Earlier text: The Unchanged PapacyIt is as follows that the Free Methodist advises the holiness people, and the advice is just as good for all:— Cleanliness is surely a Christian virtue. How inconsistent it seems to see a sister professing holiness, with frowsy hair, and soiled collar, and slouchy dress. Holiness is the perfection of moral loveliness. Ought not the person to fitly represent the mind's beauty? When we go into her house and find everything in confusion, dust under the stove that must have taken days to accumulate, cobwebs that have not been swept down for months, the ceiling begrimed with smoke, and other things to correspond, we feel sad and don't wonder that holiness and untidiness associate themselves in the minds of some. Is it not just as bad to see a brother with horse ungroomed, poor and ill-fed, with harness awry and tied up with ropes or anything that comes to hand, out-houses with doors all off—in fact everything wearing an air of thriftlessness and disorder? It makes a discount on testimony, as sure as you live. I believe in the utmost plainness, but I believe dirt and untidiness are contrary to the Bible. No matter if your house is a log one, let it be clean and neat. No matter if your dress be calico, let it be wholesome. I know women who look sweet and God-honoring with only a print dress, and houses with bare walls and without carpets where it is a pleasure to visit. Of course I am not speaking now of those who are sick or have had an extremely hard time for a while, but of those who are habitually so. Get down on your knees and pray God to enable you to do everything "decently and in order." He'll help us on all lines. It will need courage, it will need grace to enable you to "move forward," but God surely requires it. You owe it to him. Come now, don't put this aside and say, "pride." Ask the Lord about it first. It is thus that James Russel Lowell speaks of the criticisms brought by skeptics against Christianity:— “The worst kind of religion is no religion at all; and these men, living in ease and luxury, indulging themselves in ‘the amusement of going without religion,’ may be thankful that they live in lands where the gospel they neglect has tamed the beastliness and ferocity of the men who, but for Christianity, might long ago have eaten their carcasses like the South Sea islanders, or cut off their heads and tanned their hides like the monsters of the French Revolution. When the microscopic search of skepticism, which has hunted the heavens and sounded the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has turned its attention to human society, and has found a place on this planet ten miles square where a decent man can live in decency, comfort, and security, supporting and educating his children, unspoiled and unpolluted,—a place where age is reverenced, infancy respected, manhood respected, womanhood honored, and human life held in due regard,—when skeptics can find such a place ten miles square on this globe, where the gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way, and laid the foundation, and made decency and security possible, it will then be in order for the skeptical literati to move thither and there ventilate their view. But so long as these men are dependent upon the religion which they discard, for every privilege they enjoy, they may well hesitate a little before they seek to rob the Christian of his hope, and humanity of its faith in that Saviour who alone has given to man that hope of the life eternal which makes life tolerable and society possible, and robs death of its terrors and the grave of its gloom.” THE TRUE STEPPING UPWARD.
In all its teachings the New Testament attests its divine source by arraying itself boldly and persistently against the accepted maxims and opinions of the world. It is generally more positive than polite in denouncing as sins what the world often considers virtues, and even high-class virtues. It insists upon what the world ought never to have forgotten, but which it made all possible haste to forget as unwelcome truths, that righteous words are nothing, except as they evidently indicate a corresponding mind or purpose, and that acts which the world loudly commends as evidences of rare Christian virtues, amount to nothing in the sight of God, except as they are the outcome of a heart filled with love to God and man akin to that which the Saviour manifested in the days of his work and teachings, and in the hours of his scourgings and crucifixion sufferings. We do not mean that what are commonly known as good works are not better than bad ones. What we mean to say is that no one ever climbed to heaven on any such ladder, or ever will. The first rounds of the ladder may seem safe and sure, but before a climber fairly begins to get out of sight of this world, the whole thing will collapse and let him down. The inspired apostle Paul had, of course, a thoroughly correct understanding of this subject. He illustrated that understanding in what we have as 1 Corinthians 13, a chapter which we can profitably read a great deal oftener than we do.—N. Y. Evangelist. VERY little is accomplished in the way of character building by a single act. It is the repeated good deed, the reiterated confession of Christ, the frequent kindly service, that makes the man, through God's grace, strong and true and tender. The temple of character is built of very small stones, each stone an act performed from a true motive. It is on this account that we urge the necessity of what has been so well called “the disciplinary effect of routine deliveries.” On this account we believe most heartily in the method of systematic benevolence. A character-stone, or at least a pebble of character, is laid in enduring mortar, whenever the Christian puts aside, in his weekly benevolence envelope, something from his weekly earnings for the world's needs. The very act of separating this offering from the rest of the income, placing it in the envelope, and giving it into the Lord's treasury, will help fix the habit of beneficence. So with the habit of confession. To confess love for Christ once is better than nothing; but it is only one better than nothing. An outspoken religious habit of mind is not thus developed. Do it again and again and again, and then do it once more, and after a while we begin to see the walls arise of a frank, outspoken, manly character.—Golden Rule. WHY THE CHANGE?
By M. C. W.
Not many years since all of the great Christian denominations of our land held to the immutability and perpetuity of the decalogue in its entirety. They believed in the binding obligation of every commandment of the law of God. As proof of this see the thirty-nine articles of the Episcopal Church, and the published creeds of the Congregational, Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches. Representative men, pillars in these churches, have taught in harmony with the creeds. They make a distinction between the moral law and ceremonial precepts. Nevins, in his "Biblical Antiquities," p. 224, says that this moral law is "summarily comprehended in the ten commandments." The Methodist Episcopal articles of faith declare that "no Christian whatsoever is free from obedience to the commandments that are called moral." Their Catechism No. 2, pp. 38-40, has the following questions and answers:— "86. What is the rule of our obedience?
"The moral law. 'If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.' Matt. 19:17.
"87. Where is the moral law given?
"In the ten commandments. Ex. 20:1-17." Then following the first three precepts of the decalogue, with other references, is the question and answer below:— "91. What is the fourth commandment?
"'Remember the Sabbath-day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it.' [Then follow Lev. 19:30; 23:3; Ex. 31:17; Gen. 2:3; Ex. 23:12; Isa. 58:13.]" This was examined and approved in 1851 by the following notable men: Revs. E. Hedding, N. Bangs, S. Olin, and J. Holdich. The next year it was approved by Revs. Elias Bowen, Geo. Webber, and John H. Power. At the same time the General Conference unanimously approved it and ordered it printed. We might fill columns with quotations equally strong with the above, showing that these various denominations once believed most emphatically in the decalogue as summarily comprehending all morality, forbidding all sin, a rule of life, and binding in every part. Why the change now? The creeds, disciplines, and standards read the same now as they did then, we suppose. God's word has not changed. And yet we find many ministers and writers of the various denominations declaring that that law which God spoke and wrote, which Christ magnified and honored by his life, teaching, and death, is abrogated, done away, nailed to the cross. Some assert that it was all abolished at the cross, but re-enacted later. Others still declare that all the law is obligatory upon all except the fourth commandment. But none of those who take any one of these positions can point to any such array of evidences as is presented by those in their denominations who hold to the unbroken perpetuity of the moral law. Those who maintain the law are largely united even among the various denominations, while those who seek to abolish the law, or a part of it, are not agreed, even though they belong to the same sect. This ought to give ground for great searching of heart. Before us lies an argument of a Methodist Episcopal clergyman which is too long to reproduce here. We wish, however, to notice one point. He says, and says truly, that what God requires of us is love; to love God with all our hearts and our neighbor as ourselves, comprehends all duty. If this love is the controlling principle in our hearts, by it we shall be enabled to fulfill the requirements of the law. This is all good as far as it goes. But he says if we will study the so-called ten commandments carefully, and thoroughly, and prayerfully, we will observe that love is the basis or foundation of every command in the decalogue except the fourth. There is no moral principle involved in the fourth except what the Jews were under obligation to do, because God commanded them; and so he classes the Sabbath with the feast of the passover. But if this is true, that the fourth commandment has no foundation in love, that it is different in character than the rest, notice what it involves. 1. The Lord classed the fourth commandment with the nine moral precepts. His classification is so marked that none can deny it. He spoke them all himself; he engraved them with his own finger; he added no more. Ex. 32:15, 16; Deut. 5:22. Did the Lord make a mistake? 2. This fiery law which went from God's right hand, was given because he loved the people. Deut. 33:2, 3. Jesus says that these two principles,—love to God, and love to man,—hangs all the law. Matt. 22:37-40. Paul declares that love is the fulfilling of the law (Rom. 13:10), and John says that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (1 John 5:3). These passages make no exception to the fourth commandment. Did Jesus make a mistake when he said all the law hung on these principles of love? The Bible has made no mistake; the mistake is in the man. God placed the Sabbath commandment just where he did, in the very heart of the decalogue, to show its sacred and moral character. He foresaw how men would pervert its claims, therefore he "made known" its holy character by placing it among nine other moral precepts which men would not question. Neh. 9:13, 14. It is safe to leave it where God leaves it. Simply because we do not in our human blindness see just how a thing can be, is no evidence that it is not so. Methodists once saw the obligation of the entire decalogue, and other denominations also. They held the true principle; their general interpretation was correct, that the law was binding in every particular. They did not understand it in detail. But in these days, when special light is shed upon the fourth precept, when it is seen that the inevitable logic of the Sabbath truths and Sabbath law of the Bible is the observance of the seventh day, they then depart from the sound principles of the past, deny that which made Protestantism what it is, and why?—Because they stand condemned by the true interpretation. Therefore the subject must interpret, the King and his words must be interpreted! Would these men who now teach the abrogation of the fourth commandment continue their teaching if the Bible facts concerning the two days were exactly reversed?—We know they would not. Then the change in the latter-day teaching upon this point looks as though it was done to escape duty. We wish that this may not be the case. If it is not, "he that doeth truth cometh to the light." May God help his people everywhere to trust not in man but in God. RELIGION AND THE CHURCH.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WHEN so much is said pro and con about a union of Church and State, it is fitting that we know exactly what is meant by "the church." Many people erroneously suppose that the term refers to some particular denomination, as the Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian. But this is not the case. To use the term in that sense would be manifestly unfair. If in speaking of "the church" we should refer to some special denomination, we would thereby imply that no other denomination could be a part of "the church." With the exception of the Catholic, nobody uses the term "the church" with reference to any particular sect. In the Bible "the church" is declared to be the body of Christ. In one place Paul says of Christ that "he is the head of the body, the church" (Col. 1:18); and again he says that God "hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body." Eph. 1:22, 23. Baptism is universally recognized as the entrance to the church, as Paul says, "By one Spirit are we all baptized into one body," and that this body is Christ is shown by the words, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." "The church," then, in the strict sense of the word, is composed of those who are "in Christ," who have been converted, "born again," and are consequently "new creatures." From this it is very evident that, strictly speaking, no one religious sect, nor all of them together, can be called "the church." Everybody is willing to admit that in every denomination there are those who are really members of "the church," because they are united to Christ; but nobody will claim that all of any denomination are truly Christian. Since we cannot always distinguish the true professor from the false one, it is evident that the extent of the church is known only to Him who can read the heart; but it is not convenient always to make this fine distinction in our conversation, neither is it possible; and therefore we speak of all who profess the religion of Jesus as members of his church. Thus we assume, since we cannot decide, that each individual's profession is an honest one. Now mark this fact: the religion of Jesus, or the profession of that religion, is the distinguishing characteristic of the church. It is that which makes the church, and without that there is no church. With this matter clearly in mind, we are prepared to decide for ourselves whether or not the Religious Amendment party is in favor of a union of Church and State. And this decision shall be made from the published statements of that party. In the New York Convention of the National Reform Association held in 1873, Dr. Jonathan Edwards, of Peoria, Ill., said:— "It is just possible that the outcry against Church and State may spring rather from hatred to revealed religion than from an intelligent patriotism. But where is the sign, the omen, of such Church and State mischief coming upon us? Who will begin and who will finish this union of Church and State? If you think the Roman Catholic can do it in spite of the watchfulness of the Protestant, or that one Protestant sect can do it amid the jealousy of all other sects, or that all these sects would combine to effect a joint union with the State, you have a notion of human nature and of church nature different from what I have. Church and State in union, then, are forever impossible here, and, were it never so easy, we all repudiate it on principle. There are enduring and ever valid reasons against it. But religion and State is another thing. That is possible. That is a good thing—and that is what we aim to make a feature in our institutions." Exactly, and right here do we see the omen of a union of Church and State. We do not expect that in this country the Catholic Church will be151 the State Church, nor that any one of the Protestant sects will be honored by an alliance with the State. Neither do we look for all the sects to combine and sink their individual names and thus form a union with the State. But we do look for a desperate effort to unite Church and State, and we claim that this effort will be made by the so-called National Reform party. And further, we claim that Dr. Edwards has admitted, even while denying it, that such union is the avowed object of that party. We leave it to the candid reader if the short argument at the beginning of this article, defining "the church," taken in connection with Dr. Edwards' positive declaration, does not prove that a union of Church and State is the grand object sought by the Amendmentists. "But," says one, "do you not teach that a man should carry his religion into his business? Why then should you object to religion in the State?" We do believe that if a man has religion he should manifest it in his business transactions as well as in church; but if he has it not, we would not have him simulate it. So likewise we believe in religion among individuals everywhere, for only individuals can be religious. No man can be religious for another, neither can one man or any number of men make any man religious. And therefore we are not in favor of upholding religion by the laws of the State. Perhaps it may be made a little plainer that religion in the State is Church and State united. We say that the possession of true religion marks one as a real Christian—a member of the church of Christ. The association together of a body of people professing religion constitutes, outwardly at least, a branch of the church of Christ. And so, likewise, the profession of religion by the State constitutes a State church. This is all the union of Church and State that has ever existed. And when such union shall have been effected, what will be the result? Just this: Religion and patriotism will be identical. No matter how pure some of the principles upheld by the laws may be, they can have no vitalizing, spiritual effect on the hearts of the people, because they will stand on the same level as the law defining who are eligible to office, and regulating the length of the presidential term. In short, the incorporation of religion into the laws of the State, marks the decline of religion in the hearts of the people. And this is what the Religious Amendment party is pledged to bring about. Ought not all lovers of pure Christianity to enter a hearty and continued protest against such a proceeding? E. J. W. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF.
By Editor
The Union Signal of February 13 has the following:— “From one of the foremost Quakers of this country comes this prophetic declaration: ‘There has lately come to me quite an “opening,” as we Friends sometimes say, on the sort of agency the Lord intended our W. C. T. U. to be, and the reason he chose the women for this work. I cannot just say that the Lord anointed the women to be his prophets to this government, but I believe it as truly as that Elijah was sent to reprove Ahab, or Jeremiah to rebuke and warn the king of Judah. God did not take office holders in that day, or persons in any way dependent upon government favor, to use as a “voice.” He took those who had, practically, nothing to lose, and I really believe that the Christian women of this land were the only element of our population that God could trust to deliver his reproofs and warnings faithfully.’” All that is necessary to say of the above is that if the W. C. T. U. are prophets to this government, they are prophets of evil, prophesying out of their own heart, saying, The Lord saith, when the Lord hath not spoken. See Jer. 23:16-29; Eze. 13:3-13. The kingdom of Christ will not come through the gate-way of politics, as Miss Willard and others have declared; the good time is not coming which they predict. But perhaps this Friend’s prophecy may be, in a sense, from the Lord. History sometimes repeats itself. “And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will persuade him. And the Lord said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also; go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.” 1 Kings 22:20-23. THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST.
By M. C. W.
THERE is no part of our Lord’s work which is of more importance than his second coming; and, it is safe to say, no doctrine of the Bible is more ignored, abused, or ridiculed at the present time than this. It is made to mean everything than what it does mean. It is placed in the great progressive scheme of God’s providence where it does not belong. It has been perverted in every way, and made the butt of endless jest and jeer. But it is a Bible doctrine nevertheless. It is said to be a secret coming; it is said to be at death; it is said to be at conversion; it is said to be the outpouring of the Spirit of God; it is said to be in modern Spiritualism; it is said that it will be a local coming, a coming to one locality; and it is said that it will be a literal visible appearing of the personal presence of the Messiah. What is the truth of the matter? This must be decided by the Bible, which teaches all that there is to be learned upon the subject. As much is made of the original terms, and as much confusion has been caused by their misapplication, it may be well to examine these terms, and to ascertain from the Scriptures their meaning. These words are:— 1. The verb erchomai and its derivatives, defined as follows: “To come, to go, to pass. By the combination of this verb with other terms, a variety of meanings result, which, however, is due, not to a change of meaning in the verb, but to the adjuncts. Ho erchomenos, He who is coming, the expected Messiah. Matt. 11:3, et al.”—Bagster. This word, therefore, simply indicates the act of coming, going, or passing. Whatever other meaning it has is shown by the words with which it is connected. It is not used simply in connection with the coming of our Lord, but in other instances. See, for example, Luke 18:5; Rom. 15:22; John 5:7; 11:20; 2 Cor. 13:1. This word is translated in the Authorized Version by the following terms,—“appear,” “brought,” “come,” “coming,” “enter,” “fall,” “go,” “grow,” “light,” “next,” “pass,” “resort,” “set.” But in all these instances the word signifies to come, to go, to pass. 2. The noun parousia, which is defined as follows: “Presence (2 Cor. 10:10; Phil. 2:12); a coming, arrival, advent (Phil. 1:26; Matt. 24:3, 27, 37, 39; 1 Cor. 15:23, et al.)”—Bagster. Liddell and Scotts’ Lexicon define: “A being present, presence, of persons.” See 2 Cor. 10:10, where it is translated presence, and 2 Cor. 13:1, where it is translated coming. It denotes personal presence. This word is translated in our common version by the terms “coming” and “presence” only. 3. The noun apokalupsis, translated coming only in 1 Cor. 1:7. It is defined: “A disclosure, revelation (Rom. 2:5, et al.); manifestation, appearance (Rom. 8:19; 1 Cor. 1:7; 2 Thess. 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 4:13); met. spiritual enlightenment (Luke 2:32).”—Bagster. “An uncovering, disclosing, making known: a revelation, especially of divine mys-8teries; revelation; of persons, a manifestation; the Apocalypse, N. T.”—Liddell and Scott. The verb from which it is derived means to disclose, reveal, to uncover, to manifest. The noun is rendered in the common version, “appearing,” “coming,” “manifestation,” “revelation.” 4. There is another word not translated coming, but “appearing” and “brightness,” namely, epiphaneia. It is defined “appearance, manifestation (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 1:10, et al.); glorious display (2 Thess. 2:8).”—Bagster. “Appearance, manifestation,” “an apparition,” “the visible surface,” “the mere surface, outside,” “outward show.”—Liddell and Scott. 5. Hēkō, which is defined to mean, “to be come, to have arrived.”—Bagster. It is defined by Liddell and Scott, to have come, to have reached a point, to have come back, returned, etc. It simply means that the coming is accomplished. These are the words used in connection with the coming of Christ—the first, erchomai, meaning the mere act of coming, going, or passing; the second, parousia, meaning personal presence; the third, apokalupsis, meaning revelation, manifestation, disclosure, appearance; the fourth, epiphaneia, meaning manifestation, appearing, brightness, or glorious display; the fifth, hēkō, meaning already come, to be here. Because of these various terms, and from expressions in connection with them, it is held by some that there will be a “secret rapture,” or a coming of Christ like a thief, to take the bride, or first-fruits, home to himself. This coming will be known only to the righteous. One will be caught up here, another there, till the requisite number are gathered out. Christ will then come with this elect, immortalized company, and every eye shall see him. He will then be manifested in his glory. Let us examine some of these passages. There are several expressions which speak of a coming of Christ in a way which indicates the uncertainty of that event. We give some of these passages below:— “For ye know not what hour your Lord doth come [erchomai]. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come [erchomai], he would have watched. . . . Therefore be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh [erchomai].” Matt. 24:42-44. “Blessed is that servant, whom his Lord, when he cometh [hēkō, is come] shall find so doing.” Verse 46. “After a long time the lord of those servants cometh [erchomai], and reckoneth with them.” Matt. 25:19. “The bridegroom came [elthon from erchomai].” Verse 10. “Ye know not when the master of the house cometh [erchomai], at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning.” Mark 13:35. “For the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not [erchomai].” Luke 12:40. Also verses 39, 43. In verse 46 we have hēkō (will have come) again. “The day of the Lord so cometh [erchomai] as a thief in the night.” “Are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief.” 1 Thess. 5:2, 4. “But the day of the Lord will come [hēkō, will have come] as a thief in the night.” 2 Peter 3:10. “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come [hēkō, will have come] on thee as a thief.” Rev. 3:3. “Behold, I come [erchomai] as a thief.” Rev. 16:15. There are some parallel passages to those quoted. But wherever this uncertainty of the time of the coming is expressed, when secrecy is implied, the word used is always erchomai or hēkō. Not that the words themselves imply such a coming, for they simply mean the mere coming or going or passing itself, or the fact that the coming or going or passing is already over. The other expressions used with the words must denote the kind of coming. The next principal word used in naming the second coming of Christ is parousia. The following are some passages in which it occurs where it is rendered coming:— The above is every instance where parousia occurs. It ever means personal presence when applied to individuals. At least some passages in which it is found prove that this must be the case, and no other passage forbids it. When used for the second coming of Christ, it denotes a visible, personal coming, even as the lightning flashes from one part of the heaven to the other. None of the other words used are opposed to the idea conveyed by the meaning of parousia. Yet the context in which the verb erchomai is sometimes found, shows clearly that it has reference to an event which the world will not see and know as they would see and know the lightning flash. Is there another event or other events beside the parousia, or personal presence of Christ? This, the Lord willing, we will consider in our next. M. C. W. 3. THE basis of this judgment will be the records of men's lives as kept by angelic scribes in the books of heaven. That a record is kept of men's deeds is shown in many scriptures. First, we have the book of life, in which are written the names of all those who have embraced God's plan of salvation. See Luke 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Ex. 32:32; Ps. 69:28; Heb. 12:23. Secondly, there are written the sins of individuals, as the Lord declares that man shall give an account of every "idle word" (Matt. 12:36); and to the wicked the Scriptures declare that there will come a time when God will reprove them for their sins and "set them in order" before their eyes. We also have God's book of remembrance, in which are written the deeds of the righteous. Mal. 3:16. These books of individual record and of life are brought into the judgment. Says the prophet, "The judgment was set, and the books were opened." See Dan. 7:9, 10. Those who minister before God are the heavenly angels. Rev. 5:11. Among these books, John places the book of life. Rev. 20:12. 4. The standard of the judgment will be the holy law of God. This is expressly declared in Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12; James 2:8-12. And this must necessarily be the case. That law is given, these and other scriptures declare, as the rule of man's conduct. Its transgression is therefore sin. 1 John 3:4; Rom. 7:7. And as all are condemned by that law, all are subject to its claims. Rom. 3:19, 20. It is because men have separated from God's law that he sends his last warning message to bring them back to his fear and worship, and to turn them from the worship of worldly powers, and from those sins which are contrary to his statutes. Rev. 14:6-11. And this is shown in the fact that this threefold message develops a class which keep all the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12. 5. When the righteous are made immortal and gathered to heaven, at the second advent (John 14:1-3), the judgment of the wicked, under Christ, is given into their hands. So Paul, in 1 Cor. 6:2, 3, says: "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?" In 1 Cor. 4:5 he tells us when this judgment is given to the saints: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts; and then shall every man have praise of God." Men cannot now read men's motives; then God will reveal the counsels of all hearts. The time of this judgment is stated in Rev. 20:4: "And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them; . . . and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years." At the end of the thousand years the penalty is executed upon the wicked. Verses 13-15. But the object of this article is not the judgment of the wicked, but to show that the closing work of Christ, the justification, or cleansing, of the heavenly sanctuary, began in 1844. This is the time when the sins of the righteous will be blotted out. Acts 3:19. As in the type the sins were laid on the head of the scape-goat, or the goat for Azazel (Lev. 16:8, margin), so the sins removed from the people of God will be laid upon the head of the true Azazel, the antitypical scape-goat, Satan, who will be cast into the abyss for the thousand years. Rev. 20:1-3; compare with Lev. 16:29-30. As those anciently who did not confess their sins and humble their souls before God, according to his will, were cut off from among his people, even so if men do not seek God with all their heart, and bring their lives into harmony with his will, although their names may have been written in the book of life, they will be cut off forever; their names will be blotted out. Rev. 3:3, 5; 22:19. Thus there will be a twofold blotting out,—a blotting out of the sins of the righteous, a blotting out of the names of the unfaithful servants of Christ. Those who here deny Christ he will there deny before the Father, while those who confess and forsake their sins through Christ will be confessed before the Father and his holy angels. Matt. 10:32, 33. It may be said that God does not need time to judge men; and it is true that he knows all hearts and reveals all secret motives. But it is not Deity alone that is concerned in the judgment; the judgment concerns angels and men as well. Therefore there is a time in God's plan for such a purpose and such a work. Eccl. 3:16, 17. It was asked by the father of the faithful, when God was about to bring judgment upon "the cities of the plain," which should be a type of the judgment of all the ungodly, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Gen. 18:25. And the children of faithful Abraham have often asked in faith the same question. This world frequently seems to contradict such faith; but all time is in God's hands; and he will show to all his people, in the impartial records kept by holy angels, by the clear discernment of immortal minds illuminated by the Spirit of God, that he has done all things well, and from that mighty throng will arise the acclaim, "Just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints." Rev. 15:3. The question of faith is then answered; God's justice is vindicated, not to be questioned forevermore. M. C. W. Catholicism in the Brazilian Republic
THE pope’s blessing upon the new republic of Brazil, at the time the empire was discarded, although a surprise to some people, proves to have been not altogether without purpose. While all the sects and creeds are to have equal rights, nominally, as to liberty of worship and self-government, the Roman Catholic is retained as the State religion, and its priests and institutions are maintained by the government. THE TWO GREAT COMMANDMENTS.
IN Matt. 22:35-40 we have the following: "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." This scripture is often brought forward as a proof that the Sabbath, or the fourth commandment, is not now binding. It is often said that Christ gave a new law which superseded the decalogue, and this scripture is cited as proof. But this scripture says nothing of the kind. In fact, it emphasizes the law of God and shows the principle upon which it is based. 1. The lawyer did not ask Jesus, What law do you give? or anything of that kind. The questioner was well versed in the Old Testament Scriptures. He wished to confound Christ. Therefore he asked, "Which is the great commandment in the law?" He referred to that already given, to the writings of the Old Testament or the books of Moses. 2. How does Jesus reply? He does not give them a new law, for that would be an evasion of the question. He replies by quoting the fifth verse of the sixth chapter of Deuteronomy. No law or commandment could be more comprehensive than this. To love God with all the heart, and soul, and mind, with all the affections, and life, and intellect, includes all the powers of one’s being. 3. The second great commandment Jesus also quotes from "the law." Lev. 19:18. 4. On these two, he declares, hang all the law and the prophets. That is, all morality is summed up in them. To bring man to this condition, where he will love God supremely, and his neighbor as himself, Christ died, and the word of God has been given. 5. The decalogue is but an expression of these principles in another form. If man loves God supremely will he have other gods before the Lord? will he make graven images to worship? will he take God’s holy name in vain? will he not observe God’s holy Sabbath? "Love is the fulfilling of the law;" "this is the law of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous," is what is expressly declared by two apostles of Christ. Jesus says that all the law hangs on these two principles—the first four on the principle of love to God, the last six on the principle of love to man. For if we love our neighbor we honor those who are most closely related to us, father and mother, we will guard our neighbor’s life, chastity, property, and reputation, and we will not covet what is his. 6. These principles were given to the Jews fourteen hundred years before Christ, and they did not understand them as being out of harmony with the decalogue. Those who asked Christ the question, agreed with his answer. See Luke 10:25-28 and Mark 12:28-34. We must therefore conclude that if those principles existed during the entire Jewish dispensation in perfect harmony with every precept of the decalogue, they are in perfect harmony with the decalogue to-day. If all the law hung upon them, then we have no reason to suppose otherwise to-day. Those two principles are eternal in their nature, underlying every moral duty which man owes to God. And he who has these principles in his heart will not seek to evade duty by unreasonable excuses, but will find delight in doing all of God’s commandments. Says our Lord: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." John 15:14. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15. "I and my Father are one." John 10:30.