Earlier text: CHRIST IS COMING AGAIN“Enquire, and make search, and ask diligently.” NOTE.—We wish those who ask questions to take particular notice: (1) Only such questions will be answered here as we believe to be of general interest and information. (2) We can not undertake to explain from four to a dozen scriptures, as in one sentence we are often requested to do. (3) Do not ask to “explain” a certain text or passage. State clearly the point in question. (4) Give full name and address, not for publication unless desired, but as evidence of good faith, and to give us the privilege of replying by letter if deemed best. (5) Unsigned communications of any kind find the quickest way to the waste-basket. (6) It is always well to inclose stamp. (7) “Foolish and unlearned questions avoid,” also those that minister to mere curiosity. (8) Study the Scriptures yourselves. The words are a repetition, with a little modification, of 1 Cor. 6:12: “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (“but all things edify not,” chapter 10:23). That by the “all things” the apostle does not include the obvious transgression of God’s law is evident from the fact that in this very epistle he unsparingly condemns fornication. Chapter 5:1, 11, 13; 6:9. But there were certain things which were indifferent, as meats, or, more properly, foods. “Foods for the belly and the belly for foods,” but both would pass away. Of these indifferent things, all things were lawful; that is, when necessity demanded, there was no law to condemn their use. Meats offered to idols would fall into this category. Chapter 8:7, 8. But even of these indifferent things, all things are not expedient. God has given us liberty to use all, but it is not expedient to do so. (1) It is not good to use them if such use binds us in a habit to their power. “I will not be brought under the power of any,” is what the apostle declared. He who must have his flesh foods, his tea, his coffee, his tobacco, his wine, or any other indulgence, has passed the bounds of Christian freedom and made himself a slave. (2) If by such use others stumble it is not expedient. Here again Christian liberty limits itself for others’ good. “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend [to stumble], I will eat no flesh while the world standeth.” Chapter 8:13. See verses 7, 8. (3) All indifferent things, even tho lawful, are not expedient unless they edify or build up the church. Chapter 10:23. This is the test of true Christian character: “Knowledge puffeth up, but love buildeth up.” Chapter 8:1. (4) But from these indifferent things we have no right to reason that the body may be used as lust will; “for the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.” For that reason we have no liberty to do aught which will defile or destroy the body. Be not deceived. See chapter 3:16–18; 6:9–10. In all these things the apostle’s conclusion is: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offense, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God.” Chapter 10:31, 32. We may not see the harmony, but it is there. The texts are harmonized: it is for us to learn the harmony. Man by nature is sinful, carnal, at enmity with God. This the Lord expressly declares. Rom. 7:14, 18; 8:7. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1:8. This is true of man before he believes at all; it is true of him after he believes if he trusts in himself alone. But “if we confess our sins,” if we come into harmony with God, accepting his Word, putting away the sins by confession which that Word reveals, “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” Now if we abide in him, we are not counted sinners; for “in him is no sin.” If we abide in him, walk in constant submission to him, his righteousness is constantly counted for us. We may make mistakes which of themselves apart from him would be sin; they would miss the mark; but in Christ they are not counted for sin. He who is in Christ “doth not practise sin,” as translated by some. It is not his purpose to be sinning; and he who professes to be in him, and yet who deliberately and willingly practises sin, does not know Christ. Chapter 3:6, 9, 10 are parallel with chapter 2:4–6. The purpose, object, and practise of the Christian are faithfully to do God’s will, not to transgress it. This is God’s object in calling him; but if he should be overcome, we have an Advocate with the Father, who is the propitiation of our sins. He whose life is in harmony with God is not counted by God as a sinner. PLEASE explain verses 8, 21, and 26 of chapter 14 of Deuteronomy. To whom did they apply? and their application to us now. J. O. P. (1) These scriptures are a part of the law God gave his people. (2) The eighth verse refers to the swine, an animal unclean and unwholesome in its very nature, at all times and in all ages. While that law is not technically binding, while it would be better to eat pork than starve, trusting God to bless it to our necessities, the fact is as true now as ever that the swine is unclean and unfit for food. Compare with Isa. 65:4; 66:17. (3) Verse 21 prohibited to Israel the use of the flesh of those beasts which died of themselves, a prohibition honored in the breach by nations around them, even as among many to-day. Such meat might be sold to such people, for they knew what it was, and considered it good for them. The same general principles apply in this as in the case of prohibited meat. (4) Verse 26 pertained to their great yearly gatherings. The “whatsoever thy soul lusteth after” is necessarily limited by the specific prohibitions of Leviticus 11 and Deut. 14:3–21. (5) As to their application to us study them in the light of God’s love to his children, and such scriptures as 1 Cor. 10:31, and other instruction which God has given. WHAT is the “mammon of unrighteousness”? and who are the “they” that “may receive you into everlasting habitations”? A. B. “Mammon of unrighteousness” is the money and property of this world, the “riches” of this unrighteous world. The Revised Version reads, “Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness.” The lesson is that we should so use the riches of this world that we shall have our hope upon something better. The “they” who receive us into everlasting habitations are the angels of God. See Matt. 13:39; 24:31. GOD IS NEAR.
By Hjalmar Rued
ALL nature seems in festal dress
And full of cheer,
And sunbeams play with sweet caress
On far and near.
The wind trails softly through the leaves,
And wondrous notes yon bird achieves,
While singing, “God is near.” From o’er the fields a cowbell’s chime
Comes to my ear.
Its gentle tinkle brings the time
Of childhood near;
When hop and skip was all the day,
And all the world was full of play,
And God seemed very near. And now while musing ’neath this tree,
In quiet here,
Those old-time scenes come back to me,
So fond and dear;
Again I sit at mother’s feet,
And listen to her song so sweet,
And feel that God is near. And to my thoughts in sweetest rhyme,
Come, strong and clear,
The deep-toned, mellow, Sabbath-chimes—
I gladly hear.
They ring forth love, and joy, and ease,
And tidings of such quiet peace,
That, surely, God is near. We read from the page of Inspiration that there was once war in heaven, that a powerful angel revolted from allegiance to God, and, gathering other spirits to himself, fought against God and the holy angels. This prince of fallen angels is called the devil, Satan, and the serpent. This prince of evil beheld the fair creation of God; he saw Adam and Eve in the beautiful “Garden of Delight,” enjoying God’s favor in innocent bliss, and, filled with envy and hatred, he planned their destruction. Through the medium of the subtle serpent he approached Eve with the artful address, “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Gen. 3:1. This question was calculated to produce distrust of God’s wisdom and loving-kindness. “Can it be true that he has given you appetites, and placed gratifications before you, only to mock you?” Such thoughts as these are now constantly arising in the heart of sinful man, whenever the restrictions of God’s law and the precepts of Jesus Christ are presented. The woman parleyed with Satan in the guise of the serpent; she yielded her members to unrighteousness. The ear listened to accusations6 (230) against God. She believed the lie, “Ye shall not surely die” (Gen. 3:4), and her eyes lingered with desire upon the forbidden fruit. Ambitious thoughts arose in her heart at the words, “Ye shall be as gods.” Verse 5. She took of the fruit and did eat thereof, and gave also to her husband, and he did eat. Henceforth all was changed. The image of the Creator was effaced, and the nature of Satan was stamped upon the human heart. When this guilty pair “heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden” (verse 8), they were afraid, and hid themselves, and when the terrible question came, “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (verse 11) the man cast the blame upon the woman, and the woman blamed the serpent. There was no penitence, no desire for pardon. And now falls the sentence for disobedience against the holy law of God, upon the serpent a curse, to the woman sorrow and pain, to the man a hard and laborious existence. “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” and death to every son and daughter of Adam. “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” Verse 19. This sentence implies simply death. Spiritual death was in the sinning. From the moment when sin was committed all purity of heart and holiness of character were destroyed. Adam and Eve were now sinful, mortal beings, and of necessity this nature was entailed upon their posterity. A stream can not rise higher than its source. The offspring of a sinful being can not be holy. “Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?” Jer. 13:23. “We all, O Lord, have gone astray,
And wandered from thy heavenly way;
The wilds of sin our feet have trod;
Far from the paths of thee, our God.” “SUNDAY IS THE ONLY CHRISTIAN SABBATH THE NEW TESTAMENT RECOGNIZES.”
By A. H. Lewis
Such is the title of the second part of the “Wonderful Discovery” on the Sabbath question, which Rev. S. W. Gamble has announced in the Chicago Tribune, and in the Christian Endeavorer of that city. This second paper opens as follows:— By way of introduction, and in order to connect this paper correctly with the article in the January issue of the Christian Endeavorer, it may be well to state that there are three views of the creation Sabbath:— - That there was no Sabbath in the time between the creation and the Exodus.
- That the creation Sabbath occurred on Saturday and remained on Saturday until after the resurrection.
- That the creation Sabbath was on Sunday—was lost—and Saturday established at the Exodus, for the Jews only. And that Sunday was reinstated at the resurrection of Christ.
Great scholars have spent much time and research upon these conflicting views, and volume after volume has been written in their support. I will simply state that, in my opinion, there was a Sabbath instituted at the end of the creation week, which was observed by the patriarchs. And I incline to the opinion that it was on Sunday. Accept for the sake of the argument this opinion of Mr. Gamble, as the best that learned men have formulated, and analyze it a little. If Sunday was the original Sabbath there was an original week which was measured by Sunday. This definite and regular week thus measured, ran on in good order from the time of “Creation” to the time of the Exodus from Egypt. Then, all at once and with no record or hint in the Bible or in any other history and in face of fully recorded facts in Biblical and non-Biblical history, this orderly primeval week disappears by the magic of Mr. Gamble’s discovery, and the never-resting, sliding-scale week which he calls “Jewish,” comes on the scene and continues a hop-skip-and-jump existence through the centuries down to the time of Christ. By that time this cog-slipping machinery of Mr. Gamble’s week had become so worn and demoralized that no sort of dependence could be put upon it. Like the logic of this new discovery, it began in an undefined somewhere, and ended so many times in an undiscovered nowhere, that confusion became worse confounded. Hence the following picture which Mr. Gamble gives:— In the “discovery” announced in the January issue I stated that the Sabbath in the fourth commandment, written with the finger of God in the two tables of stone and recorded in Deuteronomy 5, and explained in Leviticus 23, required the observance to fall on fixed dates, which would change the day of the week upon which it fell as many times as there were years in the period during which it was kept, showing that while Christ kept the true Sabbath of the law the New Testament records the word “Sabbath” twenty-eight times in the Gospels when the day was not on Saturday, but more probably on Thursday. Once the word “Sabbath” is used when the day was Friday, and a number of times on Saturday, that is, the Sabbath mentioned during the last year of his public teaching. This shows that no one, either Jew or Christian, now keeps the Sabbath in the manner in which Christ kept it. This is a sad state for the machinery of this new discovery to get into. Up to the last year of the earth-life of Christ, the week had a regular existence, for at least one year at a time. But in order to make the jumble confused enough for a new leap in the dark which the average reader will not so clearly detect, our discoverer announces that the Sabbath falls into worse disorder than ever during this last year. Sometimes it was on “Thursday,” sometimes on “Friday,” “and a number of times on Saturday.” One must wonder whether the weeks of this last year were of equal length, or whether the Sabbath had become so loosened from the week that it fell about in a manner thus promiscuous. Note, however, that even Mr. Gamble acknowledges that it fell “a number of times on Saturday,” indicating that the habit of the centuries was still strong. The crowning wonder of this discovery comes now, in the assertion that somehow the death of Christ straightened out the disorder so that the week settled down to regular business again with Sunday and “Saturday” in the old and regular order. Of course the thoughtful student of the Bible and of history will raise the question why there is no record of all this, and why Christ, or the Holy Spirit, or the apostles did not discover what Mr. Gamble declares is so plain; and it231 would not be strange if some one should inquire why the Bible was not written as our discoverer thinks it ought to have been. But the purpose which all this array of new discoveries seeks would be destroyed by allowing the week to go on with the first and last days in the same relation as now, unless something were done to make Sunday the “Sabbath.” What Mr. Gamble attempts in this direction is a full confession that all his efforts to destroy the week have failed. In spite of all the confusion he has tried to create, the week will not actually yield to his demands, and some other attempt must be made to evade the truth which can not be smothered by this pretended confusion. This new and final effort to remove the Sabbath is announced in the following modest manner:— Wrong Translation in Matthew.
We now call attention to a fact overlooked by our English revisers and the translators of our Authorized Version—i. e., each one of the Gospels speaks of the resurrection day as the “Sabbath.” They overlooked another fact—i. e., that once in every year after the Exodus there were two Sabbaths coming together. This oversight was probably the greatest reason for not translating Matt. 28:1, in harmony with the Greek original. The passage reads, or should read, “In the end of the Sabbaths, as it began to dawn toward one of the Sabbaths.” Luther so rendered it. See also Beardsley on the Sabbath, Robert Young, G. W. Hughey, and other good Greek scholars, who thus render it and the parallel passages. The Greek word for “week” does not occur in the Greek New Testament anywhere. The Greek word for “day” does not occur in any passage in which the English renders the expression “day of the week.” For these and other sufficient reasons it is safe to say that the expression “the first day of the week,” can not be found in the Greek Testament, and therefore does not belong in the English translation of it. The resurrection day is known in the Gospels by no name but the “Sabbath.” Then why not use the name Inspiration gives us? But does not John call it “the Lord’s day” in Rev. 1:10?—Yes. But the Gospel of John was written late, or, according to Young and others, his Gospel was the last one of the New Testament writings. He twice calls the Sunday on which Christ arose “Sabbath.” Luke in the Acts, and Paul in a letter, call it “Sabbath.” It is called “Sabbath” eight times in the New Testament, and “the Lord’s day” once, and is known by no other names in the New Testament. Hence it should be called by one or the other of those names, and never called “the first day of the week.” As Mr. Gamble confesses, this bold arraignment of the translators of our English Bible is not original with him. A few others, whose knowledge of Greek seems to consist in obtaining the superficial definition of words from the lexicon without entering into the deeper knowledge of the genius of the language, or the nature of the passages translated, have attempted this method of escaping from the facts in the case. Every Greek scholar will smile at the assurance, born of imperfect knowledge, which Mr. Gamble’s announcement of the ignorance of the translators and revisers of the New Testament evinces. The English reader can see the fallacy of this part of the new discovery by noting the following facts:— The Hebrews named no day of the week except the Sabbath; this was both named and numbered. It was so prominent a feature of the week that it was made the starting point from which the other days were numbered. Out of this conception grew the idioms which numbered each day as “first,” “second,” “third,” etc., from the Sabbath and in its progress toward the next Sabbath. This conception carried the idea of ownership of the days by the Sabbaths between which they came and went. This thought and the idiomatic expression growing from it, is yet found in Hebrew references to the days of the week. To aid Mr. Gamble in future discoveries we refer him to the Hebrew prayer-book, in which the order of the lessons is indicated as we have explained. There he will find the Hebrew: Hayom yom rishon bashabbath. (“This day is” one towards, or of, the Sabbath-day) translated in the heading of the lesson so described: “Psalm for the first day of the week.” Examples may be found on page eighty of the prayer-book by Singer, London, and published for use in the United States under the sanction of the late Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler. The Greek writers of the New Testament followed the idea and the idiom of the Hebrew as nearly as the language would permit. Adopting the Greek “genitive” (possessive) construction, they wrote: Mia toon Sabbatoon, which our (careless and ignorant translators, according to Mr. Gamble) render in the exactly equivalent English, “First day of the week.” Mr. Gamble’s discovery is the product of ignorance and not of even ordinary scholarship. When this wonderful discovery is summed up it amounts to this. Annoyed by the persistency and clearness with which the Sabbath appears and endures in all history, Biblical and ecclesiastical, Mr. Gamble has prepared this medley of contradictions, illogicalness and ignorance, in hope of obscuring the simple fact that the seventh and not the first day of the week is the Sabbath. He sees, as all the world does, that until the Sabbath and the week, which are inseparable, are gotten out of the way there can be no ground for Sunday. The lately established Christian Endeavour, of Chicago, having noted the failure of the efforts to sustain Sunday on theories advanced hitherto, has hailed Mr. Gamble and his discovery as the era-making discoverer of the Sunday Sabbath, and the providential defender of Sunday along this new line. The futility of this discovery, and the prominence of its failure at birth, is seen in the fact that altho it has been before the public for some weeks, not a single religious or theological journal of note or scholarship has noticed it, much less indorsed it. Similar discoveries come and go, but the Bible, the week, and the Sabbath of Jehovah hold the even tenor of their way, waiting the time when repeated and destructive failures, heaped on the ruins of each other, will at last compel the Christian world to return to the Sabbath and follow the teachings and example of Christ and the New Testament church by keeping it holy.—A. H. Lewis, D.D., in Sabbath Recorder. FULFILMENT OF GOD’S WORD.
By M. E. K.
After the taking of Jericho by Israel, the Lord, by Joshua, declared, “Cursed be the man before the Lord, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho; he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.” Joshua 6:26. Probably the design of the Lord was that this city, which first opposed the progress of Israel, and which the Lord himself delivered into the hands of his people, might lie in ruins as a memorial of his mighty power. Should it be rebuilt, the story of its overthrow would in time be denied, and the lesson be forgotten. Time passed on. The judges reigned for over four hundred years. During that time there was much wickedness and unbelief in Israel, but no one offered to build up Jericho. God’s word deterred them from so doing. So we go on during the time of the kings, until after Israel was divided, and we reach the reign of that most wicked king, Ahab. In his days, under his influence, and the influence of his wicked consort, Jezebel, the words of the Lord were little regarded. We read: “And he [Ahab] reared up an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he had built in Samaria. And Ahab made a grove; and Ahab did more to provoke the Lord God of Israel to anger than all the kings of Israel that were before him. In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho; he laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof in his youngest son Segub, according to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua the son of Nun.” 1 Kings 16:32–34. By comparing the chronology we find that the fulfilment of this word of the Lord spoken by Joshua took place over five hundred years after the words were spoken. This would be a hundred years more time than has elapsed since Columbus discovered America! We do not know whether the words of the Lord were understood by the builder or not; but if they were known, they were not believed. It was a long time since the words were spoken, and what reason was there that the city, in so fine a location, too, should not be rebuilt? They believed in more liberty. It was preposterous that the dead Joshua should bind a man living five hundred years later; and if Ahab could build a temple to Baal, and no harm come to it, or to him, as it then appeared, surely an old city might be safely rebuilt. So Hiel went to work to rebuild Jericho. But a terrible accident occurred. While they were getting the foundations placed, his eldest son was crushed under a mighty boulder. Perhaps some one recollected and repeated the prophecy, pointing out what had occurred as a partial fulfilment; but if it was done, no attention was paid to it. To be sure it was a very curious coincidence, and a very credulous person might imagine that he saw in it a fulfilment of prophecy; but it was remarked that accidents just like that often happened when there was no prophecy at all! So the work was resumed, the workmen being cautioned to be very careful. All went on well until the very last moment. The city was built and the wall enclosed it; only one more thing was to be done,—the heavy gates, already made, were to be raised and hung upon their hinges. Segub, the youngest son of Hiel, was helping in this work. But there was a miscalculation; a prop slipped, the great gate, partially erected, swung round, the workmen lost control of it, and it fell heavily to the earth. Was any one hurt? In their excitement they hardly knew at first. But some one had heard a smothered shriek, and instantly a hundred men grasped one side of the great gate, and raised it from the ground, while others looked under it. There, under the gate, with his life crushed out of him, lay Segub, the youngest son of Hiel; and the word of the Lord, by Joshua, spoken five hundred years before, was fulfilled to the letter! Did they believe it then? We are not told. Probably, as is always the case, some believed, and others did not. The sin of unbelief is so deceitful, that when we once give it a place in the heart, it grows to immense proportions. The only safe course to pursue is to believe that all the words of the Lord are true; that his word spoken in reference to what he will bring upon nations, and upon the world in our day, will be accurately fulfilled, tho spoken hundreds of years ago. Men live and die, the centuries come and go, but God’s word abides forever. Happy is he who takes that word for what it is, the word of God, and believes it. M. E. K. JEWISH CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS.
By F. C. Gilbert
The Sanctuary and Its Services.—Continued.
As we pursue our journey in the court, we find that just beyond the laver is a hanging of blue, purple, scarlet, and fine-twined linen. This curtain is called the door into the holy place. Before the priest could minister to the Lord he had to enter through the door into the holy place, for he could gain admission in no other way. How appropriate a lesson we learn from this door. It is Christ who is the door, by which we enter to minister unto the Lord. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. . . . Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep. . . . I am the door; by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.” John 10:1–9. Yes, Jesus is the door, the entrance which leads us to God. He is also the way to lead us along, after we have found the door. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” And how blessed it is that the undefiled should walk in the way. If we are only led and guided by Jesus, we shall always find the entrance to God, and will ever be able to go in and out, and find plenty of pasture. For through him we are led to God to receive forgiveness of sins. Through him we receive the peace of God, which comes as a result of pardon. Through him we receive the Spirit of God, which is a seal to us that we have received peace and power, because all our sins are forgiven. By him we are led into the green pastures of his Word, and by the still waters of his Spirit. Having entered through the door, we have the privilege of exploring the heights, lengths, depths, and breadths of the love of God, and of knowing that kindness which passeth all knowledge. Through him we become real children of God, and partakers of all the promises. Through him we enter into the heavenlies, and sit down on the same throne with him, and by faith see the work he is doing for us. O, what a door we have to enter, and what opportunities that opening does afford us! And this all comes through Jesus. He only is the door; there is no other way by which we can secure these things. He has been delegated from God to make us know that this is so. And this is why he says that all others who came before him, and taught another way, were thieves and robbers, and were bent on spoiling the sheep instead of leading them to God. And this is what modern Judaism has done, in teaching the way of salvation as it has, as will be seen when these points are taken up in subsequent articles. What a beautiful and impressive truth the priest must have learned each time he went into the holy place to burn incense or offer the offerings unto the Lord! How his heart must have thrilled with joy at the thought of being led to God by the true door, and that through Jesus, the Messiah, the service was made acceptable to the Lord! Surely the Lord made ample provisions in the days of Israel for them to know the Gospel of the anointed Messiah, the real sacrifice for God. Passing by for a little while the things in the holy place, we find that there was another partition which separated the holy place from the most holy, and called the vail. This was also made of the same material as the door, the significance of which material has been noted in article 6. The ministrations in both these places were conducted at different times, and only on a certain day in the year was the high priest alone permitted to enter into the most holy, beyond the vail. “And the Lord said unto Moses, Speak unto Aaron thy brother, that he come not at all times into the holy place within the vail before the mercy-seat, which is upon the ark.” Lev. 16:2. But, thanks be to God! there is no need of a vail to-day between God and his people, and the lesson taught there has done its work most effectively upon the heart of every priest of God. When Jesus was on the cross, while the sun hid its face in sympathy with its Creator, frowning upon the wicked deed done by the persecutors, the vail of the temple was rent from top to bottom; and ever since that time no temple on earth has been rebuilt, and consequently no part of the ministration of God8 has ever been hid from the view of the Christian. The vail was another of God’s reminders to teach men that Jesus is the way to God. “Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the vail, that is to say, his flesh.” Heb. 10:19, 20. Nor was this designed for one class only; but that all might be led to God. “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” Eph. 2:14. How great is his love to take in all classes; so that in him there is neither Jew nor Gentile, bond nor free, male nor female; but ONE in Christ Jesus! The Jews still have the vail over their faces, because they do not see how it has been taken away; but the child of God sees clearly, without any object to dim the full light of the glory of God. “But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.” 2 Cor. 3:18. And this is accomplished by God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, shining into our hearts, to give to us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Chapter 4:6. What is there good that is not found in Jesus? God has removed every obscurity which tended to darken the mind, and has now allowed us to behold him as he is in all his glory, through the blessed Jesus. Surely God could do no more for us than he has done. Nor is this all that is taught by the hangings. It is true that Jesus is the door, as well as the way, to lead us to God, but he has given us the privilege of leading others to him, that they too may realize the beauty of the truth. The people received their knowledge of the inner workings and parts of the sanctuary as the priests informed them, thus making them workers together with the Lord. So we also are made co-workers with God, in declaring to the lost world the knowledge of the true God, and his Son Jesus Christ, and what people may find in him when they have been led to him. May we all, dear readers, be workers for him, that we may work together with him. AN “ORGANIC UNION” OF CHURCHES.
By W. N. G.
The Christian Statesman is advocating an “organic union of the various branches of the church,” meaning the various denominations. An alliance, it claims, is not sufficient for aggressive work; it has not sufficient authority. The organic union that is suggested is to bear the same relation to the denominations within its compact as the United States Government does to the States. The alliance of denominations is compared to the outspread fingers of the open hand, “moved gently towards the combined hosts of immorality in our country, especially in political life;” but the organic union would be as “the compacting of fingers and thumb into a solid fist wielded by the controlling purpose of a single brain.” With such a power as this brought to bear—“specially in political life”—it is argued, “then something will drop, and drop hard.” The spirit and the doctrine that are behind this proposed political organization—to control both the church and the nation—are well set forth in the following brief extract from the long argument:— “In the good fight of faith under the Captain of9 Salvation and the Prince of Peace, the smiting by the enemies of the King with the compacted fist of iniquity must be met by a heavier smiting with the compacted fist of righteousness. And the instrument of Almighty God in this smiting is his church.” The spirit that meets smiting with smiting is not the Spirit of Christ, and the church that works on this principle is not the church of Christ. That the smiting here advocated is not by “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God,” is shown in the inference that it is to move in “political life,” which is always an appeal to the political power—ultimately the literal sword. The doctrine and example of Christ is set forth in the following scripture:— “The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagog, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou me? ask them which heard me, what I have said unto them: behold, they know what I said. And when he had thus spoken, one of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand, saying, Answerest thou the high priest so? Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?” Righteousness is not a fist smiter; it melts and subdues with the warm rays of love. “The Lord our Righteousness” has placed in our hands no other means of defeating the enemies of righteousness. True, the church needs “the controlling purpose of a single brain,” but is not Christ the Head of the church? Is not his “controlling purpose” sufficient? and is not that purpose plainly enunciated in his Word and in his example? The mission of the church is to proclaim the Word to “the enemies of the King,” and manifest his life in the lives of its members. Having faithfully done this, the results may safely be left with the Judge of all the earth. “Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord; I will repay.” But if the “Protestant” churches have so far departed from Protestantism as to desire “the controlling purpose of a single [human] brain,” they can find the very climax of such an ideal in the Roman Catholic Church. The scheme is Roman in principle, and they can do no better on that line than to accept that which is already in vogue and in experienced hands. Imitations, unless they are exact imitations, are always deceptive, always fraudulent. The aim of this “organic union,” with “the controlling purpose of a single brain,” is church control of the government, the use of the civil power for church purposes; and that is Romanism, call it what else we may.