Earlier text: General Articles"BECAUSE thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see." Rev. 3:17, 18. All flattery is dangerous; self-flattery is more dangerous; but self-flattery in the business of salvation is the most dangerous of all. To pretend to the good we know we have not, is gross hypocrisy; to persuade ourselves of the good we have not, though we think we have it, is formal hypocrisy; and this was the case of those self-deceivers in the text. My design is not to shake the well-built hopes of any man, or to beget groundless jealousies, but to discover the real and dangerous flaws in the foundation of many men's hopes of heaven. Everything is as its foundation is; and that failing, all fails. There is a twofold self-suspicion or fear in God's own people. The one is a fear of caution, awakening the soul to the use of all the preventive means for avoiding danger; this is laudable. The other is a groundless suspicion of reigning hypocrisy, tending only to despondency; this is culpable. By the former the soul is guarded against danger; by the latter it is betrayed into needless trouble, and debarred from peace. Good men have sometimes more fear than they ought, and wicked men have less than they ought. The former sometimes shut their eyes against the fair evidences of their own graces; the latter shut their eyes against the sad evidences of their sin and misery. This is an evil in both, but not equally dangerous; for he who shuts his eyes against his own graces and privileges, loses but his peace and comfort for a time; but he who shuts his eyes against the evidence of his sin and misery, loses his precious soul to all eternity. Of this latter sort of self-deceivers the world is full; and these are the men I am now concerned with. Oh, that some men had less trouble; and oh, that some had more! If the foolish virgins had been less confident, they certainly had been more safe. If those boastful professors in Matt. 7:22 had not shut their eyes against their own hypocrisy, Christ would not have shut against them the door of salvation and glory. Ananias and Sapphira, Hymeneus and Philetus, Alexander and Demas, with multitudes more of that sort, are sad instances and proofs of this point. It is said in Prov. 30:12, that "there is a generation that is pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness." Through what false spectacles do the men of that generation look upon their own souls. There are everywhere to be found more professors than converts—unregenerate professors, whose religion is but the effect of education. Christianity, by the favor of an early providence, was the first comer; it first bespoke them for itself. These are Christians of a human creation, rather born than new-born believers. Now, all these are self-deceived, and hastening to damnation under the efficacy of a strong delusion; "for if a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself," says the apostle. Surely our birth-privilege without the new birth is nothing, yea, worse than nothing, as to our last and great account. That which stands for a great sum in our arithmetic is nothing, it is but a cipher in God's. "Except a man be born again," say the lips of truth, "he cannot see the kingdom of God." Poor self-deceivers, ponder these words of Christ. You have hitherto thought your moral education, your dead and heartless duties, enough to constitute you Christians before God: but go now, and learn what that scripture means; and be assured that you must experience another manner of conversion, or else it is impossible for you to escape eternal damnation. Many professors are acquainted with the externals of religion only; and that all their duties are no more than a compliance of the outward man with the commands of God. This is the superficial religion which deceives and betrays multitudes into eternal ruin. True religion seats itself in the inward man, and acts effectually upon the vital powers, killing sin in the heart, and purging its designs and delights from carnality and selfishness; engaging the heart for God, and setting it as a bow in its full bent, in the approaches we make to him. But how little are many professors acquainted with these things. Alas, if this be all we have to stand upon, how dangerous a station is it. What is external conformity but an artificial imitation that which lives only in the souls of good men? Thus was Jehu deceived: he did many acts of external obedience to God's command; "but Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of Israel with all his heart." 2 Kings, 10:31. And this was his overthrow. This was also the ruin of those formalists in Ezek. 33:31. They came and sat before the Lord as his people; the word was to them as a lovely song; they were mightily charmed with the modulation of the prophet's voice, and his lively gestures; but all the while their hearts went after their covetousness. And what an abundance of such pharisaical, superficial religion, is everywhere to be found. Every trial made by sufferings upon professors, blows away multitudes, like dry leaves in autumn blown away by a stormy wind. Many fall from their own steadfastness in shaking times. Prosperity multiplies vain professors, and adversity purges the church of them. "Then shall many be offended." This the Scripture everywhere marks as a symptom of hypocrisy: "A generation that set not their heart aright, and whose spirit was not steadfast with God." "But they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." "For when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended." But should any one have told them, in the days of their first profession, that all their zeal and labor in religion would have ended in this, it is likely that they would have replied, as Hazael did to the man of God, "But what! is thy servant a dog, that he should do this great thing?" 2 Kings 8:13. Oh, how unlike is their dark and foul evening to their glorious and hopeful morning. These professors have more of the moon than of the sun; little light, less heat, but many changes. They deceive many, yea, they deceive themselves, but they cannot deceive God. During the calm what a flourish do they make, and with what gallantry do they sail. By and by you may hear tempests; and soon after you may see dreadful shipwrecks made by the furious storm; and no wonder, for they wanted that ballast and establishment in themselves that would have kept them tight and stable. 2 Peter 3:17. Many professors secretly indulge and shelter beloved lusts under the wings of their profession. This, like a worm at the root, will wither and kill them at last, how fragrant soever they may seem to be for a season. Gideon had seventy sons, and one a bastard; but that one bastard was the death of all of his seventy sons. Judges 9:5. Some men have many excellent gifts, and perform multitudes of duties; but one secret sin indulged and allowed will utterly destroy them at last. He who is partial as to the mortification of his sins, is undoubtedly hypocritical in his profession. If David's evidence was good for his integrity, surely such professors will never clear themselves of hypocrisy: "I was also upright before him, and kept myself from mine iniquity." Here is the right eye and right hand, which every sincere Christian must pluck out and cut off. And this is a metaphor from surgeons, whose manner it is, when the whole body is in danger by any part, to cut it off, lest the whole man perish. The suppressing of some lust raises men's confidence; the indulging of one destroys the foundation of their hopes; and thus they deceive themselves.—Flavel's Touchstone. "Do You See It in Your Heart?"
THERE are doubtless places where a man may learn less of God's word than in some theological schools; but when infidels, skeptics, and unregenerate sinners sit in Moses' seat to teach vain philosophy and the traditions of the elders to young men who are preparing to preach the Gospel of Christ, it is not strange that a man should say, "I spent four years in college and three years in the theological seminary, to learn how to preach, and I learned everything only what I ought to know." One chapter of God's word, ploughed into the depths of the soul, will bring forth more fruit than years of philosophic cavilling and rationalistic criticism and speculation. The late Merle D' Aubigne relates his experience thus: "When M. Monod and I attended the University of Geneva, there was a professor of divinity who confined himself to lecturing on the immortality of the soul, and similar topics. Instead of the Bible, he gave us quotations from Seneca and Plato, his two chief saints. But the Lord sent one of his servants to Geneva, and I well remember the visit of Robert Haldane. I heard him first as an English or Scotch gentleman who spoke much about the Bible, which seemed a strange thing to me and other students, to whom it was a shut book. I afterwards met him at a private house, and heard a chapter from Romans about the natural corruption of man, a doctrine of which I had never heard before—in fact, I was quite astonished to hear of men being corrupt by nature. I remember saying to Mr. Haldane, "Now I see that doctrine in the Bible." 'Yes' he replied, "but do you see it in your heart?" That was a question that came home to my conscience. It was the sword of the Spirit, and from that time I saw that my heart was corrupt, and knew from the word of God that I could be saved by grace alone." The seed thus sown was fruitful, and the young students who learned at the lips of Haldane the truth as it is in Jesus, became a power in the land and a blessing to mankind.—Christian. [FROM JOHN WESLEY'S MISCELLANEOUS WORKS.]
BETWEEN AN ANTINOMIAN AND HIS FRIEND.
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom. 3: 31. Friend.—Well met! You have had time to consider. What think you of our last conference? Antinomian.—I think, “the giving of scandalous names has no warrant from Scripture.” (Mr. Cudworth's Dialogue, p. 2.) Ant.—Yes; you called me Antinomian. But “our Saviour bids me not return railing for railing.” (Ib.) F.—St. Peter does and that is all one. But how is that a scandalous name? I think it is properly your own; for it means “one that speaks against the law.” And this you did at that time very largely. But pray what would you have me call you? Ant.—“A preacher of God's righteousness.” (Ib. p. 1.) F.—What do you call me then? Ant.—“A preacher of inherent righteousness.” (Ib.) F.—That is, in opposition to God's righteousness. So you mean a preacher of such righteousness as is inconsistent with that righteousness of God which is by faith. Ant.—True; for “I plainly perceive you know but one sort of righteousness, that is, the righteousness of inherent qualities, dispositions, and works. And this is the reason why the language of the Holy Ghost seems foolishness unto you; even because the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.” (Ib. pp. 11, 12.) F.—Are you absolutely sure that this is the reason why I do not think or speak as you do? Ant.—The thing itself speaks: “Thou hast forgotten the Lord, and hast trusted in falsehood. Therefore, saith the Lord, I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, that thy shame may appear.” (Ib. p. 1.) F.—Peremptory enough! But you will “not return railing for railing!” So out of mere tenderness and respect, you pronounce me a “natural man,” and one who “hath forgotten the Lord, and hath trusted in falsehood!” Ant.—And so you are if you do not believe in Christ. Pray let me ask you one question: Do you believe that “Christ hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”? F.—I believe he made, by that one oblation of himself, once offered, a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. And yet he hath not “done all which was necessary for the” absolute, infallible, inevitable, “salvation of the whole world.” If he had, the whole world would be saved; whereas, he that believeth shall not be damned. Ant.—But is it not said,” “He was wounded for our transgressions, and with his stripes we are healed”? And is he not ‘the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world’”? (p. 4.) F.—Yes; but this does not prove that he “put an end to our sins before they had a beginning!” (Ib.) Ant.—O, ignorance! Did not our sins begin in Adam? F.—Original sin did. But Christ will not put an end to this before the end of the world. And, as to actual, if I now feel anger at you in my heart, and it breaks out in reproachful words; to say Christ put an end to this sin before it began, is a glaring absurdity. Ant.—But I say, “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. He hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” And St. Peter says, “Who his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree.” F.—To what purpose do you heap these texts together? to prove that Christ “put an end to our sins” before they had a beginning? If not, spare your labor; for they are quite foreign to the present question. Ant.—However, that is not foreign to the present question, which you said the other day, viz., that “Christ has only redeemed us from the punishment due to our past transgressions.” (Ib.) F.—I neither said so nor thought so. You either carelessly or willfully misrepresent my words. On your quoting that text, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,” I replied in these terms: “What is this to the purpose? This tells me that Christ hath redeemed us (all that believe) from the curse or punishment justly due to our past transgression of God’s law. But it speaks not a word of redeeming us from the law, any more than from love or Heaven.” (First Dialogue. p. 71.) Ant.—Past transgressions! “Then who must redeem us from those which are to come, since there remains no more sacrifice for sin?” (Cudworth’s Dialogue.) F.—The same Jesus Christ, by the same merit of that one sacrifice then applied to the conscience when we believe, as you yourself have often asserted. But whatever punishment he redeems us from, that punishment supposes sin to precede; which must exist first, before there is any possibility of its being either punished or pardoned. Ant.—You have a strange way of talking. You say, “We are forgiven for the sake of the blood of Christ.” (Id. p. 5.) Ant.—No; I say, “We have forgiveness through his blood, and not merely for the sake of it.” F.—You are perfectly welcome so to say. Ant.—Well, enough of this. Let me ask you another question. Do you affirm that salvation is “conditional”? (Ib.) F.—I affirm, “He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.” And can you or any other deny this? If not, why do you fight about a word? especially after I have told you, “Find me a better, and I will lay this aside.” Ant.—“Then this faith leaves you just in the same state it found you; that is, still having the condition to perform.” (Ib. p. 5.) F.—Not so; for faith itself is that condition. Ant.—Nay, “faith is only necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation; not to procure it by way of condition.” (Ib.) F.—Enough, enough. You grant all that I desire. If you allow that “faith is necessary in order to receive forgiveness or salvation,” this is the whole of what I mean by terming it a condition. A procuring or meritorious cause is quite another thing. Ant.—“But you say that “faith is not true faith, unless it be furnished with love.” (Ib. p. 6.) F.—Furnished with love! Where did you pick up that awkward phrase? I never used it in my life. But I say, you have not true faith, unless your faith “worketh by love;” and that though “I have all faith, so that I could even remove mountains, yet if I have no love I am nothing.” Ant.—Will you answer me one question more? Is not a believer free from the law? F.—He is free from the Jewish ceremonial law; that is, he does not, and need not, observe it. And he is free from the curse of the moral law; but he is not free from observing it. He still walks according to its rule, and so much the more, because God has written it in his heart. Ant.—But St. Paul says, “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.” (Id. p. 8.) F.—He is so. He put an end to the Mosaic dispensation, and established a better covenant, in virtue whereof ‘faith is counted for righteousness to every one that believeth.’” Ant.—But still, “as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse,” (Gal. 3: 10,) are they not? F.—They are; as many as still “seek to be justified by the works of the law;” that is, by any works antecedent to, or independent on, faith in Christ. Ant.—But does not the apostle say farther, “Ye are become dead to the law?” Rom. 7: 4. (Ib.) F.—You are so, as to its condemning power, if you truly believe in Christ. For “there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” But not as to its directing power; for you “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” You “love him and keep his commandments.” Ant.—That is not all. I maintain, “a believer is entirely free from the law.” (Ib.) F.—By what Scripture do you prove that? Ant.—By Gal. 4: 4, 5: “God sent forth his Son, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.” F.—The plain meaning of this, I mentioned before: “ ‘God sent forth his Son, made under the law,’ (the Jewish dispensation,) to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons;” might serve God without fear, in righteousness and holiness,’ with a free, loving, childlike spirit.” (First Dialogue, p. 70.) We recently received a letter containing a statement of a certain writer, that 2 Cor. 3:7 afforded the clearest evidence of the abolition of the ten commandments, and asking for some comments on that passage. The controversy on this text turns on the meaning of the phrase-- The word ministration means, the service of a minister. Greenfield defines it, "ministry, serving, service, waiting, attendance." In the text we have a comparison of two ministrations, both glorious, but one excelling the other in glory. One of the past dispensation--"done away." The other in the present--"which remains." One called the ministration of condemnation or death; the other the ministration of the Spirit, or of righteousness. In this text we are taught one of two things: 1. It was the ministration or service of the priests that was engraven on stones, or, 2. The ministry of the priests was concerning that which was engraven on stones. As a matter of fact, we know that the arrangement of priestly service was not written on stones, for only the ten commandments were written thereon. It is inferred from this that the ten commandments are done away. Before proceeding to examine this inference we will notice a position taken by some, which is supposed to remove the difficulty and disprove the inference. It is, that the text does not refer to the tables of stone and to the commandments written thereon, but to the plaistered stones on which other laws were written according to Deut. 27:2, 8. However plausible this may appear, we do not think it is the sense of this passage. We are told that this view offers a successful method of silencing an opponent. Were this so it would not present any inducement to use it unless it is the truth. As truth, and not mere victory, is our object, we must seek for the actual meaning, and not rest on a possible solution. But we think that examination will show that the idea of successfully meeting opposition with that view is a mistaken one. In this chapter is a comparison of the priesthood of Moses and that of Christ. Moses is taken as the representative of the old covenant, because he was the first priest under that covenant. Ps. 99:6, &c. The reference in 2 Cor. 3 is not to anything commanded in Deut. 27, but there is undoubtedly reference to that which took place as recorded in Ex. 34. Joshua built an altar and wrote on it, after the children of Israel passed over Jordan. Josh. 8. But when Moses came down from the mount where he had been forty days and forty nights, communing with the Lord, with the two tables of stone in his hands, his face shone with the glory which it brought from the presence of the Lord, so that the people could not look upon it, and he put a veil over his face while he talked with them. Of this Paul speaks in 2 Cor. 3. We shall find on examination that that which was written on the stones is now written on "the fleshly tables of the heart," by the ministration of the Spirit. Many have supposed there is in this chapter a contrast of ministrations. This is true only so far as their effects are concerned, righteousness and life being contrasted with condemnation and death. But the ministrations themselves are compared--not contrasted. One was glorious; the other is more glorious--"excels in glory." Of law there is neither contrast nor comparison. But one law is brought to view, as will be shown when we consider 2 Cor. 3:6 as a fulfillment of Heb. 8:10. There is, however, a wide difference between the places of materials on which the law was written. Under one it was written on stones; under the other, in the heart. It was the face of the minister, not the law on the tables of stone, which was veiled. The children of Israel could not "look to the end of that which is abolished." They could not look upon the glory of Moses' countenance, or discern that which it represented. The service of Moses and of his fellow-priests was typical; it must pass away. But the words of Jehovah, written by his own finger on the tables of stone, which Moses held in his hands, were not typical; they were moral. They were not nailed to the cross; they are not done away. Paul says, "Moses was verily faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after." Heb. 3:5. This clearly shows the typical character of the work of Moses. We say the law of ten commandments is not typical, and no one who understands the nature of a type--who knows the difference between a moral and a positive law--will say in candor that it is. Every part of the ten commandments is moral, relating directly to God, our Creator, and to man, our fellow-creature. It may be replied that all positive or remedial laws also relate to God. But there is this essential difference: they are contingent, and are made necessary by man's action, and his condition as a sinner. The fact that they are remedial sufficiently shows this. But moral law is not contingent; it does not grow out of man's condition as a sinner, or depend on any secondary relation. It grows out of the will and action of God alone, without reference to the condition of the subject. Every part of the ten-commandment law is of this nature. Every jot and tittle of it has for its sole origin and basis the action and authority of God the Creator, entirely independent of man's action. Of the one contested point, the Sabbath, this is eminently true, it being founded only upon the act of the Creator and the work of creation. Ex. 20:8-11. Over this work man could not possibly have any control. But not so of the typical institutions. Had man sinned they would never have had an existence; there would then have been no place or necessity for the gospel which they prefigured. If the law of ten commandments, including the Sabbath, is not moral, then nothing can be proved to be moral, and morality and moral character are meaningless terms. In settling the meaning of a text of Scripture we must not altogether lose sight of the consequences of our conclusions. If they are found to be dishonorable to God and to his government, or if they lead to a conflict with other scriptures, we may be assured that our investigations have led us in a wrong direction. As all things were created for God's pleasure and glory, it must be that the counsels of his grace will not be to the dishonor of his government, or at variance with the moral law which he has revealed. And as his word is yea and amen--not yea and nay--no one part of his word will conflict with another part, or no part will be contrary to the tenor of the whole. But above all things we should cultivate a spirit of reverence and submission to his will, and not let our feelings incline us toward certain conclusions, for if we do this we shall certainly pervert the word of God, and make it minister to our selfishness. Let no one think this caution is not in place; for it is necessary on this subject above all others, because the carnal mind being enmity to the law of God, Rom. 8:7, and the law and the flesh being contrary to each other, Rom. 7:14, 18, there is danger that our natural dispositions will control us and incline us to accept conclusions not in harmony with the righteousness of the law. There is surely little danger that the carnal mind, or a fleshly, selfish spirit will err in favor of the law of God, which is holy, and just, and good. To make it appear that it was the law of ten commandments which was abolished, it will be necessary to establish the following points:-- - This law is not a rule of holiness; though Jehovah himself declared it was. Ex. 19:5-8; Deut. 4:12, 13.
- It is not the condition of life; though both Moses and Christ declare it is.
- It is not perfect; though David says it is.
- It does not contain the whole duty of man; though Solomon says it does.
- Christ did not magnify it and make it honorable; though the Lord by his prophet said he should do so.
- Christ destroyed or abolished it; which contradicts his own words.
- Men could have been proved sinners on the day of Pentecost in the absence of the law; which is contrary to reason and to Paul's words in Rom. 5:13 and 3:20.
- Sinners will not be judged by the law; but Paul says they will. Rom. 2:12, 16.
- Sin is imputed without the law; but Paul says it is not.
- The knowledge of sin is not by the law; but Paul says it is.
- The law is made void through faith; but Paul says it is not.
- The law is not spiritual; but Paul says it is. Rom. 7:14.
- The righteousness (or precept) of the law is not to be fulfilled in the followers of Christ; but Paul says it is. Rom. 8:4.
This list might be largely extended, but it is not necessary. The theory of the abolition of the ten commandments involves the above and many other contradictions of Scripture, and is every way dishonoring to the moral government of God. But, the objector inquires, is there not a difficulty in your view of the text, and does not ministration agree, grammatically, with that which is written and engraven in stones? We answer, yes, there is such an agreement, and at first sight, without a thorough examination of the text, one might be led to infer therefrom that that which was engraven in stones is done away. We should not deny or seek to hide the difficulty, even though we could not solve it. And even if we could not solve it, we would not admit the view of the objector, because it involves a contradiction of known facts, and of many declarations of Scripture. We invite the attention of the objector to the following quotations from Dr. Carson's work on Baptism:-- "It is an important truth that is stated by Dr. Hawkins, that 'there may be truth, and truth supported by irrefragable arguments, and yet at the same time obnoxious to objections, numerous, plausible, and by no means easy of solution.' I go further; there may be truth liable to objections that to us may be unanswerable, while the proof is irrefragable." It was with this just remark by Dr. Carson in view that we said we should not admit the objector's position even if we could not answer his objections. But we do not intend to avail ourselves of the benefit of the truth he has stated; we do not need it. The objection is far from being strong against our position, because it cannot itself be harmonized with the Scriptures. Indeed, it involves a still greater difficulty by contradicting well-known facts. And this is admitted by the very best authorities even among those who are not with us in our views of the teachings of the law. No class of religionists have made so free use of this text as the Disciples. Being antinomian in faith, they have used this as a stronghold of their position, and confidently referred to the Greek as proving that the law is done away. Prof. Anderson, of Kentucky, was of that church. He early conceived the idea of making a version of the New Testament, and gave himself up to the thorough study of the Greek in order to the accomplishment of the task. It was the work of his life, and he literally sacrificed his life to the truth. He rendered this text as follows:-- "But if the ministration of death by means of a covenant written and engraven in stones is glorious," &c. Prof. Anderson recognized the evident fact that the ministration, or service, of the priests was not written on the stones, and he therefore supplied an antecedent in agreement with "written and engraven in stones," and in harmony with the tenor of the Scriptures. But Prof. Anderson was not alone in this view. We are confident that he gave such a rendering only after a careful examination of the subject of the text, and a careful consultation of authorities. Thus Olshausen says:-- "The entupomene en lithois [engraven in stones] refers only figuratively to diakonia [ministration]; its primary reference is to the decalogue." Thus he considers that by a figure, putting that to which the ministry relates for the ministry itself, the apostle brings to view the effects of the ministration in the most direct manner. For, as Anderson renders it, it was only by means of the decalogue that the ministration or service of the priests had any efficiency or significance. Bloomfield, in his Critical Notes on the Greek of the New Testament, says:-- "I have in Recens. Synop. shown that the sense of the verse is: If the ministry or office of promulgating a covenant which in the letter (when written on tables of stone) brought nothing but death with it, was glorious (namely, by the appearance of angels with the cloud of glory, and so glorious that the children of Israel were not able to look upon the face of Moses, because of the shining of his countenance," &c. Here again we have the same idea presented; the ministration was concerning that which was engraven on the stones. And so also Lange:-- "By a bold turn of expression he combines the ministry itself with its object, and designates the whole as one which was engraven in letters upon stones (the only point in which we can here agree with Meyer, who regards the decalogue as Moses' commission, or matricula officii). The ministration of Moses and of all his successors, consisted in the presentation or enforcement of the law whose letters had been engraven upon some tablets." Dean Alford, in his "Testament for English Readers," takes the same view; he says;-- "It seems strange that the ministration should be described as engraven on stones; but the ministration is the whole putting forth of the dispensation, the purport of which was summed up in the decalogue, written on stones." Connybeare and Howson, in Life and Epistles of Paul, makes the same distinction between the ministration and the law. They render it thus:-- "Yet if a glory was shed upon the ministration of the law of death (a law written in letters and engraven in stones)." And yet again, Barnes says:-- "The word ministration means, properly, ministry; the office of ministering in divine things. . . . The word here seems to refer to the whole arrangement under the Mosaic economy by which his laws were promulgated and perpetuated. The expression a 'ministration--written and engraven on stones,' is somewhat harsh; but the sense evidently is, the ministration of a covenant, or of laws, written on stones." There are very few contested passages upon which there is such a remarkable agreement of eminent authorities. They all accept the fact, which every careful reader of the Bible understands, that the ministration or service of the priests was not written on the stones; they all recognize the clear distinction between the ministration and that which was written on the stones, and that it is by a figure of speech the ministration is thus spoken of. That that ministration, or priestly service, is done away, there is no dispute, for it was typical. But the law which that typical service concerned was moral and did not and cannot pass away; and to contend that it has passed away is to discard all morality, and to contradict a multitude of scriptures. Novices in Gospel Work.
By Editor
A writer in the English General Baptist Magazine speaks his mind as to the suddenly converted men who are hurriedly rushed into the Christian ministry, or thrust before the public as promoters of some special branch of moral reform. He says :— "Surely, Christian churches and Christian men will see, before long, that it is time they had done with advertising 'converted clowns,' 'prize-fighters,' 'singing preachers converted during an attack of delirium tremens,' and all that ilk. We have had it ad nauseum. It is a waste of good money, a discredit to Christianity, and a depravation of the tone of Christian work. 'Conversion' is so great a good that we rejoice in any one's conversion; and preaching the gospel is so useful a work that we are glad to know any one can do it. But men should have time to clean themselves a little before they are taken up and petted by Christian men and pushed to the front; and it should never be forgotten that the first qualification for any preacher is a stainless character." We would that all realized the truth and force of the above words. To thrust into the solemn work of the gospel ministry one who has no experience or judgment, is an injury to the individual as well as to the cause of gospel truth. We personally knew one who labored under the title of "The Converted Jew," or "The Hebrew Evangelist," who traveled and held protracted meetings with different churches. An esteemed brother of the Methodist church in which the Hebrew was laboring, stated to us his fears that he was an imposter. We told him, not altogether that; he was ignorant; he had been unjustly dealt with; he had personally given us his history, which was this: He professed faith in Jesus as the Messiah, in one of Mr. Hammond's revival meetings. The next day after making this confession of Christ, Mr. Hammond sent him to hold a meeting where he had made an appointment, and to relate his conversion. This he did, and was thenceforth kept busy holding meetings for a long time. When we became173 acquainted with him he was earnest to declare that Jesus was the Messiah, but he was utterly ignorant of the gospel, both as to its facts and principles. At the first, he might have been taught the way of God more perfectly; but having been put forward by such men as Mr. Hammond, who themselves are as superficial as possible, he became puffed up, and it was impossible to instruct him. He might have been a useful man under wise counsel, but he never will be. His labors were unproductive of any good. The course spoken of by the writer in the Magazine, of putting forward as preachers, those but recently rescued from the pits of vice, is still worse. They have neither character, virtue, nor judgment to labor in such a calling. Every church owes it to itself as well as to the cause of God, to exercise great care whom it thrusts into the sacred work of the ministry. "Lay hands suddenly on no man," is the divine injunction. "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil." An awful responsibility rests upon those who neglect these wise regulations, and thereby bring reproach upon the sacred work of God.