying the opinions of both parties to effect a more perfect union; but instead of his efforts being acceptable, the rigid Lutherans accused all who in the least degree favored the union of being Crypto-Calvinists,152i. e., secret Calvinists. By thus adding an epithet, the prejudice was increased against any effort toward conciliation; and besides, a bitter controversy was opened between the Lutherans and the Calvinists.
The bitterness of the opponents of Melanchthon was increased by his connection with the "Interim," which was this: In 1547 a Diet was held at Augsburg, and Charles V. required of the Protestants that they should submit the decision of religious contests to the Council of Trent. The greater part of the members of the Diet consented. But under the pretext of a plague raging in Trent, the Pope issued a bull transferring the council to Bologna. The legates and all the rest of the Papal party obeyed the Pope, but the emperor ordered all of the German bishops to remain at Trent. This virtually dissolved the council; and as the Pope refused to re-assemble the council at Trent, and the Emperor refused to allow his bishops to go to Bologna, plainly there could be no council to decide the religious contests, and the action of the Diet was nullified. Now, to keep the matter under control until the difference between the Pope and the emperor could be settled, and the council re-assembled, Charles ordered Julius Pflugius, bishop of Nuremberg, Michael Sidonius, a creature of the Pope, and John Agricola, of Eisleben, to draw up a formulary which might serve as a rule of faith and worship for both Protestants and Catholics, until the council should be ready to act upon the question. This formulary, from its purpose of being only to cover the interval that should elapse till the council should act, was called the "Interim." But instead of pacifying the contestants, it only led to new difficulties, and involved the whole empire in violence and bloodshed.
Maurice, elector of Saxony, affected to remain neutral in regard to the "Interim," neither accepting nor rejecting it; but finally in 1548 he assembled the Saxony nobility and clergy in several conferences, to take counsel about what should be done. In all these conferences, Melanchthon was accorded the chief place; and he finally gave it as his opinion "that the whole of the book of 'Interim' could not by any means be adopted by the friends of the Reformation; but declared at the same time that he saw no reason why it might not be adopted as authority in things that did not relate to the essential parts of religion, or in things which might be considered indifferent." This decision set his enemies all aflame again; and with Flacius at their head, the defenders of Lutheranism attacked Melanchthon and the doctors of Wittenberg and Leipsic "with incredible bitterness and fury, and accused them of apostasy from the true religion."—Mosheim.
Melanchthon and his friends, however, were able to defend themselves; and a warm debate followed upon these two points: "1. Whether the points that seemed indifferent to Melanchthon were so in reality. 2. Whether in things of an indifferent nature, and in which the interests of religion are not essentially concerned, it be lawful to yield to the enemies of the truth." And right here we are brought to the contemplation of the greatest hindrance that ever affected the Reformation—that is, scholasticism.
Luther and all the other reformers stood upon the platform of "The word of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word of God." They abandoned the sophistries of the schools, and rested solely upon this declaration, which must be the basis of every true reform in all ages. And just so far as that principle is abandoned, so much will the work be retarded. While this principle was adhered to, the Reformation succeeded gloriously; when the principle was abandoned, the Reformation suffered accordingly. In the word of God, lies the strength of the work of God. In this position there was another great advantage that the reformers held over their Papal antagonists. As long as they stood by the word of God alone, they occupied a field with which the Papists were wholly unacquainted; and the more the reformers studied and applied the word of God, the more easily they could defeat their adversaries. Their adversaries knew it, and therefore they employed every artifice to draw the reformers into the scholastic field; for there the Papists had every advantage which the Protestants had in the other. While the leaders of the Reformation lived, the Papists were unsuccessful in every attempt in this direction, and so the Reformation was successful everywhere; but when these leaders were removed from the world, and their faith and zeal were not inherited by their successors, and when to the craftiness of the Papists were added the zeal and artfulness of Loyola and his order, the Protestants were finally corrupted by the arts and stratagems of their opponents and induced to revive the subtleties of the schools in defending and illustrating religious truth. So it may be said with truth that, while the Protestants imbibed scholasticism from the Catholics, they allowed the Catholics to steal from them their zeal. All that will be needed to prove and illustrate it, will be simply to mention the subjects of controversy that engaged the Protestant disputants for more than a hundred years.
Out of the debate about things indifferent grew several others, from which arose yet others, and so on indefinitely. While Melanchthon and his colleagues were at Leipsic discussing the "Interim," among other things they had said, "The necessity of good works in order to the attainment of eternal salvation, might be held and taught, conformably to the truth of the gospel." This declaration was severely censured by the rigid Lutherans, as being contrary to the doctrine and sentiments of Luther. George Major maintained the doctrine of good works, and Amsdorf the contrary. In this dispute, Amsdorf was so far carried away by his zeal for the doctrine of Luther, as to maintain that good works are an impediment to salvation. This added new fuel to the flame, and on it raged.
Out of this debate grew the one known as the "Synergistical" controversy, from a Greek word signifying co-operation. The disciples of Melanchthon, led by Strigelius, held from him that man co-operates with divine grace in the work of conversion. The Lutherans, led by Flacius, head of the university of Saxe-Weimar, held that God is the only agent in the conversion of man. The dispute led to yet another, concerning the natural powers of the human mind. On this subject a public debate was held at Weimar in 1560, between Flacius and Strigelius. Flacius maintained that "the fall of man extinguished in the human mind every virtuous tendency, every noble faculty, and left nothing but universal darkness and corruption." Strigelius held that this degradation of the powers of the mind was by no means universal. And, hoping to defeat his opponent by puzzling him, put this question: "Should original sin, or the corrupt habit which the human soul contracted by the fall, be classed with substances or accidents?" Flacius replied that "original sin is the very substance of human nature." This bold assertion opened another controversy on the nature and extent of original sin.
(To be continued.)
THE ORACLES OF GOD.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
In the article by Dr. Spear, quoted in another part of this paper, it is stated that “the oracles of God,” which Paul says were committed to the Jews, mean the entire Old Testament Scriptures. While it is true that the entire Old Testament Scriptures are the oracles of God, we do not think that the term primarily refers to them. The word “oracle” is from the Latin word meaning to speak, to utter. Now the ten commandments are the one portion of the Scriptures that God uttered with his own voice; and we think that there is sufficient evidence to show that the term “the oracles of God” refers particularly to the ten commandments.
In Acts 7: 38 Stephen says of Moses that he “was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the Mount Sina, and with our fathers; who received the lively oracles to give unto us.” Here the reference to the ten commandments is unmistakable.
It is well known that the ten commandments were kept in the ark in the most holy place of the tabernacle. This is all that was in that apartment. The presence of God was manifested between the cherubim that were upon the mercy-seat above the ark; “and there,” said the Lord to Moses, “I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.” Ex. 25: 22.
The mercy-seat, with the cherubim above, overshadowing the glory of God, and the tables of the law underneath, represented the throne of God, which has justice and judgment for its foundation. The ten commandments are a transcript of God’s character, they are his will, and consequently are the principles and rule of his Government. God does or says nothing except what is in harmony with them. This being the case, the most holy place of the tabernacle is called “the oracle,” as being the place that contained the oracles of God. See 1 Kings 6: 5, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23; 8: 8. And so, when David prayed to God upon his throne, he said: “Hear the voice of my supplications when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” Ps. 28: 2.
Remembering that the ten commandments are “the oracles of God,” we can understand what a powerful exhortation the apostle makes when he says, “If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God.” 1 Peter 4:11. That is, whatever a man says, and especially if he speaks as a teacher, should be in harmony with the law of God. In other words, it should be as true as if God himself had spoken it. So when God speaks of the model for his ministers, he says: “The law of truth was in his mouth, and iniquity was not found in his lips; he walked with me in peace and equity, and did turn many away from iniquity. For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.” Malachi 2:6, 7.
If all who profess to acknowledge God would remember to speak on every occasion as the oracles of God, there would be a revival such as has never been known.
But while the ten commandments are primarily the oracles of God, it is also true that the term may properly be applied to the entire Old Testament; for the Old Testament is but a commentary on the ten commandments; in which, both by precept and example, we are shown how the law should be kept, and by example and judgment are shown the consequences of disobeying the law; and it also shows how to escape the consequences of sin. The same thing may also be said of the New Testament, which is an expansion of the Old. So while the ten commandments were issued directly from the lips of God, the entire Bible is properly called the word of God.
And this suggests another thought. Christ is the Word. John 1:1; Rev. 19:11-13. He is so called because it is through him that all of God’s will is revealed to man. He it was that spoke the law from Mount Sinai. It was the Spirit of Christ that was in the holy prophets, speaking through them. As he declared the law of God, so he makes known to us the love of God, and will finally execute the divine judgment. Moreover, he is the Word of God, in that in him we have the law,—the oracles of God,—personified. And so all stand together,—the law, the Old Testament, and Christ. Whoever or whatever casts discredit upon one, dishonors the other to exactly the same extent. W.