Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 6. (2/7/1878)

Review and Herald

Feb 7, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 7, 1878

THE LAW IN GALATIANS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

(Concluded.)

8. This law was given simply as an introductory teacher to prepare the way for the gospel and faith in Christ, when the proper time should come. We think we can make this point very plain. If so, it alone settles the question. Thus Paul says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19. The plain statement here is that this law, whatever one it is, was simply given in relation to the seed who was to come, viz., Christ. To him it pointed; in him it centered.

“But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.” Gal. 3:23–25.

The apostle here illustrates the use of the old law by the Greek term παιδαγωγός, paidagogos, improperly translated “school-master.” It is thus defined in Greenfield’s Greek Lexicon: “A pedagogue, i. e., pr. a person, usually a slave or freedman, to whom the care of the boys of a family was committed, who trained them up and formed their manners, attended them at their play, led them to and from the public school,” &c.

Bloomfield’s Greek Testament, in notes on Gal. 3:23, says: “As the law was before compared to a jailor, so it is here likened to a παιδαγωγός, by which term is not to be understood a school-master (for that would have been διδάσκαλος), but the paidagogos, or person (usually a freedman or a slave) who conducted children to and from school, attended them out of school hours, formed their manners, superintended their moral conduct, and in various respects prepared them for the διδάσκαλος.”

The illustration is a good one, and it shows the office of the typical law. This law was not designed to be the ultimate teacher, the real and final instructor of God’s people. It was designed only to lead men to the gospel, to prepare the way for faith in Christ. This we know was the sole design of the typical law, the sacrifices, circumcision, the work of the priest, the services in the temple, and everything in the ceremonial law. These were only types and shadows pointing to Christ. So we are expressly told by Paul himself, in several places. Col. 2:14–17; Heb. 8:1–5; 10:1–9. In perfect harmony with this, the apostle here declares that the law was our pedagogue to bring us to Christ. Then what happened? But after that faith has come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. That law having served its purpose of introducing Christ and the gospel, is now to be laid aside. It seems as though a child could see that this is the apostle’s argument.

Not satisfied with this, the apostle illustrates the nature of that old law in another manner: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all, but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world; but when the fullness of the time was come, 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. 4:1–5.

He takes the case of a child whose father is dead. In his will the father has appointed certain persons to teach and guide him till he is of age. Under these restraints he is, for the time, treated like a servant. Even so, he says, God’s people were formerly in bondage under the elements of the world. The Greek word στοιχεῖα, here rendered “elements,” is thus defined by Greenfield: “Stoicheion, an element, elementary part, e. g., of discourse, i. e., an elementary sound.” “Elementary instruction, the first principles, or lowest rudiments of any knowledge.” Benson, in his Commentary, says of this word: “Under the elements of the world.—Under the typical observances of patriarchal and Mosaic dispensations, which were like the first elements of grammar, the a, b, c of children, and were of so gross a nature as hardly to carry men’s thoughts beyond the world.” Whitby and Lowman comment thus: “The elements of the world, i. e., the Jewish rites, so-called.”

This gives the proper idea. God’s people were formerly in bondage under the elementary instructions of that age. The word here rendered “world” is κόσμος, kosmos, which frequently means age, dispensation; so this law was simply elementary, or preparatory only during that age, that is, to prepare the way for Christ when the proper time should come. That this was the exact position which the typical law filled, the very thing for which it was given by the Lord, all will readily admit. It was only rudimentary in its nature, designed to teach and restrain the people as children, till Christ should come. So the apostle adds, “When the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son.” Now, on the other hand, it is not true that the moral law ever occupied any such relation to Christ. There is nothing in the ten commandments that points to Christ or to faith in him. It cannot be said of the decalogue, or the moral law, that it was a law bringing us to Christ, because all the principles of the moral law would have existed if man had never fallen, if Christ had never died.

But does not David say of this law, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul”? And does not Paul say, “I had not known sin, but by the law,” and that “by the law is the knowledge of sin”? Certainly, this is all true. Well, then, does not the law, by convicting a man of his sins, lead him to Christ for pardon? I answer, No. The moral law convicts a man of sin, shows him he is a lost sinner; but there it stops. It does not lead him to Christ. It does not lead him anywhere. It simply condemns him, and leaves him there. You must have something else to point him to Christ; and this is just what the typical law did do in the Old Testament, and what the gospel does in the New.

9. This law in Galatians was designed to last only till Christ should come, when its object would be accomplished, and it would pass away. This is so plainly stated that it hardly admits of an argument. Thus the apostle says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19. How long was it to last? “Till the seed should come,” which certainly implies that it was not to last longer; and he thus confirms this view: “Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.” Verses 24, 25.

This is certainly a plain declaration that this law was of force only till Christ came, and that since he came our obligations to this law have ceased. Moreover, it is to be noticed that Paul is not here talking of individual conversion, and telling what this law did to us while we were sinners, and how we are to regard it after conversion. He is most certainly talking of the two dispensations,—the Jewish and the Christian, and explaining what relation this law sustained to God’s people in the old dispensation, and what relation we sustain to it in the new. And herein is the difference between the argument in the book of Galatians and that in the book of Romans. In Romans Paul argues, not upon dispensations, but upon individual experience, before conversion and after. Not so in Galatians. Here it is the Jewish system of worship, as compared with the Christian system. He certainly argues that since the coming of Christ our relation to that old law is very different from the relation God’s people sustained to it before he came. This is true of the ceremonial law, but not of the moral.

In Galatians 4:1–5, as has already been quoted, he argues that this law stood related to God’s people as a governor or tutor to a child under age; but that when the fullness of time came, and Christ appeared, then it was of no further service. And so again in chap. 5:1–3, he does certainly show that the law under consideration is no longer to be observed by Christians: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

If this language does not show that the law there spoken of was a yoke of bondage, and one which is no longer obligatory, then I should despair of understanding anything; but this is only the conclusion of what he has labored to prove all the way through.

We ask, What is there in the moral law that would indicate that it terminated at the coming of Christ? That law forbids idolatry, profanity, Sabbath-breaking, disobedience to parents, murder, theft, &c. Did man’s relation to these moral duties change at the coming of Christ? Did the death of Christ alter any of these principles? Most certainly not.

10. The typical law did provide a forgiveness of sins, the very thing for which these Galatians were led to keep it. But they overlooked the typical nature of that pardon, which Paul now shows them. That the ceremonial law gave directions by which sins were to be pardoned, is readily seen by the slightest examination. Indeed, this is its main feature everywhere. Turn to Leviticus 4 a moment. The Lord says, “If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord;” “if the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people;” “when a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the Lord,”—“he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish, and he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it,” &c. Then he directs how the offering shall be made in each case, and every time ends by saying, “And it shall be forgiven him.” Verses 26, 31, 35, &c.

All through the Jewish age, when any one had sinned, and repented of his sins, and wished to obtain pardon, he brought his offering according to the law, made his confession, and was pardoned. Now those Judaizing teachers claimed that this was still necessary, and that men could not be justified without it. The Galatians fell into this error, and undertook to obtain justification through the observance of that typical law. Nor was it any wonder that they readily embraced that idea; for this typical system of pardon came from God, and had been solemnly sanctioned, and practiced for fifteen hundred years. It was hard for them to realize the radical change which the coming of Christ necessitated in this particular.

But, as already shown, Paul takes up the subject, and shows that this law was only typical, pointing to Christ and ending in faith in him. Gal. 3:19, 25. In other places he clearly asserts that all the offerings of the old system never took away a single sin:—

“Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” “For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Heb. 9:9, 10; 10:1–4.

These statements are positive. Not a single sin was removed by all those sacrifices. They only pointed to Christ, and through faith in him thus shadowed forth, was the pardon obtained. Most certainly this is the beginning and end of Paul’s argument with the Galatians. But the moral law made no such offer of pardon. The Lord never said that their sins should be forgiven if they would not steal, nor lie, nor swear; hence there is no reason to suppose that they would think of looking to that law for pardon or justification.

11. No fault is found with them for trying to observe any one of the ten commandments; but they are reproved, time and again, for trying to observe the typical law. This fact I regard as very decisive. If their observance of the decalogue, or the moral law, was the subject of dispute, why does not Paul mention some of the commandments which they were wrongly trying to observe? But he mentions no such thing. He does not tell them that they need not keep the Sabbath, nor does he point out any commandment of the decalogue as the one under dispute. But see how plainly he does tell them wherein they are wrong: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto

you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Gal. 5:2, 3; 6:12. Circumcision, then, was the difficulty; but this is in the ceremonial law, not in the decalogue.

12. It was not simply a wrong theory of justification which they had adopted, but they were practicing what Paul condemned. This, again, shows it was not the observance of the moral law, because it was their duty to keep that, and Paul always taught the observance of that law. Rom. 3:31; 7:12; Eph. 6:1–4, &c. Nor did these Galatians openly reject Christ. They professed to believe in him the same as before. What, then, was the trouble? They were seeking justification by the rites and ceremonies of a law which was dead.

13. The observance of the decalogue could not show a rejection of Christ, but the observance of the typical law, after his death, would, and this is just what Paul charges them with. The typical law, with its rites and ceremonies, pointed to the death of Christ. There it met its fulfillment, its antitype; and hence to observe that law afterward was virtually to say that Christ had not yet come, and thus to deny him. And so Paul charges them: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Gal. 5:2–4.

Here he says that if circumcision is binding, then the whole of that law is binding, and should be observed. If that is so, then Christ has not come, and faith in him is vain. But how could the observance of the moral law show any rejection of Christ? Did the disciples show that they rejected him, because they would have no other gods, nor worship an image, nor swear, nor break the Sabbath, nor dishonor their parents, nor murder, steal, nor covet? Any honest man can see in a moment that the observance of these precepts would have no bearing upon the question.

14. Paul argues that no one can be justified by the works of the law, which is true of any law, moral or ceremonial. This is true of the moral law as well as of the ceremonial. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Rom. 3:20, 23.

Why cannot any one be justified by the observance of the moral law? Because of the simple fact that when you have once broken that law, it must always condemn you. What kind of a law would that be that would justify the man who broke it? Now all have broken the moral law, and hence it must condemn everybody. There is no pardon in it. Neither could the observance of the typical law take away sins, as we have shown before. Paul repeatedly affirms that. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” See also Heb. 7:18, 19; 10:1–4; 9:9–14. Consider a moment: what is there in the shedding of an animal’s blood that could take away a man’s sins? Absolutely nothing. So, then, there was no law given the observance of which could pardon sin or justify the sinner, and hence Paul says to the Galatians: “For if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” “For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” Gal. 2:21; 3:21. So the great apostle truthfully argues that pardon and justification cannot be obtained by law of any kind. It must come through faith in Christ, through the unmerited mercy of God.

15. Hence in his argument upon justification by faith only, Paul shows that even the observance of the moral law cannot justify a sinner: “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” “But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident; for The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” Gal. 2:16; 3:11–13.

Evidently the reference in these verses is to the moral law. For he uses the same language concerning it in Rom. 3:20. Furthermore, it is the curse of the moral law from which Christ, by his death, redeemed the sinner. This part of Paul’s reasoning was absolutely necessary to his argument, to show that forgiveness and justification cannot be obtained by the observance of any law, moral or ceremonial.

16. But when Paul declares what law was not to be observed, what law ended at the cross, he is very particular to specify the typical law. Where the apostle argues that the law has passed away, he says that it is the one relating to circumcision, the one which was a yoke of bondage, the one which pointed to the seed—to Christ, the one that typified the death of Christ, the one which was only preparatory for the coming of Jesus, &c. Let us read what he says: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” Gal. 3:19.

He says that “the law was added because of transgressions.” This is just the reason why the typical law was given. Having transgressed the moral law, the people were condemned to death for their sins. Then they could only obtain pardon through faith in the death of Christ. In order to show this faith, it became necessary to offer sacrifices, to have an altar, a temple, priests, &c. To regulate all these ceremonies, it was necessary to have a law. Hence came the typical law. It was added. For how long was it added? Till the seed should come. Then, it is a law that pointed to Christ, the seed. But the decalogue did not point to Christ.

“It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” This unmistakably points to the law of Moses, the ceremonial law; and why? Because the decalogue was not given through angels. God himself spoke that directly from Heaven, with his own voice; but he sent angels to communicate the other law to Moses, who wrote it out with his hand in a book. The Syriac Testament says, “The law was given by angels, through a mediator.” Whiting says, “Made known through angels.” As we have said, the moral law was neither made known nor given through angels, but God delivered it himself, in person.

Then Paul says, verse 24, the law was our school-master (pedagogue, remember), to bring us unto Christ. This again shows that it is the typical law, not the moral. We have already argued this at length, showing that the sole object of the typical law was to point to, and prepare the way for, Christ; but that the moral law does not point to Christ in any manner. It says nothing about Christ. This shows what law is done away.

In chapter 5:1–4, the apostle leaves no chance to mistake as to what law is abolished: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.” Gal. 5:1. They were to stand fast in the liberty which Christ gives to them. But does Christ give his people liberty to lie, steal, covet, swear, or break any precept of the moral law? No one dare affirm it. He says that the law of which he is speaking is a yoke of bondage. But the ten commandments are called “the law of liberty.” James 2:10–12. And the psalmist says, “I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts.” Ps. 119:45. Then there is no bondage in keeping the law of God, but this other law was a yoke of bondage.

Who can mistake what law is meant when Paul explains it as he does in the following verses? “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Gal. 5:2, 3. This is the law of circumcision. And then the next verse: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” It was the law through which men looked for pardon, for justification. That this was the ceremonial not the moral law, I have before abundantly shown. Verse 11 shows the same thing: “And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offense of the cross ceased.” Once more he says: “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.” Gal. 6:12, 13. Here Paul tells directly the thing under dispute, that which others were urging upon them, and which he was fighting against, namely, the observance of the law of circumcision.

Then look at Paul’s allegory, drawn from Sarah and Hagar, in chapter 4:21–26: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” Verse 21. Now he is going to quote from the law. Does he proceed to quote from the ten commandments? Let us see: “For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman.” Verse 22. This is not written in the ten commandments certainly. “But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory; for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” Verses 23, 24.

Where was the ceremonial law given? On Mount Sinai. Ex. 25–31. Moses went up into a mountain and was there forty days, receiving and writing out the Levitical law. Paul continues: “For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.” Verses 25, 26. What does Hagar represent? Jerusalem, and the Jews with their ceremonial worship, to which they had clung after rejecting Christ. So Paul says. What does Sarah represent? Jerusalem which is above, the mother of Christians.

Some have foolishly said that Hagar represents the ten commandments, and Sarah the law of Christ. This is not only an unfounded assumption, but it is directly contrary to what Paul says. He makes Hagar represent a very different thing. Jerusalem was the center of all the ritual system, and it was by the observance of these carnal ceremonies that the blinded Jews expected to obtain justification, instead of by looking to Christ, the antitype of them all.

Thus we think we have conclusively shown that Galatians plainly teaches the abrogation of a certain law, and that this law is the one relating to circumcision, to types and shadows pointing to Christ, and hence it most certainly was the ceremonial law.

HE LEADS US ON.

He leads us on By paths we did not know; Upward He leads us, though our steps be slow, Though oft we faint and falter by the way, Though storms and darkness oft obscure the day, Yet, when the clouds are gone, We know He leads us on.

He leads us on Through all the unquiet years; Past all our dreamland hopes, and doubts, and fears He guides our steps. Through all the tangled maze Of sin, of sorrow, and o'erclouded days, We know His will is done; And still He leads us on.

And He at last, After the weary strife,— After the restless fever we call life, After the weariness, the aching pain, The wayward struggles, which have proved in vain,— After our toils are past Will give us rest at last. —Sel.

HIS TIME IS SHORT.

By Annie Teague

A strong breeze has been raised among infidels and liberals of every class, from Maine to California, by the arrest and placing under bonds of one D. M. Bennett, publisher of a New York City liberal paper known as the Truth Seeker, charged with sending prohibited literature through the mails. Much strong feeling has been aroused against the churches by this act, as it is claimed by the defendants that their grievances have been caused by emissaries of the churches, who are trying to bring the government to serve their purposes, by arresting and bringing to condemnation influential freethinkers.

This latest arrest being only one of several from their ranks, a loud cry goes up all over the land, and hundreds of names, representing thousands of dollars, are poured into the Bennett defense fund, filling columns in the paper he sends out. The tenor of published letters accompanying donations is hostility to the government and to the Christian religion, thus giving another impetus to the union of church and state as a defense against unorthodox liberalism, and widening the breach that will one day in the future separate bitterer hostilities than our land of religious freedom has ever witnessed.

Liberalism is solid in acrimonious attack on every branch of government, and from George Francis Train's head-light down to the nameless glow-worm in the rank and file, all utter determined resolutions to do their utmost to reform the laws of the country, and harmonize them to the requirements of rational human beings. As a first step in that direction they have printed petitions to be circulated throughout the United States, asking Congress to repeal the act prohibiting certain classes of publications from the mails, claiming the law to be detrimental to the free thought, free-speech, and free-press interests of the country. They feel confident that “victory will rest on the liberal head, though it may be at the price of blood.”—Truth Seeker, Dec. 1, 1877.

The Truth Seeker is a sixteen-page paper, devoted to the progress of the cause it leads; and as a specially attractive feature for the present year, a new department is added known as “Correspondence Extraordinary from the Infernal and Supernal regions, consisting of a series of letters written expressly for these columns from his Satanic Majesty, Old Lucifer himself, as well as his more arrogant brother, Jehovah, or Jah of the Jews, and other noted personages who have figured in the mythologies and theologies of the world.”—Truth Seeker, Dec. 8, 1877. When slight circumstances will cause so strong an element of society to rally around such a banner as the above, the outlook presents most forcibly the significance of the present truth, and its correct application of the signs of the times. ANNIE TEAGUE.

CLEOPATRA'S NEEDLE.

By D. F. E.

The English people may think they are subserving the cause of science in removing this ancient monument and re-erecting it on the banks of the Thames. The fact that prophets are rarely appreciated in their own country is exactly reversed in the case of inanimate objects; and a thing which will attract tourists thousands of miles, and which will excite unmixed enthusiasm when surrounded by appropriate objects and scenery, will be passed by unnoticed in the busy streets of a city. We may hope, however, that this experience of squandering money and precious lives, in the attempt to bring unwieldy burdens over sea and land, will be a lesson remembered, and that the enthusiasm of archaeologists will be in future tempered with a modicum of common sense. The best cause in the world is weakened and stultified, if wrong times and methods are chosen for endeavoring to serve it.

The fabulous Osiris, Apis, Thoth, Horus, and all the other so-called deities, may have interest so far as mere antiquity is concerned; but what have they in common with our one God? In their mysterious worship some faint glimmerings of a knowledge of the Eternal One may have existed. But we remember that the world by wisdom knew not God. When they discontinued rendering homage to the Creator, and neglected to observe and remember the memorial of his creative work, the Sabbath on which God rested, then the floodgates of every conceivable error and wrong were opened, leading them to worship the things of creation rather than the Creator himself. Hence the veneration of the sun, and that of the unnumbered deities of antiquity. Perhaps we cannot trace all the steps by which the worship of idols was substituted for that of the true and living God; but this we do know: man has in all ages been led astray and has worshiped things which are not enduring when he has broken the divine command, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.” Let us then cling with tenacity to God's primal law, handed down to us from the beginning: we cannot improve upon it. Why have the sad memento of sun worship paraded before Christians in the last times? Why worship on Sunday? Truly our adversary the devil goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. We condemn the idolatries of the ancients. Are we idolators? D. F. E.

CREATION AND REDEMPTION.

By J. P. Logan

Which is greater, creation or redemption? It is asserted by many who hold to the observance of the Sunday instead of the Sabbath of the Lord, that redemption is greater than creation. A poet sings,—

“’Twas great to speak a world from naught, ’Twas greater to redeem.”

As the Bible is silent on this question, we must look somewhere else for an answer. Two facts present themselves for our consideration.

If man had not been created, there would have been no need of redemption.
After man was created, had he not sinned there would have been no need of redemption.

So, then, redemption is entirely dependent upon creation, and the fall of man; but primarily upon creation. Is it not therefore folly to speak of redemption as being greater than creation?

J. P. LOGAN.

MOUNT HOR.

By Bonar

Num. 20:23-29.

They have left the camp, with its tents outspreading, Like a garden of lilies, on Edom's plain; They are climbing the mountain, in silence treading A path which one shall not tread again. Two aged brothers the way are leading, There follows a youth in the solemn train.

O'er a sister's bier they have just been bending; The desert prophetess sleeps hard by: With her toilsome sojourn nearly ending, With Judah's mountains before her eye, The echoes of Kadesh and Canaan blending, She has calmly turned her aside to die!

They come, not to gaze on the matchless glory, On grandeur the like of which earth has not; A billowy ocean of mountains hoary, A chaos of cliffs round this awful spot; A vision like that in some old-world story, Too terrible ever to be forgot.

The desert rainbow that gleams before ye, But leaves your solitude doubly bleak; The shadows of sunset fall ghastly o'er ye; Cliff frowns upon cliff, and peak on peak. O rocks of the desolate, lean and hoary, What lip of man can your grandeur speak!

Splintered and blasted and thunder-smitten, Not a smile above, nor a hope below; Shivered and scorched and hunger-bitten, No earthly lightning has seamed your brow; On each stone the avenger's pen has written, Horror and ruin, and death and woe.

The king and the priest move on unspeaking, The desert-priest and the desert-king; 'Tis a grave, a mountain grave they are seeking, Fit end of a great life-wandering! And here, till the day of the glory-streaking, This desert eagle must fold his wing.

The fetters of age have but lightly bound him, This bold, sharp steep he can bravely breast; With his six-score wondrous years around him, He climbs like youth to the mountain's crest. The mortal moment at last has found him, Willing to tarry, yet glad to rest.

Is that a tear-drop his dim eye leaving, As he looks his last on yon desert-sun? Is that a sigh his faint bosom heaving, As he lays his ephod in silence down? 'Twas a passing mist, to his sky still cleaving;— But the sky has brightened, the cloud is gone!

In his shroud of rock they have gently wound him, 'Tis a Bethel-pillow that love has given; I see no gloom of the grave around him, The death-bed fetters have all been riven; 'Tis the angel of life, not of death, that has found him, And this is to him the gate of Heaven.

He has seen the tombs of old Mizraim's wonder, Where the haughty Pharaohs embalmed recline; But no pyramid tomb, with its costly grandeur, Can once be compared with this mountain-shrine; No monarch of Memphis is swathed in splendor, High priest of the desert, like this of thine!

Not with thy nation thy bones are lying, Nor Israel's hills shall thy burial see; Yet with Edom's vultures around thee flying, Safe and unrifled thy dust shall be:— Oh! who would not covet so calm a dying, And who would not rest by the side of thee?

Not with thy fathers thy slumber tasting: From sister and brother thou seem'st to flee. Not in Shechem's plain are thy ashes wasting, Not in Machpelah thy grave shall be; In the land of the stranger thy dust is resting: Yet who would not sleep by the side of thee?

Alone and safe, in the happy keeping Of rocks and sands, till the glorious morn, They have laid thee down for thy lonely sleeping, Waysore and weary and labor-worn; While faintly the sound of a nation's weeping From the vale beneath thee is upward borne.

As one familiar with gentle sorrow, With a dirge-like wailing the wind goes by; And echo lovingly seems to borrow The plaintive note of the mourner's cry, Which comes to-day and is gone to-morrow, Leaving naught for thee but the stranger's sigh.

Alone and safe, in the holy keeping Of Him who holdeth the grave's cold key, They have laid thee down for the blessed sleeping, The quiet rest which his dear ones seek;— And why o'er thee should we weep the weeping, For who would not rest by the side of thee?

Three Hebrew cradles, the Nile-palms under, Rocked three sweet babes upon Egypt's plain; Three desert graves must these dear ones sunder; Three sorrowful links of a broken chain; Kadesh and Hor, and Nebo yonder,— Three way-marks now for the pilgrim train.

Are these my way-marks, these tombs of ages? Are these my guides to the land of rest? Are these grim rock-tombs the stony pages, Which show how to follow the holy blest? And bid me rise, 'bove each storm that rages, Like a weary dove to its olive nest?

Is death my way to the home unending? Is the desert my path to the Eden-plain? Are these lone links, that are round me lying, To be gathered, and all reknit again? And is there beyond this land of sighing A refuge forever from death and pain?

On this rugged cliff, while the sun is dying Behind yon majestic mountain-wall, I stand,—not a cloudlet above me flying,— Not a foot is stirring, no voices call,— A traveler lonely, a stranger, trying To muse o'er this wondrous funeral. In silence we stand, till the faint stars cover This grave of ages. Yes, thus would we Still look and linger, and gaze and hover About this cave where thy dust may be! Great priest of the desert, thy toil is over, And who would not rest by the side of thee?

And night, the wan night is bending over The twilight couch of the dying day, With dewy eyes, like a weeping lover, That doats on the beauty that will not stay, And sighs that the mould so soon must cover Each golden smile of the well-loved clay.

The night of ages bends softly o'er us; Four thousand autumns have well-nigh fled, Love watches still the old tomb before us Of sainted dust, in its mountain-bed; Till the longed-for trump shall awake the chorus, From desert and field, of the blessed dead. —Bonar.

Continue reading: THE CHURCHES FROM THE WORLD'S STAND-POINT