PAUL says, "By grace are ye saved." "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified." Then, some have asked, what have Christians to do with the law? It is still the rule of duty—the measure of our conformity to the will of God. Our Saviour in his sermon on the mount said, "Be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect." And he inspired the author of the epistle to the Hebrews to declare that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. And he declares in Revelation that in the last day every man shall be judged according to his works.
The Common Version of Rev. 22:14 is, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." The Revised Version reads, "Blessed are they that wash their robes," etc. The difference is less than it seems. In one case perfect obedience, in the other perfect purity. We are to be measured by the celestial standard, and if we fall short we are excluded. All this and much more that we might quote shows that Paul understood full well the relation of the gospel to the law, when he cried so indignantly, "Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid."
The object of Christ's humiliation and sufferings was not to save those who continue in sin, but "to save his people from their sins." Hence the great apostle writes to the Thessalonians, "Ye are called unto holiness." And to the Ephesians, that Christ gave himself for the church, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, and present it unto himself, a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, holy and without blemish. As a wise builder rejects every stone and timber that his plummet condemns, as he will not put in anything that is crooked and will not square with the perfect parts of149his edifice, so God will reject, in the construction of his glorious church, "anything that defileth or worketh abomination or maketh a lie."
What then is the practical lesson to each believer of this relation of the law to the gospel? Is it not progressive sanctification? Is it not that he who has chosen us in Christ will by his truth, his Spirit, and his providence make us meet for the inheritance of his saints in light? When he applies the plumb-line, he will also apply the mallet and the chisel. We all as lively stones are built up a spiritual house. But stones must be squared before they are laid in a wall. The architect cannot square the building until he has squared every stone that is to go into it. Lively stones can feel the cutting of the graver’s tools. We shrink from the discipline that we need. We sometimes murmur at the wise Master Builder and think he deals harshly with us. But all that he does is necessary—is for our good. An old writer says, "The souls that God loves best he oftenest has his tools upon." And Jesus himself said, "As many as I love I rebuke and chasten."
By the law, its spirit as well as letter—by the law as the standard of perfection, we are tested day by day—to it every line and angle of our characters is to be gradually but surely conformed. We go to Heaven as holy as the angels, as perfect as the jewels in its walls. There can be no true happiness without conformity to the will of God, without transformation into his image. That is the slow and often painful, yet the blessed work of his grace from day to day. And he who would be perfect must not shrink from the testing that reveals his imperfections, nor from the providence, however harsh it seems, by which God would correct them. The church to-day is tempted to antinomianism, and we ought to ponder, prayerfully, the fact that Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.
THE POPE IN POLITICS.
THE most remarkable illustration of the activity of the Pope in politics is that developed by the discussion of the Septenate Bill in Germany. Here is a contest between absolutism and popular government, between monarch and citizen, between war and peace. Prince Bismarck demands that the Reichstag, that is, the people, shall put it out of their power for seven years to reduce the military establishment. We suppose it is enough to make military appropriations from year to year, and so to hold the Government in check. Bismarck demands that the Reichstag shall this year make the appropriations for seven years to come, and thus make the Emperor supreme over the country for that time, so far as the most important and dangerous of his functions are concerned. And this is directed not merely against the liberties of the people, is not only putting the burden on the people of Germany—for the most part Protestant Germany—but it is directed to the end of making war easy with Catholic France. The Reichstag, boldly, and in defense of their rights and liberties, and in defense of peace, refused to grant the demand. It consented—which was more than enough—to pass the bill for three years, but not for seven.
Bismarck used every influence to compel the members of the Reichstag to submit. Among other devices, he appealed to the Pope. He promised the Pope that he would grant certain ecclesiastical relief which the Catholics wished, if the Pope would express his desire that the Catholics in the Reichstag should support the Septenate. To this bargain the Pope agreed, and he sent a letter accordingly to Dr. Windhorst, leader of the Catholics in the Reichstag, requesting that he and his followers would cease to oppose the will of Bismarck. Dr. Windhorst affected to regard this as a private letter, and neglected even to make it known to his followers. Then the Pope wrote to one of the German bishops, and he published it. Dr. Windhorst still says, like O’Connell and McGlynn, “All the religion you please from Rome, but no politics,” and he continues to fight the imperious chancellor with all his might; but the Pope is against him, Rome has spoken, and the probability is that Bismarck will conquer, with the help of Rome, in the new elections. So we see the Protestant Government of Germany bargaining for, summoning and receiving the help of Catholic Rome, not only against the liberties of Germany, and the oppressions of an enormous war establishment, but—and here is the grim humor of the situation—against Catholic France. No more let us hear that Rome never meddles with politics.—Independent.
SPIRIT OF COALITION IN PRESENT REVIVALS.
By R. F. COTTRELL
THERE is at the present time an increase of knowledge, according to that which was written by the prophet Daniel. Chap. 12:4. The wise will receive the increasing light, the wicked will reject it. “The wise shall understand,” but “none of the wicked shall understand.” Verse 10. Increasing light tests the people. If it is received, it will bring the receivers together into unity of faith and practice; but if it is rejected, it will bring condemnation. “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” John 3:19.
If the churches of the present day are pure, they will receive the increasing light, and by so doing will be brought into a real unity of faith and practice, a very desirable result. But a coalition or confederacy of sects by a mere compromise of their differences, making the Bible truths on which they are divided of no importance, is not desirable, but is to be dreaded; for a union of corrupt bodies will only increase the power of corruption, and result in the persecution of those who adhere to the pure doctrines of the Bible. For the union of churches which have rejected truth and have consequently fallen from the favor of God, speaks only of the oppression of those who love the truth, and walk in its light.
As a stream cannot rise higher than its source, so those that are converted under the influence of those who hold such loose ideas in regard to revealed truth, cannot be expected to be very particular in respect to duty. They imbibe the idea from their teachers that God is not very particular, and they like the makes-no-difference doctrine, and for themselves they feel like being fully persuaded to do as they please. I used to wonder how it was that the proselytes of false and apostate professors should be “twofold more the child of hell” than themselves; but now I think I understand it. The tendency of fallen human nature is downward. If teachers encourage a low standard, their proselytes will make it a poor rather than higher. So these teachers of loose, makes-no-difference views of religious duties are often surprised and dissatisfied that their pupils come short of their own ideas of that which is proper and right. They would like to see them more strict, coming up to the standard of their own minds, but they have taught them a looseness that is agreeable to fallen nature, and, consequently, are doomed to see them descend still lower than themselves.
It is easy to go downhill—to grow worse and worse. Hence it is that every real reform among men is uphill work. It takes real efforts to rise. And there must be continued effort, or the car of reform will be found rolling backward. It is truly a wonder of mercy that God should undertake the salvation of those so depraved, and that he bears so long with us as a race. R. F. COTTRELL.
UNBELIEVING BELIEVERS.
By H. S.
“BELIEVERS” is one of the names by which the people of God are distinguished. They all have some faith in God, whilst others are wholly destitute of it. They not only believe in his existence and perfections, but they trust in him and in his exceeding great and precious promises, and all their hope of salvation is in his Son Jesus Christ, who loved them and gave himself for them.
But their faith is by no means perfect. It differs in degrees in different persons, and also at different times in the same person. Someone has well said, “How unbelieving are the best believers!” “Unbelieving believers” may seem a contradiction in terms, and yet it is not an inappropriate characterization. Every believer is more or less an unbelieving believer. There are none whose faith is perfect. There are none whose faith at all times is so strong as not to be mixed with some measure of unbelief. Abraham, who has been termed the “father of believers,” did not always trust. It was unbelief that on two different occasions led him to pass off Sarah, his wife, as his sister. Elijah, who was so eminent for faith, was as weak as other men at the time that we behold him fleeing into the wilderness, and there despondingly requesting for himself that he might die.
The disciples were believers, but their faith was often weak and wavering. The Saviour had repeated occasion to reprove them for their unbelief. Their faith wholly failed them at the time of his arrest in the garden; nor was it confirmed until after his resurrection and ascension. And how weak, for the most part, is the faith of the great majority of the disciples of Christ now! They are all believers. At the very outset of their Christian life they believed. Their first act in that life was an act of faith, and, so far as they live at all, it is by faith upon the Son of God. But, alas, how feeble is their spiritual life, because of the feebleness of their faith! How few of them are “strong in faith,” thus giving glory to God! How few of them are so strong in faith as to have power with God in prayer! How few so strong as to have courage to take up crosses for Christ’s sake, and boldly follow wherever he may lead! Well may we all cry, “Lord, increase our faith.”—H. S., in N. Y. Observer.
A PURE HEART MAKES PURE SPEECH.
By Dean Bradley
THE true way to make pure and wholesome our own share in the ceaseless tide of words which is forever flowing around us is to strive to make pure and wholesome the heart within. “Keep thy heart,” says the wise man—“keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life.” If once our hearts have been trained to care very deeply for what is best and purest in life, for what is beautiful and true in thought, our heartiest mirth, our freest jest, or hasty words, will not be those of men and women who are indifferent, who care nothing for a Christian life, nothing for a Christian spirit.—Dean Bradley.
The Heights of Faith and Love
By Selected
He who in the strength of God climbs the heights of faith and hope and love, finds joy and peace and sunshine.—Selected.
SOMETHING NEW BUT UNTRUE.
By W.
We thought we had heard all the arguments that could by any possibility be brought against the Sabbath; but we have just come across one that to us is absolutely new. This one comes all the way from Texas, and is the joint product of a Methodist minister, a professor in a college, and an "orthodox theologian." We find it in a little pamphlet entitled, "The Sabbath Day Examined." It is our design to give our readers the benefit of everything that is offered against the Sabbath, and so we give this. In deference to the high authority whence the book originates, we do not venture to change the grammatical construction in any particular. The reader will notice from the way the matter is introduced, that it is one of a class of similar arguments:—
"Before leaving this class of arguments, we will introduce one more which is of itself sufficiently strong to preclude the idea of the most sanguine Sabbatarian of going back to creation to begin with number seven for Sabbath. I have before me a little book in which it is stated that an orthodox theologian asked a Sabbatarian, 'From when do you date your Sabbath?' 'From creation, sir,' was the reply. Now if you will just listen to me, I will prove that you do no such thing. Is the Sabbath a moral or religious institution? Nay, has it the elements of good or evil in it? Please answer. Is it good or evil? If either, the observance of it by Adam would have been a violation of the law which God gave to him. 'Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat.' The same as to say, 'Thou shalt not know good or evil.' The observance of the Sabbath by Adam before he sinned would have knowledge of good and evil, and of itself a sufficient reason for all the sin and misery that the world has ever known from that day until the present."
We are not told what reply the Sabbatarian made151to the "orthodox theologian" who got off the above. No doubt he was so much overwhelmed by such a torrent of "orthodox" theology and "orthodox" grammar and logic, too, that he could not reply. But we have had time to take breath since we read it, and so we venture to turn the tables on the "orthodox theologian" as follows:—
1. Is marriage a moral or religious institution? Nay, has it the elements of good or evil in it? Please answer. Is it good or evil? If either, then the entering into the marriage state by Adam would have been a violation of the law of God, which forbade him to know good or evil. Therefore Adam, according to our orthodox theologian, was not married until after the fall, and Eve was not in the transgression.
2. Has God the elements of good or evil in him? Is he good or evil? If either, then if Adam had known anything about him before the fall, it would have been a violation of the commandment which God gave to him, that he should not know good or evil. But God is good; he is goodness itself; therefore, according to the argument of that "orthodox theologian," we must conclude (a) that Adam did not know God until after the fall; (b) that since he did not know God until after the fall, he never received from God any commandment concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil; and that (c) consequently, Adam never having received any commandment from the Lord, never fell, but continued a clam-like existence, neither good or evil, but half way between both, like Mohammed’s coffin suspended between heaven and earth!
But someone who has not had the superior advantages of that college professor or the "orthodox theologian," may be simple enough to say, "These conclusions directly contradict the plain statements of the Bible." Of course they do; and so does the conclusion of the "orthodox theologian" in regard to the Sabbath. So also does every "argument" which is fabricated against the Sabbath which God gave to man in Eden, and proclaimed in thunder tones from Sinai. The lofty theories of many an "orthodox theologian" would tumble to the ground instantly, or, rather, would never be raised, if he should take counsel of the Bible, and should accept its plain statements.
The tree which was forbidden to Adam was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and not of the knowledge of good or evil. Adam knew good; so long as he regarded the command of the Lord, he could not know anything else, and God did not design that he should; but when he transgressed the Lord’s command, he knew evil as well as good. This transgression, which made him know evil, brought "death and all our woe," and it also brought into the world a flood of just such absurd, contradictory, unscriptural, and wicked "arguments" as that put forth against the Sabbath by that reputed "orthodox theologian." W.
"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
(Continued.)
TESTIMONY OF IGNATIUS.
THE next Father who is quoted as authority for the observance of Sunday is Ignatius. We quote here all that Mr. Bailey claims for him.
"Ignatius was the bishop or pastor of the church of Antioch in Syria from the year 70 to 107. He was a disciple of John, and was pastor at Antioch for twenty-five years before John's death. In his epistle to the Magnesians 3:3 he says: 'Wherefore if they who were brought up in these ancient laws come nevertheless to newness of hope, no longer observing sabbaths, but keeping the Lord's day, in which also our life is sprung up by him, and through his death, whom some deny.'"
"Also Ignatius (quoted by Edwards in 'Sabbath Manual,' p. 113) says: 'Let us Christians no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord's day.' 'Let everyone that loves Christ keep holy the Lord's day, the resurrection day, the highest of all days.'"
"Ignatius was arrested at Antioch when the Roman Emperor, Trajan, came there about the year 107, and was sent to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom, being torn in pieces by wild beasts. Did this early martyr and disciple of John, who for thirty-seven years was pastor at Antioch in Syria, a church which had the ministrations of inspired apostles—did he teach the people falsely in regard to the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath and day of worship? Incredible!"
For the benefit of those who are not acquainted with the Fathers we will state that all of the epistles credited to Ignatius exist in two forms, the longer and the shorter. It is very evident, even allowing that Ignatius wrote any epistles, that both these forms cannot be correct. And there is no question, even among scholars who indorse Ignatius but that the longer form is a corrupt text. In the above quotation the reader will notice that two statements concerning the Sabbath are credited to Ignatius. When we state, however, that these are the same, both being taken from the ninth chapter of the epistle to the Magnesians, the first from the shorter form, and the second from the longer, the reader will see that it is found necessary to multiply even spurious testimony, in order to uphold the Sunday institution. We might state, moreover, what is the case, that in the original text of this so-called epistle by Ignatius, there is no reference whatever to the "Lord's day." But inasmuch as that statement, although a truth, must be taken by the general reader upon our word, we will allow the assumption that the epistle has been correctly translated, and will give argument upon which the reader can judge for himself.
It will be noted that considerable capital is made of the fact that Ignatius suffered martyrdom for the truth, and that therefore his testimony concerning the Sunday Lord's day must be valued. Thus Mr. Bailey says: "Did this early martyr and disciple of John, who for thirty-seven years was pastor at Antioch in Syria, a church which had the ministrations of inspired apostles—did he teach the people falsely in regard to the Lord's day, the Christian sabbath and day of worship? Incredible!" To this question we have two answers:—
1. Because a man lived in the days of the apostles, and even in a church which had their inspired ministrations, it adds nothing to the weight of his testimony. Hymenæus and Philetus had the benefit of the labors of the apostle Paul, yet they overthrew the faith of many Christians, by teaching that the resurrection was already past. 2 Tim. 2:17, 18. Diotrephes was not only one who loved to have the pre-eminence in the church, but he held a position of influence, since he had power to cast people out of the church; yet he openly rejected the teaching of the apostle John, and cast out of the church those who would receive it. 3 John 9, 10. Paul said to the elders of the church at Ephesus: "I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." Acts 20:29, 30. From this we know that very early in the history of the Christian Church, men who were pastors in the church began to teach heresies; and that the heresies which they taught were not trivial is shown by Peter, who after writing about the giving of the prophecies said: "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." 2 Peter 2:1. The fact that Ignatius was a bishop, and that too in the first century, would not make his teaching any more to be believed than though he lived in the present day. Nay, more. When that teaching directly contradicted the teaching of the Scripture, it would only make him the more blameworthy. But we need not impeach the integrity of Ignatius, for:—
2. There is no reason to believe that Ignatius of Antioch ever wrote any epistle at all. In support of this assertion we shall make a few quotations. The translators of the so-called Ignatian epistles, in their introductory notice, after stating that there are fifteen of them, say:—
"It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated bishop of Antioch.
"But after the question has been thus simplified, it still remains sufficiently complex. Of the seven epistles which are acknowledged by Eusebius ('Hist. Eccl.' iii. 36), we possess two Greek recensions, a shorter and a longer. It is plain that one or the other of these exhibits a corrupt text, and scholars have for the most part agreed to accept the shorter form as representing the genuine letters of Ignatius."
"But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity. Thus said Lardner, in his 'Credibility of the Gospel History' (1743): 'I have carefully compared the two editions, and am very well satisfied, upon that comparison, that the larger are an interpolation of the smaller, and not the smaller an epitome or abridgment of the larger. . . . But whether the smaller themselves are the genuine writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, is a question that has been much disputed, and has employed the pens of the ablest critics. And whatever positiveness some may have shown on either side, I must own I have found it a very difficult question.'"
Mosheim says:—
"A regard for truth requires it to be acknowledged that so considerable a degree of obscurity hangs over the question respecting the authenticity of not only a part, but the whole of the epistle ascribed to Ignatius, as to render it altogether a case of much intricacy and doubt."—"History of Christianity," cent. 1, sec. 52.
Neander says of the so-called epistles of Ignatius: "Even the shorter and more trustworthy edition is very much interpolated."
Dr. Schaff ("History of the Christian Church," Vol. 1, sec. 119), says:—
"The doctrinal and churchly views of the Ignatian epistles are framed on a peculiar combination, and somewhat materialistic apprehension of John's doctrine of the incarnation, and Paul's idea of the church as the body of Jesus Christ. In the 'Catholic Church'—an expression introduced by him—that is, the episcopal orthodox organization of his day, the author sees, as it were, the continuation of the mystery of the incarnation, on the reality of which he laid great emphasis against the docetists; and in every bishop a visible representative of Christ, and a personal center of ecclesiastical unity, which he presses home upon his readers with the greatest solicitude, and almost passionate zeal. He thus applies those ideas of the apostles directly to the outward constitution, and makes them subservient to the principle and institution of the growing hierarchy. Here lies the chief importance of these epistles; and in this respect we have found it necessary to distinguish them already in the section on the organization of the church.
"It is remarkable that the idea of the episcopal hierarchy should be first clearly and boldly brought out, not by the contemporary Roman bishop, Clement, but by a bishop of the Eastern church; though it was transplanted by him to the soil of Rome, and there sealed by his martyr blood. Equally noticeable is the circumstance that these oldest documents of the hierarchy soon became so interpolated, curtailed, and mutilated by pious fraud, that it is to-day almost impossible to discover with certainty the genuine Ignatius of history under the hyper- and pseudo-Ignatius of tradition."
Dr. Killen says:—
"It is no mean proof of the sagacity of the great Calvin, that, upwards of three hundred years ago he passed a sweeping sentence of condemnation on these Ignatian epistles. At the time many were startled by the boldness of his language, and it was thought that he was somewhat precipitate in pronouncing such a decisive judgment. But he saw distinctly, and he therefore spoke fearlessly. There is a far more intimate connection than many are disposed to believe, between sound theology and sound criticism, for a right knowledge of the word of God strengthens the intellectual vision, and assists in the detection of error wherever it may reveal itself. . . . Calvin knew that an apostolic man must have been acquainted with apostolic doctrine, and he saw that these letters must have been the productions of an age when the pure light of Christianity was greatly obscured. Hence he denounced them so emphatically; and time has verified his deliverance. His language respecting them has been often quoted, but we feel we cannot more appropriately close our observations on this subject than by another repetition of it. 'There is nothing more abominable than that trash which is in circulation under the name of Ignatius.'"—"Ancient Church," period 2, sec. 2, chap. 3, par. 12.
We might quote much more to the same effect if we had space, but it is not necessary. The argument from Ignatius may be summed up thus: First, the testimony credited to him is in direct contradiction to the Scripture teaching. Second, the whole thing is a forgery. Third, it is quoted twice so as to increase the effect. This is the kind of testimony which is invariably quoted to supplement the so-called argument from Scripture in favor of Sunday. Since it is customary to reserve the strongest argument for the last, this affords a good comment on the strength of the argument from Scripture for Sunday. w.
(To be continued.)
DISCREDITING PROPHECY.
By Editor
Another time-setter who would be nothing if he were not sensational, has arisen in New York, and declares that the world will come to an end in the year 1900. Of course all his so-called calculations are the most foolish kind of guess-work; for there is absolutely no prophetic period which reaches this side of 1844. But that will not prevent this man from finding followers; he could, however, acquire no notoriety whatever if it were not for the newspapers, some of which are devoting considerable space to notices of his vagaries.
The more absurd any proposition is, the more widely it is sure to be circulated by the secular press. If it were not for this fact, weather prophets, perihelion theorists, and time-setters, might about as well go out of business. But as this time-setting is a most fruitful source of unbelief, we can scarcely hope that the devil will allow it to slumber; and it behooves those who have received the truth, and who have an understanding of Christ’s work in the heavenly sanctuary, to give heed to the words of the Saviour: “Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; and ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that, when he cometh and knocketh, they may open to him immediately. Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching.”