THE following is an extract from a letter to the Christian Union. The lessons referred to are, of course, the International. We sincerely wish that all Sunday-school scholars could be trained to learn the words of the sacred text, and especially the ten commandments. One great reason why it is so difficult to get people to accept Bible truth, is that the Bible is to them a foreign book. We would that there was no necessity to exhort believers in the Third Angel’s Message to familiarize themselves with Old Testament events, which were “written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come:” —
Some time ago the golden text of our lesson was, “And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” “Who was Moses?” I asked my class of girls, ranging from fourteen to sixteen years of age, one of them our minister’s daughter, others coming from the families of prominent church-members, “Who was Moses?” No one could answer. After telling them a little of who he was, I asked what the text meant, which, of course, they could not tell. To them, like many other passages of God’s word, it meant nothing. This summer, while in the country, I taught a class of little girls fresh from the infant class. The lesson was, “David, King over Israel.” Looking for a place to start, I asked, “Can you tell me who David was?” “No.” “Can you tell me who the Israelites were?” “No.” Well, I thought, I will go back to something they do know, and get a starting-point. “Who was Joseph?” No one knew. Then I tried Abraham; no better success. Almost in despair, I asked, “Who was the first man?” Not one could tell. Were those children prepared to take up the lesson that taught that David was chosen king over all Israel?
In the number of the Union where the question above referred to was asked, you close your answer by saying, “It is of little importance whether a child can answer the question, Who was the first man? so long as they learn to answer, Who is Jesus Christ? with ‘My Saviour.’” This, indeed, should be the aim in all our teaching. How better can a child be led to Christ than through the teachings of the Bible, and how can a child understand the Bible if he is not taught to study it? The child will read, “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” and what does it mean to him if he know not who Adam was? Try to teach a child faith in God through the beautiful faith chapter in Hebrews; will it have anything like the same interest to him if he know not the characters mentioned therein?
What can we do to improve the present system of teaching? I would suggest, in the first place, that we have our children memorize more, yes, far more, than they are doing. A fact firmly fixed in a child’s mind will last there long after many of the most clearly explained lessons have been forgotten. How many of our schools now expect a child to learn anything by heart, and how many children will do it when it is not expected? I asked the superintendent of our school, at one time, when the ten commandments was the subject of our lesson, to ask the school how many could repeat the commandments. Out of the entire school two hands were raised. I mentioned it to a friend, and she had her superintendent put the question in their school, with no better success. Is it right that such should be the case? Our school voted it far from right, and arranged that thereafter a part of the opening exercises of the school should be repeating the commandments in concert. At first all opened their Bibles and read them, many looking blankly at the book and wondering where to turn, but gradually the books were left closed, until now the entire school, at the close of the opening hymn, remain standing, while all repeat from memory the ten commandments.
When they learn, as I trust they each will, to know Jesus Christ as their Saviour, I believe they will make more useful Christians for having their minds stored with the teachings of God’s holy word. I heartily wish that all who are engaged in this work would see the importance of having the children fill their minds with Bible truths. We would not attempt to teach anything else and draw as little help from the memory (one of God’s priceless gifts) as we do in teaching the Scriptures. Begin with the child when first it toddles to the infant class, and continue when it is promoted to the larger room. Then teachers need not so often say, as they do now, of their half-grown boys and girls, “It’s no use asking them to study, for they won’t do it.” They will do it if they are educated up to it.
“I HEARD a minister say that ‘the law’ in Rom. 2:25 is the ‘ceremonial law,’ because it is connected with circumcision. There seems to be a difficulty in it which I cannot solve. Can you give me any light on the subject? E. I. R.”
ANSWER.—There is indeed a difficulty in that view which no one can solve, but in the text itself, and in its connection, there is no difficulty.
1. Circumcision was given to Abraham as a token of the covenant which God made with him. Gen. 17:11. The covenant was made with him because he was a righteous man. Gen. 18:19; 26:3-5. Compare 1 John 3:7. Paul says that circumcision was given to Abraham as a seal or token of the righteousness which he had before he was circumcised. Rom. 4:11. It was a righteousness of faith; but faith without works is dead, and faith is perfected by works. Jas. 2:17-22. Therefore Abraham received the promise because he obeyed God’s commandments; this is doing righteousness, for God’s commandments are righteousness. Ps. 119:172; Isa. 51:7.
Now if obedience to the law is righteousness, and circumcision was given as a sign of righteousness, it was, of course, a sign of obedience. But, obedience to what? To the ceremonial law? No; there is no righteousness in that; and Abraham did not receive the promise because of obedience to the ceremonial law. Circumcision was not given as a sign of his obedience to the ceremonial law. It does not take any great amount of logical acumen to discover the connection, both in the Old and New Testaments, between circumcision and the law or righteousness of God.
2. In Rom. 2:17-27 Paul directly addresses the Jewish part of his readers. And in this address “the law” of which he is speaking is clearly identified. Notice what is said of it from the first reference to it. Verse 12 is the only text which presents even an apparent difficulty; the expression—“sinned without law”—is a stumbling-block to some. But it need not be if the context is well considered.
It is a fact acknowledged that the nations of the earth had mostly forgotten God when he chose Abraham as the one through whom he would fulfill his promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15); and especially was gross darkness upon the earth when the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt. But the knowledge of right and wrong—of the principles of his Government which he had made known to Adam, to Enoch, to Noah, to Abraham, and to others—had not become entirely obliterated from the hearts of the sons of Adam. In Rom. 2:14, 15, Paul speaks of the Gentiles doing “by nature the things contained in the law,” and as showing “the work of the law written in their hearts,” and this to such an extent that their consciences bear witness to their actions, and their thoughts (or reasonings) accusing or else excusing one another. These nations, though they did not have the law given to them as it was given to the Jews, retained sufficient knowledge of the law by tradition from their fathers to be without excuse in their wrong-doing, or to have the approval of their consciences in right-doing.
In this sense only could they be said to sin without law. For, in the entire absence of law there can be no sin. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Hence, “where no law is, there is no transgression,” or sin. Rom. 4:15. Sin was imputed to all the nations from Adam to Moses, and after that time, as in the time of the flood, and the case of Sodom. But “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 5:13. Thus it is proved that there can be no sin and no imputation of guilt in the entire absence of law. And thus, again, is proved the correctness of our construction of Rom. 2:12, 14.
3. But there is another expression in verse 12 which should be well considered: “And as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” Verses 13-15 are parenthetical. Verse 16 is closely related to verse 12, saying that sinners “shall be judged by the law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Here three very important facts are stated: (1) The gospel declares a future Judgment. See Acts 17:31. (2) Jesus Christ will be the Judge. Acts 17:31; John 5:22. (3) The law will be the rule of judgment. Compare Eccl. 12:13, 14.
4. This law by which sinners will be judged is clearly identified in verses 17-22. “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” This was the law given to the Jews; being instructed out of the law, they knew the will of God, and could thereby approve the things that were more excellent, and, of course, could reject the things that were not good. Mark well, that this law which the Jews had contained the will of God; it contained those principles of right and wrong which are written in the hearts of the Gentile world; and by it Christ will judge the world at last. The apostle further says to the Jews: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal [eighth commandment], dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery [seventh], dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols [second], dost thou commit sacrilege? thou that makest thy boast of the law [ten commandments], through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?” Here we have three of the ten commandments quoted and the whole code called “the law,” and he declares that God is dishonored by its violation. “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written.” They who have the knowledge of the truth in God’s law, cause the enemy to blaspheme if they do not keep the law. Then comes the text in question, “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.”
5. Having “the law” most clearly defined to be the commandments which were proclaimed to the Jews, we turn again to consider the relation which circumcision sustains to this law. We have seen that circumcision was given as a sign of righteousness; also that personal righteousness is by obedience—by doing righteousness; and the righteousness to be done is the law of God, for his commandments are righteousness. In our little book on “The Law of God,” published in 1854, we made the following comment on this text: “Circumcision was given as a sign or seal of righteousness—the righteousness, of course, existing prior to the giving of the rite. Rom. 4:11. So that circumcision, or the sign of righteousness, is of avail only where the righteousness exists; therefore Paul says, ‘circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law,’ i. e., the seal is valid where the righteousness exists; ‘but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision;’ i. e., if the righteousness is wanting, the seal or sign thereof, is of no consequence, because it signifies nothing. Consequently the uncircumcision by nature, or Gentiles, if they fulfill the law, shall judge thee who by letter and circumcision dost transgress the law.” Hence circumcision was of no consequence only as it was connected with the observance of the law; as is said in 1 Cor. 7:19. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.”
6. But if righteousness consists in obedience, would not the Jew, if he had perfectly obeyed the law, been justified by obedience? Certainly he would; for Rom. 2:13 says distinctly: “The doers of the law shall be justified.” And Paul again says in Gal. 3:12: “And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Jesus said to the lawyer who repeated the two great commandments given to Israel: “This do, and thou shalt live.” Luke 10:28. And Paul again said the commandment was ordained to life. Rom. 7:10. Another question: If the law was ordained to life, and the doers of the law shall be justified, whence the necessity of another means of justification, namely, by faith? The reason is very evident; it is because there are no doers of the law. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” “There is none that doeth good; no, not one.” “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And so Paul, after declaring that all have gone astray, said, “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.” Rom. 3:20. It is for this reason that the faith of Christ is made the means of justification. But the apostle has carefully guarded against the error of supposing that faith is substituted for the law as a rule of life. The law remains the rule whereby men will be judged; the gospel becomes the means of placing us in right relations to the law. “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Rom. 3:31.
7. But what of those who reject Christ, who refuse to receive him by faith, and who insist on retaining circumcision as their sign of acceptance with God? They place themselves under the necessity of showing that they have kept the law—the whole law. For if they have violated it in any particular, they are condemned by it; they have lost their justification by it. As Paul says in another place, “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.” Gal. 5:3. This is an exact parallel to Rom. 2:25; and most of Paul’s expressions in his letter to the Galatians have their parallels in that to the Romans. He who insists on circumcision, insists that he has righteousness in himself; he insists on taking the law as his means of justification, and to such the apostle says, “Christ shall profit you nothing.” Gal. 5:2. On the other hand, “In Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” Verse 6. This love always accompanies genuine faith, and the fruit of its work is shown in Gal. 5:14: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Apostle John also said the same thing: “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 5:3.
8. We must notice now the point in the question. Not one of the expressions which we have quoted, either in the words of Christ, or Paul, or John, can possibly be referred to the ceremonial law. The only relation that circumcision ever sustained to the law of God was that of a sign of righteousness. To Abraham it was a sign of the righteousness of faith. Rom. 4:11. But to them who reject the faith, it is but a sign of the righteousness of their own obedience. But no such righteousness exists; therefore as such a sign it has no significance—it “is nothing.” But in the Jewish system it was of great importance; it was a representative rite, so that it became the mark of distinction, “the circumcision” meaning the Jews, and “the uncircumcision” meaning the other nations. Bearing in mind this537fact. Rom. 2:26 most clearly shows the absurdity of supposing that these verses refer to the ceremonial law. But for a moment take it in that light and read the text: And shall not uncircumcision, that is, the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, if it fulfill the ceremonial law, and is circumcised, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the ceremonial law, that is, be not circumcised? We paraphrase thus, because no one could keep the ceremonial law and not be circumcised. Such a jumble as that view involves is often found in false theories, but never in the words of so clear a reasoner as the Apostle Paul.
Much might be added to show that Paul, in all his writings, and especially in his letter to the Romans, follows his divine Master, of whom the prophet said: “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. And so shall we if we also follow him.
Sheol and Hades: Translating the Hebrew Word for Hell
Sheol—Hades.
MANY have found fault with the revisers of the Bible, both of the Old and the New Testament, because they have retained the originals in the Hebrew and Greek for the oft-occurring word hell in the Old Version. We have no fault to find in this respect; they have evidently done a favor to the English reader by saving him from at least some of the misapprehension into which he was liable to be misled by the Authorized Version.
In the Old Testament hell was translated from but one Hebrew word—sheol. This word is a monosyllable. The sound represented in it by our o is not a full vowel; the o is long. Its pronunciation is not easily represented; in transliterating it is written sh'ōl. If the reader will pronounce the word behold, giving the slightest possible sound to the first vowel, and somewhat prolonging the second, he will get a fair idea of the pronunciation of sheol.
This word occurs in the Hebrew of the O. T. 65 times; it is translated in the A. V., grave, 31 times; pit, 3 times; hell, 31 times. In the revision it is given thus: grave, 14 times; pit, 5 times; hell, 15 times; sheol, 31 times. At its first occurrence, Gen. 37:35, the revisers placed in the margin the following note: “Sheol, the name of the abode of the dead, answering to the Greek hades, Acts 2:27.”
It is claimed that the translators were arbitrary in their choice of words, as hell, pit, and the grave were each used where the other would have answered equally well. And yet we cannot see that the revisers did much better in rendering it hell in such texts as Isa. 14:9, 11, 15; 28:15, 18. And especially Eze. 31:17: “They also went down into hell with him, unto them that be slain with the sword.” Seeing that they translated it grave 14 times, we cannot see on what principle they departed from that rendering in this text. And again in Eze. 32:21, the grave is preferable to hell, when speaking of those who “are gone down, they lie still, even the uncircumcised, slain with the sword.”
But they have given the reader this advantage in this over the Old Version: they have given a signification of sheol—“the name of the abode of the dead”—and they have placed the original in the margin in each of the thirty-four times of its occurrence where it is not given in the text.
Some think that they have destroyed the evidence for future punishment by the change in the rendering of sheol. But we cannot see wherein. The A. V. rendered it grave, 31 times; pit, 5 times; and hell, 31 times. The R. V., grave, 14 times; pit, 5 times; hell, 15 times; and sheol, 31 times. We do not find the evidence of future punishment in the word, nor in its translations, but in its evident application. Thus, when we read in Rom. 6:23, “The wages of sin is death,” how do we know that it is the second death that the sinner must suffer for his sins? or that it is a punishment after the Judgment? It is not in the signification of the word thanatos, nor in the translation. Yet we have no difficulty in learning from the Scriptures that that is the case. And so in Ps. 9:17, it says, “The wicked shall return to sheol, even all the nations that forget God.” It is a truth that all men, both righteous and wicked, go into sheol at their death. And the Old Testament abundantly and positively proves a resurrection, a bringing the dead up from sheol, but the wicked shall return thereto. They are brought from the dead, from death, to judgment and punishment, and they return to death again, while the righteous live eternally. In returning to sheol, to the state of death, they perish forever, and thus will Obadiah 16 be fulfilled: “They shall be as though they had not been.”
In the present state of our language, with the “theological definitions” which are given to many words, it would be better if sheol had not been translated hell at all. As may be seen by the texts we cited, there is nothing gained by such a translation; its use in the passages where it is used does not at all convey to the intelligent reader any idea of future punishment. Yet it is for the sake of this idea that some wish that it had been more frequently used. To conform a translation to the desires of such people, of people so destitute of a knowledge of language and of Scripture doctrine, would be to destroy its claims as a translation—as a faithful rendering of the ideas of the original.
In the New Testament the case is quite different. While in the Old Testament, hell, in both versions, is always translated from the one word, sheol, in the New it is translated from three different words, having different meanings. Hades is used 11 times; rendered hell, 10 times; and grave, once. It is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word sheol. It is used in Acts 2:27, in a quotation from Ps. 16:10, where sheol is used. Although it is translated hell in ten of the eleven times of its use, it never has the meaning of a place of future punishment. It is rendered grave in 1 Cor. 15:55: “O grave, where is thy victory?” In this text the revisers have done the reader an injustice; they rendered hades, death, the same as thanatos, and evidently without any sufficient reason. They make the text read thus: “O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?” Hades can mean death only by a figure, as representing the place of the dead. And why the revisers transferred the original, untranslated, into the text in every case but this, and in this gave it such an unusual rendering, is more than we can imagine.
Gehenna is another word which is translated hell, and, unlike hades, it is always so translated. And still more unlike hades, it means a place of punishment or destruction, coming far nearer to the popular idea of the word hell. It is translated uniformly in both versions, and the revisers placed it in the margin wherever it occurs, except in Jas. 3:6. Why they omitted to do so here, we cannot conjecture. It occurs twelve times.
Of this word Mr. Ellis says: “Gehenna is not a Greek word; it does not occur in any classical author; it is merely the Grecian mode of spelling the Hebrew words which are translated ‘The Valley of Hinnom.’” Gesenius says of this valley: “It was noted for the human sacrifices here offered to Moloch.” Bagster’s Analytical Lexicon says: “Ps. the Valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, once celebrated for the horrid worship of Moloch, and afterwards polluted with every species of filth, as well as the carcasses of animals, and dead bodies of malefactors: to consume which, in order to avert the pestilence which such a mass of corruption would occasion, constant fires were kept burning.” It is this to which the Saviour referred in Mark 9:43, 45, 47, cast into gehenna, “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” It was a place of utter destruction, of consuming by fire. In Jer. 7: 32, the Lord says: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called Topheth; nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter.” Tophet was a name also given to it.
The other word is tartaroō, which occurs only in 2Peter 2:4. The revision gives this text as follows: “For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell [mar., cast them into dungeons], and committed them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto Judgment,” etc. This word is from the Greek mythology, where it was used to represent that part of hades to which the shades of the wicked were assigned. Peter uses it as a dungeon or prison-house of darkness, where the angels who sinned are reserved unto the Judgment.
This covers the entire use of the word hell, in its various meanings, in both Testaments. In all the testimony of the Scriptures we find no account of the creation of a hell of fire for the punishment of the wicked. Nor do we find any intimation that such a place now exists. But Peter says that the heavens and earth which are now, are reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men. In that day the very elements shall melt with fervent heat. And in the Revelation it is shown that fire comes down from God out of Heaven to devour the wicked, and they are literally cast into a lake of fire and brimstone. When the earth is melted, it will be a lake of fire, and here the wicked will be consumed. But from this emerges the new earth—the earth renewed—purified “in which dwelleth righteousness.” Then shall the meek inherit the earth, and ever more delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Bondage and Freedom.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
FROM a brother in Washington Territory we have received a request, in behalf of the church of which he is a member, to explain Gal. 4:21-31, as there are some in the neighborhood who are trying to use that passage against the truth. It is impossible to give in one brief article an exhaustive explanation of the passage, since that would involve quite a lengthy dissertation on the law and the covenants. But we shall try to give a clear outline, so that the Bible student may readily grasp the apostle’s meaning. Before long we hope to give a more full exposition of this and kindred passages.
To any one who has carefully read the verses indicated, it is evident that three things are put in contrast with three other things. Hagar, ancient Jerusalem, and the old covenant, of which the first two stand as figures, are placed in opposition to Sarah, the New Jerusalem, and the new covenant. Ishmael and Isaac stand respectively as representatives of those under the old covenant and the new.
Since Hagar was a bondwoman, the apostle, in using her as a symbol of the old covenant, means to indicate that the children of the old covenant are in bondage. They who are of the new covenant, are free, as Isaac was the son of a free woman. They that are of the old covenant, are after the flesh; while they of the new covenant are, as was Isaac, children of promise.
Before applying these points, let us briefly notice the difference between the two covenants. The first was made with the children of Israel when they left Egypt. Heb. 8:9. The terms of that covenant are found in Ex. 19:3-6; 24:3-7. They were simply these. God promised to make of the Jews a great nation, a kingdom of priests, and they, in turn, promised to keep his law. This was all. Now in this covenant there was no provision for the forgiveness of sins, either past or future,—no hint of Christ, through whom alone forgiveness, or power to keep the law, could come. Before they made this covenant, they had all broken the law, and since they were unable of themselves to keep the law, for without Christ nothing can be done (John 15:6), it is evident that that covenant or pledge to keep the law538simply brought them into bondage. When we say that it brought them into bondage, we do not mean that it brought them under obligation to keep the law, for that obligation existed before any covenant was made, and whenever they violated the law they were really in bondage; but that promise brought the matter right home to them, and served to cause them to realize that they were justly condemned.
Had there never been any other covenant than this, the whole world must have been lost, since without divine aid no one can keep the law, for the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. Rom. 8:7. Some will ask if God did not know that they could not fulfill the promise so readily made, and if it was not trifling with them to make such a covenant with them. God did indeed know that they had no power to do as they agreed, but he was not trifling with them. With this promise in mind, and a desire to keep it, they could not fail to learn their true condition—lost—and that would turn their attention to that other covenant, already in existence, which the Lord makes with his people. This is the second covenant:—
“After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” Jer. 31:33, 34.
The only difference between this and the first is that provision is made for sins to be pardoned, and the law is to be written in their hearts; that is, this covenant makes it possible to arrive at perfection—for that is what is meant by having the law in the heart. Forgiveness of sins is an instantaneous work, but the writing of the law in the heart is a progressive work, the work of a lifetime. When the law is fully written in the heart, then the individual is indeed sanctified; he is like Christ (Ps. 40:8), and is ready for translation.
We said that this second covenant was even then in existence. So it was, in effect. It is the same covenant which was made with Abraham, since that covenant was confirmed in Christ (Gal. 3:17), and Abraham had the righteousness of faith. The same covenant had been made long before, as soon as the fall, as is indicated by the sacrifices by which the people showed their faith in a Saviour whose blood would secure their pardon. Had it not existed in substance from the beginning, there could have been no salvation for any; but men did receive pardon from the beginning, and the work of restoring the law in the hearts of believers has ever since been going on. This covenant, by procuring pardon for past sins, and enabling the individual to keep the law, tends to liberty. It sets men free. The other covenant could not free a soul from the bondage in which he already languished. Those who cling to that are of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21), since they cannot keep the law. And it may properly be said that all who are out of Christ are under the old covenant; they are in bondage.
Now note, in the passage under consideration, that the Galatians, who seemed willing to forego the blessings of the new covenant, are said to wish to be “under the law.” Then we may know that being children of the first covenant, being under the law, being after the flesh, and being in bondage, are all the same thing. But to be after the flesh is to be a violator of the law of God (see Gal. 5:19-21), and therefore to be “under the law” is equivalent to being a violator of the law, and such are, of course, in bondage. See Rom. 7:14; 2 Pet. 2:19. Those who are children of the new covenant, have the law written in their hearts; they keep it, and therefore they walk at liberty. Ps. 119:45.
Now we learn from the first portion of the 4th of Galatians, that this was exactly the condition of the Galatians. Says Paul: “Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?” Verses 8, 9. They were leaving Christ and going back into idolatry, and this, Paul assured them, would make them children of the bondwoman.
This probably explains all that causes any controversy. Remember why it is that those who are children of Sinai are in bondage. It is not because we have nothing to do with that law which was spoken from Sinai; just the contrary. That law stands fast as the throne of God, and abates not one jot of its righteous demands. And because it is so firm, those poor sinners who know nothing of Christ’s salvation, or, knowing it, will not accept it, are in hopeless bondage—hopeless until they turn to Christ. If the law were abrogated, there could be no bondage for any. E. J. W.
Humboldt County, California.
By Wm. Ings.
SINCE coming to Humboldt County, I have visited the friends in Ferndale, Arcata, and Dows Prairie.
Those that attended our good camp-meeting at Eureka were greatly benefited; it has inspired in them a greater love for the truth.
At Dows Prairie I organized a T. and M. society of eleven members. A club of thirty SIGNS was taken, and a sufficient amount was willingly pledged to meet their obligations. Sister H. Johnson was appointed librarian. I never saw a people more desirous of taking hold and learning how to work than this company. They are young in the faith, having been brought out by Elder McClure last winter. They are now building a house of worship.
I spent one Sabbath with the friends at Arcata. They also have a house of worship nearly ready for occupation. Considering the small number, and their limited means, they have done nobly in erecting a house that will do credit to the cause.
At all the places visited I found quite a number very anxious to attend our school, and there will be quite a representation there from this county.
Meetings at Eureka have been continued in the tent since the camp-meeting, and are well attended, about three hundred being in attendance last Sunday night. Brethren McClure and Kent are in charge. The influence of the camp-meeting has given us favor with the people, and they are desirous of seeing a house of worship erected by our people. One man, not of our faith, without solicitation offered $50, and in a short time $370 was pledged. Subscription papers are now in circulation, and no doubt before this is read the building will be commenced. Over sixty were in attendance at the Sabbath-school last Sabbath, and the work is not ended yet.
Brother Lamb is laboring at school-houses adjacent to Eureka, and his labors have not been without fruit.
I have sold fifty-two volumes of Testimonies and received a goodly number of subscriptions for our periodicals during my stay of four weeks, and have felt quite at home among these new friends, and I shall look back with pleasure on my visit to Humboldt County. My address will be Stockton, Cal., until October 1; after that, 914 Laguna St., San Francisco.
August 26. Wm. Ings.
The Missionary.
By H. W. Decker; Wm. L. Raymond
Upper Columbia Conference.
SUMMERVILLE, OREGON.—This is a small village at the north end of Grande Ronde Valley. We pitched our tent here just four weeks ago, and have had a good attendance all the time, although it is in the haying time. Several families come regularly from a distance of from two to three miles, while some come occasionally from as far as six miles. We have visited and distributed reading matter in all directions from four to six miles, which has served to interest and call out the people.
Last Sunday evening, according to previous notice, the Presbyterian minister appeared in defense of Sunday observance. He labored hard, using prophecy (Isa. 65:17), Dr. Dwight, and many other authors, including Lincoln and Garfield, to show that God had changed the Sabbath institution from the seventh to the first day of the week. His work was reviewed in the tent on Monday evening, after which an expression from the audience gave a good show of hands for the seventh day, and not one hand for Sunday.
Seven persons kept last Sabbath, and seven more promise to keep the next. All these are persons who are much respected in society, and many more of the substantial sort are deeply stirred by the truth, which gives us strong hopes for the future of the cause in this valley.
Aug. 19, 1885. H. W. DECKER, WM. L. RAYMOND.
St. Louis Reading-Room.
By Joseph Clarke
IN the name and interest of the Missouri International Tract and Missionary Society, I have presented to the Public School Library of this place, the following periodicals, bound in portfolios, viz: Good Health, Herold der Wahrheit, Present Truth, Review and Herald, Sandhedens Tidende, Sanningens Härold, Signes des Temps, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Stimme der Wahrheit—nine in all. These are to be kept up from week to week and month to month, by new copies. Much interest was manifested by the officers of the Public School Library in these periodicals, not only for their moral worth, but for their literary merit; and as St. Louis is almost a European city, these will all find many intelligent readers.
It is worth more than we can compute to have such good, religious, and literary work to present to the world, in behalf of the present truth; and should we not thank God that we may be the bearers to our fellow-men of such pure and holy doctrines, in so neat and becoming style as is displayed in those publications, so attractive, so useful, interesting, and important?
The International Tract and Missionary Society certainly deserves much credit for its energy and enterprise in launching into the field one periodical after another until almost every language and nation in Europe is represented by a periodical, either weekly, monthly, or quarterly. And further still by its tracts and books, which enter alike the homes of the Italian, the Swede, the German, the Scandinavian, and the Roumanian. Indeed, we can but see in the wide circulation of the publications of the International Tract and Missionary Society, the hand of God in the fulfillment of his word.
The publications and missions of the International Tract and Missionary Society in their progress east, by way of the Atlantic Ocean and Western Europe, and westward, by way of the Pacific Ocean and its archipelagoes, have nearly encircled our planet, and the way is preparing for a mighty display of the power of God in the triumph of his truth.
JOSEPH CLARKE.
Reformed Men as Religious Instructors
It is a great mistake to imagine that he who has learned his wisdom in the school of folly and sin, is the best minister; reformed men are not the safest religious instructors.—Sel.