Earlier text: VICTORY AT LAST.Infidel Objections to the Bible Answered. No. 5.
5. God is Cruel, Unmerciful, Destructive and Ferocious. I will not pity nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy. Jer. xiii, 14. And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them. Deut. vii, 16. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. 1 Sam. xv, 2, 3. Because they had looked into the ark of the Lord, even he smote of the people fifty thousand, and three score and ten men. 1 Sam. vi, 19. The Lord thy God is a consuming fire. Deut. iv, 24. God is Kind, Merciful and Good. The Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy. Jam. v, 11. For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men. Lam. iii, 33. For his mercy endureth forever. 1 Chron. xvi, 34. I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God. Eze. xviii, 32. The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. Ps. cxlv, 9. Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. 1 Tim. ii, 4. God is love. 1 John iv, 16. Good and upright is the Lord. Ps. xxv, 8. Infidels seem to delight in representing the God of the Bible as a cruel and implacable being. Their evidence on this point is chiefly composed, as in the quotations above given, of the judgments he inflicted upon the Canaanites, when they were driven out of the land to make way for the children of Israel. Let there be no begging of the question here. We grant that the judgments were severe: the question is, Were they not just? To determine this, we must look at the character of these nations, and the provocations they had given for God's terrible dealings with them. For this end we call the attention of the reader to the following graphic, though in every way just and candid, remarks, from “The Great Controversy,” by H. L. Hastings, pp. 47–51. There is a certain class of men who, for the sake of covering up their own faults, and excusing their non-compliance with Divine law, or for some similar purpose, take infinite pains to make us believe that the Bible is a fiction, its author a cunning knave, and its God a fiendish monster of cruelty. One of their hackneyed objections to the Bible is this—“Can it be true that a merciful God would destroy the nations of Canaan, as is related in the Old Testament? We don't believe in such a God.” Well, let us reason together. Who makes noxious reptiles and venomous insects? The God of nature, is it not? Very well, if venomous insects should drive the inhabitants of a country out of her borders, who would be to blame? No one, except the God of nature I suppose! Well, the kings of the Amorites were driven out, not with the sword or the bow of Israel, but by the swarms of hornets which infested the land—sent, Moses says, by Jehovah—infidels would say by the laws of nature. Now, what is the difference? These are the recorded facts. If God sent the hornets, then it was certainly right for Israel to possess the land—and if nature sent them, the case is not altered one jot that I can discern. In either case their title is equally good, and the cavil is good—for nothing. But it is asserted that there were others of the inhabitants of Canaan who afterward were expelled from its borders by force. This is very true, and to be able to judge of the propriety of the act, we must note a few striking traits in their characters. Among these were the following: In the first place, they were gross and abominable idolaters, who would not worship, obey or serve, the Most High God, having perhaps views and conceptions of his character in accordance with those of their modern sympathizers. Second: they were firm believers in the essential elements of modern “spiritualism,” and practiced necromancy, or pretended to divine and reveal secrets by means of intercourse with the departed; and were thus guilty of the abominable practice of leaving the living God to consult dead men. Third: there were many of them who were fully developed “spiritual mediums,” or in ancient phraseology “consulters of familiar spirits,” “diviners,” and “wizards,” who, like the “medium” at Endor, professed to bring up dead men for the accommodation of backsliders and God-forsaken rebels like king Saul. Fourth: they were, as it became idolatrous heathens and “progressive” spiritual believers to be, freed from the restrictions which God had placed upon the lustful propensities of their nature, and were consequently at full liberty to develop their ideas of “free love” and “passional attraction.” Fifth: their principles of “free love” not only allowed adultery and fornication, but also incest, and all nameless licentious practices of the most revolting character; and quite as free as ever I heard of being advocated in any modern spiritual newspaper, or by any speaker in a spiritual convention. Sixth: they not only begot children in shameless and promiscuous debauchery, but those same children were murderously burned in the fire by their ungodly parents. These were some of the precious traits of character belonging to that reprobate and besotted race which God destroyed. A race scarcely possessed of one solitary recorded virtue, and not exempt from one single imaginable vice. A race debauched, polluted, licentious, and idolatrous. A race progressive, but progressive toward perdition. This was the race of whose presence God purged the world, when their iniquities were full. These were the men whom the land vomited forth. And if Israel had imitated their examples, the reddest bolts from Sinai, or the most lurid fires of Sodom, would have been tame compared with the retributive vengeance which would have been visited upon them. But these men—who would have suffered capital punishment in any land where there is to-day the semblance of a decent law—these men, who had forfeited their lives a dozen times—these men who had done ten times more mischief than their necks were ever worth—these men who had seized on one of the fairest spots beneath the sun, and turned it into an ulcerous brothel of whoredom, and a den of crime and blood—these ancient murderers of their own children—these heathenish “spiritualists” and “free lovers of olden times—these are the men for whom the gentlemen infidels, spirit-rappers, and Bible haters of the present day, generally, plead. Ah! they pity the poor Canaanites. They blame Moses. They find fault with Joshua. They rail at God. They plead for these villains, cut-throats, Sodomites. They palliate the stinking lecherousness of these unholy scoundrels! They, who have learned all they ever knew of God or goodness at their mothers’ knee, or from the Bible, the hymn book, or in the Sabbath School, rail at Jehovah for wiping out such a plague-spot as this from the universe. Why is all this sympathy? Are they partial to such courses? Are they Spiritualists and necromancers? Are they “free lovers” too? Is it a “fellow feeling” that makes them so “wondrous kind?” If so, I excuse their indecent assaults upon God, and truth, and righteousness. But if not, I ask some reason why men speak evil of the things that they know not of. The following from “Bible Triumphant,” pp. 19, 20, is also to the point as showing a harmony between those scriptures where the skeptic claims a contradiction. It has ever been the boast of Infidel writers, that the God of the Bible is cruel and unmerciful, and the texts brought forth in the first part of the above proposition, are ever quoted to sustain this idea. If the reader will take the trouble to examine the passages referred to, in their connection, he will see that they all allude to the judgments of God falling upon wicked nations, for their sins against him. In Jer. xiii, 14, God proposes to destroy the nation of Israel from the land, because they had sinned with a high hand, and trampled on his holy law, but before the threatened judgment was executed, he offered them pardon and forgiveness if they would turn unto Him and cease to pervert his ways. Hence this text is purely of a judicial character, and cannot be made to sustain the skeptic’s attack. Deut. vii, 16, alludes to those nations that were vindictive enemies to God’s people, and he commanded Israel to destroy them. This also was a judgment visited upon the sinful, and therefore founded in justice. The same is true of 1 Sam. xv, 2, 3.—Amalek had done much evil to the people of Israel when they were in the wilderness, killing those that lingered behind in their march, that were fatigued and weary, &c. And for these acts of hostility, God had decreed the overthrow of the Amalekites, and the time now came for its execution. But why, it will be asked, did God decree the destruction of women and helpless infants? We answer, it was a judgment upon a nation, and as such it fell upon all. It was so in the days of the flood, and so of Sodom and Gomorrah. Indeed, the infidel who blames the “God of the Bible,” and boasts of his “God of nature,” is in a worse difficulty than this, for his God buries millions by earthquakes and volcanoes, many of whom are innocent women and helpless babes. His acts are not deserved judgments for sin, but they come without warning or mercy, upon the innocent and helpless. But, says the infidel, they transgressed a physical law, and must suffer its penalty. So we say of those nations. They transgressed a moral law, and they suffered its penalty. The infidel sees no cruelty in his “God of nature” visiting families by disease, by famine and pestilence, taking all the little ones from affectionate parents; he sees no injustice in his “God of nature,” in executing the penalty of violated law. Yet if the God of the Bible inflicts a judgment upon a nation of sinners, he is frightened, and exclaims cruelty! unmerciful! ferocious! Reader, be not deceived. It is done to lead you from the God of truth who does all things for the best, for the good of man, and for his own glory. Tell me the meaning of Scriptures. One gem from that ocean is worth all the pebbles of earthly streams.—M'Cheyne. PARAPHRASE OF PSALM III.
By Editor
LORD, how are they increased who work me ill!
How many rise with war my path to fill!
Who of my soul in taunting words declare,
He goes to God, but finds no helper there. But, Lord, thou art a shield about me spread,
My glory thou, the uplifter of mine head.
With suppliant voice unto the Lord I cried,
And from his holy hill he soon replied.
Safe in his care I laid me down and slept,
And waked again, by his sure mercy kept. Now though my foes, all eager for the fray,
Against me their ten thousands shall array,
I will not be afraid; for my strong tower,
The Lord of hosts, defends me by his power.
Save me, O God, great ruler of the skies,
Now for my help, O sovereign Lord, arise.
Thou on the cheek hast smitten all my foes,
And broke their teeth, who ’gainst me wrathful rose.
Lo! o’er thy people how thy blessings shine,
And they proclaim the great salvation thine. “In this we know love, that because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.” THE common version, by supplying words which are not implied in the original, mistakes and misrepresents the sense. The loving and beloved disciple is saying that there is no true religion without love like God’s in Christ. It may be safely affirmed that every convert to Christ is a living example of this; so that, as John says, to him this assertion is no new thing, for he has an anointing from the Holy One, and knows all things. The love spoken of is not our pleasure in, and approval of goodness, but it is the self-sacrificing goodness which we should exercise toward all, like the love that died for us while yet enemies. It is like His who makes his sun rise on the evil and the good. According to this test we may easily determine the character of our personal religion. Therefore “let us not love in word, but in deed and in truth;” and in this we “shall assure our hearts before him,” “that we may have confidence in the day of judgment.” Do our plans show such love? Is our business for the good of men? How do we rule the tongue and the eye in our homes? What are we doing for the spiritual good of men? Would one think from our life that we are full of and ruled by a love like that of Jesus? Are we wholly his to finish his work, and in our business, with our means, our talents, our time, our influence, trying to please him in the good of men? SCOFFING.—To a young infidel who scoffed at Christianity on account of the misconduct of some of its professors, Dr. Mason said, “Did you ever know an uproar made because an infidel went astray from the paths of morality?” The infidel admitted he had not. “Then,” said the doctor, “you admit Christianity is a holy religion, by expecting its professors to be holy; and thus, by your very scoffing, you pay it the highest compliment in your power!”
THE LAW OF GOD AND THE SABBATH WHICH IT ORDAINS.
By W. H. Littlejohn
3. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Rom. vi, 14 and 15. Perhaps there is no error more prolific of evil than that which is found in the commonly-accepted opinion, that the oft-repeated declaration of the Scriptures, that “we are not under the law” is tantamount to a recognition of the right of Christians to trample it under foot. That which renders it peculiarly dangerous, is the fact that it exactly answers the demand of the natural heart for freedom from restraint; and is therefore received without a critical examination of the evidences in its favor. Few ever stop to consider, that an endorsement of this position commits them to the doctrine that Christians are at liberty to kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, and so on, to the end of the long dark catalogue of crimes, all of which are forbidden by the law when rightly understood. That such is the case will be apparent upon a moment’s reflection; for the declaration that we are not under the law, is a general one, and covers the whole and not merely a part of the law; so that if it releases us from one of the commandments, it does from all; for they all rest upon the same basis. The apostle, speaking of them as a whole, pronounced them holy, just and good. This is so manifestly true of nine of them, that few, if any, have the hardihood to avow openly, a conviction that they are at liberty to set them at nought. They seem almost universally, to be actuated in their efforts to get out from under the decalogue, by a desire to escape from that portion of it which requires the observance of the Sabbath. The theory of their defense, for this most singular procedure, is as follows: Being as they claim, no longer amenable to the law, as a law, they observe only that portion of it which rests upon moral principles. And as they do not admit that the fourth commandment comes under this head, they exclude it as being merely ceremonial, and therefore, no longer binding. Whence they derive this idea it would be difficult to determine. We know of but one safe and satisfactory method of ascertaining what does, and what does not rest upon moral principles; that is, by discovering the light in which they are regarded by the Deity. We may rest assured, that whatsoever is pleasing to him, must accord with every rule of right. There are two sources from which this knowledge may be derived. When rightly understood, they always utter the same language. They are, indeed, but expressions of the same will through different mediums. The first and most desirable because the least liable to be misunderstood is that of revelation by inspiration. The second is that of revelation through nature. But we have already found upon an examination of the latter in another place, that it teaches the necessity of a Sabbath in language too plain to be misconstrued; for it emphasizes its commands, by affixing to them penalties, which we can neither escape nor commute. We have seen also, that the former makes no distinction between them, but pronounces them all holy, just and good; and that this language implies both the wisdom of the law, and the fact that it exactly meets the necessities of those for whom it was made. Again, by turning to Mark ii, 27, we shall find the Saviour speaking as follows: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath;” i. e., for his benefit, because the necessities of his condition demanded it. What were these necessities? We answer, rest and religious culture. Is it not true that these are more imperative now, than in the beginning, since the race has become enfeebled and demoralized as time has advanced? But if this is so, there is no longer any room for question as to the moral obligation of the fourth commandment; for no man can deliberately disregard it without violating the laws of his own being. And as these shadow forth the will of God concerning us, they cannot be willfully disobeyed without positive sin. Leaving these men, therefore, the difficult task of harmonizing their practice of disregarding the holy rest day, with their professions of respect for everything which rests upon moral principles, let us pass to an examination of the text already quoted in order to determine, if it may be, whether Paul was agreed with them in supposing that to be out from under the law, meant license to violate its commands. The candid seeker after truth, will readily discover that this text should have great weight in deciding the question before us. Knowing as he must if he be an intelligent man, that there is great danger of drawing illegitimate conclusions even from correct premises, he will be rejoiced to find that the apostle has here relieved the subject from all difficulty in this direction; as he has both made the positive statement that we are not under the law, and at the same time indicated the effect which such a fact should have upon our regard for it. He says, “ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Here is the statement. Now comes the conclusion. “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” If now we can obtain an authoritative definition of the word “sin,” our task will be performed. For whatever be its nature, it is declared, in the above, to be something in which we must not indulge. Turn to Rom iii, 20, and you will learn what Paul understood it to mean: “For by the law is the knowledge of sin.” How did it impart this knowledge? By furnishing a standard of moral excellence, which should enable us by comparison, to determine the character of every act; those things which accorded with it being right, and those things which were contrary to it being wrong, or sin. Sin therefore was disobedience to the law. To prove that we are right in this we refer to the following explication by John: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John iii, 4. Thus it is made to appear that the terms “sin,” and “transgression of the law” are synonymous, and consequently, interchangeable. Substituting the latter for the former in the text quoted above it will read as follows: “What then? shall we transgress the law because we are not under the law but under grace? God forbid.” The line of duty is now too plain to require further comment at our hands. Though our relation to the law, under grace, is somewhat changed from what it was originally, that change was by no means such an one, as will admit of contempt for its just and wise provisions. On the contrary, it should inspire sentiments exactly the opposite from this. For if grace has rescued us from the terrible consequences of disobedience, it has also illustrated the exalted purity and excellence of that rule, the violation of which, could be atoned for only by the blood of the Son of God. ARE WE LIVING ACCORDING TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD?
We have now reached the third, and last, division of our subject. The interrogatory which stands at the head of this chapter, when regarded in the light of those truths which we have already considered, becomes one of terrible significance. Do not mistake our meaning. It is not our purpose to convey the idea that there is no hope for the sinner, or the honest-hearted believer, who through misapprehension of their requirements, breaks the commandments. Repentance will secure pardon to the former, and light will insure obedience on the part of the latter. What we wish to be understood as saying is this: Since we have learned that the decalogue still furnishes the rule which should regulate our conduct, it becomes a matter of the greatest moment that we should both strive to understand and scrupulously obey it. Because, before individuals can shelter themselves behind the plea of ignorance, it will first be necessary for them to make it appear that that ignorance resulted from the force of circumstances, and not from the fact that they had either deliberately closed their eyes to the truth, or neglected to put forth the amount of effort requisite to determine what it was. Taking this view of the matter, and believing that the man who points out their errors will ever be looked upon as a friend and not as an enemy by those who are actuated by pure motives, we are emboldened to declare it as our present object to show that the great mass of Christians are now living in palpable violation of both the letter and the spirit of the fourth commandment. In other words they are observing the first day of the week as a Sabbath when the commandment, explained by any just rule of interpretation, leaves no doubt that the seventh is the one which God designed that we should regard as holy. Reader, perhaps you have endorsed all that has been said up to this point, but are now ready to throw down this paper in disgust and say, with the disciples of old, “This is an hard saying, who can hear it?” Before doing so, remember, we beg of you, that there is a bare possibility, that in your case, as in theirs, this would constitute a rejection of the truth. But, you reply, you cannot be right, for it is incredible that the whole world, with the exception of a very few, should have drifted into an error of this magnitude. While we are compelled to admit that your objection bears upon its face a degree of plausibility, we insist that it is unsound in fact, and finds no warrant in the Scriptures, or in the history of the Church. God has nowhere pronounced the opinions of the majority, to be the standard of right and wrong. On the contrary, he has repeatedly made the salvation of his children conditional upon a complete and courageous repudiation of all the doctrines and dogmas held by men generally. Look, for example, to Noah, who, as a preacher of righteousness, declared for a hundred years that which, though it was the wisdom of God, was foolishness unto those of his time. But the floods came and swept them all away, saving only him and his family, who had preferred obedience, even though it made him singular, to perdition with the multitude of those who disobeyed. Again, go back with me to that most incomprehensible of all events, the agony and death of the Son of God. It is a terrible day in Jerusalem. Multitudes of that same people whom God had brought out of bondage with a high hand and an out-stretched arm, are now assembled before the judgment hall, and as they look upon his Son shout “crucify him, crucify him.” The majority triumph. The Lamb of God is slain. Not merely by the voice of the ignorant and notoriously vicious; it was the deed and act of the Jewish Church; approved by its learning, and sanctioned by its piety. Had you lived at this time, reader, with your present view of the authority of majorities, on which of these sides would you have been compelled to range yourself? With the few mourning friends of Jesus of Nazareth or with the Jewish Rabbins and the thousands of their partisans who rejoiced at his death, because he had questioned their infallibility, denounced them as blind leaders of the blind, and accused them of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Once more; look for a moment at the condition of society at the time of the Reformation. Nearly the whole Christian world were involved in the fatal heresies of the Catholic Church. So far had they drifted from the original land marks, that it was only with the aid of tradition and history, that they themselves ventured upon the difficult task of proving that they were the successors of those men, who, in the first century, receiving their commission from the risen Lord, went forth to preach a pure gospel unto every living creature. Notwithstanding this fact, priests and laymen were united to their errors in a wedlock more sacred, alas, than that which binds many to the truth. They were ready to make any sacrifice to secure their universal acceptance and perpetuity—ready, if need be, to die for the infallibility of the Church, or put to death any and all who should refuse to accord to her unerring wisdom. Just then the loud clear notes of Luther’s alarm, rang out upon the heavy air of that moral midnight like the stroke of the fire bell which rouses one from sleep to the consciousness of danger. Calling about him a few noble spirits, who like himself, despised both learning and numbers when arrayed against the plain teachings of the word of God—with “the Bible and the Bible only” as their watch-word, they went forth to battle against odds so great, as to render their defeat morally certain when considered in the light of human probability. Yet they triumphed. The hand of God was in the work, rewarding their fidelity to his word with success beyond every thing anticipated, and covering them with a glory which the lapse of centuries has served to increase rather than diminish. Are you willing to relinquish your interest in this great work, simply, because it was wrought against the conviction of the Church and the age? Would you knowingly do any thing which would detract from the honor of the name Protestant, which you so proudly bear? Then never again ignore the principle which lent it the splendor which it now wears, by admitting, that there is, or can be, any safe and sure test of doctrine, except that which is furnished by a comparison with Scripture teaching.