Glass _KRi!i 
 Book ' L 5 
 
 Copyright^ . 
 
 COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT. 
 
 !l 
 
IPIIIIIIillllllllllllllllllll! 
 
 ■X., , .■■ . ., ■'• v:; V ' ,. 
 
' I will ask of you one question, and answer me." 
 
 QUERIES AND ANSWERS. 
 
 BY 
 
 DAVID LIPSCOMB 
 
 EDITOR OF THE 
 
 GOSPEL ADVOCATE. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 J. W. SHEPHERD, 
 
 OFFICE EDITOR OF THE 
 
 GOSPEL ADVOCATE. 
 
 Nashville, Term. 
 
 McQuiddy Printing Company. 
 
 1910. 
 

 Copyright, 1910, 
 
 BY 
 
 J. W. Shepherd. 
 
 (0CLA2617 
 
PREFACE 
 
 David Lipscomb began his editorial work on the Gospel 
 Advocate, January 1, 1866; and from that tmie to the present 
 not many issues, if any, have been published that did not con- 
 tain something from his pen. During all these years the 
 cardinal thought that he has always held and faithfully main- 
 tained has been to follow the will of God as expressed in pre- 
 cept or approved example. Guided by this principle, he took 
 his position in favor of following the approved examples of 
 the Scriptures as to how to get into Christ, worship God, and 
 spread the gospel, and urged it with a zeal worthy of a faith- 
 ful servant of the Lord. Through the working of this princi- 
 ple he has maintained an unwavering fidelity to his convic- 
 tions of right in the face of the greatest opposition. 
 
 The matter contained in this volume has been gleaned from 
 his answers to questions that have largely grown out of the 
 maintenance of these convictions. After months of diligent 
 work, I gathered a complete file of the Advocates, arranged 
 them in order, went over them issue by issue, clipped the ques- 
 tions and answers, and filed them under proper topical head- 
 ings. Having done this, I found an arduous task before me ; 
 for in numerous instances the same question had been an- 
 swered many times, and in order to make the proper selection 
 it was necessary to read them all very carefully. Sometimes 
 it became necessary to select one answer and add to it several 
 items from others to make it as full as he had given it. 
 
 The names of none of the querists are given, because the 
 same question had been asked by different persons so many 
 times in almost the same words that it would be disappoint- 
 ing to many who had asked the question to find the name of 
 some one else signed to it. In such cases justice could not 
 be done without giving the names of all who had asked the 
 question, which in some instances would require the giving of 
 as many as fifty names. 
 
 In regard to arrangement, I have been very careful to put 
 the matter in such a form as to make it easy for the reader to 
 locate any information given. To this end, it was decided, 
 after much thought, to put it in the form of an encyclopedia, 
 
4 Preface. 
 
 transposing the headings so as to put the leading word first ; 
 then, in order to make it more convenient, a topical heading 
 is frequently inserted, under which there is no discussion, but 
 a cross reference is given to the subject under which it is dis- 
 cussed. And again, at the end of many articles I have given, 
 references in black type to other articles of a kindred nature 
 to enable those desiring to more thoroughly study the subject 
 to find the required information. Finally, in order to complete 
 the arrangement for convenience, a scriptural index is added, 
 giving a complete list of all scriptures explained, enabling one 
 to readily turn to the page on which the desired information 
 is given. 
 
 The scripture quotations are from both the Common Ver- 
 sion and the American Revised Version. No credit is given 
 except in rare instances, leaving the reader to ascertain which 
 is used. 
 
 This book will do good only in proportion to the number of 
 readers and the disposition to receive correction, instruction, 
 consolation, and encouragement from one of God's noblest 
 servants; and I send it forth with an earnest prayer that it 
 may tend to the promotion of pure and undefined religion, help 
 extend the knowledge of God, and be instrumental in aiding 
 the glorious work of converting and edifying all who seek a 
 habitation in " the city which hath the foundations, whose 
 builder and maker is God." 
 
 Should this book meet with a hearty reception, it is my in- 
 tention to publish another, containing his valuable editorials; 
 and also his commentary on the Gospel of John and on all of 
 the Epistles. 
 
 Nashville, Term., April 6, 1910. 
 
QUERIES AND ANSWERS. 
 
 ABRAHAM, GOD'S COVENANT WITH. 
 
 Was God's covenant with Abraham taken out of the way with the 
 law and ordinances? 
 
 The covenant was twofold in its character. First, God said 
 to Abraham : " In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed." This promise certainly has never been taken out of 
 the way, but in his seed, Christ, all the nations of the earth are 
 being blessed. Secondly, God covenanted with Abraham to 
 give him the land of Canaan for an everlasting inheritance for' 
 his children. His children are not in possession of the land 
 of Canaan. This covenant was dependent upon the children of 
 Abraham obeying God. They refused to do this. God's cov- 
 enant clearly implied if they would not do this, he would drive 
 them out of the land of Canaan and make of them an enslaved 
 and scattered people. When they disobeyed him, the terms 
 of the covenant obligated him to drive them out, to enslave, 
 to disperse and scatter them. They refused to obey him ; he 
 has performed his covenant by driving them from the prom- 
 ised land, by scattering them among the nations. The wicked 
 are the sword of the Lord. He used the wicked nations in 
 driving them out of the promised land. 
 
 The law and the ordinances constituted no part of the cove- 
 nant. The wickedness of the children of Abraham prevented 
 the immediate coming of Christ and fulfillment of the promise. 
 On account of these transgressions and the consequent post- 
 ponement of the promised blessing, the law and ordinances 
 were added as a schoolmaster to train them and make ready a 
 people for the Lord. The law and ordinances were no part 
 of the original covenant with Abraham. (Gal. 3: 17-19.) 
 They grew out of the violation of the covenant by the children 
 of Israel, and had to be taken out of the way before the cove- 
 nant based on the promise of the blessing to all nations could 
 be fulfilled. I do not see that the removal of the law and ordi- 
 nances in any way affected the force of the covenants, other- 
 wise than to give to this one immediate effect. 
 
6 Abraham, God's Covenant With. 
 
 The covenant guaranteeing the land of Canaan to the family 
 for a perpetual inheritance has been broken — was broken by 
 the transgressions that necessitated the giving of the law and 
 the ordinances. Whether the break has been final and com- 
 plete, I cannot tell. Many think yet there will be a return of 
 the Jews to the land of Canaan, and every few years there is a 
 talk of the hold the wealthy Jews are getting on the land by 
 loans to the government controlling the land. If they ever 
 return, it will be after they have turned to the Lord. They 
 were driven from it on account of their transgressions, and 
 until their transgressions cease they cannot return to it. From 
 the general purport of scripture, and from the fact of the pres- 
 ervation of the Jews as a distinct people, I think God has a 
 work for them as a people to fill in the world's history; but 
 whether there will be a literal return to Jerusalem or whether 
 they will come into the inheritance of spiritual Israel, with its 
 blessings and favors, I pretend not to decide. An earnest ef- 
 fort ought to be made to bring the Jews to Christ. 
 
 ADAM, WHAT DEATH DID, DIE? 
 
 God said to Adam: " For in the day that thou catest thereof thou 
 shalt surely die." What kind of death did he mean? 
 
 There are two theories that are plausible, and I sometimes 
 find myself holding to the one, then again cherishing the 
 other. One is that man was sentenced to die, and Jesus Christ 
 offered his life to redeem him, so obtained a respite and 
 gave him an opportunity to live in Christ and as his servant. 
 In accordance with this, Christ is said to be " the Lamb slain 
 from the foundation of the world," and " was foreordained be- 
 fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these 
 last times." The other idea is that he did become a dying, suf- 
 fering, perishing being, cut off from the tree of life the day he 
 sinned. Possibly they are both true. The death was both 
 physical and spiritual ; it affected the whole man. 
 
 ADDED TO THE CHURCH, HOW? 
 
 The senior elder of our congregation takes the following position, 
 which we wish to submit to your consideration: That faith, repent- 
 ance, confession, and baptism prepare a person for addition to the 
 church; or, in other words, when a person submits to all these, then 
 God adds him to the church or translates him into the kingdom of 
 God's dear Son. I argued with him that these conditions put a man 
 
Added to the Church, How. 7 
 
 into the church, or kingdom, of God. In proof of his position he 
 cites Acts 2: 47; 5: 14; 11: 24; Col. 1: 12, 13. 
 
 God has two ways of doing things — one, directly by his own 
 unseen power; the other, by or through persons as his serv- 
 ants, agents, or instrumentalities. When he works through 
 the former manner, man has nothing to do, save to stand still 
 and see the salvation of the Lord. In the latter way of work, 
 God directs and man obeys. We can see and understand what 
 is done. Now if God adds persons to the church by the former 
 manner, no man can do anything in the matter. God decrees 
 it by the fiat of his will without act on the part of the person 
 added or of others. If by the second method, then he must 
 give directions to somebody what and how to do it. Has he 
 given any directions as to when or how this shall be done, 
 save the things commanded them to bring them into Christ? 
 If so, what are the directions and where are they found? God 
 works through his own appointments, and not through man's. 
 If he adds persons to the church by other means than those 
 that bring them into Christ, he has not directed how it is done. 
 If we add them by means of our cwn appointment, God does 
 not do it. When a man is in Christ and a member of his body, 
 he is such wherever he goes. The different congregations are 
 manifestations of one and the same church. When a man 
 goes to a congregation, he is entitled to the privileges and in- 
 curs the responsibilities, because he is a member of the body 
 of Christ. Letters of commendation neither dismiss from nor 
 add to a congregation. They certify the person is a member 
 of the body of Christ and to be received as such. There is 
 such a thing as the hand of fellowship. It is nowhere used 
 to add to a congregation. It was given by the apostles at 
 Jerusalem to Paul and Barnabas, who lived in a distant coun- 
 try, when leaving Jerusalem for their work. It was given as 
 an approval and Godspeed in their work. (Gal. 2: 9.) I can 
 give a Christian the hand of fellowship who belongs to a dif- 
 ferent congregation as freely as if he worshiped at the same 
 congregation with me. I can give the hand of fellowship 
 when he comes among us or when he leaves us, if he is a 
 Christian. But this is not to add him to the church. If he is 
 a Christian, he is a member of the body of Christ wherever he 
 goes. See Letters of Commendation. 
 
8 Adding to or Taking. from God's Word. 
 
 ADDING TO OR TAKING FROM GOD'S WORD. 
 
 Rotherham translates the last clause of Rev. 22: 19, "things which 
 are written in this scroll." Does that mean the book of Revelation 
 only, or does it refer to the New Testament? 
 
 I think it probable that only the book of Revelation is re- 
 ferred to in this passage. This shows that this book was 
 made equally sacred with other scriptures. This prohibition 
 to add to or take from the word of God was given to all the 
 commands of God. It was often repeated in the law of Moses. 
 " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, nei- 
 ther shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the command- 
 ments of Jehovah your God which I command you." (Deut. 
 4 : 2, American Revised Version.) " What thing soever I 
 command you, that shall 3^e observe to do : thou shalt not add 
 thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12: 32, American Re- 
 vised Version.) These are general declarations showing these 
 prohibitions to be true of all scriptures of God. This is often 
 repeated under various forms in the Old Testament. He tells 
 them the laws of the New Testament are much more sacred 
 than those of the Old Testament. " For if they escaped not 
 who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we 
 escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven." 
 (Heb. 12 : 25 : see also Heb. 2 : 2, 3.) The same warning is 
 given : " In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the 
 commandments of men." (Matt. 15: 9.) "Every plant, 
 which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted 
 up. Let them alone : they be blind leaders of the blind. And 
 if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." 
 (Verses 13, 14; see also Col. 2: 20-22.) The supreme author- 
 ity and inviolable sanctity of the word of God in all its parts 
 are taught of all parts of that word, especially of that dedi- 
 cated by the blood of Christ. 
 
 ALTAR, LEAVE THY GIFT BEFORE THE. 
 
 Please give us a full explanation of Matt. 5: 23, 24: "Therefore if 
 thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy 
 brother hath aught against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, 
 and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and 
 offer thy gift." Does this scripture apply to the children of God now 
 or not? If so, what is the gift that we are to offer? It is denied by 
 some that this is applicable to the people of God now, because they 
 say we have no altar on which to make our offerings, nor gifts or sac- 
 rifices or offerings to make. 
 
Altar, Leave Thy Gift Before the. 9 
 
 An altar is the place where God meets man. No one can 
 approach God save through an altar. The earthly altars of 
 the patriarchal and Jewish ages all typified and pointed for- 
 ward to Jesus Christ, who is our altar. " We have an altar, 
 whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. 
 . . . By him [Jesus, our altar] therefore let us offer the 
 sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of our 
 lips giving thanks to his name." (Heb. 13: 10-15.) Jesus 
 Christ is our altar, and we can meet God only in coming to 
 him as our altar ; and all the offerings of prayer, praise, and 
 service of every and all kinds that we bring to God must be 
 in and through our altar, Jesus Christ. " I beseech you there- 
 fore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your 
 bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is 
 your reasonable service." (Rom. 12: 1.) "But I have all, 
 and abound : I am full, having received of Epaphroditus the 
 things which were sent from you, an odor of a sweet smell, 
 a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." (Phil. 4: 18.) 
 " By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God 
 continually, that is, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to his 
 name." (Heb. 13: 15.) In these the thanksgiving and praise 
 of the lips, to do good, and all service to God are called " sacri- 
 fice." " Ye [Christians] also, as lively stones, are built up a 
 spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacri- 
 fices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2: 5.) All 
 the service we render is sacrifice, and must be offered upon our 
 altar, Jesus Christ. In this passage (Matt. 5 : 23, 24) the gifts 
 offered at the altar of God under the Jewish law are used to 
 illustrate a principle held sacred and required by Jesus Christ. 
 It clearly means that you cannot make acceptable offerings to 
 God when you have wronged your brother until you go and 
 correct that wrong so far as you are able to do it. If you have 
 cheated or defrauded him, go and restore the wrong, or, if you 
 are not able to do this, confess the wrong and ask his forgive- 
 ness — be reconciled to him. If you have slandered, insulted, 
 or in any way wronged him, go and confess and undo the 
 wrong to the extent of your ability. Ask his forgiveness and 
 be reconciled to him. Until you do this, God will not accept 
 an offering at your hand. He will not accept your gifts, your 
 prayers, your thanksgivings, or any service you bring him. A 
 sister recently put the question to me : " Will God accept the 
 
10 Altar, Leave Thy Gift Before the. 
 
 service of a person while he is guilty of one unforgiven sin ? " 
 Why should any being rest with even one unforgiven sin? 
 Repent of it, turn from it, undo the wrong, clear your con- 
 science, and then God will accept your service. So long as 
 we refuse to repent and seek forgiveness for every sin, God 
 refuses to accept our service. This, of course, means a con- 
 scious sin. " He that offends in one point is guilty of all." 
 Solomon says: " To do justice and judgment is more accepta- 
 ble to the Lord than sacrifice." (Prov. 21: 3.) While he 
 failed to do justice to his fellow-man, no one could make an 
 acceptable sacrifice to God. Hence, when an offering was 
 made for a trespass against a fellow-man, it must be preceded 
 by a restitution for the wrong done, with a fifth added thereto. 
 " If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the Lord, and 
 lie unto his neighbor in that which was delivered him to keep, 
 or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath 
 deceived his neighbor ; or have found that which was lost, and 
 lieth concerning it, and sweareth falsely; in any of all these 
 that a man doeth, sinning therein : then it shall be, because he 
 hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he 
 took violently away, or the thing which he hath deceitfully 
 gotten, or that which was delivered him to keep, or the lost 
 thing which he found, or all that about which he hath sworn 
 falsely; he shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add 
 the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it 
 appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering." (Lev. 6: 
 2-5 ; read also the following verses.) This passage of scripture 
 clearly teaches that there is no forgiveness without restitution, 
 and that God required a fifth part added thereto. Of the same 
 meaning is this passage : " The sacrifice of the wicked is an 
 abomination to the Lord : but the prayer of the upright is his 
 delight." (Prov. 15 : 8.) God cannot hear a man's prayers or 
 accept of any offering that he brings, so long as he leaves a 
 wrong against a fellow-man uncorrected. (Read Isa. 1: 11- 
 20; also, 6, 7, and 8.) Jesus Christ demands holiness with 
 increased emphasis. With what measure you mete, God will 
 measure to you. " Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of 
 the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." 
 (Matt. 25 : 40.) Then this passage under consideration clearly 
 says that if you bring the gift unto the altar (Christ; we can 
 approach God only through him as our altar) and there re- 
 
Amusements. 11 
 
 member that you have wronged your brother or that he has 
 aught against you, leave there thy gift, be reconciled to thy 
 brother by undoing the wrong thou hast done him ; then come 
 and offer thy gift of prayer, praise, supplication, or contribu- 
 tion of money or personal service to God, and he will accept 
 the offering through Christ, our altar. " If a man say, I love 
 God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar : for he that loveth 
 not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God 
 whom he hath not seen ? " Love, as used in the Bible, is not 
 a mere sentiment, but a practical doing good and serving. 
 No man loves his brother who refuses to correct a wrong done 
 his brother. So he says that he that claims to love God and 
 serve God while he is doing wrong to his brother is a liar. 
 As long as a man refuses to rectify a wrong done to another, 
 he hates, instead of loves, him. God will not, cannot, accept 
 service from a man that has wronged another and refuses to 
 correct that wrong. 
 
 AMUSEMENTS. 
 
 What does the Bible teach us as parents about letting our chil- 
 dren go to play parties and candy breakings? Can a member of the 
 church find any scripture that will bear him out in giving a candy 
 breaking at his house? If so, please give chapter and verse. As for 
 myself, I do not believe that there is one verse that will bear him out 
 in giving one. If there is, I never have been able to see it that way. 
 I ask you these questions that I may get all the light on them that 
 the Bible gives and that it may do good here in this world and also 
 in the world to come. 
 
 The Scriptures say nothing about play parties or candy 
 breakings (whatever that is). But the Scriptures nowhere 
 deny all amusement and recreation to children. It is not an- 
 ticipated this should be done. Paul said to Christians: "If 
 any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be dis- 
 posed to go : whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no ques- 
 tion." (1 Cor. 10: 27.) This clearly intimates that feasts at 
 the houses of idolaters may be attended if care be taken not 
 to encourage the idolatry. To deprive children of all amuse- 
 ments is not wise. It is much better that parents furnish and 
 attend the amusements to see they are kept within proper 
 bounds than to let the children go where they will be led into 
 excesses. A Christian parent may attend and hold at his house 
 any parties it is proper for his children to attend. In saying 
 
12 Amusements. 
 
 this, we recognize the danger of these statements being used 
 to justify excesses that are wrong. 
 
 ANGELS, FALLEN. 
 
 Please give an explanation of 2 Pet. 2: 4: "For if God spared not 
 angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell, and committed 
 them to pits of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment." 
 
 Three words are translated hell in the Bible — Hades, Ge- 
 henna, and Tartarus. Hades refers to the unseen state gen- 
 erally. This unseen state was supposed to contain two apart- 
 ments, or conditions — the good and the bad. Paradise was 
 supposed to represent the good state ; Tartarus, the evil. The 
 good spirits were supposed to go into paradise ; the evil, into 
 Tartarus — to await the final sentence. Then the good went to 
 heaven; the evil, to hell — the final abode of the two classes. 
 The word Tartarus is used in this passage in 2 Pet. This 
 would indicate the fallen angels occupy the condition of the 
 evil spirits until the final separation. Bloomfield says : " Tar- 
 tarus being a part of Hades, in which criminals were supposed 
 to be confined till the day of judgment. Now they are not 
 represented as being in actual torments, but only adjudged to 
 them, and in the meantime committed to the security of chains 
 of darkness — i. e., to places where utter darkness holds them, 
 as it were, enchained." The idea seems to be that some an- 
 gels in heaven sinned. They were cast down from heaven to 
 earth. (See Rev. 12.) They are as disembodied spirits in 
 this world, which is the state of the dead. Many think these 
 angels cast down from heaven constitute the demons of the 
 time of Jesus. While adjudged unworthy of heaven and cast 
 out into the outer darkness, they have not yet been assigned 
 to the last final punishment of the wicked. At the judgment 
 they will enter into the final state of woe. This accords with 
 the language of the demons to Jesus : "Art thou come hither 
 to torment us before the time?" (Matt. 8: 29.) They knew 
 the day of torment would be in the day of judgment ; and when 
 Jesus cast them out, they seemed to think he would torment 
 them before that time. Jude states the same truth : "And an- 
 gels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper 
 habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness 
 unto the judgment of the great day." (Verse 6.) Heaven 
 was their own principality. They sinned, and did not keep 
 it ; so they are kept in bonds under darkness, the darkness of 
 
Angels, Guardian. 13 
 
 the unseen world, unto the last, final judgment, when they, 
 with the spirits of the finally impenitent, will enter the final 
 state of the lost. There was rebellion in heaven, as there now 
 is on earth. The rebellion was suppressed. The devil and 
 his angels were cast out. They came to earth, and will be cast 
 out from it and find their home in the place prepared for the 
 devil and his angels. See Satan. 
 
 ANGELS, GUARDIAN. 
 
 Is the idea that men are attended by guardian angels in this world 
 taught in the Scriptures? 
 
 We do not know of any passage that so teaches, yet many 
 excellent brethren think they find this taught in the Scriptures. 
 The passage most confidently relied on to teach this idea is : 
 "Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister 
 for them who shall be heirs of salvation?" (Heb. 1: 14.) 
 This is construed to mean that angels are sent into this world 
 to guard and watch over and hold back from sin the children 
 of God. Many maintain that each Christian has his guardian 
 angel, that accompanies him and guards him, holds him back 
 from paths of evil and leads him in the ways of righteousness. 
 If we examine the scope and connection of this passage, I 
 think we will see it does not teach this. It is a part of the 
 contrast between the Jewish and the Christian dispensations. 
 The one came through the hands of angels, the other was in- 
 troduced by the Son of God. God shows the superiority of 
 Christ to the angels : " To which of the angels said he at any 
 time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy 
 footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to 
 minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation ? " Jesus was 
 to sit on the right hand of God until his enemies were put under 
 his feet. The angels were to minister to, or serve, those who 
 are heirs of salvation. But when and how did they so serve? 
 The next verses show this : " Therefore we ought to give the 
 more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at 
 any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by 
 angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedi- 
 ence received a just recompense of reward ; how shall we es- 
 cape, if we neglect so great salvation ; which at the first began 
 to be spoken by the Lord?" (Heb. 2: 1-4.) Then, in verse 
 5, he returns to his superiority to the angels. The context 
 
14 Angels, Guardian. 
 
 seems to place it beyond doubt that the angels ministered to 
 the heirs of salvation in bringing and administering the Mosaic 
 law. That law was the schoolmaster to train the Jews for 
 Christ, and the angels served them in administering that law. 
 This is all that this passage teaches. 
 
 " Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones ; for 
 I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold 
 the face of my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 18: 10.) 
 This is relied on to prove it ; but for this to have any bearing 
 on the subject, it must be first assumed that persons have guar- 
 dian angels — the question under investigation. It may be the 
 spirits of persons after death become angels, and those who 
 humble themselves as little children in the future state become 
 angels and stand nearest the throne of God. This would be 
 more consoling than the other idea. Is there any ground for 
 supposing the redeemed spirits become angels? Jesus said: 
 " In the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in mar- 
 riage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." This does not 
 say they become angels, but it does say they become as angels 
 — are conformed to their state in important particulars. 
 
 " For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nei- 
 ther angel, nor spirit : but the Pharisees confess both." (Acts 
 23 : 8.) Jesus and the apostles seem to accept the idea of the 
 Pharisees as the true one. This resurrection of the angel 
 seems to mean that when resurrected they were angels. 
 
 "And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly 
 affirmed that it was even so. Then said they, It is his angel." 
 (Acts 12: 15.) This was when Peter was imprisoned. The 
 disciples prayed for his safety, and Rhoda told them he was at 
 the door. Many think this meant his guardian angel assumed 
 his likeness and they thought the angel appeared in his place. 
 This is again assuming the point in question without any 
 proof of its truth. It seems to me these people thought Peter 
 had been slain in prison, and his spirit, as an angel, had ap- 
 peared. 
 
 " Th'en shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart 
 from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil 
 and his angels." (Matt. 25 : 41.) This tells the destiny of the 
 spirits of the wicked after death is a home in the place pre- 
 pared for the devil and his angels. If their home is with the 
 devil and his angels, it is probable that they become angels 
 
Annihilation. 15 
 
 of the devil. If the wicked become angels of the devil, is it 
 not probable the righteous become angels of God? 
 
 These are the only scriptures that occur to me as having 
 any bearing on the subject I do not think, when properly 
 construed, they even suggest the idea ; hence I find no proof 
 whatever of the idea. If Christians or others have guardian 
 angels, what do they do for them ? Do they suggest thoughts ? 
 When a thought comes into the mind, how can we tell whether 
 it was suggested by an angel or not? Are we not liable to 
 accept evil suggestions as made by the angels? Who is re- 
 sponsible for our actions, ourselves or our guardian angels? 
 It seems to be fraught with the same danger that direct spirit- 
 ual influence is. We are liable to attribute our fleshly emo- 
 tions and desires to the guardian angel. Does the angel make 
 suggestions or exert an influence and give us no rule by which 
 to test when the influence is from the angel or from something- 
 else? When man sins, who is responsible — the man or the 
 angel? In the parable of the man who sowed good seed and 
 evil plants grew in the field (Matt. 13: 24-30), the servants, 
 who were the angels, asked : Shall we gather up the evil 
 plants ? He said : No ; let them grow together until the har- 
 vest; then the reapers will separate them. This seems to me 
 to teach that there will be no superhuman interference with 
 men until the judgment. I do not find the idea taught. It 
 seems attended with some evil. It is best not to teach it. 
 
 ANNIHILATION. 
 
 Is the following argument, used by those who teach that the 
 wicked shall be annihilated, scriptural? If not, how would you an- 
 swer it? God planted the tree of life in the midst of the garden, giv- 
 ing him (Adam) the right to eat of it and all the trees of the garden, 
 save one. (See Gen. 2: 9.) "In the day that thou eatest thereof [of 
 the tree of knowledge] thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 2: 17.) "She 
 took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband 
 with her; and he did eat." (Gen. 3: 6.) "And the Lord God said, 
 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and 
 now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and 
 eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the 
 garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So 
 he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden 
 Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the 
 way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 22-24.) Thus we find old Father 
 Adam outside the garden, with his wife, without a taste of the fruit 
 of the tree of life, which God, in his mercy, guarded with a flaming 
 sword, lest they should eat thereof and live forever. Nothing was left 
 them but toil and. sorrow and death (the opposite of life), save the 
 one ray of hope found in Gen. 3: 15 — the only hope for the now fallen, 
 
16 Annihilation. 
 
 dying race — viz., the dim outline of a promise of a ransom, a Re- 
 deemer, who said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 
 14: 6.) Let us look at a few of the " exceeding great and precious 
 promises " to the righteous — those who love God and obey his com- 
 mands, taking Christ as their Ransomer, Redeemer, High Priest, and 
 Judge. (John 3: 16, 17; 1 John 5: 12, 13; Ps. 37: 18, 19; Matt. 18: 14; 
 John 11: 22-30.) See the latter clause of Rom. 6: 23— God's best 
 gift to man — " eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord " — the only 
 name under heaven, or among men, whereby sinful man may attain 
 to eternal life. (Isa. 35: 10; 51: 11; Matt. 19: 29; Luke 18: 28-30; 
 John 20: 30, 31; 4: 14; 5: 24, 25; Rom. 6: 22.) Every promise ever 
 made to mankind of life eternal, or life everlasting, was made through 
 Christ, who was the promised ransom who should redeem his people 
 from their sins. This accomplished, what will become of those who 
 finally reject him and turn their faces away from the only hope ever 
 given to the fallen race — redemption through Christ? Let us see if 
 God has made us a revelation, and left us in the dark on this point. 
 We read: "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezek. 18: 4; see also 
 Acts 3: 22, 23; 1 John 3: 8; 3: 15; Ps. 1: 6; 37: 10, 18-20; 49; Luke 13: 
 3-5; 2 Pet. 3: 9, 10; Nah. 1; Mai. 4: 1-3.) From Rom. 6: 23 we learn 
 that "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life 
 through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Prov. 10: 25; John 3: 36.) See 
 Acts 13: 46, where the Jews counted themselves unworthy of ever- 
 lasting life, and Paul turned from them to the Gentiles. (Gal. 6: 7, 8; 
 2Thess. 1: 8, 9; Rev. 21: 6-8.) 
 
 The scriptures quoted prove men will die away from the 
 tree of life, which is found in Christ. Most certainly they do. 
 But is death annihilation? The writer assumes it is, and as- 
 sumes when persons die they are annihilated — that is, he as- 
 sumes the very point he undertakes to prove. Where is death 
 in the Bible or by God represented as annihilation? If death 
 means annihilation, all who die are annihilated. Christ died. 
 Was he annihilated? Moses and Elijah died. Were they an- 
 nihilated? If not, death cannot mean annihilation. If it 
 means annihilation, every one who dies must be annihilated. 
 If any one dies who is not annihilated, then death does not 
 mean annihilation, and that people die dies not prove they 
 are annihilated. This shows beyond doubt that the assertion 
 that they die does not prove they are annihilated. If people 
 are annihilated, cease to exist, they cannot be raised or resur- 
 rected. If they cease to be, or are annihilated, there is no body, 
 no person, nothing to resurrect. If once they are annihilated, 
 they must be created again, if they ever exist. But they are 
 nowhere said to be created again if they once die. They are 
 said to be raised. The same person that dies is raised; it is 
 changed, but the same person. 
 
 The rich man and Lazarus both died. One was good ; the 
 other, wicked. Neither was annihilated by death. They both 
 
Annihilation. 17 
 
 existed after death in the spirit land — one in bliss, the other 
 in torment. The death of the righteous translated him into a 
 state of bliss; the death of the wicked translated him into a 
 state of torment. " I am tormented in this flame " was his 
 piteous cry. He was not annihilated. Some may say they are 
 annihilated by the second death. How is this proved? The 
 first death does not annihilate; why should the second? The 
 second death is a repetition of the first, only it adds another de- 
 gree, and is hopeless, since from it there is no resurrection. 
 If death does not annihilate, a thousand deaths could not anni- 
 hilate a single soul. 
 
 The truth is, death does not mean annihilation, does not lead 
 to annihilation, has no connection with it, and the fact that 
 persons die does not have the least bearing on the question as 
 to whether they are annihilated or not. 
 
 Christ said : " The hour is coming, in the which all that are 
 in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they 
 that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they 
 that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." 
 (John 5: 28, 29.) Both the just and the unjust will be raised 
 from the dead. Then death did not annihilate either. The 
 unjust are raised to damnation. Damnation means condem- 
 nation to the second death. But if they existed after the first 
 death, why not after the second ? The second death is a state 
 of punishment. Into this they go finally and forever by the 
 second death. That state into which they go by the second 
 death is described by the Savior : " Depart from me, ye cursed, 
 into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 
 . . . These shall go away into everlasting punishment : but 
 the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25 : 41-46.) It is the 
 same word translated everlasting describing the punishment 
 that is translated eternal with life. The second death passes 
 the wicked into a state that lasts as long as the state into 
 which the righteous go. The same word describes the du- 
 ration of both. Again Christ says : " The Son of man shall 
 send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his king- 
 dom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and 
 shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wail- 
 ing and gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 13: 41, 42.) Again he 
 says : " Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
 quenched." (Mark 9: 44.) 
 
18 Annihilation. 
 
 There is nothing- in that that looks like annihilation. John 
 said : "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever 
 and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship 
 the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark 
 of his name." (Rev. 14: 11.) And in the last chapter, after 
 describing the future joys of the good around the throne of 
 God, he says : " For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and 
 whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever 
 loveth and maketh a lie." (Rev. 22: 15.) 
 
 We are unable to find a remote allusion to annihilation in 
 connection with the future of the wicked. 
 
 Paul says of the wicked : " Who shall be punished with ever- 
 lasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from 
 the glory of his power ; when he shall come to be glorified in 
 his saints." (2 Thess. 1 : 9, 10.) That does not say the man 
 himself shall be destroyed; it says when Christ shall come 
 to be glorified of his saints, these wicked persons shall be pun- 
 ished with a destruction from his presence that shall be ever- 
 lasting-. The thing that shall be destroyed is not the man, 
 but his presence with God shall be destroyed. His presence 
 with God will be destroyed forever. The destruction of this 
 presence with God will be his punishment from God's presence 
 forever. Destruction does not mean annihilation. To de- 
 stroy means to pull down or demolish, so that as a structure 
 it no longer exists. To destroy man from the presence of God 
 means to destroy the arrangement by which his presence with 
 God was maintained. 
 
 The whole trouble arises over a misconception of the mean- 
 ing of death. Death does not mean annihilation. It means 
 the separation of the spirit, the vital principle, from the body. 
 
 Temporal death is the separation of the spirit or living prin- 
 ciple from the body. Spiritual death means the separation of 
 soul and body from God, the vitalizing principle of spiritual 
 life. Eternal death is the final and everlasting separation of 
 soul and body from the presence and glory of God. Thus 
 separated, it is not annihilated. It is subject to perpetual and 
 eternal suffering. Nothing looking toward annihilation is 
 found in the Bible when we rightly use terms. This idea is 
 not found in the Bible. Whence does it come? It comes 
 from a disposition to mitigate rebellion against God and to 
 find a softer punishment than God has prescribed. Why 
 
Antitypes. 19 
 
 should this be clone? Is man too fearful of sinning against 
 God? Lighten the sin and ameliorate the suffering, and will 
 it make men dread sin and rebellion more ? We may well sus- 
 pect our position and our spirit when we find ourselves ex- 
 cusing sin or ameliorating the woes that come from sin against 
 God. See Future Punishment. 
 
 ANOINTING WITH OIL. See Divine Healing; Mormon 
 Pretensions (5, 6). 
 
 ANTITYPES. 
 
 Aaron typified Christ. Who did his sons typify, and who did the 
 Levites typify? The sons were priests, the Levites were servants to 
 the priests; but whom did each typify? Again, I find nothing in re- 
 gard to the age at which the priests should begin to serve; yet Christ, 
 the antitype of Aaron, began at the age of thirty. How is this? 
 Next, we find that the Levites were to be numbered for service, un- 
 der the priests, from the age of twenty-five up to fifty. (Num. 8: 24.) 
 In Num. 4 it is stipulated that the Kohathites, Gershonites, and Mera- 
 rites were to serve from thirty years old to fifty. Why this differ- 
 ence? 
 
 I do not think our brother will ever be able to make out 
 what he is trying — an antitype in the Christian dispensation 
 for every person, character, and office in the Jewish dispensa- 
 tion. Indeed, it is not safe to rely with certainty on these 
 types, except where the Holy Spirit has pointed them out as 
 existing. No one person in Jewish order typified in all points 
 its antitype of the Christian institution. Aaron typified Christ 
 as a priest ; Moses, as a lawgiver and mediator ; David, as a 
 king. I sometimes think each prophet, priest, and king of 
 Judaism typified some one quality or character of Christ, but I 
 never could make many of them out. 
 
 The priests typify Christians, so do the kings. " Ye are a 
 royal nation, a holy priesthood." " Royal nation " means a 
 nation of kings. But if the priests and kings, the highest or- 
 ders of the Jewish people, typify the lowest order of the Chris- 
 tian kingdom, how can the lower orders of Judaism typify any- 
 thing in the church of Christ ? 
 
 The priests were from infancy raised in the temple service. 
 They inherited the succession from their fathers. At what 
 period they performed the priestly functions is not told. Pos- 
 sibly there was no specific age, but they were competent at any 
 
20 Antitypes. 
 
 time, and the necessities of the case determined the time. From 
 1 Chron. 23 : 27 it appears that they served at twenty. 
 
 APOCRYPHAL WRITINGS. 
 
 The following paragraph is a part of an article published in the 
 Bakerville Review: 
 
 " Some days ago I chanced to be reading Cain's ' Tennessee Jus- 
 tice,' when at Section 880 I found reference to the foundation of the 
 practice of putting witnesses ' under rule/ as it is termed in lawsuits. 
 He (Cain) referred to Dan. 13. As I was anxious to know something 
 of the origin of this practice, I got my Bible, and, turning to the 
 book of Daniel, found that it has only twelve chapters, neither of 
 which gives the desired information. I went to a Catholic neighbor 
 and asked permission to examine his Bible, which he readily granted. 
 Turning to the book of Daniel, I found fourteen chapters, chapter 13 
 giving the information as stated by Mr Cain. For my own satisfac- 
 tion, I then examined the number of books in the Old Testament 
 (Catholic), and found that it contains forty-six books, with ten hun- 
 dred and seventy-three chapters; while our Old Testament (Holman) 
 contains only thirty-nine books, and not so many chapters as the 
 Catholic Old Testament. Now, in compiling what is known as the 
 Protestant Bible from the original, or Catholic, Bible, why should not 
 all of it have been taken instead of only a part? If a part of it was 
 good, why was it not all good? Why should Dan. 13 and 14 be left 
 out, while the other twelve chapters are put in? Why should 3 Kings 
 and 4 Kings be refused, while 1 Kings and 2 Kings are taken? Why 
 should 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees be rejected entirely, as were 
 others? In view of all this, has anything been added to or taken from 
 the word of God? I do not know. Verily, man knows little." 
 
 Now, as I know that you are competent to explain this, I ask you 
 to do so, and shall await with interest your answer. 
 
 The Protestant, or common, Bible was not derived from the 
 Catholic one ; it is the translation from an older text than the 
 Catholic is. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew ; the 
 latter portions of it, in a later form of the Hebrew, the Aramaic. 
 The Hebrew greatly went out of use about two centuries be- 
 fore Christ. A version in the Greek, the then current lan- 
 guage of Western Asia, Europe, and Northern Africa, was 
 made. This was called the " Septuagint," from the number 
 of persons engaged in the translation. This Greek version 
 was used generally by the Greek-speaking people until the be- 
 ginning of the fifth century A.D. Then a Latin version of 
 both the Old Testament and the New Testament was com- 
 piled by Jerome. This version is commonly known as the 
 " Vulgate," and is the basis of the present Catholic version of 
 the New Testament. When God first gave the law, he re- 
 quired it to be placed in the side of the ark, and it was watched 
 over and guarded by the Jews with jealous care. Additions 
 
Apocryphal Writings. 21 
 
 were made to these writings by Joshua and Samuel and David 
 and Solomon, and the records of the kingdom of Judah and 
 Israel were kept by the kings, and from these were compiled, 
 as is believed, by Jeremiah, the two books of Samuel and two 
 books of Kings. The four books of Kings of the Catholic ver- 
 sion are the same as the two books of Samuel and the two 
 books of Kings of our Common Version. Then Ezra doubt- 
 less translated these into the Chaldee (or Aramaic) language, 
 and compiled the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, 
 with the later prophecies. These were regarded as the sacred, 
 inspired, and canonical books of the Old Testament by the 
 Jews. This collection, as made by Ezra, is given as the list 
 of sacred books by Josephus and all Jewish writers. They 
 constituted the Old Testament as we have it in the Common 
 Version. 
 
 None of the additions of the Catholic version were in the 
 Hebrew text, nor are they yet regarded by the Jews as part 
 of the sacred text. These added books and the added chapters 
 to Daniel and Esther are sometimes published in the common 
 Bibles, but are always separated and called " The Apocrypha.'' 
 These writings of the Apocrypha were written in Greek by 
 Jews, and some of the writings are regarded as fairly correct 
 histories of the efforts of the Jews to maintain their independ- 
 ence after the close of the Old Testament writings, before the 
 coming of Christ. There were a number of these writings, 
 and they were regarded as helpful as histories and for ex- 
 ample, but were not regarded inspired. The Greek version of 
 the Old Testament was used until the beginning of the fifth 
 century A.D. During the ages from the birth of Christ to the 
 compiling of this version a number of writings had been made 
 by prominent Christians, that some claimed as sacred. It was 
 a period of ignorance and darkness. Jerome compiled out of 
 the mass the true inspired Scriptures of the New Testament, 
 that from the beginning all Christians regarded as inspired, and 
 rejected all others. This was, no doubt, at the time, the best 
 and purest collection of the New Testament Scriptures. 
 
 There arose a dispute in the churches as to the text of the 
 Old Testament. None doubted what is now embraced in our 
 common Bible, but how this mass of writings known as " The 
 Apocrypha " should be regarded was a question of discussion 
 for several hundred years. The undisputed portions were 
 
22 Apocryphal Writings. 
 
 called the " protocanonical ; " the Apocrypha, the " deutero- 
 canonical " Scriptures. None regarded them as equally in- 
 spired. Finally the Catholic Church, by a vote of its council 
 (A.D. 1546), ordered them all to be published in the book and 
 to be regarded as canonical. Up to this time their own schol- 
 ars rejected this, as scholars among them still do, but submit 
 to the decree of the council. 
 
 The Protestants cling to the old Hebrew text and reject all 
 these apocryphal additions to the Old Testament. If any one 
 will carefully read these apocryphal additions, he will see the 
 difference in style between them and the inspired writings. In 
 the inspired writings an elevated and impartial style of writ- 
 ing is preserved even in telling the simplest matters; only the 
 essential points are given in few words. The style of the apoc- 
 ryphal writings lacks this elevated style of impartiality, and, 
 like merely human production of a dark age, indulges in non- 
 essential particulars. The additions to the Catholic Bible are 
 of recent date and apocryphal. 
 
 APOSTATIZE, CAN THE CHILD OF GOD? 
 
 Please explain Matt. 24: 24; John 10: 28, 29; 1 John 2: 19. Do 
 these scriptures teach the impossibility of the child of God falling? 
 There are some Baptists here that say they. do so teach. 
 
 I do not think they do. The reason I think so is that these 
 passages are not very clear as to their teaching, while other 
 passages very clearly and plainly teach that the child of God 
 can sin and fall away and be lost. Jesus says false Christs 
 and false prophets shall arise and do wonders and signs, so as 
 to deceive, if possible, even the very elect. (Matt. 24: 24.) 
 That does not say a child of God cannot fall away. Many 
 children of God may fall away and not be counted among the 
 elect. " No man is able to pluck them out of my Father's 
 hand." (John 10 : 29.) The Bible teaches everywhere that if 
 a man is faithful no power can snatch him from the protection 
 of God, but that is very different from saying a child of God 
 cannot be unfaithful to God. Then God will thrust him away, 
 spew him out of his mouth, and reject him. In 1 John 2: 19 
 it is said certain ones went out from them because they were 
 not the true disciples, or the persevering disciples. They 
 lacked steadfastness, and their going out showed this lack of 
 steadfastness before the day of judgment. This does not say 
 thev were never believers. " If a man abide not in me, he is 
 
Apostles, Were the, Baptized? 23 
 
 cast forth as a branch, and is withered ; . . . and they are 
 burned." (John 15 : 6.) Paul labored to keep under his body, 
 lest. he "should be a castaway." (1 Cor. 9: 27.) Read Gal. 
 5 : 4 ; 2 Tim. 2:13; Heb. 6 : 4-6 ; 10 : 26-29 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 20-22. In- 
 dividuals fell; whole churches (Rev. 2:4, 5; 3: 15-18), whole 
 nations (Ezek. 18: 21-28), fell from their steadfastness. In- 
 deed, the whole Bible is a warning of God to his people of the 
 danger of turning into sin, falling away from God, and being 
 rejected by him. Just read some of these passages and ask 
 these people to harmonize their teaching - with them. Adam 
 and Eve are both examples of falling away from God. A the- 
 ory that cannot be harmonized with the plain teaching of the 
 Bible is false. See Falling Away, Danger Of. 
 
 APOSTLES, WERE THE, BAPTIZED? 
 
 Were the apostles ever baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus? 
 If so, when? We understand that this does not excuse us in any way 
 from being baptized. 
 
 There is no doubt but what the apostles of the Lord were 
 baptized by John the Baptist. John baptized that he might 
 make manifest Jesus as the Christ. " Then went out unto him 
 Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about the 
 Jordan ; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, 
 confessing their sins." (Matt. 3 : 5, 6.) In John 1 we find 
 that Jesus selected disciples from among those of John. In 
 verses 35-42, two of John's disciples followed Jesus. An- 
 drew and Peter became his disciples. On the next day two 
 others, Philip and Nathanael, followed Jesus. Jesus chose all 
 of the twelve from among those baptized by John. Peter, 
 after the resurrection, said one who took the place of Judas 
 must have been with them from the baptism of John to the 
 ascension of Jesus. Peter asked, Which of these two men 
 which have journeyed with us from the baptism of John hast 
 thou chosen? showing they all began with the baptism of 
 John. (Acts 1 : 21-26.) They were not baptized in the name 
 of Jesus, because they were baptized before he began his pub- 
 lic ministry or had been recognized as the Son of God. But 
 of the disciples of John it was said : " But as many as received 
 him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, 
 even to them that believe on his name." (John 1 : 12.) There 
 can be no doubt that the apostles were baptized of John. But 
 it is hardly probable that John was ever baptized. But this 
 
24 Apostles, Were the, Baptized? 
 
 does not mean others could be saved without baptism. Before 
 Christ, men were saved without believing on Christ ; but after 
 he came it is true that he that believes not in Christ is con- 
 demned already, because he believes not in him. 
 
 APOSTLES, DOES THE TESTIMONY OF THE GOS- 
 PELS APPLY TO ANY BUT? 
 
 There are members of the church of Christ at this place who claim 
 that the teaching of Christ, as recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 
 John, applies only to the apostles, and not one word of it applies to 
 us in this age. Will you kindly give your views on the subject? 
 
 I have once or twice in life heard that idea suggested, but 
 am entirely at a loss to know from what it is drawn or why it 
 should be held. Very little of the teaching of Jesus was ad- 
 dressed to the apostles alone. Usually Jesus taught the apos- 
 tles and others with them. Then he told the apostles they 
 were to " teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teaching them 
 to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." 
 (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) Here he commands the apostles to teach 
 others who were baptized to observe all that he taught them. 
 Then, to carry out this part of the commission, he told them 
 the Holy Spirit " shall teach you all things, and bring all 
 things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto 
 you." (John 14: 26.) Then the apostles, in teaching others, 
 did command others to follow all that Jesus commanded them 
 to do, unless it was some incidental commands given to them 
 in telling them to tarry at Jerusalem or directing them how 
 to act when the Spirit came. I know of no principle of action 
 or manner of life given by Jesus to the apostles that is not 
 repeated by them to other disciples ; I know of not one duty 
 laid on the apostles that was not repeated to the disciples. 
 Paul told them to follow him as he followed Christ. Christ 
 was the great Example, not for the apostles alone, but for all 
 Christians in all ages and countries of the world. Does any 
 one know why an apostle should be a better Christian than 
 any other follower of Christ? I do not. The aim was to fit 
 all the followers of Christ to dwell with him. The idea that he 
 had one set of rulers for one class and another set of rulers 
 for a different class is contrary to the teaching of the Bible, 
 and without reason, so far as I know. We are to be governed 
 by the same moral and spiritual truths that his personal fol- 
 
Assisting Others to Do Wrong. 25 
 
 lowers were, and it is important that we be schooled to the 
 same standard of likeness to the character of Jesus as his apos- 
 tles were. He schools and trains us here that we may be fitted 
 to dwell with him there. If we are not schooled as they were, 
 we are not fitted to dwell with him and enjoy the home and 
 blessings as they were ; and we are so much the worse off by 
 the lack of training. That would be to treat us worse than he 
 treated them. But he is no respecter of persons. The idea 
 is hurtful to man. It is put forward to excuse men of this 
 age from faithful obedience to God's will, from full conformity 
 to his character, which would leave them unfitted for his high- 
 est blessings, and it makes a false and unjust impression con- 
 cerning God. 
 
 ASK, AND IT SHALL BE GIVEN. 
 
 What is meant by saying: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, 
 and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you?" (Matt. 
 7: 7.) To whom is he talking? 
 
 It seems to me three plainer sentences cannot be found in 
 the Bible. They mean exactly what they say, meaning al- 
 ways, as Christ so often declares, that we shall ask according 
 to God's will, seek where he has directed, and knock at his ap- 
 pointed door, and the blessings asked," sought, and knocked 
 for shall be obtained. There is nothing mysterious or singular 
 or difficult to understand that I can see. This is laid down 
 as a general principle. Many specific directions involving this 
 same principle with the modifications are presented in the 
 Bible. 
 
 " If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." 
 (1 John 5 : 14.) " Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask 
 amiss." (James 4: 3.) " Strive to enter in at the strait gate: 
 for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shal?.not 
 be able. ... Ye begin to stand without, and to knock at 
 the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall an- 
 swer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are." 
 (Luke 13: 24, 25.) These show that the asking, seeking, 
 and knocking must be done according to the will of God, else 
 they cannot meet the promise. 
 
 ASSISTING OTHERS TO DO WRONG. 
 
 We have a young woman in the church here who left her husband 
 without a Bible reason. She is now seeking a divorce. Her lawyer 
 
26 Assisting Others to Do Wrong. 
 
 is an elder in the church. Can he find any scriptural reason for this 
 act? And is he worthy the place of elder if he persists in carrying 
 this matter to a finish? 
 
 Jesus said : " It is impossible but that occasions of stumbling 
 should come ; but woe unto him, through whom they come ! 
 It were well for him if a millstone were hanged about his neck, 
 and he were thrown into the sea, rather than that he should 
 cause one of these little ones to stumble." (Luke 17: 1, 2; 
 read also Matt. 18 : 7, 8 ; Mark 9 : 42.) These passages clearly 
 mean that a Christian had better directly disobey the com- 
 mand of God than to help or encourage another, and espe- 
 cially a weak and erring member, to do it. If it is wrong for 
 this sister to separate from her husband or to marry again, 
 the brother who encourages or helps her to do it is more guilty 
 in the sight of God than she is. Let us understand, a lawyer 
 may be consulted by a Christian man or woman in such cases, 
 but he ought to advise to follow the law of God. The law of 
 God with every Christian should stand higher and above all 
 other laws. Sometimes conditions may be such that it is nec- 
 essary for 'married people to live apart, but the Christian 
 should do nothing to separate them or to hinder a union if it 
 becomes practical. Paul says : " Unto the married I give 
 charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from 
 her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, 
 or else be reconciled to her husband) ; and that the husband 
 leave not his wife." (1 Cor. 7: 10, 11.) This passage un- 
 doubtedly teaches that the believer is to take no steps to hin- 
 der the restoration of the marriage relations, but to be ready 
 and to seek to restore them. Divorce is intended to make the 
 separation permanent and to make unlawful marriages possi- 
 ble. No married Christian can do this, and it is a greater sin 
 for another Christian to urge this on one troubled with evil 
 surroundings. It seems to me none can fail to see the Scrip- 
 tures teach this. A lawyer is no more at liberty to recom- 
 mend a sinful course than a preacher or other Christian. The 
 question frequently arises: Can a Christian practice law? As 
 lawyers usually practice, it is difficult to say he can. I know 
 lawyers who have great trouble along these lines. If a lawyer 
 will be governed by principles of right and make it a rule to 
 ask or insist on that which is right, and refuse to go farther, 
 then the practice of law would be elevating and purifying. 
 When a lawyer asks all he can get for his client, regardless 
 
Associating with Sinners in Business. 27 
 
 of right or wrong, he works evil. He is a corrupter of both 
 himself and the public morals. The tendency with lawyers in 
 their practice is to run into this evil. And God will punish all 
 violations of right by lawyers as rigidly as if the wrong was 
 done personally for themselves-. A Christian must be gov- 
 erned by the love of Christ in all he says or does. See Mar- 
 riage and Divorce. 
 
 ASSOCIATING WITH SINNERS IN BUSINESS. 
 
 How far can we as Christians associate with sinners in our busi- 
 ness without doing- violence to our Christian profession? That you 
 may fully understand the point I am driving at, I will specify a little. 
 Brother A is running an express wagon for a living. Is it right for 
 him to haul intoxicating liquor to and from the liquor house? Brother 
 B's business is selling sewing machines. Can he afford to go among 
 that low class of women to sell his machines? Or can Brother C, 
 who makes his living with his dray, afford to move these women 
 from house to house? And is it right for me, as a carpenter, to build 
 a house that I know will be occupied by them or for a saloon? As 
 these are practical, everyday affairs, with which we have to deal, we 
 would like to have your opinion concerning them. 
 
 Paul says : " I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company 
 with fornicators : yet not altogether with the fornicators of 
 this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idol- 
 ators ; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now 
 I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that 
 is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, 
 or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one 
 no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that 
 are without?" (1 Cor. 5:9-12.) 
 
 Paul makes a classification of sins here. I would not know 
 how to single them out and say one is worse than another. 
 If it is right to build a house for a railer, an extortioner, a cov- 
 etous man, or an idolator, I do not see why it would not be for 
 any other of the classes. All corporations, as a rule, greatly 
 extort. When they catch a poor, oppressed fellow, they are 
 merciless. The man that buys whisky of the saloon keeper 
 is as bad as the saloon keeper. When I am justified in buy- 
 ing whisky of him, he is justified in selling it to me. It is 
 just as much sin to build a house for the one that buys it as 
 for the one that sells it. Railroads carry whisky, bad women, 
 and worse men. The wealthy men that grow rich through 
 inducing poor men to put their money into corporations and 
 then squeeze and freeze them out are no better in the sight 
 
28 Associating with Sinners in Business. 
 
 of God than saloon keepers or bad women. Officers of com- 
 panies who grow rich while the stockholders grow poorer are 
 not honest men. They may act according to business princi- 
 ples, but the principles are dishonest. They may stand high 
 in church, but they are no better in the sight of God than the 
 saloon keepers or the bad women. So there is just as much 
 sin in working* for these corporations or the men that run 
 them, in building offices, roads, and making machinery to build 
 them up, as there is in building houses for whisky or whisky 
 sellers. There is just as much sin in moving them, in hauling 
 around their goods and the means by which they build up their 
 business to oppress others, as there is in doing the same for 
 the saloon keepers and the bad women. 
 
 The Savior preferred associating with those publicans and 
 sinners that made no pretense to religion than with the pre- 
 tentious religionists that devoured widows' houses. These 
 fashionable women that sell themselves to lecherous men for 
 the sake of money to make a display in the world are just as 
 great sinners before God as the abandoned women who' sell 
 their virtue for a living. The Savior had more sympathy for 
 the plain, unvarnished sinner than he did for those with a re- 
 ligious veneering. 
 
 Once when the cholera was raging in Nashville and I was 
 at work with others to relieve the suffering, I gave a poor 
 woman an order on a public store for a little flour, bacon, and 
 coffee. The keeper of the store, very pretentious for morality, 
 told me that the woman to whom I had given the order was 
 a bad woman and he could not fill it. I told him I hoped I 
 had given orders to a number of bad women. 
 
 It is folly and sin to talk of condemning one class of sinners 
 because other sinners as wicked in the sight of God turn up 
 their noses at them. These poor women are no worse sinners 
 than many of the men with whom we associate. As Paul says, 
 if we refuse to associate or deal with sinners of the world, we 
 must needs go out of the world. If we follow a legitimate 
 business, if others pervert it to bad ends, the sin is theirs. I 
 would as soon sell a machine to the bad women or move them 
 as to sell a horse to or move a rich extortioner and idolator. 
 If we refuse to sell a machine to or move bad women, what 
 about the men who seduce them? Jesus thought as well of 
 the poor woman caught in sin as he did of her accusers, every 
 
Baptism, Act Performed in. 29 
 
 one guilty of the same sin. Let us be kind and just to them 
 and ask them to sin no more. See Yoked Together with Un- 
 believers. 
 
 BAPTISM, ACT PERFORMED IN. 
 
 There is a Methodist preacher in our midst trying to prove by the 
 expression, "divers baptisms" (Heb. 6: 2), that any mode of baptism 
 is valid, laying stress on the fact that baptism is in the plural. He 
 tries to show the fallacy of the arguments in favor of immersion, de- 
 pending chiefly on Paul's statement with reference to the baptism of 
 the Israelites in the following passage: "All our fathers were under 
 the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10: 1, 2.) He says im- 
 mersion would have been impossible in this case, since they all went 
 over " dry-shod." Please give the two subjects your attention. 
 
 It is a bad sign for the truth of a proposition when its ad- 
 vocates go to doubtful passages to prove them when there are 
 so many plain and clear ones. 
 
 The persons who> passed through the Red Sea did not have 
 water sprinkled or poured upon them. The cloud was not a 
 rain cloud, but one of smoke, that presented at night an ap- 
 pearance of fire and by day a cloud to guide the children of 
 Israel. (See Ex. 13: 21-25.) The water from the sea did not 
 wet them, for a strong east wind blew the waters back and 
 congealed them, and they went over on dry land. (Ex. 15 : 8.) 
 The baptism was : they had a wall of the sea on each side and 
 the clouds covered them. So they were covered and over- 
 whelmed with the two. 
 
 The baptisms spoken of (Heb. 6: 2) have been matters of 
 doubt in the minds of Bible students — not the act, but the 
 occasions. Some think they refer to the baptisms of John and 
 of Jesus; some, to the baptism of the Holy Spirit and water 
 baptism, by which the church of God was introduced ; some, 
 to the divers washings and purifications of the Jews ; while 
 others think they refer to the baptism of the many different 
 persons, as the three thousand baptisms on the day of Pente- 
 cost. But the word cannot refer to different modes of per- 
 forming this one baptism ; for if the act is indifferent, it would 
 be the one baptism, no matter how performed. Paul says 
 (Eph. 4: 5) there is one baptism, and the baptisms cannot 
 mean different modes of baptism, but the different occasions 
 of persons or things baptized. 
 
 No reputable lexicon ever defined baptism to sprinkle or 
 pour ; always to dip, plunge, or immerse, to overwhelm. All 
 
30 Baptism, Act Performed in. 
 
 the uses of it in both sacred and profane literature correspond 
 to this meaning. Here are the definitions from a Greek lexi- 
 con : " Baptizo — to dip, immerse ; to cleanse or purify by wash- 
 ing." " Baptisis — a dipping, a bathing, a washing." " Bap- 
 tisma — that which is dipped ; " or, " immersion — baptism, ordi- 
 nance of baptism." " Baptismos — an act of dipping or immer- 
 sing; a baptism." " Baptistees — one that dips." " Baptisterio 
 — a bathing place, a swimming place." " Baptos — dipped, 
 dyed." " Bapto — to dip, to dip under, to dye." The word, 
 in all of its variations and kindred words, means the same 
 thing. No dictionary defines these words differently. It will 
 be noted sometimes, as a secondary meaning, " to wash, to 
 purify, to dip, to dye," are given. In all such cases the sec- 
 ondary meaning grows out of the first and fundamental mean- 
 ing and conforms to it — that is, it means the dyeing, washing, 
 wetting, is done by dipping or immersion. Rantizo means 
 " to sprinkle, besprinkle, to wet, cleanse, purify." Notice 
 these are given as secondary meanings of rantizo; it means 
 this wetting and cleansing is done by sprinkling. In all such 
 cases the secondary meaning follows the primary and grows 
 out of it. No candid scholar ever doubts this, or that baptism, 
 as commanded in the Bible, is an immersion. 
 
 The places it was performed indicate immersion. They 
 " were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." 
 (Matt. 3: 6.) ''And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up 
 straightway out of the water : and, lo, the heavens were opened 
 unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, 
 and lighting upon him." (Verse 16.) "And there went out 
 unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and 
 were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing 
 their sins." (Mark 1 : 5.) "And it came to pass in those days, 
 that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized 
 of John in Jordan." (Verse 9.) "And John also was bap- 
 tizing in iEnon near to Salim, because there was much water 
 there: and they came, and were baptized." (John 3: 23.) 
 "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain 
 water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth 
 hinder me to be baptized? . . . And they went down both 
 into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
 him. And when they were come up out of the water, the 
 Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw 
 
Baptism, Act Performed in. 31 
 
 him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." (Acts 8: 
 36-39.) "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a 
 riverside, where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat 
 down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And 
 a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city 
 of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us ; whose heart the 
 Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were 
 spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her house- 
 hold, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be 
 faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. 
 And she constrained us." (Acts 16: 13-15.) 
 
 Paul and Silas were brought out of the jail by the jailer, 
 who " took them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
 stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. And 
 when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
 them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." (Acts 
 16: 33, 34.) They went out of the jail and out of his house 
 to find water sufficient to wash their stripes and for his bap- 
 tism. Saul was in the house in Damascus believing and sor- 
 rowing over his sins when Ananias said to him : "And now 
 why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy 
 sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22: 16.) He 
 had to arise, that he might be baptized. This would not have 
 been necessary to have water poured or sprinkled upon him, 
 but was necessary in order to be immersed. Then his baptism 
 was a washing; neither sprinkling nor pouring could be re- 
 garded as a washing. Immersion must be a washing or bath- 
 ing. Inasmuch as immersion is the act of faith in which God 
 forgives sins, and it is a washing, it is called a " washing away 
 of sins." The facts all make immersion sure. Then Paul 
 says : " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into 
 death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 
 glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
 of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness 
 of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec- 
 tion." (Rom. 6: 4, 5.) 
 
 These show that not only the circumstances connected with 
 the places of baptism indicate immersion, but that the terms 
 used as equivalents of baptism show it was immersion. Paul 
 and those Roman Christians were buried in their baptism and 
 raised again ; were planted in the likeness of Christ's death 
 
32 Baptism, Act Performed in. 
 
 and then arose in the likeness of his resurrection. " Except a 
 man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." (John 3 : 5.) To be " born of water ■' 
 is to come forth from it after having been enveloped in it. 
 " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with 
 him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised 
 him from the dead." (Col. 2: 12.) Then the Israelites " were 
 all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," as ex- 
 plained already. Jesus said to his disciples: "Are ye able to 
 drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with 
 the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, 
 We are able. And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed 
 of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am bap- 
 tized with." (Matt. 20: 22, 23.) This baptism of suffering 
 that Jesus endured was not a mere sprinkling, but an over- 
 whelming of suffering that pressed his soul down to death. 
 The baptism of the Holy Spirit was a complete overwhelming 
 of them with the power of God. All the facts and circum- 
 stances connected with baptism, all the figures used to illus- 
 trate it, forbid the idea of anything save the immersion, the 
 overwhelming, the burial of the person baptized. It seems to 
 me nothing could be plainer. What is more reasonable than 
 that when one is dead to sin he should be buried out of the 
 body of sin and raised in Christ Jesus? 
 
 The founders of all the churches say that baptism, as taught 
 in the Scriptures, was immersion. Luther says : " The term 
 baptism is a Greek word; it may be rendered into Latin by 
 mersio; when we immerse anything in water, that it may be 
 entirely covered with it. . . . It were proper those should 
 be deeply immersed who are baptized." John Calvin, the 
 founder of the Presbyterian Church, says : " It is evident that 
 the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the 
 form used by the ancient church." (" Institutes," Book IV., 
 Chapter 15, Section 19.) Zwingli, the leader of the Swiss re- 
 formers, says : " When ye were immersed into the water of 
 baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ." (" Com- 
 mentary " — Rom. 6 : 3.) John Wesley says : " ' We were bur- 
 ied with him ' — alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing 
 by immersion." ("Notes on New Testament" — Rom. 6: 4.) 
 Mr. Wesley so wrote and published, but this sentence has been 
 dropped out of some editions by the Methodist publishers. 
 
Baptism Essential to Salvation. 33 
 
 Mr. Wesley was asked to baptize a child of Mr. Parker, in 
 Savannah, Ga., on May 5, 1736. He refused to do it, because 
 they would not certify it was sickly. They indicted him be- 
 fore the grand jury. He was tried and found guilty for re- 
 fusing to sprinkle a baby ; he believed it ought to be immersed. 
 
 There is not a respectable scholar in the world that does 
 not admit baptism is immersion, and was so practiced in apos- 
 tolic times. 
 
 If the preacher is correct, and any way will do, it is both 
 a folly and a sin to do anything else than be immersed. All 
 persons acknowledge immersion is baptism ; many believe 
 sprinkling or pouring is not. The first is certain and safe ; the 
 latter is doubtful. It is only a foolish man that will risk the 
 uncertain and doubtful while he can have the certain and the 
 safe way, especially in a matter of so great moment as obe- 
 dience to God and the salvation of the soul, and in which a' 
 wrong course cannot be corrected after we reach the judgment. 
 
 Again, it is a sin to divide the church and people of God. 
 All can unite on immersion, since all believe it acceptable bap- 
 tism ; all cannot unite on affusion, since some believe it sets 
 aside the law of God. None believe it essential to baptism. 
 To divide the people of God on a nonessential is sinful ; hence 
 to insist on affusion is sinful. No excuse exists from any 
 standpoint for advocating affusion, save to sustain a practice 
 received from Rome in the Dark Ages, to sustain a party. 
 To make and keep up parties and divisions in the church is 
 the highest crime against God and man. 
 
 BAPTISM ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. 
 
 Will you please show one the necessity of baptism, if, indeed, it is 
 essential to salvation? I am convinced that immersion is the best 
 mode, and, if I could see that baptism is essential to salvation, would 
 be immersed immediately. I wish to get right if I am in the wrong. 
 I am desirous to know the truth and to do it. 
 
 God commanded, through John the Baptist, baptism as' a 
 starting point to a new life with God. Jesus submitted to it 
 as a duty he owed to God. God recognized him as his Son 
 before the world when he submitted to it and bestowed on 
 him the fullness of his Spirit. Christ himself ordained bap- 
 tism as the act in which he would be confessed. " He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth 
 not shall be damned." (Mark 16: 16.) The believing is par- 
 
34 Baptism Essential to Salvation. 
 
 amount to accepting Christ in the act of baptism as the leader 
 and the Savior. The Holy Spirit came to guide man into the 
 remission of sins. He commanded those who believed in 
 Christ to " repent, and be baptized every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." (Acts 2: 38.) 
 From that time forward every one — Jew, Samaritan, Gentile, 
 rich and poor, prince and beggar — who came to Christ be- 
 lieving on him was required to be baptized as a condition of 
 acceptance with God. Cornelius, the centurion, " a devout 
 man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave 
 much alms to the people, and prayed to God always," was told 
 to be baptized as a means of his salvation. (Acts 10: 48.) 
 No one from that time forward was ever recognized as a child 
 of God or in a saved state until he had believed, repented, and 
 had been baptized into the names of the Father and the Son 
 and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 God requires this of every mortal that would come to him 
 and receive his blessing. We know of no higher, better, or 
 stronger reason that any man can have for doing anything. 
 If he cannot do it because God requires and commands it, he 
 ought not to do it at all. Acts submitted to or works done 
 in religion on any other ground are presumptuous, and pre- 
 sumption is the highest of sins in the sight of God. The hu- 
 man family has sinned against God and has rebelled against 
 his authority. God demands eyery one should take this oath 
 of loyalty, thus expressing abnegation and denial of self and 
 thus putting on Christ as his Lord and Master, before he will 
 accept any service from him. 
 
 We suspect from the tenor of this letter that our friend does 
 not feel himself a sinner, lost and ruined, dependent on God 
 for salvation. The tendency of the philosophy of this age is 
 in the direction of the sufficiency of humanity to discover and 
 work out its own salvation without the guidance of God. If 
 one thinks so, no service is acceptable to God. The weakness, 
 sinfulness, the lost and ruined condition of humanity, must 
 be realized before man can come to God in an acceptable frame 
 of mind. If man was not lost, ruined, undone, doomed, the 
 death of Christ was a meaningless farce. It takes but little 
 knowledge of the world's past history and present condition 
 to see that without Christ and the revelation of God to man 
 that man is lost, degraded, worse than brutal, tending contin- 
 
Baptism in Fire. 35 
 
 ually downward, and that the knowledge of God and his word 
 is the only influence that has ever lifted him up, elevated him, 
 given tone and vigor to his moral and spiritual nature, quick- 
 ened his intellect, and given him character as a moral and spir- 
 itual being. 
 
 If he was and is thus dead in trespasses and sins, without 
 the knowledge of God, and God through Christ alone can 
 quicken him, he must accept Christ as his helper and his Sav- 
 ior on Christ's own terms; and it is not whether immersion 
 is 1he best way of being baptized, but is it what God has com- 
 manded? If it is, man must accept it. For him to do what 
 Gcd commands is merely to accept God's help on God's own 
 terms. This he must do or God will not accept him. If God 
 refuses to give help, man must be lost. He may by the influ- 
 ences and institutions of the religion of Christ remain a re- 
 spectably moral man in this world, while defaming the influ- 
 ences that lifted him up ; but when he passes beyond this world 
 and all these helpful influences are withdrawn, he must sink 
 down into the degradation and ruin prepared for the devil and 
 his angels. Our only hope is to do just what God tells us, and 
 he said : " Be baptized every one of you." See Baptized into 
 Christ. 
 
 BAPTISM IN FIRE. 
 
 What is meant by baptism in fire in Matt. 3: 11; Luke 3: 16? 
 
 To baptize in water is to overwhelm in water ; to baptize 
 in the Spirit is to overwhelm in the Spirit, to bring under the 
 control of the Spirit ; to baptize in suffering is to overwhelm 
 in suffering. These are the scriptural uses of the term bap- 
 tize. Analogy and the meaning of the word would say bap- 
 tism in fire is to overwhelm in fire, to consume and destroy in 
 fire. The connection in which the expression is used also re- 
 quires this meaning. " But when he saw many of the Phari- 
 sees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O 
 generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the 
 wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repent- 
 ance : and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abra- 
 ham to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of 
 these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now 
 also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees : therefore every 
 tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and 
 
36 Baptism in Fire. 
 
 cast into the fire. I indeed baptize you with water unto re- 
 pentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, 
 whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost, and with fire : whose fan is in his hand, 
 and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat 
 into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquench- 
 able fire." (Matt. 3: 7-12.) He is speaking to the Pharisees 
 and Sadducees. He calls them a " generation of vipers." He 
 tells them to repent, not to rely on being fleshly children of 
 Abraham to save them. The ax is at the root of the trees. 
 Every one of the children of Abraham that does not bear good 
 fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire. In this figure 
 the evil are to be destroyed in fire. He gives another illustra- 
 tion of the same truth : I baptize with water ; he that comes 
 after me will baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. The 
 baptism of the Holy Spirit in this figure is for those of the 
 last verse, who bring forth good fruit; the baptism of fire is 
 for those who do not bring forth good fruit, and are cast into 
 the fire. Then he gives still another illustration of the same 
 truth: He will gather the wheat into the garner; he will de- 
 stroy the chaff — the tree that does not bear fruit, that is bap- 
 tized with fire — with fire unquenchable. The connection will 
 allow no other possible meaning than this. The baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit embraces all the blessings and favors of earth, 
 ending in the salvation in heaven of those who repent and bring 
 forth good fruits meet for repentance ; the baptism of fire em- 
 braces the destruction that would come upon the unbelieving 
 Jews, the " generation of vipers," ending in their eternal ruin 
 in hell. These are three statements and illustrations of the 
 same truth: the good will be saved, the wicked will be de- 
 stroyed in fire. 
 
 BAPTISM IN THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 You say that persons baptized with the Holy Spirit were over- 
 whelmed by the Spirit, so that the human spirit was overpowered and 
 brought fully under control of the Holy Spirit. Now is that not the 
 case in conversion to-day? You say that not only was the human 
 spirit brought under control of the Holy Spirit, but it was endued 
 with the power and strength of the Holy Spirit. Is the power and 
 strength of the Holy Spirit not imparted to the " new creature " in 
 conversion to-day? Jesus says: "For John indeed baptized with wa- 
 ter; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days 
 hence." (Acts 1: 5.) You seem to think this promise was only to 
 the apostles; but it is called "the promise of the Father" (Acts 1: 4), 
 
Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 37 
 
 and in Acts 2: 16-21 we find "the promise of the Father" was to "all 
 flesh." John says: "I indeed baptize you with water unto repent- 
 ance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I 
 am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and 
 with fire." (Matt. 3: 11.) Now, I think the promise of the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit is clearly promised there to all that John baptized 
 with water, and it is said: "Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all 
 Judea, and all the region round about Jordan; and they were baptized 
 of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. 3: 5, 6.) 
 Peter says: "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, 
 John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy 
 Spirit." (Acts 11: 16.) Now the promise of Acts 1: 5 included Cor- 
 nelius and his kinsmen and near friends, and it is the same promise of 
 Matt. 3: li; and both of these promises being the fulfilling of Joel 2: 
 28, I believe that every one that John baptized had the promise of 
 being baptized by Christ with the Holy Spirit. 
 
 All the different gifts and manifestations of the Spirit are 
 fulfillments of the prophecy of Joel ; but all these gifts and 
 manifestations are not the same. " There are diversities of 
 gifts, but the same Spirit. . . . To one is given through 
 the Spirit the word of wisdom," and the different gifts and 
 manifestations. (1 Cor. 12: 4-11.) To say all the gifts and 
 manifestations of the Spirit are in fulfillment of the prophecy 
 of Joel determines nothing as to the order of the different 
 measures, manifestations, and gifts of the Spirit. 
 
 I do not think it is true that when one is converted he is 
 brought fully and completely under the control of the Holy 
 Spirit. I have never seen a person so converted, brought com- 
 pletely and fully under the power of the Holy Spirit or enabled 
 to manifest the power of the Spirit's presence. Nor do I be- 
 lieve the ordinary conversions mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment show such presence and power. 
 
 Where were the apostles baptized in the Holy Spirit? 
 When they were sent out as apostles, they were endowed with 
 miraculous gifts of the Spirit that enabled them to work mir- 
 acles. " He called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave 
 them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to 
 heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness." (Matt. 
 10: 1.) Yet, with all this power of the Spirit to preach, to 
 heal, and to cast out demons, they were not yet baptized in 
 the Spirit. After the resurrection of Jesus Christ, he said: 
 "John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized in 
 the Holy Spirit not many days hence." (Acts 1 : 5.) They 
 were believers in and followers of Christ, endowed with gifts 
 of the Spirit, but not yet baptized in the Spirit. This was to 
 
38 Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 
 
 occur " not many days hence." A baptism is an overwhelm- 
 ing. 
 
 The baptism in the Spirit is an overwhelming of the Spirit. 
 On the day of Pentecost the apostles were overwhelmed by 
 the wonderful outpouring of the Spirit. They were filled with 
 the Holy Spirit, so that their own spirits were subject to the 
 Holy Spirit, and their bodies were moved and controlled by 
 the Spirit of God instead of by their own spirits. 
 
 The apostles were subject to the Spirit when baptized by the 
 Spirit. When the miraculous gifts of the Spirit were bestowed 
 upon the different characters as recorded in 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14, 
 the spirits of the prophets (the highest of these gifted persons) 
 were subject to the prophets ; but when they were baptized in 
 the Spirit, they were subject to the Spirit. At the house of 
 Cornelius, " as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, 
 even as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word 
 of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water; 
 but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit." (Acts 11: 15, 
 16.) Without doubt these are the only two cases in which 
 it is said that the Holy Spirit was poured out, which means 
 it was sent directly from heaven by God, and the only cases 
 that are called baptisms in the Spirit. In all other cases it 
 came through the intervention of men ; and while miraculous 
 gifts were bestowed, these gifts were only partial — that is, 
 revealed special truths and enabled each to perform special 
 kind of works. The overwhelmings or baptisms of the Spirit 
 led into the fullness of all truth and enabled those endued with 
 the power to work all miracles. There is this difference in 
 the bestowment of gifts: The Scriptures call one the baptism 
 of the Spirit — a baptism performed by God ; the other is called 
 " the gift of the Holy Spirit," or the gifts of the Spirit which 
 come through man. I accept the names given in the Scrip- 
 tures to distinguish the different measures of the Spirit. 
 
 After the Holy Spirit had been poured out on Peter and the 
 other apostles, they, guided by the Spirit, told the people who 
 sought terms of forgiveness to " repent, and be baptized . . . 
 in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye 
 shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise 
 [of the Holy Spirit] is unto you, and to your children, and to 
 all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall 
 call." (Acts 2 : 38, 39.) This did not mean the people would 
 
Baptism of Children, Validity of. 39 
 
 always receive the Spirit in this miraculous manner by an out- 
 pouring, but that those who hearken to the call of the gospel 
 would receive the Holy Spirit, that in obeying the truth they 
 would drink into the Spirit of God and become obedient to 
 God in life and like him in character. The same Spirit comes 
 to us that came to the apostles, but with a different manifesta- 
 tion. All Christians are begotten by the Spirit — quickened, 
 made alive, by the Spirit. This is done through the word of 
 God, just as the Holy Spirit was poured out on the apostles 
 and caused them to give the terms of salvation to the people 
 and promise them that all who heard these laws should receive 
 the Holy Spirit in obeying the words commanded; and not 
 only they, but all who would obey these words would likewise 
 receive the blessing. It is to be observed in the study of this 
 question there was to be a gift of the Spirit — the Spirit would 
 be given ; and there were also gifts of the Spirit, or spiritual 
 gifts, bestowed on individuals to guide the early church in its 
 work until the perfect will of God was made known to guide 
 them. See this as discussed in 1 Cor. 12, 13, 14. 
 
 John the Baptist says : " He shall baptize you in the Holy 
 Spirit and in fire." (Matt. 3: 11.) The context undoubtedly 
 shows that he meant: You who hear me shall be saved in 
 heaven or destroyed in hell ; you shall as the barren tree be 
 burned up, or as the chaff and the wheat be saved or destroyed. 
 This most likely means: You as subjects of my baptism in 
 water will either be brought finally under the complete influ- 
 ence of the Holy Spirit in heaven or will be finally and com- 
 pletely destroyed by fire in hell. Or it may mean : You shall 
 receive the full benefits of the outpouring of the Spirit — of the 
 salvation in heaven of the obedient, in hell of the disobedient. 
 But there can be no mistake as to the distinction of the bap- 
 tism and gifts of the Spirit. To ignore it brings confusion. 
 
 BAPTISM OF CHILDREN, VALIDITY OF. 
 
 There are a great many persons who went into the church when 
 they were young — say, ten or twelve years old — who, when they get 
 older, have doubts about their baptism being valid. Their doubts are 
 not as to the mode of baptism which was used in their cases, but as 
 to whether they were sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures and 
 were penitent believers. What would you advise such persons to do? 
 
 All are sinners, and need to repent ; but the different condi- 
 tions in which people are who believe and repent must affect 
 the intensity of their sense of sin when they repent. On the 
 
40 Baptism of Children, Validity of. 
 
 day of Pentecost the masses spoken to had crucified the Lord 
 Jesus. Their sense of guilt when they believed him to be the 
 Son of God must have been more intense than that of Cor- 
 nelius, who had been living up to the best light he had and 
 was devout in the service of God according to his surround- 
 ings. So, too, Saul had been " breathing out threatenings and 
 slaughter against the disciples" (Acts 9:1), and with a mad 
 fury casting them into prison and giving his voice for their 
 death (Acts 26: 10). He must have felt a more intense sense 
 of guilt when he was convinced that Jesus was the Christ and 
 the risen Lord than the twelve at Ephesus, who had obeyed 
 the Lord according to their knowledge in John's baptism, 
 could have done. (Acts 19: 1-7.) This much is said to sug- 
 gest that a child ten or twelve years old, reared to do the best 
 it knows, and while the heart is still uncontaminated with 
 gross or heinous sins, cannot feel the sense of sin that an older 
 person, sinning through years against light and knowledge, 
 feels. This goes without saying. In after years children are 
 liable to look back and see that their sense of guilt, and con- 
 sequently the depth of feeling of penitence, was not as deep 
 and pungent as it would be in later years, and they, forgetting 
 that they were then children, conclude that it was not what it 
 should have been. Another reason is that there has of late 
 been undue stress laid upon the knowledge that baptism is 
 for the remission of sins. They remember that this thought 
 was not before their minds, and it causes fear. Again, there 
 are no doubt cases in which young children act from sympa- 
 thetic feelings, without faith and a proper appreciation of their 
 duties to God. In the first two cases they ought to be re- 
 minded of these conditions; and if they fall under either case, 
 it will satisfy them. If they come under the last, they should 
 be baptized into Christ. Care should be taken that children 
 understand why they act. 
 
 BAPTISM UNTO REPENTANCE. 
 
 Please explain Matt. 3: 11. Does unto mean because of or in or- 
 der to? 
 
 It means into. Repentance is a life work of turning to God. 
 Baptism is the act in which one enters into that life work. 
 Hence, John baptized them into this life of repentance. Luke 
 (3 : 8) says that he told them to " bring forth therefore fruits 
 
Baptist Churches, Are, Churches of Christ? 41 
 
 [do works] worthy of repentance." This means the same. 
 You are baptized into a life of repentance ; act so as to show 
 your repentance in your life. There is another expression like 
 this : The Ninevites " repented at [eis] the preaching of 
 Jonas." (Luke 11: 32.) The meaning is: they repented into 
 this preaching of Jonah, they turned into the practice of what 
 Jonah preached. 
 
 BAPTIST CHURCHES, ARE, CHURCHES OF CHRIST? 
 
 (1) Our claim is that the Missionary Baptist is not the old party, 
 but has departed, using new and unscriptural departures; and hence 
 we claim we are the original people. I suppose you claim to be iden- 
 tified with A. Campbell, in the main, on doctrine and order. 
 
 The dispute between the Primitive and Missionary Baptists, 
 as to which is the old and which the new party, is not a very 
 profitable one, since all parties among Christians, old or new,' 
 are sinful. An old party is no better than a new one, nor is 
 a new one worse than an old one. " Baptists " as a party 
 among the followers of Christ was unknown for fifteen hun- 
 dred years after Christ died. A party three hundred years old 
 is no more approved by God than one fifty years old. Both 
 Primitive and Missionary and all other Baptist Churches are 
 parties, schisms, divisions among the children of God, and are 
 sinful. 
 
 Those claimed as ancestors of the Baptists, for fifteen hun- 
 dred years after Christ, called themselves Christians, or disci- 
 ples of Christ, and refused to be known by any other name. 
 Then they all taught baptism was the act in which God for- 
 gives sins. Our Missionary friends, in hunting up testimony 
 that persons were immersed before 1640, to prove Whitsitt 
 wrong, find they baptized into the remission of sins. 
 
 Our querist is mistaken. We claim no identity with A. 
 Campbell or any one else, save the writers of the Scriptures. 
 We seek identity in teaching, in faith and practice, with Je- 
 sus and the apostles. We never seek identity with others. It 
 rejoices us greatly to find A. Campbell or any one else iden- 
 tical with Jesus and the apostles. All who are identical or in 
 harmony with Jesus and the apostles are identical or in har- 
 mony with each other. " If we walk in the light, as he is in 
 the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood 
 of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 
 1 : 7.) If we would cease to strive to be identical with others 
 
42 Baptist Churches, Are, Churches of Christ? 
 
 and all seek identity with Christ Jesus, we would be united 
 one with another by virtue of this union with Christ. That 
 would be union in Christ Jesus. No other union is desirable 
 or pleasing to God. 
 
 (2) Do you believe that the kingdom was with the Baptists till 
 Campbell's day? 
 
 The expression, " the kingdom was with the Baptists," is 
 ambiguous. I do not believe that the church of Christ ever 
 called itself the Baptist Church. To do so would be disloyal 
 to Christ. A church of Christ is a congregation of believers 
 in Christ, governed in all things by his law, or the New Testa- 
 ment. This is a definition to which none will object. But 
 no church ever lived perfectly up to the law of Christ ; no per- 
 son ever perfectly lived up to the requirements of the Bible. 
 This is just as true of the churches of the apostolic age as of 
 churches of this age ; but they were churches of Christ. So 
 churches not living fully up to the law of Christ may be 
 churches of Christ. Where can any one draw the line? A 
 church that consciously sets aside the law of God is disloyal 
 to God, or it may unconsciously so far depart from God's or- 
 der as to cease to be a church of Christ. God alone can make 
 laws for his church or kingdom. A church that forms organi- 
 zations and enacts laws for itself, legislates for itself, and sets 
 aside God as the only lawmaker of his church. To make laws 
 or consciously to change his laws or order is to reject God as 
 the lawmaker. Small things, as well as large ones, test loy- 
 alty. God chose the eating of the apple as the test of the loy- 
 alty of our first parents. The failure to obey God in this was 
 a rejection of God that he should not rule over them. This 
 was a small thing, to eat the apple, but it tested the loyalty 
 and brought death on the whole world. If one is not faithful 
 in little things, w r ho will trust him in great things? To con- 
 sciously claim or exercise the right to change the law of God 
 is to prove itself not a church of God. Do Baptist Churches 
 do this? They have set aside God's law in calling churches 
 by a name that God never gave to his people or churches. 
 This is a legislative act ; even if not formally done, still it is a 
 change of God's order that tests whether we are loyal to him 
 or not. They change the order of the churches in that in all 
 the churches of the New Testament there was a plurality of 
 elders ; the Baptists have one elder to a number of churches. 
 
Baptist Churches, Are, Churches op Christ? 43 
 
 The New Testament churches met to observe the Lord's Sup- 
 per upon the first day of the week, and all Christians observed 
 it. The Baptists changed the order in both these respects. 
 They do not meet upon the first day of the week to observe 
 the Lord's Supper. When they do observe it, they forbid 
 some they admit to be Christians from observing it. In apos- 
 tolic times no one was recognized as a Christian until he had 
 believed in Christ, turned from his sins, and been baptized 
 into Christ. Baptists teach that men are Christians while not 
 complying with this order. The apostles left the churches 
 without organization other than simple churches of Christ. 
 The Baptists have formed organizations over and above the 
 churches that sit in judgment on their faith and decide their 
 orthodoxy or heterodoxy. These points in which they dis- 
 place the order of God with their legislation might be multi- 
 plied. Churches, even though they adopted these unscriptural 
 practices thinking they were doing God's service, cannot be 
 properly called churches of God, and no one should remain in 
 affiliation with them who seeks true loyalty to Christ. While 
 all these things are true, Baptists do preach Christ as the Son 
 of God, the Savior of sinners ; that they must repent of sin, 
 be baptized by the. authority of Christ into Jesus Christ, and 
 in so doing become Christians or servants of the Lord Jesus 
 Christ. After obeying God, they do wrong in remaining 
 where God's law is set aside. The Baptist Church is not and 
 never was the church of Christ. Christians may be in it, as 
 they are in other places they ought not to be ; but they ought 
 to change the church to accord with the law of God, or they 
 ought to get out of it. 
 
 Many persons among the disciples, since the separation from 
 the Baptists, have thought they ought to be rebaptized ; many 
 persons from the beginning have been baptized again. When 
 it was done simply because the persons did not understand 
 baptism was in order to the remission of sins, when they had 
 been baptized to put on Christ, to fulfill the divine righteous- 
 ness, or to obey God, they did wrong. Such persons mistake. 
 God ordained the baptism of one who believes in Christ with 
 all his heart as the condition on which he would accept and 
 forgive him. For the remission of sins is what God promises 
 and obligates himself to do. To enter into Christ, to fulfill 
 the divine righteousness, to seek a good conscience, is to take 
 
44 Baptist Churches, Are, Churches of Christ? 
 
 obligations on ourselves. It is not reasonable ; it cannot be 
 more important that man should understand what God obli- 
 gates himself to do than it is to understand what man obli- 
 gates himself to do in coming to Christ. The brethren have 
 made a mistake in this matter that they will not continue in 
 longer than the party feeling excited in the discussion sub- 
 sides. 
 
 BAPTIZE, DO WE, A SINNER? 
 
 (1) I would like to have your views as to whether or not a person is 
 a sinner after ceasing from sin. If a person is a sinner after believing 
 and repenting, do we baptize a sinner into Christ? If a person in 
 this condition is not a sinner — that is, after turning away from sin 
 and doing God's will — will such a one's prayers be heard and an- 
 swered? 
 
 Certainly a man is not a sinner after he ceases to sin ; but 
 when does he cease to sin? I am afraid very few of us cease 
 to sin while we live in the flesh. There are different classes 
 of sins — sins of weakness and sins of presumption. When we 
 think we are strongest, then we are often in greatest danger. 
 " Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest 
 he fall." (1 Cor. 10: 12.) When a man feels most confidence 
 in himself, then there is the greatest danger that he will be 
 presumptuous and commit the greatest sin. Poor in spirit, 
 contrite and humble in heart, are qualities that God loves in 
 man. With such he dwells to lift up and comfort. We sin 
 in deed, in word, and in thought. Not often do we pass a day 
 without sinning in some one of these ways. It is easier to 
 control the acts than the words ; it is easier to control the 
 words than the thoughts. Then to bring the thoughts into 
 captivity to the will of God is the highest attainment in the 
 divine life. Hence Paul says : " Though we walk in the flesh, 
 we do not war according to the flesh (for the weapons of our 
 warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the 
 casting down of strongholds) ; casting down imaginations, and 
 every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God, 
 and bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of 
 Christ ; and being in readiness to avenge all disobedience, 
 when your obedience shall be made full." (2 Cor. 10: 3-6.) 
 The perfection is attained when the thoughts have been all 
 brought into perfect obedience to the will of Jesus Christ. 
 I think there are but few of us that can keep our thoughts 
 for one day in captivity to the obedience of Christ. Sins 
 
Baptize, Do We, a Sinner? 45 
 
 are of two kinds — sins of commission and sins of omission. 
 If we commit no positive sin, we omit some positive good. 
 This is sin. Do any of us pass a day without omitting some 
 opportunity or means of learning more of God's will or of 
 doing some good to our fellow-men? I have never passed 
 the day when at its close I felt I had used every opportunity 
 and means in my power to bring myself into closer union with 
 God, to become more like him in my life and character, to ben- 
 efit and help my fellow-men, and to honor God. That means 
 I never, at the close of a day, felt that I had passed the day 
 free from sin, and I have but little faith in the truthfulness of 
 the man who claims he has passed a day without sins of omis- 
 sion or commission in word, thought, or deed. That sinless 
 life would be equal to the life of the Son of God. He lived a 
 sinless life. Who else attains to this? When a person ceases 
 to sin, he is not a sinner ; but Solomon, in his dedicatory prayer' 
 to God, says: "There is no man that sinneth not." (1 Kings 
 8: 46.) Only Jesus lived a sinless life, and he refused to be 
 called good until the sinful propensities had been purged out 
 by suffering; so that he was made perfect and became the 
 author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. (Heb. 
 5 : 8, 9.) Paul said : " Not as though I had already attained, 
 either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may 
 apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ 
 Jesus." (Phil. 3 : 12.) He continually pressed forward to- 
 ward the mark for the prize of the high calling in Christ Jesus. 
 
 (2) Whom do you baptize — a child of God or a child of the devil? 
 I have heard some brethren illustrate in this way: That when one has 
 repented or made the good confession, he passes into a transitional 
 state; and when he is in that state, he is neither a child of God nor a 
 child of the devil. I do not understand the Bible to teach that a man 
 can get into a state in which he is serving neither God nor the devil. 
 
 This question grows out of an effort to make an illustration 
 intended to present one point in the work of conversion apply 
 in all its parts to conversion. It is as if a man were to ask 
 how Herod had four feet like a fox, since Jesus called him a 
 "fox." (Luke 13: 32.) I baptize one who believes in Christ 
 and shows his faith by demanding baptism into Christ. The 
 Bible plainly requires this. This is the plain, literal require- 
 ment, about which there can be no mistake. To these, and 
 not to the figurative, illustrations we must gOi for clear defini- 
 tion of duty. The birth of the water and the Spirit is a figure 
 
46 Baptize, Do We, a Sinner? 
 
 illustrating relations, but does not plainly state duties. An il- 
 lustration is not an argument; it may make plain and enforce 
 an argument, but it is not one. Paul says : " We who died to 
 sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye igno- 
 rant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were bap- 
 tized into his death? We were buried therefore with him 
 through baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised 
 from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also 
 might walk in newness of life." (Rom. 6: 2-4.) This seems 
 to me to illustrate the man dies to sin, and then the old man 
 of sin is buried, and the new man is raised to walk in a new 
 state — in Christ. That is about as plain as I can make it. To 
 make things used to illustrate one point in a figure apply to 
 every feature will result in confusion. 
 
 These questions have come up as puzzles and quibbles by 
 those who insist persons are children of God without baptism. 
 They insist that a man is an accepted child of God before bap- 
 tism ; but they involve themselves in burying a living, active 
 child of God. But there are plain scriptures defining duty 
 without going to figures and puzzles. 
 
 BAPTIZE, PAUL NOT SENT TO. 
 
 Can any one preach Jesus without preaching baptism? A brother 
 here claims he can, and quotes the language of Paul: " Christ sent me 
 not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 Cor. 1:17.) 
 
 An inspired man could not preach Christ without preaching 
 baptism. None ever did. Paul was not sent to baptize. He 
 usually had some one with him to do the baptizing; but when 
 no one was present, he did it himself. Read the preceding 
 verses to that quoted. Of those claiming to be followers of 
 Paul, he said : " I thank God that I baptized none of you, but 
 Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should say that I had baptized in 
 mine own name. And I baptized also the household of Steph- 
 anas; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." 
 Paul preached, and " many of the Corinthians hearing be- 
 lieved, and were baptized." (Acts 18: 8.) This shows, while 
 Paul did not baptize, he preached the necessity of baptism, 
 and it was so important that there were others with him whose 
 special mission it was to baptize those to whom he preached. 
 This certainly indicates that it was necessary, in that they had 
 special persons to do the baptizing. When they wtre not 
 present to do it, he did it himself. To preach Christ is to 
 
Baptize with Water. 47 
 
 preach him as the ruler and representative of God, and no one 
 can preach Christ as he is presented in the Scriptures without 
 preaching all the teaching of Christ. Paul could only claim to 
 be free from the blood of all men by declaring " the whole 
 counsel of God." (Acts 20 : 26, 27.) 
 
 BAPTIZE, WHO HAS A RIGHT TO? 
 
 Have I the scriptural right to baptize? I have been trying to live 
 the life of a Christian for ten years, having accepted Christ when 1 
 was eighteen years of age, and am so situated that if one should de- 
 sire baptism at this place I would have to do it or send for a brother. 
 
 In scripture times the disciples of Christ were scattered from 
 Jerusalem and went everywhere, preaching as they went. 
 (Acts 8: 1, 4.) I am constrained to believe that no one 
 preached the gospel unless he accepted in Christ those who be- 
 lieved. To do this was to baptize them. Ananias, who bap- 
 tized Saul, is called " a certain disciple." (Acts 9: 10.) This, 
 together with the fact that baptism is nowhere restricted to 
 any class, constrains me to believe it is the privilege of any 
 Christian to teach the way of righteousness and baptize those 
 who desire baptism. While this is true, good order demands 
 that when there is an established church, it is better that the 
 elders or some one appointed by the church should do this 
 work. But where one brother is off to himself, I am sure it 
 is his duty to teach and baptize any who will hear and believe 
 in Christ and ask baptism at his hands. 
 
 BAPTIZE WITH WATER. 
 
 Please give an exegesis of this scripture: "I indeed baptize you 
 with water." (Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 8; Luke 3: 16; Acts 1: 5.) This 
 language was used three times by John (Matt. 3: 11; Mark 1: 8; Luke 
 3: 16); it was used once by our Savior (Acts 1:5). One of our breth- 
 ren thinks that the pedobaptists have a good argument in this scrip- 
 ture. If in the action of baptism the water is used, the New Testa- 
 ment is a mystery indeed. I hope that you will give a full explana- 
 tion, especially of the words with water. 
 
 Baptize with water does not imply sprinkling or pouring; it 
 only leaves the act undefined. It is common to say that one 
 cloth was dyed with blue ; another, with black or brown ; 
 leather is tanned with ooze — in all of which we mean that the 
 thing dyed or tanned was dipped in the dye. When we tell 
 the substance in which the baptism was performed, it is legit- 
 imate to use with. We are baptized with water, with the 
 
48 Baptize with Water. 
 
 Spirit, with sorrow, or with suffering, is legitimate and proper. 
 The word translated with is the same as that translated in in 
 other places. While, then, with does not imply that water 
 was applied to the person instead of the person to the water, 
 it leaves it uncertain. It would make it certain to use in. 
 The American Revised Version so translates it in all these 
 places, although some of the revisers, probably a majority, 
 were pedobaptists. Using with only fails to show, in the 
 example used, how it was done. Then we determine what was 
 done from the meaning of the word as shown in other uses 
 of it, and this leaves no doubt. It is very unfair to select a 
 few examples which leave the meaning in doubt to determine 
 the meaning of a word, when there are a number of cases that 
 leave no doubt and when the meaning of the word is well es- 
 tablished. 
 
 BAPTIZED BY ONE SPIRIT. 
 
 Does 1 Cor. 12: 13 — "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into 
 one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or 
 free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit" — refer to the 
 baptism of the Spirit, or does it mean, led or guided by one Spirit, we 
 are baptized into one body? 
 
 The commission, if properly studied, it seems to me, ought 
 to settle this question with every one. Verse 10 enumerates 
 the different gifts bestowed on the different members of the 
 church; verse 11 tells that one and the same Spirit bestowed 
 all these differing gifts upon the different members ; verse 12 
 tells that these different members constitute one and the same 
 body of Christ, just as the different members of the fleshly 
 body, animated by one spirit, constitute one body ; verse 13 
 tells that, guided or led by the one Spirit, we are all baptized 
 into the one body of Christ, so become one body. The Spirit 
 is the agent leading in all these things. In verses 10 and 11 
 the active form is used and " Spirit " is in the nominative case. 
 In verse 13 the passive form is used, and hence " Spirit " is 
 placed in the objective case. To say the Spirit baptizes or di- 
 rects us to be baptized and we are baptized by the Spirit mean 
 the same thing — one expressed actively; the' other, passively. 
 Then the next clause, " and have been all made to drink into 
 one Spirit," requires the same construction. To be baptized 
 into the Holy Spirit is to be overwhelmed and filled by the 
 Spirit. One overwhelmed and filled with the Spirit would 
 
Baptized for the Dead. 49 
 
 hardly afterwards be required to drink into the Spirit, to grad- 
 ually partake of its influence. 
 
 This corresponds fully to other passages. " For as many 
 of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 
 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, 
 there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ 
 Jesus." (Gal. 3: 27, 28.) "What shall we say then? Shall 
 we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. 
 How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? 
 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried 
 with him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised 
 up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also 
 should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted 
 together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the 
 likeness of his resurrection." (Rom. 6: 1-5.) These teach the 
 same truth. They have been baptized into the one body of 
 Christ. Bloomfield says : " By being baptized [say almost all 
 commentators, ancient and modern], we are all made members 
 of the body of Christ, and united one to another under him, 
 our Head ; and thus, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond or 
 free, we are all one in Christ, who, by baptism, have been 
 admitted into his church ; and this union of ours one with an- 
 other is testified and declared by our communion at the Lord's 
 table, which is here called a drinking into one spirit, refer- 
 ring to the sacramental cup." ("Notes" — 1 Cor. 12: 13.) I 
 think there can be no doubt that the passage means, led or di- 
 rected by one Spirit, we are all baptized in water into one 
 body ; then being members of his body, we all drink into one 
 Spirit. In this passage it is told that we are led by one Spirit 
 to be baptized into this one body. 
 
 BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD. 
 
 Please give your idea of 1 Cor. 15: 29 — that is, "baptized for the 
 dead." 
 
 To determine the meaning of a sentence, we must look at 
 its connection, purpose, and scope. This is one of a number 
 of arguments to prove the resurrection from the dead. After 
 giving other arguments, he asks : " Else [if the dead rise not] 
 what shall they do which are baptized for [in view of their 
 resurrection from] the dead, if the dead rise not?" He was 
 4 
 
50 Baptized for the Dead. 
 
 giving reasons why they should believe in the resurrection. 
 We are baptized and enter into Christ because we must die, 
 and in order that we may be fitted to be raised in him and live 
 with him forever. Why are we baptized in order to death, 
 if the dead rise not? If the dead rise not, what shall they do 
 who are baptized in view of the resurrection from the dead? 
 In view of their dying, they are baptized ; so are baptized in 
 order to their well-being after death. If they are not to be 
 raised, why are they baptized to fit them for the resurrection? 
 This is Paul's argument. Verse 30 is similar. Why do we 
 stand in jeopardy of life every hour, if there be no resurrection 
 and future judgment? 
 
 BAPTIZED INTO CHRIST. 
 
 I have read and reread your article on " Baptism and Remission of 
 Sins," and I have great confidence in your knowledge and honesty. 
 Will you please give me a list of all the English words translated 
 from the Greek preposition eis? I have long thought that with and 
 by come from eis. If not too much trouble, give me a full list. 
 
 The preposition eis is used over fifteen hundred times in the 
 New Testament. It is translated to, into, unto, at, in, for, on, 
 upon, among, against. Counting one column of the list, I find 
 it is translated, out of eighty uses, into fifty-three times; two- 
 thirds of the other times it is translated in, unto, to. These 
 are substantially the same with into. To come to a place, 
 unto a place, into a place, or on a place, are the same. The 
 nature or character of the place or thing to which one comes 
 determines which shall be used. If it is " Come eis a rock," 
 we know it is to, unto, upon, or against, as we cannot go in 
 or into a rock. Again, " She fell down eis his feet." We 
 know it is not into, but at or by, his feet. So it is translated 
 at in such cases. 
 
 The lexicons define it : " Direction toward, motion to, on or 
 into." It follows usually a verb of motion, and the noun gov- 
 erned by it points out the place or end on or in which the 
 motion terminates. " Depart hence, and go into [eis] Judea." 
 (John 7 : 3.) Go is a verb of motion ; Judea denotes the place 
 where the motion ends or terminates. " Was baptized of John 
 in [eis] the Jordan." (Mark 1 : 9.) When it refers to time, 
 it is translated then, till, or until. " He that endureth to [eis] 
 the end, the same shall be saved." (Matt. 10: 22.) Con- 
 nected with verbs of thinking or purposing, it points to the 
 
Baptized into Christ. 51 
 
 end aimed at or to the state or condition sought. "All we 
 who were baptized into [eis] Christ Jesus were baptized into 
 [eis] his death." (Rom. 6: 3.) "Baptizing them into [eis] 
 the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 
 (Matt. 28: 19.) "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of 
 you . . . unto [eis] the remission of your sins." (Acts 
 2 : 38.) It is sometimes translated that. " Repent ye therefore, 
 and turn again, that [eis] your sins may be blotted out." 
 (Acts 3 : 19.) That has the force of " in order that " or " into 
 the blotting out of your sins." With believe it is translated 
 on or in; as, "Believe on [eis] Christ" or "Believe in [eis] 
 Christ "— " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." (Acts 16: 31.) 
 But nine-tenths of the time it is translated unto, in, or into, 
 and this same meaning is contained in all the different words 
 by which it is translated. A few times it is translated against. 
 " Saul, yet breathing threatening and slaughter against [eis] 
 the disciples." (Acts 9: 1.) Threatening and slaughter unto 
 them would be against them, and it is so translated here. 
 
 To one who studies these things carefully the meaning is 
 clear and uniform. But the idea that the masses of the peo- 
 ple must understand these distinctions and variations of the 
 meanings of the terms is too absurd and ridiculous to entertain 
 for a moment. It shows a sad misapprehension of the char- 
 acter of God. He has made his will known to the unlearned 
 and the simple-minded and single-hearted. For a man to con- 
 tend that a person should understand these distinctions and 
 variations is clear evidence that the man himself does not un- 
 derstand them. Jf he did, he could not think God requires 
 people to understand them in order to obey him. 
 
 All agree that the use of baptism is to test and declare faith. 
 Why is it that to be baptized because God commands it, with- 
 out knowing what blessings will be received in the act, does 
 not test and show faith as great as to be baptized knowing 
 what blessings are received by it? 
 
 We call attention to the following. Jesus, in his commis- 
 sion to the disciples, commanded them : " Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into [eis] 
 the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 
 (Matt. 28: 19.) In some texts Acts 2: 38 reads: " Repent ye, 
 and be baptized every one of you into [eis] the name of Jesus 
 Christ into [eis] the remission of your sins; and ye shall re- 
 
52 Baptized into Christ. 
 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Spirit." At Samaria, when Peter 
 and John had come down, they " prayed for them, that they 
 might receive the Holy Spirit: for as yet it was fallen upon 
 none of them : only they had been baptized into [eis] the name 
 of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 8: 15, 16.) Paul, at Ephesus, 
 asked the disciples : " Into [eis] what then were ye baptized? " 
 They said : " Into [eis] John's baptism." " They were bap- 
 tized into [eis] the name of the Lord Jesus." (Acts 19 : 3-5.) 
 Again : "All we who were baptized into [eis] Christ Jesus were 
 baptized into [eis] his death." (Rom. 6 : 3.) " Were ye bap- 
 tized into [eis] the name of Paul?" "Lest any man should 
 say that ye were baptized into [eis] my name." (1 Cor. 1: 
 13-15.) " Were all baptized unto [eis] Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea." (1 Cor. 10: 2.) "For in one Spirit were 
 we all baptized into [eis] one body." (1 Cor. 12: 13.) " For 
 as many of you as were baptized into [eis] Christ did put on 
 Christ." (Gal. 3:27.) 
 
 These are examples of into (eis) connected with baptism. 
 Eis (into) means exactly the same connecting baptism with 
 l emission of sins that it does connecting baptism with the 
 name of Christ, the body of Christ, the death of Christ, and 
 the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It connects bap- 
 tism and remission of sins once. It connects baptism and 
 these other names or persons or states twenty times. Why 
 is it more important to understand the relation baptism bears 
 to the remission of sins than it is to understand the relation 
 it bears to these other persons and states? Can any one tell? 
 It is sectarianism to exalt one duty or requirement of God 
 above others when God has made no difference. 
 
 Christ was baptized " to fulfill all righteousness," or to obey 
 all the commands of God to make man righteous. (Matt. 3: 
 15.) It is difficult to improve on the examples of Christ. All 
 blessings and all the promises of God connected with the serv- 
 ice of God ought to be proclaimed to encourage men to trust 
 in and obey God. But when man does so trust God as to do 
 what he commands, God accepts that service from the hum- 
 blest of mortals, and man should throw no stumbling-blocks 
 in the way of these little ones of God. There is no greater 
 hindrance to the cause of God at this day than magnifying 
 things not taught by God into questions that create strife 
 among the people of God and divert their minds from the great 
 
Baptized Scripturally. 53 
 
 work of saving men and women from death. See Believing 
 into Christ. 
 
 BAPTIZED, MAY A PERSON WHO BELIEVES HIS 
 SINS FORGIVEN BE SCRIPTURALLY? 
 
 May a person who believes his sins forgiven submit to a scriptural 
 baptism while thus believing? 
 
 There is something unscriptural in the case as presented ; 
 but what is it? Is it the haptism, or is it the understanding 
 of when a person is pardoned? If the latter, does that inval- 
 idate the former? This is the point of issue in this question, 
 and it is continually ignored. " He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) The thing to be be- 
 lieved is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. A person 
 that believes this, and, on this faith, is baptized, is scripturally 
 baptized ; but if he believes he has been forgiven before he is 
 baptized, this faith is unscriptural — that is, he mistakes the 
 point in the path of obedience at which pardon is promised 
 and can be claimed. Does a mistake as to the point at which 
 God bestows the blessing cause God to withhold the blessing 
 from one who, through faith, does what God tells him? If 
 so, where is the precept or example that shows it? If it is so, 
 it must be because God requires a person to understand at 
 what point in the path of obedience a blessing is promised be- 
 fore he can receive it. Does a'ny one believe this? I have 
 never found one that would affirm it. I have asked for a 
 single precept or example in the New Testament or the Old 
 Testament that would prove it. I have never seen one pro- 
 duced that was claimed to teach it. I can produce scores of 
 examples and precepts from the Old Testament and the New 
 Testament showing that a misunderstanding on the part of 
 man as to when, in the path of obedience, a blessing was prom- 
 ised, or even of what the blessing was, did not prevent God be- 
 stowing the blessing when the point was reached. To deny 
 the blessing would be given in this instance because the per- 
 son mistook the point at which the blessing was bestowed is 
 to set at defiance the teachings of God through the Old Testa- 
 ment and the New Testament, which were written for our ex- 
 ample and admonition. God is pleased with the faith that 
 does what he tells to be done without waiting to know when 
 and how God will bless. See. Baptized into Christ; Rebap- 
 tism. 
 
54 Believing into Christ. 
 
 BELIEVING INTO CHRIST. 
 
 Does the New Testament teach that men believe into Christ? If 
 you answer, " Yes," then please harmonize it with our teaching that 
 it takes both faith and baptism to put a person into Christ. If men 
 believe into Christ, did all (even among us) learn this design of faith 
 before they were baptized? For some brethren teach that a person 
 must know all the designs of a command before he can obey the com- 
 mand. Then have these brethren (perhaps thousands) who have not 
 learned the design of faith obeyed the command to believe? 
 
 The word believe is connected with Christ in Greek by the 
 same word (eis) with which baptism is connected with him. 
 We are said to believe eis Christ and to be baptized eis Christ. 
 Eis properly marks the relationship of each act to Christ ; and 
 yet no translator ever translated the words the same in the 
 two connections. The reason is that eis, following a verb of 
 action or motion, denotes that the subject of the verb changes 
 its relationship to the object of it. Sometimes it follows a 
 verb indicating mental or spiritual action. It is usually trans- 
 lated on or upon in such cases. He believed eis Jesus — upon 
 Jesus. The meanings are essentially the same, modified in the 
 form of expression by the nature of the thing moved. Believe 
 is an active verb, but the action is that of the immaterial or 
 unseen part of man, his mind and heart. So the action is not 
 recognized by our bodily senses. To " believe upon Christ " 
 means that the confidence or trust is transferred from some 
 other person and reaches out toward and rests on Christ. But 
 the body is not yet moved into Christ ; so eis is translated on, 
 upon, instead of into. The heart, the thing that believes, is 
 transferred to Christ. When eis follows a verb expressing de- 
 sire or purpose, it is usually translated for or in order to. But 
 it means the purposes or desires of the heart are transferred 
 to the thing desired. " This is my blood of the new testament, 
 which is shed for many for [eis] the remission of sins " (Matt. 
 26: 28), means the blood was shed that many might enter the 
 remission of sins, a new state. Eis indicates a change from 
 one place, time, relation, or condition, to another. 
 
 The Scriptures say we believe eis Christ, eis remission of 
 sins, eis salvation. They also say we repent eis Christ or God, 
 eis remission of sins, eis salvation. They also teach that we 
 are baptized eis Christ, eis remission of sins, and imply eis 
 salvation. Faith, repentance, baptism, are all connected with 
 entrance into Christ, God, salvation, by this same word, eis. 
 It shows all of these acts are joined together, stand on the 
 
Besetting Sin, The. 55 
 
 same side of remission of sins, entrance into God, Christ, and 
 stand similarly related to these. Faith leads to repentance 
 and to baptism. Repentance and baptism are fruits, the out- 
 growth, the embodiment of faith. Faith, ruling the heart, pro- 
 duces repentance ; controlling the body, it leads to baptism. 
 Repentance and baptism are successive steps of faith, are parts 
 of faith, and hence must stand related to remission of sins, 
 to entrance into Christ, and to salvation, as faith is. 
 
 The relation of these acts to each other and the connection 
 of each of them to the remission of sins, entrance into the 
 name of Christ, God, and salvation by the same word, settle 
 beyond dispute that they are for the same end or thing. Man 
 must believe into Christ. But his believing carries him 
 through repentance and baptism before he is in Christ. Re- 
 pentance comes from faith, but it leads through baptism to 
 the remission of sins. Faith that stops short of repentance 
 and baptism does not carry the believer into Christ. These 
 facts settle the offices of faith, repentance, and baptism. See 
 Baptized into Christ. 
 
 BESETTING SIN, THE. 
 
 What is the besetting sin of Heb. 12: 1, 2: "Wherefore seeing we 
 also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us 
 lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and 
 let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto 
 Jesus the author and finisher of our faith?" 
 
 The " witnesses " are the men of faith and fidelity to God 
 mentioned in the preceding chapter, who had been faithful and 
 true to God under trials and persecutions. Seeing they were 
 blessed in obeying God under all persecutions and trials, let us 
 lay aside every weight that hinders fidelity in us and the sin 
 that does so easily beset or turn us from God. Paul then tells 
 us how we are to avoid this besetting sin by running with pa- 
 tience the race that is set before us — that is, the path marked 
 out for us by God. To keep faithfully in that path is to avoid 
 the besetting sin. He tells us further we are to look to Je- 
 sus, who is the beginner and the finisher of the faith. All 
 contained in the faith, from beginning to end, is given by Je- 
 sus. These are directions by which we are to avoid the be- 
 setting sin. The besetting sin is the ^disposition of man to 
 turn from God, to turn from the ways and teachings given by 
 God, and to turn to the wisdom of man. This has been the 
 
56 Besetting Sin, The. 
 
 besetting sin of man in all ages; it was in Eden. Our first 
 parents turned away from God and his commands to that 
 which seemed to them better and wiser than God's arrange- 
 ments ; so did Cain, in the next generation. Abel was true to 
 God, and is named as a witness showing it is good to walk 
 with God. All the peoples of earth turned from God to their 
 own wisdom, except Noah and Abraham and Jacob and his 
 family. 
 
 We are to look to Jesus as an example by which we are to 
 learn how to avoid the besetting sin. He came to do not his 
 own will, but the will of him that sent him ; he cultivated the 
 spirit of having no will but that of his Father. He said : " My 
 meat is to do the will of him that sent me." (John 4: 34.) 
 His food — that which gave him strength, on which he relied 
 to perpetuate life — was to do the will of Him that had sent 
 him. So we should avoid turning from God and find our spir- 
 itual food in doing the will of God. 
 
 The besetting sin, then, is to turn from God through an evil 
 spirit of unbelief and follow ways not pointed out by God. 
 No warning is more constantly kept before the people, both in 
 the Old Testament and the New Testament Scriptures, than 
 the danger and the evil of adding to or taking from the ap- 
 pointments of God. This was presumptuous on the part of 
 men and easily led to the presumptuous sin, for which there 
 is no forgiveness. The Bible begins with an example and 
 warning against turning from God to ways and wisdom of 
 our own, and it closes with the same warning, and almost 
 every intermediate chapter is devoted to the same end, urging 
 men to do what God commands, warning them against turn- 
 ing from his ways to the ways of man. That has been the 
 besetting sin from the beginning, and will be to the end of 
 man's probationary state. 
 
 BIBLE, REQUIRING CHILDREN TO STUDY THE. 
 
 Certain brethren have plans laid for the establishment of a Bible 
 school. They are beginning on a solid basis. The outlook is hopeful, 
 and I have been unanimously asked by the board of trustees to accept 
 the first place in the faculty. I have decided to do so on condition 
 that it be made one of the unchangeable and fundamental laws of the 
 school that every student, during his entire time as a student, be re- 
 quired to recite at least one daily lesson in the Bible. Some good 
 brethren connected with this school and others at other places seem 
 to think we have no right to require students to study the Bible. To 
 my mind, this is not a question. We have the same right to require 
 
Bible, Requiring Children to Study the. 57 
 
 the study of the Bible that we do reading, spelling, and arithmetic. 
 \Ve compel students not to lie, steal, curse, or get drunk. Every 
 school in the land has conditions of matriculation. You are likely to 
 be called on for your views on this subject. While I know you have 
 a great amount of work to do and you must reserve your time and 
 strength, yet your influence is such, and your judgment growing out 
 of more than a half century of experience with schools and observa- 
 tion of school work is such, and this work is so important and far- 
 reaching in its results, that I want to request that you give these 
 brethren the full benefit of your views. 
 
 I have so often expressed myself on this subject that I do 
 not see the good of doing it again. Then there are some things 
 so simple and self-evident that it is difficult to argue them. 
 If a man were to ask me to prove two and two make four, I 
 could not argue it much. I know of but one way of explain- 
 ing the fact that a man claiming to believe the Bible can doubt 
 the duty and obligation of parents to require their children to 
 study the Bible. It is this : I knew an experienced and 
 thoughtful lawyer that insisted every man had his crazy spot, 
 and on some subject and at some point everybody is crazy. 
 
 God commanded the children of Israel : "And these words, 
 which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 
 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and 
 shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when 
 thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when 
 thou risest up." (Deut. 6: 6, 7.) Solomon, the wise man un- 
 der that law, said : " He that spareth his rod hateth his son." 
 (Prov. 13: 24.) This means that if it required the use of the 
 rod to teach his son the word of God, it ought not to be spared. 
 To spare it and let him grow up in ignorance of the word of 
 God was to send him to ruin. That is to hate him. The Holy 
 Spirit directs parents, the fathers especially : " Fathers, pro- 
 voke not your children to wrath : but bring them up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord." (Eph. 6: 4.) While 
 the spirit of the rod is not so prevalent in the New as in the 
 Old Testament, still it is a plain, specific command, not only 
 to teach them, but to train them, bring them up in the nurture 
 and instruction of the Lord. It does not say to let them learn 
 the will of God if they feel like it, but instruct and train them 
 in the teachings and admonition of the Lord. 
 
 For a man that claims to believe the Bible and God to say 
 that he doubts if it is right for a parent to require a child to 
 study the Bible, I can find an explanation for this only in the 
 lawyer's claim. That is his crazy spot, and it is useless to 
 
58 Bible, Requiring Children to Study the. 
 
 argue with a crazy man. So I do not argue much with such 
 persons. Tell them God requires them to teach and train their 
 children in the practice of the word of God. 
 
 As suggested, if it is not right to require children to study 
 and learn the Bible, still less is it right to require them to prac- 
 tice what the Bible teaches — " Thou shalt not lie," " Thou 
 shalt not steal," " Thou shalt not kill." 
 
 For a parent to require a child to wash its face and keep its 
 body clean, and not require it to learn and obey the Bible, is 
 to teach it that the body is worth more than the soul, clean- 
 ness of body is worth more than a pure heart and a clean and 
 holy spirit. For a parent to require a child to learn spelling 
 and reading and arithmetic, and not require it to study the 
 Bible, is to teach it, by a forcible object lesson, that it is much 
 more important to be qualified to live in this world than to be 
 fitted to live in heaven. There is no evading these simple 
 truths. The parent that so treats and impresses his child is 
 the worst enemy that child has. He will be made to feel this 
 when he meets that child at the judgment of God. It is better 
 to face the question honestly now. 
 
 This all applies to the family and the school. It is just as 
 much the duty of the parent to see that his child is taught the 
 Bible when away from home, at school, as it is to require it at 
 home. The teachers in the school occupy the position of the 
 parents to the child, and are under the same obligation to re- 
 quire the children to study the Bible and to teach the Bible to 
 the children that the parents are. I very much doubt the right 
 of any Christian to teach a school in which he does not teach 
 the Bible. He is to teach "every creature " in " all the world." 
 How can he excuse himself from teaching children with and 
 under him from day to day and from month to month ? While 
 I am sure it is the lawyer's crazy spot that leads to the con- 
 clusion that it is wrong to require children to study the Bible 
 at home and at school, this craze is excited by the desire of the 
 parent to shirk his duty, and with school-teachers and man- 
 agers it is greatly intensified by the fear that it will hurt the, 
 popularity of the school and cut off its patronage and pay. 
 
 But it is wrong, it is deception both of the school and fam- 
 ily and the public, to call a family or a school a Bible or Chris- 
 tian family or school which requires children to wash their 
 faces or study arithmetic, and does not require them to study 
 
Blasphemy Against the Holy Spirit. 59 
 
 the Bible. The Bible places the study and teaching of the 
 word of God above everything else, and he is not a true friend 
 to the Bible, to God, or to man, who gives it a secondary or 
 inferior place. A Bible or Christian family or school is that 
 which places the study and practice of the Bible above every- 
 thing else. 
 
 BIRTH OF THE SPIRIT BEFORE OR AFTER THE 
 RESURRECTION, IS? 
 
 Some of our preachers in this part of the country have been preach- 
 ing, and are yet, that there is no birth of the Spirit in this life; that 
 we are born of water in this life and of the Spirit at the resurrection. 
 They quote, " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit," and then 
 say: " How could I be born of the Spirit unless I was a spirit? " 
 
 I know of no law, human or divine, to keep men from be- 
 lieving and teaching unreasonable and unscriptural things if 
 they desire to do so. There is no ground for such a position, 
 I am sure, but many scriptures that flatly contradict it. " But 
 as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become 
 children of God, even to them that believe on his name : who 
 were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
 will of man, but of God." (John 1 : 12, 13.) These people 
 that believed on his name became his sons — were born of God 
 in this world. Paul says : " I write not these things to shame 
 you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though 
 ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fa- 
 thers ; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel." 
 (1 Cor. 4: 14, 15.) He calls them his children, for he had be- 
 gotten them through the gospel. Are they addressed as chil- 
 dren before they are born ? James says : " Of his own will he 
 brought us forth by the word of truth, that we should be a 
 kind of firstfruits of his creatures." (James 1 : 18.) Were 
 they not born of God — begotten by the word of truth through 
 the Spirit? "Having been begotten again, not of corrupti- 
 ble seed, but of incorruptible, through the word of God, which 
 liveth and abideth." (1 Pet. 1: 23.) Every Christian is a 
 child of God. How could he become a child unless he had 
 been begotten and brought forth into the family of God? To 
 deny this is absurd. 
 
 BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT. See Sin 
 Against the Holy Spirit. 
 
60 Blood of Christ. 
 
 BLOOD OF CHRIST, HOW DO SINNERS REACH THE 
 MERITS OF THE? 
 
 How do sinners reach the benefits of the blood of Christ in their 
 cleansing from sin? 
 
 No material, or earthly, type perfectly represents the spir- 
 itual church, or antitype. The letter to the Hebrews is very 
 greatly devoted to showing the superiority of the church of 
 Christ in all of its parts to the earthly type. " For the law 
 [of Moses] having a shadow of good things to come, and not 
 the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices 
 which they offered year by year continually make the comers 
 thereunto perfect." (Heb. 10: 1.) While the representation 
 is not perfect, the points of comparison give true ideas of the 
 spiritual temple. 
 
 The blood of Christ, shed for the remission of sins, means 
 that the life of Christ was given for the sins of the world. He 
 gave his life for our lives that had been forfeited through sin. 
 Man sinned and was under sentence of death. Jesus inter- 
 posed and gave his life to secure a respite from the sentence 
 and to open a way by which man might return to the favor 
 of God and enjoy eternal life. The privilege of enjoying this 
 favor depended upon man's accepting this favor in faith and 
 submitting himself to the conditions imposed by Jesus, who 
 had given his life to redeem man from eternal death. " Who 
 verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, 
 but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do 
 believe in God." (1 Pet. 1 : 20, 21.) Before the manifestation 
 of the death of Jesus this sacrifice and the acceptance and ap- 
 propriation of the sacrifice was set forth in type by the death 
 and shedding the blood of animals. The blood was placed 
 upon the book of the law to show it was dedicated, made sa- 
 cred, as the law of God ; it was placed on the tabernacle or 
 temple, after the temple was built, to show it was made sacred 
 as the dwelling place of God, or the place where God would 
 meet man to forgive his sins ; the people were sprinkled with 
 the blood to show they were made sacred, or dedicated to God, 
 and could approach him in his dwelling place and at his mercy 
 seat and receive the forgiveness of sins, so far as they could 
 be forgiven by the blood of animals. This blood could not 
 secure final forgiveness. There was a remembrance of sin 
 every year, which required the continual shedding of blood. 
 
Blood of Christ. 61 
 
 " Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were 
 offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that 
 did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; which 
 stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and car- 
 nal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reforma- 
 tion [the coming of Christ]." (Heb. 9: 9, 10.) Sins were for- 
 given only typically and temporarily under this law through 
 the typical blood until Christ came and by the shedding of his 
 blood took away these sins forever. 
 
 Not only were the law, the people, and the tabernacle dedi- 
 cated with blood, but all the vessels of service in the tabernacle 
 were dedicated with blood. The blood on them marked them 
 as purchased and made sacred to the service of God by the 
 blood. Once dedicated to God, they could no more be used 
 for common and profane purposes. " Whereupon neither the 
 first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses 
 had spoken every precept to all the people according to the 
 law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and 
 scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book [of the 
 law], and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testa- 
 ment which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he 
 sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels 
 of the ministry. ... It was therefore necessary that the 
 patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these 
 [bloods of animals] ; but the heavenly things themselves with 
 better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the 
 holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true ; 
 but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God 
 for us : nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high 
 priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of 
 others ; for then must he often have suffered since the founda- 
 tion of the world : but now once in the end of the world hath 
 he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." 
 (Verses 18-26.) In this the points of likeness and of unlike- 
 ness between the types and the antitypes are pointed out. 
 
 The blood of the animals typified the blood of Jesus as " the 
 Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world ; " the 
 tabernacle typified the church of God, dedicated by the blood 
 of Christ; the holy place, the church on earth; the most holy, 
 the dwelling place of God in heaven. The law of Moses, ded- 
 icated with the blood of animals, typified the law of Christ, 
 
62 Blood of Christ. 
 
 dedicated with his blood ; and the vessels of service, all 
 sprinkled with blood, typified the ordinances and services of 
 the church of God, dedicated and confirmed to us by the blood 
 of Jesus Christ, our Lord. 
 
 No Jew could come to God unless he was purified with 
 blood ; no person can come to God acceptably until he is puri- 
 fied from his sins by the blood of Christ. To meet God, he 
 must come to the spiritual temple in which God dwells and in 
 which he will meet to bless those who trust him. 
 
 Under the law of Moses they had the material blood of the 
 animals. It was sprinkled upon the material bodies of the per- 
 sons and things dedicated to God. It was typical of this blood 
 of Christ. But we do not have the material blood of Christ; 
 nor, if we had it, could we apply it to our immaterial, spiritual 
 being, our hearts and our consciences, that need the cleansing. 
 So Jesus, once for all, in the end of his ministry, shed his blood 
 and dedicated with it all the laws, ordinances, and institutions 
 of the new covenant ; and the only way man can come to or 
 appropriate the cleansing efficacy of the blood of the Son of 
 God is to come to and by faith take these laws into the heart 
 and let them control and govern the life. No man can reach 
 or be cleansed by the blood of Christ so long as he refuses to 
 come to the spiritual temple — the church of the living God, 
 sealed with the blood of Christ — and refuses to take into his 
 heart and follow the laws and ordinances sealed by his blood. 
 So the Holy Spirit tells the Hebrew Christians : " But ye are 
 come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, 
 the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of 
 angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, 
 which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and 
 to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the medi- 
 ator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that 
 speaketh better things than that of Abel/' (Heb. 12: 22-24.) 
 In coming to the church of God, they came to all these things, 
 including the blood of Christ. 
 
 Then, Peter says, " Elect according to the foreknowledge 
 of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto 
 obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ " (1 Pet. 
 1:2), showing they came to the blood of Christ in the obedi- 
 ence of God. John says : " But if we walk in the light, as, he 
 is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the 
 
Bondage in Egypt. 63 
 
 blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 
 John 1 : 7.) As we " walk in the light," do the will of God, 
 dedicated by the blood of Jesus, we are cleansed from all sin. 
 Again : " Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, 
 and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : in 
 whom we have redemption through his blood, even the for- 
 giveness of sins.''' (Col. 1 : 13, 14.) The redemption that is 
 purchased by the blood is in Christ ; and into him, his spiritual 
 body, one must enter to reach this redemption of the blood. 
 
 There are other passages of scripture, but they all point to 
 the same truth : Man can reach the cleansing efficacy of the 
 blood of Christ only by taking into his heart the blood-sealed 
 truths and obeying the blood-sealed laws and ordinances dedi- 
 cated by the blood of Christ. Whoever turns from these laws 
 turns from and rejects the blood of Christ. And whoever, 
 brings a service not ordained by God into the service or church 
 of God brings the unclean and the unholy into it ; defiles the 
 temple of God ; treads " under foot the Son of God ; " counts 
 the blood of the Son of God, " wherewith he was sanctified, 
 an unholy thing," and does " despite unto the Spirit of grace." 
 (Heb. 10: 29.) 
 
 While Jesus, as our great High Priest in the holiest, in the 
 presence of God, does not have his material blood to offer, he 
 does plead the sacrifice that he made to redeem men as the 
 ground for the justification of every penitent sinner that comes 
 seeking mercy through the blood of Christ. 
 
 BONDAGE IN EGYPT. 
 
 (1) How lo.ng were the Israelites in Egyptian bondage? 
 
 They were in Egypt probably not over two hundred and 
 fifty years. Before they went to Egypt they were sojourners 
 and wanderers in a land not theirs. From the time of the 
 promise to Abraham until the return from Egypt was four 
 hundred and thirty years. 
 
 (2) What is intended to be taught in Gen. 15: 13; Ex. 12: 40; Gal. 
 3: 17? 
 
 Gal. 3 : 17 tells that the giving of the law at Sinai was four 
 hundred and thirty years after the promise was made to Abra- 
 ham in the gift of Isaac ; and as they were in a land not their 
 own, pilgrims and sojourners, it is all counted as part of their 
 
64 Bondage in Egypt. 
 
 bondage. Gen. 15: 13 is a general statement of the same 
 truth, only it is spoken of in general terms as " four hundred 
 years," not the exact number. Verse 14 means that God would 
 afterwards punish the Egyptians who held them in bondage. 
 He did this in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the 
 Red Sea and the after evils that were brought upon them. 
 The Israelites, notwithstanding their bondage, came out of 
 Egypt with much substance. Ex* 12: 40 gives the exact time 
 of the sojourn in Egypt, counting from the sojourn in Canaan 
 as pilgrims. The Bible sometimes speaks in general terms, 
 as people do. 
 
 BORN AGAIN. 
 
 (1) What is it to be "born again?" (John 3: 1-8.) 
 A birth, as a begun and completed process, is the imparta- 
 tion of a principle of life to matter and a bringing forth of the 
 material being into a state suited to its perpetuation and 
 growth. Jesus, in this illustration, likens the change that 
 takes place in one becoming a Christian to a birth. He says 
 that he " must be born again ; " he was once born of his fleshly 
 parents, but he must now be born of the Spirit in order to see 
 or become a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus did 
 not understand, and asks : " How can a man be born when he 
 is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, 
 and be born ? " Jesus replies : " That which is born of the 
 flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." 
 What was born of your fleshly mother is your flesh ; it is your 
 spirit that must be born of the Spirit. So this is to be a spir- 
 itual birth, as the former one was a fleshly birth. Verse 8, 
 which has been made the ground of much controversy, is but 
 a continuance of the illustration that the new birth affects the 
 unseen spiritual part of man. That which is affected by the 
 Spirit in the birth is the spirit of man, unseen, like the wind 
 that blows. 
 
 The essential elements of a birth are a begettal and deliver- 
 ance. These necessitate a father and a mother. The father 
 begets, imparts to the mother the seed, the life germs, that un- 
 der favorable conditions are quickened and grow into a new 
 being. The mother's womb furnishes these conditions that 
 nurse the seed into life. The life comes from the father 
 
Born Again. 65 
 
 through the seed. The birth of the Spirit involves similar 
 agents and conditions. 
 
 There must be a begetting and a bringing forth, or a deliv- 
 erance, to constitute a birth. God himself, through the Holy 
 Spirit, begets or imparts the spiritual seed. A new life 
 through this seed must be imparted to the heart or soul of the 
 person to be born into the kingdom of God. The word of God 
 is the seed of the kingdom. (Luke 8: 11.) It is the seed in 
 which the germinal principle of spiritual life dwells. It must 
 enter into proper conditions to cause it to be quickened into 
 life. A good and honest heart furnishes these conditions. So 
 when the word of God is received into a good and honest 
 heart, it is quickened into life and produces fruit. The word 
 of God is given by the Spirit of God, and in it the Spirit dwells 
 to impart life to the heart into which it is received. " It is the 
 spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words 
 that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. But 
 there are some of you that believe not." (John 6: 63, 64.) 
 The father imparts the seed to the womb of the mother. The 
 seed is impregnated with the life of the father. This life is 
 dormant until it comes into favorable conditions in the moth- 
 er's womb, when it is quickened and begins to grow into a 
 new being. Now, the word of God is the seed, given by the 
 Holy Spirit and impregnated by the Spirit, that is dormant 
 in the word until it comes into favorable conditions in the 
 heart, when it germinates and produces a new life. The life 
 is in the seed. " The spirit giveth life." (2 Cor. 3 : 6.) Paul 
 says : " For in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the 
 gospel." (1 Cor. 4: 15.) The Holy Spirit in Paul preached 
 the word to the Corinthians ; they received it into the heart as 
 the incorruptible seed, and by it they were begotten or made 
 alive. James says : " Of his own will begat he us with the 
 word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his 
 creatures." (James 1 : 18.) Peter says : " Being born again, 
 not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of 
 God, which liveth and abideth forever." (1 Pet. 1 : 23.) Con- 
 nect this with what Jesus said to Nicodemus, and it is clear 
 that the Holy Spirit begets by imparting the word of God, the 
 incorruptible seed, to the heart of man, and it germinates and 
 becomes a new spiritual being. 
 
 Sometimes it is asked : " What represents the mother in the 
 5 
 
66 Born Again. 
 
 new birth?" The seed is imparted by the father to the 
 mother. The seed is implanted in the heart of man by the 
 Spirit of God. Then the heart of man that receives the word 
 of God fills the place of the mother in receiving and nourish- 
 ing the seed into favorable conditions for its germination and 
 growth into a new being. Then, in order that this new spir- 
 itual life may be manifested to the world in its character as a 
 new spiritual being, God commanded that it should be brought 
 forth of the water in baptism. So the birth is completed, or 
 the deliverance made, in baptism. 
 
 Life is not imparted to the child by the deliverance. The 
 life is imparted by the father, quickened by the favorable con- 
 ditions of the mother. The birth, or deliverance, only passes 
 the preexistent life into a new and favorable state for its 
 growth and development. So baptism imparts no life ; it only 
 delivers the life that has already been developed in a new state 
 and relations suited for its growth. 
 
 This representation of the new birth is figurative, but the 
 explanations correspond to the literal facts in conversion as 
 taught elsewhere in the Scriptures. 
 
 To receive the word of God into the good and understanding 
 heart is to believe with the heart. The influence of that word 
 in the heart leads to repentance, and then the requirement is: 
 " Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
 the remission of sins." (Acts 2: 38.) 
 
 The man who complies with these conditions is born of God, 
 is born of water and of the Spirit. He is a child of God, and 
 he is to grow to be a man in Christ Jesus — that is, the princi- 
 ple of life imparted to him through the reception of the word 
 of God into his heart is really a part of the life of God, im- 
 parted to him, and it is his duty to cherish that principle of 
 the divine life, to feed it on the sincere milk of the word, that 
 it may grow thereby and transform the whole character of 
 the man into the likeness of God. The child thus grows into 
 the likeness of his Father ; and when he attains to the growth 
 that he is able to attain in the flesh, he is transferred to a 
 higher state of being in which- the transformation begun on 
 earth will be completed and perfected into the perfect likeness 
 of Jesus Christ, our elder brother and the first begotten of our 
 Father, " who is the image of the invisible God." " We shall 
 be like him, for we shall see him as he is," and God will share 
 
Born, He that is, of God Cannot Sin. 67 
 
 his blessings and glories with us forever, because we are the 
 sons and daughters of the living God. 
 
 (2) Were John's disciples and those made by Jesus born again? 
 If not, why not? 
 
 The kingdom of God was preached from the days of John 
 the Baptist, and men pressed into it. The disciples of John 
 and of Jesus were so begotten of the word as to believe in 
 Christ. While all claiming to be his disciples were not so be- 
 gotten as to believe in Christ, only those that were so brought 
 to believe were begotten, and only those are embraced in this 
 question, and they were born into the kingdom, then only 
 partially completed, perfected, and furnished. The kingdom, 
 by the mission of Christ and the Spirit, was perfected and 
 completed. Many who, seemingly, were disciples of John re- 
 jected it in its perfected state. Those who accepted it and fed 
 upon this teaching under the personal teachings of Jesus and 
 his disciples became fitted to enjoy it in its completed and per- 
 fected state. 
 
 This growth and adaptation could not be called a birth. If 
 so, the Jew was first begotten and born into the kingdom in 
 its preparatory state, then was again begotten and born into 
 it in its perfected state. The birth fitted and brought the one 
 born to the remission of sins. Its purpose was and is at once 
 to secure remission of sins and to bring the purified soul into 
 the state suited for its growth when its sins are forgiven. 
 
 John's baptism, and certainly that of Jesus, brought the soul 
 to the remission of sins and introduced it into that state in 
 which it could find favorable surroundings and divine help for 
 maintaining freedom from sin and growth in a holy life. 
 
 Now if a man was in a state of forgiveness, why should he 
 be born again? Into what new state is he to be introduced? 
 He, by fidelity in the privileges granted in the preparatory 
 state, was schooled and educated for enjoying the privileges 
 and opportunities of the perfected kingdom, but he was not 
 born into a new state or kingdom. See Water, Born Of. 
 
 BORN, HE THAT IS, OF GOD CANNOT SIN. 
 
 Please explain 1 John 3: 9. Does this passage teach that it is im- 
 possible for those who have been born of God to commit sin? 
 
 It is a passage that there is always difficulty over. We an- 
 swer it, on an average, every three months, I think. It can- 
 
68 Born, He that is, of God Cannot Sin. 
 
 not mean that it is impossible for a man to sin. That contra- 
 dicts too many other passages of scripture. The greatest sin 
 is to think a man cannot sin. That is the presumptuous sin. 
 The best construction I can put on it is that so long as the 
 word of God, which is the seed of the kingdom, remains in his 
 heart, he cannot intentionally live in a course of sin. John, 
 in this Epistle, has been discussing those who claim to have no 
 sin, and so need not the blood of Christ to take away their 
 sin, in contrast with those who are cleansed by his blood 
 through walking in the light as Jesus is in* the light. This 
 contrast he keeps up here, and speaks of those who accept the 
 word of God and cannot live in that course of sin that denies 
 they need the blood of Christ to cleanse them from sin. God 
 warns, " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he 
 fall" (1 Cor. 10: 12) — that is, when he becomes confident he 
 cannot sin, he is in greatest danger of committing the pre- 
 sumptuous 'sin. Man in the flesh never gets above the weak- 
 nesses of mortality. To live free from sin of omission or com- 
 mission is to be equal with Christ Jesus the Lord. 
 
 BRANCHES, WHO ARE THE? 
 
 (1) Please explain John 15: 2-5: " Every branch in me that beareth 
 not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purg- 
 eth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. ... I am the vine, ye are 
 the branches." To whom did Jesus refer as "the branches?'' 
 
 This language was spoken directly to the apostles. They 
 were the branches that received life from him, and they bore 
 the clusters of fruit in the churches planted. Judas was a 
 branch that bore no fruit, and he took him away, severed his 
 connection with the vine, and he went to his own place. Peter 
 and the other apostles were tried, pruned, and disciplined; 
 and by the trials through which they passed they were fitted 
 to do more and better work for the Lord. While these illus- 
 trations applied primarily to the apostles, I do not doubt but 
 they in a secondary sense apply to all Christians. All Chris- 
 tians receive life from Christ, as the branch, from the vine. 
 Those who do nothing and bear no fruit in his service will be 
 lopped off and burned up ; those who are active and alive are 
 trained, pruned, their evil habits cut off, so they come to bear 
 more fruit. 
 
Bread, Should the, Be Broken? 69 
 
 (2) I heard a Methodist preacher say that the branches mentioned 
 in John 15: 1-6 are the different denominations. Was he right? I 
 think he was speaking of his disciples. 
 
 It is very clear that Jesus was the vine and the disciples 
 were the branches. There is no allusion to the churches in 
 the connection. It was before the church was opened to the 
 world. The disciples each was a branch, and, if severed from 
 Christ, must wither and perish. The church was established, 
 was the spiritual body of Christ ; and the individuals were 
 members of that body. Such things as denominational 
 churches were unknown in the days of Jesus and the apostles. 
 They are foretold as the man of sin, the mystery of iniquity, 
 the germs of which had begun to work in Paul's day, but 
 which he hindered until he was taken out of the way. These 
 prophecies are usually referred to the Romish Church, but 
 they embrace all denominational churches alike. They all' 
 have their origin alike in efforts to form a closer union than 
 the apostles left. Romanism had its origin in delegated meet- 
 ings to consult for the common good of all the churches in a 
 given district or country. Out of this start grew by degrees 
 Romanism. These delegated meetings to consider the good 
 of all the churches, advise and direct, grew into the ecclesias- 
 ticism of the Roman Catholic Church. It took several hun- 
 dred years to grow into the papacy, but the same kind of meet- 
 ings was the basis of all denominations. Churches, as God 
 left them, had no other bond of union or fellowship but a com- 
 mon faith in Jesus Christ and mutual love for' one another. 
 Whatsoever is more than this cometh of sin. Denominational 
 churches constitute no part of the body of Christ. They are 
 all sinful and presumptuous, and ought to be abolished. See 
 Man of Sin, The. 
 
 BREAD, SHOULD THE, BE BROKEN BEFORE PASS- 
 ING TO COMMUNICANTS? 
 
 Some of the brethren here believe that after thanksgiving the loaf 
 should not be broken before passing it to communicants; that each is 
 required to break it for himself or herself. In each of the examples 
 given it is said that Jesus took bread, and, after giving thanks, broke 
 it and gave it to them, saying: "This is my body, which is broken for 
 you." The question is: Should the loaf be broken, as the examples 
 show, or should it not? 
 
 I have never seen one word in the Bible regulating these 
 
 things ; so I think they are indifferent. I never think of such 
 
70 Bread, Should the, Be Broken? 
 
 questions unless some one asks them. There is nothing in the 
 Bible to suggest them. They are questions of which the Bible 
 says nothing, and so must be indifferent to the Lord. But 
 there are so many duties of weight and importance demanding 
 attention. I used to see preachers directly called of God break 
 the loaf into small pieces, so each member could take a piece. 
 They seemed to think they stood in the place of Jesus and 
 administered the Supper to the laity, who had no right, save 
 to partake of what the high official administered ; but I thought 
 and hoped all that idea of official grace and authority had been 
 left behind by the disciples, and that all, as kings and priests 
 of the Lord, could partake of it each for himself. I hope no- 
 body assumes to stand in the place of Jesus before his breth- 
 ren and all will partake without contention over untaught 
 questions. The expression, the body " broken," or the 
 " broken body," is found only once in the Common Version, 
 and it is left out of the American Revised Version as an inter- 
 polation. The body of Christ was pierced and bruised, but a 
 bone of him was not broken. 
 
 BREAD, WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE, LEFT 
 AFTER COMMUNION? 
 
 It has been customary at our Lord's-day meetings after dismissing 
 the congregation to give the remainder of the loaf of the Lord's Sup- 
 per to the little children. One of our members believes this to be 
 wrong, and will not permit her child to eat it. Not wishing to offend 
 any brother or sister by our actions in this matter, and especially 
 wishing to discontinue the habit if sinful, we would like to know what 
 disposition ought to be made of the remnant of the Supper. 
 
 I do not think the Bible teaches anything as to what is to 
 be done with what remains of the loaf. So it is a matter of 
 indifference. Still, I think it very bad taste, and it grates 
 harshly on my feelings, to see children running up to the table 
 for the bread so soon as the audience is dismissed. They 
 would not do it if they were not accustomed to it. If the 
 children need feeding at the meetinghouse, bring them a bis- 
 cuit, and nobody's sense of propriety is offended. It is easy 
 to settle these indifferent questions when each esteems the 
 other better than himself and is anxious to offend the feelings 
 of none. 
 
Cain's Wife. 71 
 
 BREAK BREAD, SHOULD FOUR? 
 
 When as many as four who claim to be Christians can meet on the 
 first day of the week and they refuse to do so, can they be saved? 
 What is just one to do who has the courage and no one will meet 
 with him? Can he be saved? 
 
 When there are four or three or two who can meet together 
 and worship, and they refuse to do it, they fall under the con- 
 demnation of the Lord. How much he will overlook our fail- 
 ures to perform his will, I cannot tell, but it is a fearful thing 
 to take such risks in neglecting the service of God. That one 
 can be indifferent to this service of God shows a lack of fit- 
 ness for enjoying the blessings of God. He never sends bless- 
 ings on those unfit to receive them. One alone may accepta- 
 bly serve God, and this example, with continued admonition, 
 might move others to the performance of duty. Christians 
 are poorly taught who think they will be excused from serving 
 God because only a few are willing to engage in the service. 
 
 BURIAL AND THE LORD'S-DAY SERVICE. 
 
 Do you think it is right for a cqngregation to set aside the worship 
 of God to attend to the funeral services of one of its members? 
 
 The burial service of one of its members ought not to be 
 so arranged as to interfere with the Lord's Supper. The idea 
 that a burial must set aside everything else is a wrong idea. 
 Jesus says : " Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead." 
 While this does not mean that no attention is to be given to 
 the burial of the dead, it does mean that there are more impor- 
 tant matters. When a Christian dies, the burial ought to be 
 so arranged that it will not interfere with other duties and 
 services. In the same line bereaved Christians often make the 
 death of a friend an excuse for staying away from the service 
 of God. This is a strange course. It seems that bereavement 
 and sorrow should lead us closer to Christ, to a more faithful 
 observance of his appointments. In that service we can find 
 comfort and solace for the sorrows of life. A true estimate 
 of service will make us draw closer to God when trouble and 
 sorrow come upon us. 
 
 CAIN'S WIFE. 
 
 When God put the mark on Cain, les.t any man should kill him, 
 who was in that land to kill him? (Gen. 4: 15.) Whose daughter 
 was the wife of Cain? (Gen. 4: 17.) And who were the sons of God 
 
72 Cain's Wife. 
 
 and the daughters of men that were taken for wives, as spoken of in 
 Gen. 6: 2? The scientific world at one time advanced the idea, and 
 chose the quotations as proof, that the world was peopled before the 
 days of Adam, thus destroying the Mosaic account of creation. 
 
 God has purposely left things so that those who wish to dis- 
 believe in him can find ample excuse for so doing. He has 
 left ample ground for all who desire to serve and honor him 
 to do so. He wishes service from the heart and no other. He 
 has given ground for men to believe in him, although difficul- 
 ties exist in the way. God never made a smooth path for man 
 to travel through life. He wants a faith able to* surmount ob- 
 stacles and to overcome difficulties. It is a poor, weak, and 
 worthless faith that halts and staggers at every difficulty it 
 finds in the way. Yet it is strange that men should rely upon 
 the statements of Moses to overthrow the account of Moses. 
 We might prove by Moses that a theory men adopt concerning 
 his statements is incorrect ; but unless we convict him as un- 
 trustworthy, we could not set aside his statements by his state- 
 ments. If he is untrustworthy, his statements can prove only 
 his untrustworthiness. 
 
 The trouble in all the questions propounded is in men as- 
 suming that they know what they do not. They assume that 
 Cain was the firstborn of Adam and Eve, but nobody knows 
 this. God created man to " be fruitful, and multiply, and re- 
 plenish the earth, and subdue it." They were healthy, vig- 
 orous, prolific. How long they remained in Eden we do not 
 know. Children may have been born to them in Eden even. 
 Their first and chief business was to " be fruitful, and multi- 
 ply." There is no evidence that Cain was the firstborn. He 
 may or may not have been. Moses mentions only those whose 
 examples teach, instruct, warn, or encourage men. He gave 
 a record of the line of descent to Abraham and Jesus Christ. 
 They may have had a hundred children before Cain was born. 
 These, in the days of strength and vigor that would perpetu- 
 ate life for nearly a thousand years, would begin early to bear 
 children. We do not know how old Cain was when the occur- 
 rences took place. Moses said, " in process of time," which 
 would indicate a long period. No death had occurred save 
 that of Abel, so far as the record shows, and there may have 
 been thousands of the descendants of Adam living at the time 
 Cain murdered Abel. Some of these may have been in the 
 
Capital Punishment. 73 
 
 land of Nod. Among these, Cain no doubt found his wife, and 
 these might kill him. 
 
 " The sons of God " were probably the sons of the families 
 that remained faithful to God. The sons of men were of the 
 rebellious families, like Cain. The families generally had be- 
 come wicked. The members of the faithful families married 
 the daughters of those unfaithful, and so all were corrupted, 
 and God brought the flood of destruction upon them. 
 
 No one knows or can know anything of these matters, save 
 what is written in the book of Genesis. Only fools build the- 
 ories on what no man can know. Speculations about the 
 things of which we can know nothing are unprofitable. Men 
 who make these things of which there can be nothing known 
 a ground for objecting to the word of God will never make 
 Christians. Christians are not made of people who reject. 
 God's statements with theories based on their ignorance. 
 
 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. 
 
 Some think that the Bible teaches it is right to hang people. I, for 
 one, do not believe it right under the law of Christ. Can the advo- 
 cates of capital punishment sustain their position by the New Testa- 
 ment teachings? 
 
 I have no doubt but that God intends, in the present sinful 
 condition of men, that they should hang and kill and destroy 
 one another until they learn to trust and obey him. War and 
 capital punishment are the same in principle. War is the ef- 
 fort of a nation to execute capital punishment upon a multi- 
 tude of offenders. Executing a criminal is society or the gov- 
 ernment waging war upon one who has offended against so- 
 ciety. God says that the human government is his minister 
 to execute wrath on the evil doer. (Read Rom. 12: 19-21; 
 13 : 1-7.) I do not think society is in a condition that the 
 world can get along yet without war and bloodshed and exe- 
 cuting criminals, but the Christian should have no part in it. 
 
 The New Testament gives no rule regulating civil govern- 
 ments or civil officers. It gives rules and regulations to gov- 
 ern Christians. Christians cannot take vengeance or execute 
 wrath. The weapons of the Christian's warfare are not carnal, 
 but spiritual, and " mighty before God to the casting down of 
 strongholds." (2 Cor. 10: 4.) Christians cannot use carnal 
 weapons. But the civil ruler is God's minister " to execute 
 wrath upon him that doeth evil" (Rom. 13: 4), which shows 
 
74 Capital Punishment. 
 
 Christians cannot become rulers. So Christians cannot exe- 
 cute capital punishment, and nothing is taught on the subject 
 in the New Testament. There is not a word in the New Tes- 
 tament telling how persons as civil rulers shall act. This is 
 the best evidence that no Christian should participate in man- 
 aging human governments. The Scriptures tell how a Chris- 
 tian should act as father, son, brother, sister, neighbor, 
 stranger, friend, enemy, toward the poor and the rich, and how 
 he should act as a subject of human government, but not a 
 word as to how he should act as a ruler or active participant 
 in human government. What does such a condition mean ? 
 
 CARD PLAYING AT HOME. 
 
 Is there any harm in a church members' playing social games of 
 cards at home? Does the Bible condemn such? 
 
 Playing cards under such or under any circumstances is un- 
 doubtedly wrong. Christians are commanded to avoid the 
 very appearance of evil. " Destroy not with thy meat him for 
 whom Christ died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of. 
 . . . So then let us follow after things which make for 
 peace, and things whereby we may edify one another. Over- 
 throw not for meat's sake the work of God. . . . It is good 
 not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby 
 thy brother stumbleth." (Rom. 14: 15-21.) "And thus, sin- 
 ning against the brethren, and wounding their conscience 
 when it is weak, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat 
 causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for ever- 
 more, that I cause not my brother to stumble." (1 Cor. 8: 12, 
 13.) Certainly card playing comes under the condemnation 
 of these scriptures, with a number of others. Card playing is 
 the commonest method of gambling, stands associated with it, 
 and leads to it. People learn to play cards and are then con- 
 tinually tempted to gamble. This is especially so with the 
 young. I do not see how a man could encourage gambling 
 more effectively than by encouraging them to play cards. It 
 would be more effective than to encourage gambling directly. 
 If this were done, men would see the evil and draw back ; but 
 they are encouraged to play cards as an innocent pastime, and 
 then they are brought under the influence of the gambler. 
 Many youths are tempted and led into gambling by virtue 
 of having learned to play cards. No Christian can set an ex- 
 
Childbearing. 75 
 
 ample that so certainly leads into the most ruinous sins and 
 practices that carry so many down to ruin. The Christian 
 is to set examples of good, not of evil ; examples that draw 
 men away from the paths of ruin, not those that drag them 
 down. The social game of cards, the social dance, and the 
 social dram are all of a class that lead to much evil and no 
 good. It would be hard to tell whether gambling or drunken- 
 ness or lewdness is the more corrupting and widespread evil. 
 They go hand in hand, and the young are led into the tempta- 
 tion by these social games in which they engage, and to which 
 they are encouraged at the homes of professed Christians. 
 But no one whose heart is under the influence of the Spirit of 
 God can encourage in these practices that bring evil. A man 
 cannot do this and maintain the respect of his fellow-man as a 
 Christian. See Race Course, Christians at The. 
 
 CHILDBEARING. 
 
 Is it not rebellion against God when it comes to parents' refusing 
 to rear a family — to increase? I know a sister who says that she had 
 rather die than give birth to another child. I know mothers who ad- 
 vise their children not to allow their families to grow larger. Could 
 you state if parents can " overdo " the matter — rear more children 
 than they can properly look after and educate? 
 
 A woman that is not willing to bear children ought not to 
 marry. It is too late to come to this conclusion after mar- 
 riage. People marry to gratify the lusts of each other, and 
 Paul says : " Because of [or to avoid] fornications, let each 
 man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own 
 husband. Let the husband render unto the wife her due: and 
 likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not 
 power over her own body, but the husband : and likewise also 
 the husband hath not power over his own body, but the wife. 
 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be by consent for a 
 season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer, and may be 
 together again, that Satan tempt you not because of your in- 
 continency." (1 Cor. 7: 2-5.) This defines that the husband 
 and the wife are to seek to gratify each other, and not them- 
 selves, in the relations, lest through inability of one or the 
 other to restrain the lusts they be led into fornication. This, 
 with healthy people, usually leads to childbearing. The effort 
 to avoid childbearing while in the marriage relation is to 
 fight against the order of God. It destroys a living, though 
 
7$ Childbearing. 
 
 unborn, child, and endangers the health of the mother. To 
 prevent conception is to prevent the existence of a being that 
 would be eternal. Then, when does a child become a person? 
 For a mother to destroy the child that has been begotten and 
 to slink an unborn child in her own womb is close akin to 
 child murder. Efforts to avoid conception, slinking the un- 
 born child, and child murder seem to be kindred acts. The 
 course is closely connected with the most degrading forms of 
 lascivibusness. A woman's slinking the child in her own 
 womb is a degrading and disgraceful thought. 
 
 This aversion to childbearing arises from the unnatural and 
 false life people are now living. The family and home life is 
 neglected and despised. Children and the home life go to- 
 gether; they cannot exist separately. A boarding-house, or 
 gad-around, life of the present day is not favorable to bearing 
 and training children. The religious life of women of the 
 present day is not promotive of child rearing and training. 
 Women who attend conventions and manage societies and 
 whoop up the religious meetings of the present age have no 
 time or taste for being "keepers at home" or bearing and 
 Training children. The society life of the present day is also 
 inimical to childbearing and true home life. 
 , But, despite these influences and tendencies, it is true that 
 the true mission of women is to marry, bear children, guide 
 the house, and be " keepers at home ; " and their highest hap- 
 piness and greatest usefulness are found in their fulfilling this 
 God-given mission. The country, true social good, and the 
 church of God can never attain to permanent good until 
 women seek their truest good in being " keepers at home " and 
 jn bearing and training children for the Lord. 
 
 CHRIST OUR ALTAR. See Altar, Leave Thy Gifts Before 
 The. 
 
 CHRISTIANS, ARE THEY? 
 
 We have a people in this community who have submitted to the 
 form of doctrine (Rom. 6: 17) delivered unto them, and seem to be 
 very zealous for the spread of the gospel, and are very charitable; 
 but in their zeal they have changed God's order of worship, turning 
 it into a musical entertainment, and have formed societies of every 
 kind through which to do the work God has assigned to the church, 
 admitting at the same time that they have changed from the original 
 order; but they justify themselves on the ground that other people 
 
Christians, Are They? 77* 
 
 have these things and that they must keep abreast of the times; and 
 since there is liberty in Christ, they have a right to change this order 
 as the exigencies of the case may require. In view of what I have 
 said, are these people entitled to be called Christians in the true 
 sense? 
 
 A follower of Christ is a Christian. One must take Christ 
 as his only Lawgiver, Ruler, Leader, and Governor ; his 
 Prophet (teacher), Priest (intercessor), and King (ruler). 
 We must seek to think like Christ, to feel and purpose as 
 Christ did, act as Christ acted, and in all things seek to follow 
 him. That we might do this, he was clothed in flesh, that we, 
 while in the flesh, might see and know him and his actions and 
 might follow his example in his fleshly walk. 
 
 The heart, the inner man, thinks, feels, purposes. Solomon 
 says : " Keep thy heart with all diligence ; for out of it are the 
 issues of life." (Prov. 4: 23.) This means all the purposes 
 and courses of life originate in and flow out from the heart, 
 If the life is to be kept right, then the heart must be guarded, 
 must be kept true and pure, with all diligence. If the fountain 
 is impure, the stream must be defiled. If the heart is impure, 
 the life must be corrupt and sinful ; hence, guard it, keep it, 
 with all diligence. 
 
 The heart is composed of the mind, the emotions, and the 
 will. The mind must be taught properly, that it may en- 
 lighten and direct the emotions ; and the emotions, rightly di- 
 rected, guide the will and form the purposes of the heart that 
 control and guide the life of man. We must begin with the 
 heart, enlighten the mind, purify and direct the feeling's and 
 emotions, and so rightly form the purposes of the heart. 
 
 To follow Jesus, we must first be like him in heart. Our 
 minds must be enlightened by his teachings, our feelings and 
 emotions must be moved by the same motives that prevailed 
 in his heart, and then the purposes of the will must be like 
 his will and purposes. The highest desire of Jesus was to do 
 the will of his Father. " I came down from heaven, not to 
 do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 
 6: 38.) "I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Fa- 
 ther which hath sent me." (John 5 : 30.) His prayer, facing 
 the agonies of the cross, was : " Not my will, but thine, be 
 done." (Luke 22: 42.) The constant prayer of all the chil- 
 dren of God must be: " Thy will be done in earth, as it is in 
 heaven." (Matt. 6: 10.) The fundamental, ruling desire of 
 
78 Christians, Are They? 
 
 every child of God is to do the will of God, to subjugate his 
 own will to the will of God in all things. The heart that is 
 pure toward God desires this above all things. 
 
 The heart, then, that desires to change the law and order of 
 God in anything is not right in the sight of God. This has 
 been the test of fidelity to God in all ages and under all dis- 
 pensations of God to man. It was so in Eden ; the desire to 
 substitute something else for the will of God despoiled Eden 
 of its purity and sent the human family down the course of 
 sin and sorrow and death. In the days of Abel, Noah, Abra- 
 ham, David, Jesus Christ, and Paul, this was the rule and the 
 test of fidelity to and acceptance with God. The person that 
 does not seek to do the will of God is no servant of God, no 
 matter how kind and charitable he be. A man's heart may be 
 perfect, and yet he fall into sin. David was a man after God's 
 own heart, yet fell into grievous sin. " The heart of Asa was 
 perfect all his days," yet he fell into sin that brought the pun- 
 ishment of God upon him. It means that, while the desire 
 and purposes of the heart are to serve God, the fleshly ap- 
 petites and passions may tempt a man into sin. So there is 
 always necessity for watchfulness and carefulness, lest, with 
 the best intentions and purposes of the heart, we sin through 
 fleshly temptation and desire. 
 
 There are two classes of sins — one, the sin of the spirit, or 
 heart, that sets aside purposely the law of God; the other, 
 the sin of the flesh, that is drawn into sin contrary to the de- 
 sires of the heart. The latter sin, if it is persisted in, over- 
 comes and perverts the spirit, or heart, and drags the man 
 into willful sin. The sin of the heart is the presumptuous 
 sin. It consciously and purposely sets aside the law of God 
 and substitutes for the law or appointment of God something 
 that the person thinks will do better or is more effective in 
 honoring God and saving men. The motive of doing good 
 may prompt it. But it is presumption that dares to think 
 man can improve on the appointments of God. It shows a 
 lack of appreciation of God as the all-wise and omnipotent 
 Ruler of the heavens and the earth ; it exalts the frail judg- 
 ment of man above the wisdom of God; it is presumptuous 
 assertion of man's superiority to God. God cannot tolerate 
 this. He cannot forgive it when it is deliberately planned and 
 persisted in. 
 
Christmas. 79 
 
 It was a sin of this character that Saul committed in chang- 
 ing the order of God to slay the fatlings in the land of Amalek. 
 It is this character of sin that James condemns : " For whoso- 
 ever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, 
 he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, 
 said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet 
 if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law." 
 (James 2: 10, 11.) The setting aside the law in one point 
 was the presumptuous turning from God's commandment to 
 the wisdom of men. This is a sin that rejects God, and he 
 who does it in the least commandments of God is not a true 
 servant of God. He is not worthy to be called a " Christian." 
 
 There is much meaningless and hurtful talk of Christians 
 that depart from the order of God. All talk of men who 
 change the order, or law, of God in the slightest particular 
 being Christians, or children of God, is vain and misleading. 
 It deceives them ; it deceives and misleads the public. Men 
 who consciously change, or modify, add to or take from, the 
 law of God in the slightest particulars are not Christians ; it 
 is misleading to call them so. Churches that change, add to, 
 or take from the commandments of God are not churches of 
 Christ ; it is sinful to so call them. There ought to be a clear 
 and wide distinction between those who follow God's laws and 
 those who depart from them. He who is not for God in such 
 issues is against him. Be true to God. 
 
 CHRISTMAS. 
 
 (1) Please answer the following question: Give an account of the 
 true origin of Christmas. Has it any connection with the church of 
 Christ? 
 
 McClintock and Strong's " Encyclopedia " says : " The ob- 
 servance of Christmas is not of divine appointment, nor is it 
 of New Testament origin. The day of Christ's birth cannot 
 be ascertained from the New Testament, or, indeed, from any 
 other source. The fathers of the first three centuries do not 
 speak of any special observance of the nativity." It grew up 
 in the latter part of the third century and the earlier years of 
 the fourth century. The " Encyclopedia " further says : " The 
 institution may be sufficiently explained by the circumstance 
 that it was the taste of the age to multiply festivals, and that 
 the analogy of other events in our Savior's history, which had 
 
80 Christmas. 
 
 already been marked by a distinct celebration, may naturally 
 have pointed out the propriety of marking his nativity with 
 the same honorable distinction." There has never been agree- 
 ment as to the day or month of his birth; it has been fixed 
 by different writers for every month in the year. The 
 churches of Western Europe finally settled on December 25. 
 It was at the end of the year, the time of festivity and giving 
 of gifts among the heathen nations, and it has grown into use 
 by the Catholic Church and the Episcopal Church, and gradu- 
 ally by all the Protestant churches. 
 
 (2) Should any true Christian recognize and reverence this day 
 above any other? 
 
 There is no authority for its observance, and its observance 
 is no more binding than that of any other day; indeed, it is a 
 misfortune to have a day of this kind observed religiously that 
 is not appointed by God. It has a tendency to destroy the 
 distinction between things human and divine. There is no 
 sin in observing it as a day of thanksgiving and for giving 
 gifts as thanks for the blessings of the year, but it is a sin to 
 observe it as consecrated to God. 
 
 CHURCH AND SUNDAY SCHOOL. 
 
 I want you to tell me the difference, if any, between the church 
 and Sunday school as organized bodies. Should they be run sepa- 
 rately, or should the church control the school — I mean literally? 
 
 It is the privilege and duty of every Christian to use every 
 opportunity that offers to teach the word of God to others. 
 This teaching may be done to one alone, to a class, or a pro- 
 miscuous audience, as the qualifications of the teacher and the 
 surroundings may suggest is best. This is all to be done in 
 accordance with the laws of Christ, in violation of no law 
 laid down. It is to be done in the name of Christ, as a mem- 
 ber of his body. We cannot do a thing in the name of Christ 
 when it is done as a member of a body not authorized by him. 
 Christ never ordained any organization except his churches. 
 In these, as members of his body, his children must work. 
 No Sunday school or missionary or charitable organization 
 outside of his church has ever been authorized. No Christian 
 has a right to work in any of these human organizations. He 
 must do what he does as a member of the body of Christ. 
 Acting as a member of that body, he must do it with a proper 
 
Church, the, Compared to the Human Body. 81 
 
 regard for the members of that body. The elders are made 
 the rulers, to see God's laws carried out. 
 
 Work ought to be done in harmony with this position of 
 the elders. This does not mean that they should never work 
 save as the elders direct, or that they should wait for the elders 
 to tell them before they work. Unfortunately, some get in as 
 elders who never direct or advise work. In the church the 
 elders should see all work is done, as the Bible directs, teach 
 the Bible, do all in the name of Christ. But when men are 
 away from the church and opportunity offers, they should 
 teach — teach individuals and classes as opportunity offers. 
 They should do it as members of the church, and not as 
 members of some human organization. Paul and Barnabas 
 preached thus, and then reported their work to the church. 
 It is a good example to follow. These inspired men of God 
 honored God's church, and, notwithstanding their inspiration, 
 they honored the elders of the churches. We would do well 
 to follow their examples and in all things honor the church 
 of God, and do all that we do as members of that church, and 
 all in the name of Christ Jesus. Then no one should work as 
 a member of any association save the church of Christ. All 
 should be under the direction or oversight of the elders. A 
 Sunday school should be nothing more than the church 
 through its members teaching the word of God. 
 
 CHURCH, THE, COMPARED TO THE HUMAN BODY. 
 
 An apologist for the innovations that are being pressed into the 
 churches compared the church to the human body in this way. He 
 said: "The human body is composed of different organs and mem- 
 bers. Some of these organs, or members, are vital, necessary to the 
 life of the body — such as the heart, the liver, the lungs, and the stom- 
 ach. Without these the body cannot live or exist. Then there are 
 other members — as the hands, the feet, and the eyes — that are not 
 vital organs; they are not necessary to the life or existence of the 
 body. The body may exist and live without these. So the church, 
 as the body of Christ, is composed of parts, or organs. Some of 
 these are vital, necessary to the existence of the church— such as faith, 
 repentance, and baptism. Others are not vital or necessary to the life 
 or^ sustenance of the church — such as the organ, societies, etc." Is 
 this illustration an apt one? 
 
 The illustration is an apt one if rightly applied. In the first 
 place, every organ or member set in the human body by God 
 is vital or necessary to the performance of the work God ap- 
 pointed it to perform. The foot is essential to walking; the 
 
 eye, to seeing; and the hand, to doing the work of the hand. 
 6 
 
82 Church, the, Compared to the Human Body. 
 
 That work of God ceases when the member God appointed 
 to do it is destroyed. Sometimes when the member God ap- 
 pointed is destroyed, an artificial or man-made member is sup- 
 plied, but fails to do the work the natural or God-made mem- 
 ber performs. An artificial foot or hand is a poor substitute 
 for the God-given one. An artificial eye may deceive the peo- 
 ple, but can never see. What this man calls the organs not 
 vital to the church are not organs or members of the church, 
 or body of Christ. They are artificial, man-made members. 
 The organs God gave to do the work are the churches them- 
 selves, with the members for the work and the human voices 
 for the worship. These, like the hands* and feet of the human 
 body, may not be necessary to the bare life or existence of the 
 body, but are vital and necessary to the work and worship and 
 the growth and vigor of the body. Sometimes the church fails 
 to use its natural members to do the service God ordained 
 them to do, and then substitutes artificial members or man- 
 made substitutes to do the work the real organs or members 
 fail to do. The whole thing is a miserable makeshift and a 
 failure. No life or warmth or vigor can ever dwell in or pass 
 through these artificial limbs ; no spiritual life or warmth or 
 vigor can ever dwell in or pass through these artificial addi- 
 tions to the church of God. The whole work of substituting 
 these man-made or artificial organs, or works, to do the work 
 of the church destroys the true work of God, drives out the 
 Spirit and life of God. The whole business of mending the 
 body of Christ, of patching up and changing the church of 
 God, drives out the Spirit, and is an insult to God. 
 
 CHURCH ESTABLISHED. 
 
 When was the church of God set up? Give a complete answer. I 
 am a new reader, and want to know the truth. 
 
 The preparation for the establishment of the church was go. 
 ing on from the sin of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden. 
 The patriarchal dispensation down to the days of Moses pre- 
 pared for the dispensation of Moses. During the patriarchal 
 age the promise of a Savior was made to Abraham. The Jew- 
 ish law was then added because of transgressions, and it was 
 intended to prepare more specially for the establishment of 
 the church of God. John the Baptist was then sent as the 
 forerunner of Christ. He preached, " The kingdom of heaven 
 
Church Fairs and Suppers. 83 
 
 is at hand " — close by. It was said from the days of John the 
 Baptist the kingdom of heaven was preached, and all men 
 press into it. John prepared a people for the coming of Mes- 
 siah. Jesus came, taught those prepared by John, and chose 
 his twelve apostles that were to go forth and preach to all the 
 people. He told these apostles to tarry at Jerusalem until 
 they were endued with power from on high. The Holy Spirit 
 would guide them into the fullness of all truth and call to their 
 remembrance all things taught by Jesus. They remained at 
 Jerusalem for about ten days after the ascension of Jesus, 
 when the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles, and under 
 his direction the apostles taught the people and made known 
 the conditions of salvation to the world. This is recognized 
 as the opening of the church to the world. (See Acts 2.) See 
 Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 
 
 CHURCH FAIRS AND SUPPERS. 
 
 There has been much talk and a great deal written that I have seen 
 about church suppers, fairs, and the like. They "have been very much 
 condemned by some, I among the number. Because raffling, extor- 
 tion, and other things are frequently forbidden by the Scriptures, 
 therefore I condemn all together, judging the supper by the company 
 it generally keeps. Would it be out of harmony with the teaching of 
 the Scriptures to make cake and ice cream to sell at reasonable prices, 
 also to sell cakes and bouquets at auction? Is it wrong when hon- 
 estly conducted? The Book teaches us to "work with our hands the 
 thing that is good, that we may have to give to him that needeth." 
 
 The Bible clearly teaches that all gifts to the Lord shall be 
 freewill offerings of that which is honestly made. Selling 
 cakes and bouquets and ice cream is a legitimate business for 
 any individual to follow ; and if they do it in their own names 
 and then freely give the money made to the Lord, no one would 
 ever object. But to do it as a church festival to raise money 
 for the church is sin, no matter how honestly conducted, be- 
 cause that is not the Lord's way of raising money. That is 
 feeding the flesh, pampering it to induce those not willing to 
 give to the Lord to part with their money for the Lord. If 
 the fair is held for the benefit of the church, and is so adver- 
 tised, the money does not belong to those who hold the fair. 
 They cannot give it. It was held for the benefit of the church. 
 The man who paid the money did not give it to the church : 
 he gave it for the supper. It is the church held up as a beggar, 
 and men's appetites are appealed to to induce them to give 
 
84 Church Fairs and Suppers. 
 
 what they are not willing to give the church. Mind you, if a 
 sister would sell the things legitimately in her own name to 
 make money, and then give of her money, it would be all right. 
 If the Savior scourged those who sold doves in the earthly 
 temple, doubly he would scourge the traffickers out of his 
 spiritual temple. If it polluted that, doubly so it does this. 
 
 CHURCH IN THE WILDERNESS. 
 
 Please explain Acts 7: 38. Who is it "that was in the church in 
 the wilderness?" If it was Christ, did not his church exist before 
 Pentecost, and even before John the Baptist? In what sense did the 
 church exist at that time? 
 
 This says Moses was with the church in the wilderness. 
 But Christ was with them, too, just as through Noah he 
 preached to the spirits in prison. The word church did not 
 in primitive times have as specific meaning as we give it. The 
 word ekklesia, which is translated church, came nearer cor- 
 responding to the word assembly, or congregation. It applied 
 to any assembly or separating of one class of people from an- 
 other, no matter whether the separation was for religious pur- 
 poses or not. In Acts 19: 32-41 we have an account of an 
 unlawful assembly in Ephesus that sought to kill Paul. It is 
 called in the original tongue ekklesia, and is translated assem- 
 bly in English. The word church then meant an assembly or 
 a body or class of people separated from others. The children 
 of Israel, separated from all other people called out of Egypt, 
 were an ekklesia, and it is translated church. It would have 
 been just as proper to have called it the assembly, or congre- 
 gation. The translators called only those separated to the 
 service of God church ; others, assemblies. It only means that 
 the people in the wilderness, of whom Moses was the leader, 
 were an assembly separated for the service of God. There 
 was probably then a Jewish church, or assembly, and a church 
 of Christ. One was regulated by the law of Moses, the other 
 was regulated by the law of Jesus Christ. One was in many 
 respects an earthly type of the other, but a type and the thing 
 typified are not one and the same ; so while there was a church 
 in the days of Moses and one in the days of the apostles, they 
 were not the same church. One prepared for the other and is 
 typical of the other. 
 
Church Treasury. 85 
 
 CHURCH RECORD. 
 
 Ought a church to keep a record of the names of its members and 
 the amount of money received and how spent? 
 
 The church must know its members, and each member must 
 know and work with each other. This knowledge is abso- 
 lutely necessary to the work of the church. Then the list 
 must be kept. It must be kept in the memory or by notches 
 on a stick, recollecting whom each notch represents, or it must 
 be written in a book. God has not said how it should be done, 
 but " let all things be done decently and in order." Most men 
 of sense would prefer the list in a. book. 
 
 Paul shows a high degree of caution, lest his good name 
 should be spoken evil of. He would not carry the means col- 
 lected at Corinth to Judea, but insisted they should send their 
 own approved messengers. No man or set of men who re- 
 gard their own character will handle money for a church or 
 any one else without keeping such an account of receipts and 
 expenditures, with proper vouchers as to how it was used. 
 A man who would not do this is not fit to handle money for 
 any one. When the contribution is made, it should be the 
 duty of one to count it and turn it over to the treasurer and 
 both keep an account of it. This is necessary to the protection 
 of the treasurer's character. Things are not done decently 
 and in order that do not protect the characters of the servants. 
 These are small things, but proper attention to them saves big 
 troubles. 
 
 CHURCH TREASURY. 
 
 (1) I would like for you to inform us whether or not it is right to 
 have a treasury in the church, for it is our purpose, through God's as- 
 sistance, to carry into effect the teaching of God. 
 
 It is singular to me how a doubt about this can arise in the 
 mind of any sane man. God's people always had a treasury. 
 Its fullness and use were always the tests of fidelity to God. 
 Among the Jews the first fruits, the tenth, the freewill offer- 
 ings and the thank offerings, and all the devoted things taken 
 in war went into the treasury. (Read Lev. 27: 30-32; Num. 
 18 : 26 ; Deut. 14 : 22-24 ; 1 Chron. 29 : 8 ; Ez. 2 : 69 ; Neh.7 : 70 ; 
 etc.) Then in Mai. 3: 8-11 God charged them with robbing 
 him in withholding the tithes from his treasury. "J esus sat 
 over against the treasury," and saw the rich cast in their much 
 
86 Church Treasury. 
 
 and the poor widow cast in her all. (Mark 12: 41-44.) It 
 Was not lawful to put the blood money of Judas into the treas- 
 ury. (Matt. 27: 6.) Jesus and the disciples had a treasury 
 out of which they paid for things needed in the worship of 
 God and gave to the poor. (John 13 : 27-29.) Then in the 
 first church at Jerusalem they " had all things common." 
 (Acts 2 : 44.) " Neither was there any among them that 
 lacked : for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold 
 them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and 
 laid them down at the apostles' feet : and distribution was 
 made unto every man according as he had need." (Acts 4: 
 34, 35.) This means a common treasury from which the poor 
 were helped under the direction of the apostles. The apostles 
 could not give needed attention to the distribution of the treas- 
 ury, so they appointed seven persons to do this. (Acts 6: 
 1-6.) The first fruit of an earnest church was a full treasury, 
 and these men were appointed to distribute it. These are gen- 
 erally supposed to be deacons, and without a treasury there 
 is no work for deacons in a church. 
 
 "And the disciples, every man according to his ability, de- 
 termined to send relief unto the brethren that dwelt in Judea : 
 which also they did, sending it to the elders by the hand of 
 Barnabas and Saul." (Acts 11: 29, 30.) It does not say it 
 was first gathered into the church treasury, but it was sent 
 to the elders of the churches and constituted a treasury un- 
 der the elders of the churches in Judea until it was distributed 
 to the poor. From proceedings in similar cases, we may know 
 it was first collected into the treasury of the churches before 
 sent by Barnabas and Saul. Afterwards there was widespread 
 famine throughout Judea. " Now concerning the collection 
 for the saints, as I gave order to the churches of Galatia, so 
 also do ye." (1 Cor. 16: 1.) The order had been given to the 
 churches of Galatia, and is now given to the church at Corinth 
 and throughout Achaia, to raise contributions. These contri- 
 butions were cast into the treasury, that no collections should 
 be made when Paul came. Then the churches were to choose 
 those they desired to carry their bounty to the church at Je- 
 rusalem. " Moreover, brethren, we make known to you the 
 grace of God which hath been given in the churches of Mac- 
 edonia." (2 Cor. 8: 1.) He tells this grace of these churches 
 were the contributions they gave of their own accord to help 
 
Church Treasury. 87 
 
 the poor. The churches were doing this. "And we have sent 
 together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is 
 spread through all the churches ; and not only so, but who was 
 also appointed by the churches to travel with us in the matter 
 of this grace, which is ministered by us." (Verses 18, 19.) 
 Those who were sent out to gather up and carry this collec- 
 tion — they " are the messengers of the churches, they are the 
 glory of Christ." (Verse 23.) This collection was made by 
 and in the churches by putting it into the treasury. The 
 churches chose those who carried it to the needy, called " the 
 messengers of the churches." None of this could be done un- 
 less the churches had treasuries to receive and dispense. 
 
 Paul says : " I robbed other churches, taking wages of them." 
 (2 Cor. 11:8.) Churches could not pay wages unless they had 
 a treasury out of which to pay them. He says the church at, 
 Corinth was " inferior to other churches," in that he had not 
 been chargeable to them ; other churches had supported him. 
 (See 2 Cor. 12: 13.) "When I departed from Macedonia, no 
 church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and re- 
 ceiving but ye only ; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and 
 again unto my need." (Phil. 4: 15, 16.) The churches sent 
 to him to relieve his necessities. Churches could do these 
 things only through church treasuries.. Paul says : " Let none 
 be enrolled as a widow [to be supported by the church] un- 
 der threescore years old." (1 Tim. 5: 9.) "If any woman 
 that believeth hath widows, let her relieve them, and let not 
 the church be burdened: that it may relieve them that are 
 widows indeed." (Verse 16.) All these, as plain as words 
 and deeds can, show these churches not only had treasuries, 
 but they cannot do any of the real work of a church of God 
 without a treasury. A church that has no treasury is not a 
 church of God. 
 
 I have been careful to note these statements and facts be- 
 cause I believe the calling in question these things that are 
 so plainly taught and that enter into the whole work of a 
 church of God indicates a morbid state of mind and hinders 
 instead of helps the church. The agitation of this and kin- 
 dred questions diverts the mind from the vital work of 
 churches of God, and will destroy churches that encourage 
 such questions. Paul says : " But him that is weak in faith re- 
 ceive ye, but not to doubtful disputations." (Rom. 14: 1.) 
 
88 Church Treasury. 
 
 He shows the doubtful disputations are over untaught ques- 
 tions, such as eating herbs or meat. It means that men who 
 have trouble on these questions are weak in the faith, and in 
 receiving them they are to be prohibited from troubling the 
 church with the discussion of these questions. The discussion 
 of such questions diverts the mind from the true work of the 
 church, and, if kept up, will destroy any church. Men who 
 call in question plainly revealed truths and facts, as the treas- 
 ury in the church, are perverted in faith; and the agitation 
 of such questions, if kept up, will ruin any church in the world, 
 and the man who does it makes himself a factionist that ought 
 to be checked or avoided. 
 
 (2) If you say it is right to have a treasury, does it not follow, as 
 is expressed by the word used in 1 Cor. 16: 2, that each one is to lay 
 his contribution by him at home, where it is to be kept until there is 
 a demand for its use? 
 
 There certainly is a word that means " putting it into the 
 treasury." First they are commanded : " Upon the first day 
 of the week let each one of you place [titheto, a verb meaning 
 " to place," in the imperative mood] by itself, . . . put- 
 ting it into the treasury [thesauridyon, a participle from the 
 verb which means " to treasure up," or " to place in the treas- 
 ury for safe-keeping"]." Thesauridyo is defined " to store, 
 to treasure up, to lay up in store, to preserve." The noun, 
 thesauros, is defined " a store laid up, treasure, a storehouse 
 or 'treasure house, magazine;" in Herodotus, especially, "the 
 treasury of a temple, any receptacle for valuables, a chest, a 
 casket." 
 
 The word meaning " put it into the treasury " after it is 
 placed by itself is certainly in the sentence, and the only ques- 
 tion that can arise is : Was it to be placed in the man's own 
 treasury or that of the church? To place by itself means " to 
 separate it from what he keeps for his own use ; " after this 
 is done, it is to be treasured, or put into the treasury. The 
 separation from what he kept took it out of his treasury ; then 
 he was to place it in the treasury. Is he to put it in his own 
 treasury or the church treasury? The context, the scope of 
 the passage, and the common-sense view of it settle this ques- 
 tion. First, when he placed it by itself, he separated it from 
 his treasures, took it out of his treasury — not to put it back 
 immediately, certainly. 
 
Church Treasury. 89 
 
 Then, too, the first churches are addressed as " churches.'' 
 "As I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do 
 ye." It was something the churches must do. The purpose 
 was : " That there be no gatherings when I come." If it was 
 in every man's private treasury, it would have to be gathered 
 up, as if no collections had been made. It was under the con- 
 trol of the church. " Whomsoever ye [the members of the 
 church] shall approve by your letters, them will I send to 
 bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." (1 Cor. 16: 3.) Speak- 
 ing of these same persons, Paul says they were " appointed by 
 the churches to travel with us in the matter of this grace." 
 (2 Cor. 8: 19.) "They are the messengers of the churches, 
 they are the glory of Christ. Show ye therefore unto them in 
 the face of the churches the proof of your love, and of our 
 glorying on your behalf." (Verses 23, 24.) 
 
 The command was given to the churches ; the churches se- 
 lected those who should carry it, and they are called " the 
 messengers of the churches " and " the glory of Christ ;" and 
 it was done " in the face of the churches." The contributions 
 must have been put into the church treasury, thus to be di- 
 rected and controlled by the church. 
 
 This is in perfect harmony, too, with the use of the word in 
 the Bible. " Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the 
 earth, . . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven." 
 (Matt. 6 : 19, 20.) This means : " So live that God keeps bless- 
 ings in store in heaven." The same word is here translated 
 " lay up treasures " as is translated " lay by in store " in 1 Cor. 
 16: 2. It is used in the same way in Luke 12: 21. 
 
 In the Septuagint Old Testament the same word is used. 
 "The Lord shall open to thee his good treasure." (Deut. 29: 
 22.) " They with whom precious stones were found gave 
 them to the treasure of the house of Jehovah." (1 Chron. 
 29: 8.) "Gave after their ability into the treasury of the 
 work." (Ez. 2: 69.) "The governor gave to the treasury 
 a thousand darics of gold." (Neh. 7 : 70.) "And some of the 
 heads of fathers' houses gave into the treasury of the work." 
 (Verse 71.) 
 
 We could give many such examples. While the word some- 
 times refers to laying up treasures to be hoarded by and for 
 self, most usually it refers to placing things in a public, or 
 common, treasury kept and guarded by public functionaries 
 
90 Church Treasury. 
 
 for the use of all. The meaning and use of the word, the con- 
 text, and the scope of the sentence in 1 Cor. 16: 2 force the 
 idea that it was placed in the church treasury. 
 
 (3) Would it be right, if a brother conscientiously believes he could 
 bestow his means in a more worthy way, to do so in a quiet manner 
 and try to avoid offending any one? 
 
 It is not presumed that a person will cast all the means he 
 has into the church treasury. Christians are to do good, as 
 they have opportunity, to all men, especially to those of the 
 household of faith. (Gal. 6: 10.) If a person put all he has 
 into the church treasury, he would have nothing to give when 
 opportunity for doing good presents itself. There are de- 
 mands upon one, such as caring for poor widows connected 
 with the household, that come even before casting into the 
 treasury. Those who neglect such duties are those who deny 
 the faith and are worse than an infidel. I would say, then, 
 that these duties are to be discharged before casting into the 
 treasury. And yet there is danger in putting other than the 
 most pressing personal obligations before the duties we owe 
 the church of God. 
 
 CHURCHES AND PREACHERS. 
 
 (1) Is it right for a preacher of the gospel to have regular monthly, 
 semimonthly, or weekly appointments at the same church? 
 
 Paul preached three years at Ephesus. He says to the eld- 
 ers : " Ye yourselves know, from the first day that I set foot 
 in Asia, after what manner I was with you all the time, serv- 
 ing the Lord with all lowliness of mind, and with tears, and 
 with trials which befell me by the plots of the Jews ; how I 
 shrank not from declaring unto you anything that was profit- 
 able, and teaching you publicly, and from house to house." 
 (Acts 20: 18-20.) The public teaching, I take it, was in the 
 assemblies of the church. He further says : " Wherefore 
 watch ye, remembering that by the space of three years I 
 ceased not to admonish every one night and day with tears." 
 (Verse 31.) By day and by night and from house to house. 
 Barnabas and Saul assembled themselves a whole year with 
 the church at Antioch. (Acts 11 : 26.) Paul continued a year 
 and six months at Corinth, teaching the word of God among 
 them. (Acts 17: 11.) 
 
 These examples show that Paul remained one, two, or three 
 
Churches and Preachers. 91 
 
 years at a place ; that he taught in meetings of the church and 
 publicly on every occasion that offered. He also threw him- 
 self with such energy and devotion into the work that both 
 day and night and from house to house he warned and ad- 
 monished both Jew and Gentile to repent and turn to God. 
 
 Public preaching, monthly or weekly, is a poor substitute 
 for the earnest labors of the early preachers and teachers, 
 These early preachers kept constantly in view the preparation 
 of the church to live, worship, and edify itself without the 
 presence and help of a preacher or teacher from a distance. 
 
 A preacher may by weekly or monthly appointments aid 
 and instruct a church how to worship and develop its abil- 
 ity to worship and serve the Lord. I cannot see that weekly 
 or monthly appointments, if this is kept in view, are wrong. 
 There is danger, if this is not kept in view, that the church, 
 accept this as the permanent conditions of things and all its 
 worship degenerate into a routine of monthly meetings, or 
 merely a meeting to be entertained by a speech from the 
 preacher. 
 
 (2) Is it right for such a church and preacher to have an under- 
 standing between themselves as to the amount he is to receive as sup- 
 port from them? 
 
 Paul, when introducing the Christian religion in a place and 
 preparing them to worship for themselves, did not take sup- 
 port from those whom he was trying to convert, although he 
 certainly asserted the right to do so, according to their ability. 
 He communicated with other churches as to his wants and 
 they sent to his necessities. What they failed to supply, he 
 supplemented with his own labor. He pursued this course 
 lest the gospel should be hindered ; and it was always a matter 
 of rejoicing to him that he did it without cost to the destitute. 
 He not only gives it as his rule (2 Cor. 10: 13), but he states 
 that he acted on that rule among them. (1 Thess. 2: 6-9.) 
 
 But it is lawful for a church to support a teacher to convert 
 sinners in their midst and to supply what is lacking in their 
 work, as well as to support him to go to the destitute. Paul 
 asserts the former in these words : " What soldier ever serveth 
 at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not 
 the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the 
 milk of the flock? . . . Thou shalt not muzzle the ox 
 when he treadeth out the corn. . . . If we sowed unto you 
 
92 Churches and Preachers. 
 
 spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal 
 things? . . . Nevertheless we did not use this right; but 
 we bear all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the 
 gospel of Christ. Know ye not that they that minister about 
 sacred things eat of the things of the temple, and they that 
 wait upon the altar have their portion with the altar? Even 
 so did the Lord ordain that they that proclaim the gospel 
 should live of the gospel." (1 Cor. 9: 7-14.) Here it seems 
 to me the order of the Jews is reasserted, and the true and 
 proper way is for each Christian, as he is able, to contribute 
 to the treasury of the Lord, and, as the church is able, out of 
 these offerings to sustain those who give themselves to the 
 service of the Lord. 
 
 (3) If the church and preacher thus have an understanding, is not 
 that what is called a "stipulated salary?" Some of our churches do 
 not think it right to have an understanding with their preacher, even 
 in the neighborhood as to what he is to expect as support. 
 
 Paul wrote to the Corinthians admonishing them of their 
 duty to support those who preach the gospel. He sent Tych- 
 icus to the Ephesians, " that ye may know our state, and that 
 he may comfort your hearts." (Eph. 6: 22.) He sent Epaph- 
 roditus to the Philippians, and they returned help by him to 
 Paul. (Phil. 2 : 25 ; 4 : 18.) He sent Tychicus, Onesimus, and 
 others to the Colossians, saying : " They shall make known 
 unto you all things which are done here." (Col. 4:' 9.) The 
 Thessalonians sent Timothy with " a good remembrance of 
 us" from them. (1 Thess. 3: 6.) Paul and his companions 
 received help from, but did not depend wholly on, the churches. 
 They sent messengers to let them know their wants, and each 
 contributed as it was able ; then what was lacking they sup- 
 plemented with their own labors. It was, of course, legitimate 
 for one church to have sustained a laborer in the field, if able ; 
 and if not one, two or more. If a church undertakes to do 
 this, it is necessary for them to know how much will be re- 
 quired to sustain him and how much they likely are able to 
 give. God never countenanced a man or church promising to 
 do something, they did not know what, and whether they were 
 likely to be able to do it or not. I do not believe in paying 
 so much money for so much preaching. That makes mer- 
 chandise of the gospel ; but support the man, that he and his 
 family may live comfortably, that he may give his time to the 
 
Classes, Division into. 93 
 
 gospel. Nor do I think a man who refuses to preach unless 
 guaranteed a support is fit to preach. It seems to me an un- 
 derstanding of what is needful for a support is a necessary 
 condition of supporting a man. See Preachers. 
 
 CIVIL LAW, APPEALING TO, FOR PROTECTION. 
 
 Is it right, under any circumstances, to appeal to the civil law for 
 protection? A case in point: A man who is thought to be dangerous 
 and vengeful, after having threatened the life of a man and his wife, 
 goes to their house and raises a row. Has a brother the right to 
 prosecute him for so doing? 
 
 I think it right at times for a Christian to appeal to civil law 
 for protection. Paul gave us an example of this when he ap- 
 pealed to Caesar to protect him from the Jews who were using 
 the law and the offices of the law to punish him. (Acts 25 : 
 1-11.) As they bound him with thongs, Paul asked the cen- 
 turion that stood by : " Is it lawful for you to scourge a man 
 that is a Roman, and uncondemned? " (Acts 22: 25.) He 
 appealed to his rights as a Roman citizen on this occasion 
 to save himself from punishment. At Philippi he said : " They 
 have beaten us openly uncondemned, being Romans, and have 
 cast us into prison." (Acts 16: 37.) He made them come 
 and bring them out, but he did not prosecute them. To pros- 
 ecute them, if I understand the meaning, is not to protect 
 yourself from injury, but to take vengeance for wrong done. 
 To bind him over to keep the peace, or to have him so con- 
 fined as to prevent injury, might be to protect yourself against 
 him ; but to prosecute and punish him is to take vengeance 
 on him for injury. " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith 
 the Lord." (Rom. 12: 19.) If a Christian knows of a crime 
 committed, it is right for him to make it known, that society 
 may be protected, but not that he may be avenged for wrong 
 done him. 
 
 CLASSES, DIVISION INTO. 
 
 Is there anything in the Scriptures that could be taken as forbidding 
 us to have more than one class reciting at one time in our church as- 
 semblies? One good brother in our Bible class contends that the 
 classes should be heard one at a time, as we were commanded to 
 speak one at a time in the church. His plan is tedious and inconven- 
 ient; but if any other is forbidden, we will follow his. 
 
 Paul says : " If a revelation be made to another sitting by, 
 
 let the first [speaker] keep silence. For ye all can prophesy 
 
94 Classes, Division Into. 
 
 one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted." (1 
 Cor. 14: 30, 31.) This applied to inspired teachers receiving 
 and revealing messages direct from God. If they failed to 
 hear what he said, they would be deprived of what God had 
 revealed to them. Such a condition of affairs cannot exist 
 now, since no one receives direct revelations from God. All 
 have his full revelation in the Scriptures, and no one will be 
 deprived of a knowledge of God's will by failing to hear the 
 speaker now. He can read the whole will in the New Testa- 
 ment ; so the reason for one speaking at a time then cannot 
 exist now. " The spirits of the prophets are subject to the 
 prophets ; for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace [or 
 order]." (Verses 32, 33.) This is a case in which a number 
 were trying to speak to the same persons at the same time. 
 This would be confusion now as then, but it cannot refer to 
 persons in different parts of the house speaking each to his 
 own class. This does not create confusion, and is only one 
 speaking at a time to the same persons. It violates no law 
 of God of which I have any knowledge. 
 
 CLEANLINESS OF THE BODY. 
 
 Does Christ enjoin bodily or physical cleanliness in Matt. 23, as he 
 does the tithing of anise and cummin (verse 23) — that is, does he 
 mean to teach that we are to be clean both within and without? Does 
 Paul enjoin bodily cleanliness as well as spiritual cleanliness in 2 Cor. 
 7: 1? If either or both of the above questions are answered in the 
 affirmative, could these passages be urged against filthy bodies, 
 clothes, homes, and filthy habits, such as tobacco using, etc.? 
 
 " Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! for ye 
 cleanse the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within 
 they are full from extortion and excess. Thou blind Phari- 
 see, cleanse first the inside of the cup and of the platter, that 
 the outside thereof may become clean also." (Matt. 23: 25, 
 26.) This is intended to teach that both the body and the 
 heart should be kept clean and pure. The law of Moses laid 
 great stress on bodily cleanliness. Much bathing and washing 
 of the hands and the body were required of the Jews. They 
 were required to wash the hands before eating, so it grew into 
 a religious practice, condemned as such by Jesus. (Matt. 15: 
 1-20.) The Jews laid stress on the external in bodily cleanli- 
 ness, to the neglect of the cleanliness of heart and purity of 
 spirit. The external without the spiritual is of no avail in 
 Christ. So he urged the conjoining of the internal purity with 
 
Community of Goods. 95 
 
 the external bodily cleanliness, or that the bodily should be 
 the outgrowth of spiritual purity. Paul seems to work the 
 two as inseparable. (2 Cor. 7: 1.) True spiritual purity will 
 work bodily cleanliness. " Laying aside all filthiness " (James 
 1 : 21) seems to me another admonition indicating that the two 
 must go together. " Yes " to all your questions. Moses 
 taught the most complete system of bodily cleanliness that is 
 to be found in the world. As the Jewish dispensation was 
 the material and earthly type of the spiritual kingdom, this 
 bodily cleanliness no doubt typifies the spiritual purity and 
 cleanliness of heart that was to prevail in the spiritual king- 
 dom of God. Dr. W. K. Bowling, the founder of the first 
 medical school in Nashville, said to me more than once : " The 
 system of hygiene given by Moses surpasses all others found 
 in the world to this day." He said with all the discoveries 
 and deductions of science and the experience of the world of 
 these later centuries, nothing to compare with this has been" 
 presented. He said he was inclined to skepticism ; but when 
 he asked himself where these isolated, provincial people, not 
 noted for their learning or scientific investigations, obtained 
 such a system in those dark ages of the world, he was com- 
 pelled to answer: "They obtained it from a wisdom above 
 that of man." And he claimed this consideration saved him 
 from skepticism and unbelief. The Bible, if obeyed, will bless 
 man both fleshly and spiritually, will bring good upon him 
 both in this world and in that to come. 
 
 COMMUNITY OF GOODS. 
 
 Please explain Acts 2: 44-46: "And all that believed were together, 
 and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, 
 and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, con- 
 tinuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from 
 house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and- singleness of 
 heart." 
 
 That language telling what was done is about as plain as 
 words can make it. I suppose it is not to explain what was 
 done that is wanted, but to know why we do not urge Chris- 
 tians to do the same thing now. The reason is it is clear that 
 this example was not followed in other churches mentioned in 
 the New Testament. In chiding Ananias for his lying to the 
 Holy Spirit, Peter asks : " While it remained, was it not thine 
 own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? 
 
96 Community of Goods. 
 
 why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast 
 not lied unto men, but unto God." (Acts 5 : 4.) This shows 
 plainly there was no law requiring him to sell and to cast 
 it all into the treasury, hence there was no excuse for pre- 
 tending to do it when not doing it. And it is clear that it was 
 not done at other churches. It was doubtless a voluntary 
 thing among them arising from the two facts — the money was 
 all needed to supply the wants of the poor, and the early flight 
 from Jerusalem and the destruction of the city were appre- 
 hended. It would not be wrong for men to do this now, I 
 presume. It would likely end in confusion, disappointment, 
 and trouble, and there is no law requiring it. 
 
 CONFESSION, IS A FORMAL, NECESSARY? 
 
 Is it essential, in order to remission of sins, that the confession men- 
 tioned in Rom. 10: 10 be made before baptism? 
 
 " The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy 
 heart : that is, the word of faith, which we preach ; that if thou 
 shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt be- 
 lieve in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, 
 thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto 
 righteousness ; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
 salvation." (Rom. 10: 8-10.) 
 
 This is the scripture requiring confession. It is addressed 
 to the Christians at Rome. Whether it refers to a formal con- 
 fession before baptism, I somewhat doubt, for the following 
 reasons : In the commission, in its fulfillment on the day of 
 Pentecost, and in the examples of conversion, presented in 
 Acts of Apostles, there is no example of a formal confession 
 being required as a precedent to baptism, unless the case of 
 the eunuch be regarded as such. In reference to this, it is 
 claimed by the textuary critics generally that the confession 
 there recorded is an interpolation. The context and circum- 
 stances would indicate that just such a confession was made. 
 It is also clear that Philip was not seeking a formal confession, 
 but evidence of faith. Whatever confession was made came in 
 response to this seeking. The natural evidence of faith in 
 the heart is the confession with the mouth. When Philip said, 
 " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest," the nat- 
 ural response would be : " I believe that Jesus Christ is the 
 Son of God." But it was made to manifest the presence of 
 
Confession, is a Formal, Necessary? 97 
 
 faith, not to make a formal confession. But if this does not 
 require the confession, the singular fact is presented that in 
 the Scriptures a condition of salvation is left out of all the 
 precepts and examples concerning remission, and is to be 
 found only in a reference in a letter to Christians as to what 
 had been required. Then it is necessary that at every step of 
 the religious life, even after one has grown old in the service 
 of the Lord, with the mouth confession must be made unto 
 salvation, and with the heart he must believe unto righteous- 
 ness. He must live by and walk through faith unto the end. 
 It is just as necessary that man should believe unto righteous- 
 ness with the heart the last day he lives as the first. By faith 
 man is led forward at every step in the path of righteousness, 
 and at every step man must confess his faith in the Savior. 
 It is necessary that confession of Christ should be made at all 
 times or Christ will not own us. But that any specific or 
 formal confession was required before baptism, more than at 
 any other step of his religious life, is not clear. Confession 
 of Christ in our words is necessary. It is necessary in com- 
 ing to Christ. It is necessary in all the Christian life. I am 
 sure the questions and obedience on the day of Pentecost was 
 an acceptable confession. So at the house of Cornelius and 
 in all other instances. 
 
 People become very easily ritualistic. Once an old lady, in- 
 firm in body, sent for me to baptize her. In telling why she 
 sent for me, she said, in the presence of a number of persons : 
 " I have believed in Jesus as the Savior for some time and 
 have been hoping to get able to be baptized." On this state- 
 ment I baptized her without asking a formal confession. 
 After it was over, a brother came to me and said : " You forgot 
 to take that sister's confession." I told him that she did not 
 forget to make it, and referred to her statement before us all. 
 He still seemed to be doubtful because I had not followed the 
 ritual of asking the. question and making her repeat the an- 
 swer. He valued the form above the substance. I do not 
 believe there is a necessity for a formal confession, so the ac- 
 tions and conversation declare it and there is no shrinking 
 from confessing it before all men wherever occasion offers. It 
 is needful when a man baptizes another that he have assurance 
 that the subject believes in Jesus as the Christ. The easiest, 
 
98 Confession, is a Formal, Necessary? 
 
 most direct way to learn this is to ask him the question ; but 
 this should not grow into an essential form, a ritualism. 
 
 CONFESSION OF SIN, AND FORGIVENESS. 
 
 You will greatly oblige me by giving your views on the confession, 
 as the cause is being greatly crippled by some who set themselves up 
 as teachers. They have done away with the confession. I have al- 
 ways thought it right and necessary for the returning prodigals to 
 confess their mistakes to the brethren or congregation in order to 
 show to the world that we do not recognize the works of the flesh or 
 ways of the world in the church. These brethren — if I should call 
 them brethren — make this proposition: Just let the past be the past. 
 This, it appears to me, would be encouragement to worldly-minded 
 members to go on in sin and wickedness. It does not matter what 
 they do, they can come up with the plea: "Let the past be the past." 
 Will you be so kind as to give us all the light you can on the return- 
 ing prodigals' duty and obligations to the church, also the duty of 
 the church toward the returning prodigals? 
 
 I hardly think our brother would find a church that would 
 adopt, as a rule, what he says his has adopted. In some ex- 
 igency, supposed or real, such a course might be pursued. I 
 think this is wrong. To observe the law of God is always 
 right, and it is always wrong to neglect or set it aside. No 
 emergency ever arises that justifies this. It is always best for 
 the sinner, for the church, and for the world, tha;t the law of 
 God be complied with. That law is that a man that sins shall 
 confess his sins, not that he is a sinner in general terms, but 
 the special and specific sins of which he has been guilty, 
 
 " Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for an- 
 other, that ye may be healed." (James 5 : 16.) The confes- 
 sion is not to show the world that we do not approve sin. 
 That is a wrong motive. It is that we may be forgiven by 
 God. No man has repented of his sins sincerely and honestly 
 until he is willing to confess them ; and to keep impenitent 
 sinners in the church is to defile and corrupt that church. 
 
 Sam Jones did good in his denunciations of immorality in 
 and out of the church. But his preaching, " quit your mean- 
 ness and give me your hand," ignoring all true and earnest con- 
 fession of sin, had a hurtful influence. The confession of sin 
 is the point of departure from sin, and it is a condition of par- 
 don of sin. God has nowhere promised forgiveness to a sin- 
 ner without confessing his sins. " If we confess our sins, he 
 is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us 
 from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1: 9.) Our being 
 
Conflict Between Flesh and Spirit. 99 
 
 cleansed from unrighteousness depends on our hearty confess- 
 ing our sins. " He that covereth his sins shall not prosper : 
 but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy." 
 (Prov. 28: 13.) It is a moral condition of pardon that pertains 
 to all ages and dispensations. " I acknowledged my sin unto 
 thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess 
 my transgressions unto the Lord ; and thou forgavest the in- 
 iquity of my sin." (Ps. 32: 5.) 
 
 The prodigal said : " I will arise and go to my father, and 
 will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and 
 before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son : make 
 me as one of thy hired servants." (Luke 15 : 18, 19.) 
 
 So, too, Paul and all the true and worthy that sinned con- 
 fessed their sins openly and freely. No repentance is sincere 
 and true that does not freely and gladly confess the sin and 
 ask God and his brethren to forgive him. When he confesses 
 his faults, his brethren should pray with and for him, and God 
 will forgive him. 
 
 CONFLICT BETWEEN FLESH AND SPIRIT. 
 
 Please explain what is meant by the conflict described in Rom. 7: 
 7-25. 
 
 Paul is presenting the truth that man is of a dual nature, 
 the flesh and the spirit ; they lust one against the other. What 
 man desires and purposes to do in his spirit, the flesh opposes 
 He calls the spirit the real self. The good his spirit purposes 
 to do, the flesh hinders. The flesh leads him to do the evil 
 the spirit opposes. It is no more the inner spiritual man who 
 does the evil, but sin that dwells in the flesh. He finds when 
 he would do good, a law of sin is present in the flesh to lead 
 him into sin. After the inward man, he delights in the law of 
 God; but he sees another law of sin in his flesh that wars 
 against the law of his mind, and this law of sin in the flesh 
 draws his spirit into captivity or bondage to sin, despite its 
 desires to follow the law of God. Owing to this law of sin 
 bringing into captivity his spirit, he exclaims : " O wretched 
 man that I am [thus to be overcome by evil in the flesh] ! who 
 shall deliver me from the body of this death [in which sin 
 rules] ? " He answered : " I thank God through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord [this deliverance comes]. So then with the mind 
 I myself serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the law of 
 
100 Conflict Between Flesh and Spirit. 
 
 sin." Then he proceeds in the next chapter to speak of the 
 deliverance in Christ : " There is therefore now no condemna- 
 tion to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after 
 the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life 
 in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and 
 death. For what the law [of Moses] could not do, in that it 
 was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the 
 flesh." (Rom. 8: 1-3.) The meaning is that under the Jewish 
 law men desired to serve God. The law of sin dwelling in the 
 members of the body hindered. In the struggles between the 
 spirit and the flesh, the flesh would bring the spirit into bond- 
 age and condemnation, because the law of Moses was weak. 
 Paul asks who shall deliver him from this bondage. He re- 
 plies : "Jesus Christ." Then he says that in Christ no condem- 
 nation is found to those who walk after the Spirit. The law 
 of the Spirit in Christ made free from the law of sin and death 
 that dwells in the flesh. Then he explains since the law of 
 Moses could not free from sin and death, Christ coming in the 
 likeness of sinful flesh overcame sin in the flesh. So in him is 
 deliverance from the law that rules in the flesh. Three laws 
 are here presented : The law of sin dwelling in the flesh ; the 
 law of Moses, which could not overcome the law of sin in the 
 flesh ; what the law of Moses could not do, in that it was weak, 
 Jesus Christ came and did through the law of the Spirit of 
 life in Jesus Christ. This is a presentation of the law of sin 
 ruling in the flesh, the inefficiency of the law of Moses to over- 
 come it, and that Jesus did come, and overcame this sin that 
 the law of Moses could not overcome. The division of the 
 chapter breaks a close connection here. 
 
 CONSCIENCE, DOING VIOLENCE TO. 
 
 If you believed that you ought to meet every first day of the week 
 to break bread, and that you would commit a sin if you did not, if it 
 was so you could, and you believed it a sin to worship God by machin- 
 ery, and they got to using instrumental music at the congregation you 
 worshiped with, and there was no other congregation close enough 
 that you could meet with, what would you do? 
 
 There is no plainer truth in the Bible than that which a man 
 esteems a sin is a sin to him. " To him that esteemeth any- 
 thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 14: 14.) 
 That is, if a man does a thing he thinks to be wrong, he vio- 
 
Conscience, Doing Violence to. 101 
 
 lates his own conscience ; and it is always wrong to do vio^ 
 lence to one's own conscience, to go contrary to his own sense 
 of what is right. God cannot be served by a man with a bad 
 conscience. He must have a good conscience toward God. 
 He must have a conscience that is good, must be true to his 
 own convictions of right. It must be loyal to God and his 
 sense of duty — must look to God. " For "some with conscience 
 of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol ; 
 and their conscience being weak is denied." (l.Cor. 8: 7.) 
 That is, persons had become Christians whose consciences 
 looked to the idol as an object of worship, and for these to eat 
 meat offered to an idol was to defile their consciences. " The 
 end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and 
 of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." (1 Tim. 1 : 5.) 
 If a man does not keep a good conscience, he cannot serve 
 God. When a man violates his convictions of right, does 
 things he believes wrong for the sake of peace or popularity, 
 he debauches his conscience and unfits himself for service to 
 God. God will not accept service from a defiled or debauched 
 conscience ; and to know the right and follow the wrong de- 
 files and debauches the conscience. Those most offensive to 
 God are those who compromise his truth and defile their con- 
 sciences. The man who worships with an organ, believing 
 it to be wrong, to be a sin against God, is a much worse man 
 than he who worships with it believing it to be right. I know 
 of no sin higher or greater than that of defiling our consciences 
 by doing or countenancing what we believe to be wrong. God 
 had much more respect for Paul persecuting the church of 
 God with a good conscience, believing he was doing God's 
 service, than he did for the men who believed him to be the 
 Christ, yet failed to obey him. Then a man ought to do noth- 
 ing he believes wrong. He ought to be firm for the truth. 
 Paul's conscience was warped by prejudice. He respected it, 
 was true to it, and God honored and blessed him for his fidel- 
 ity to his conscience. He was such as God was pleased to call 
 into his service. God delights in the service given by such 
 men. Then, if a man believes an organ wrong and sinful, and 
 it is brought into the church of God, he debauches his own 
 conscience in approving it by word or act, and renders him- 
 self unfit for the service of God. Men that are true to their 
 consciences are what the world needs and God delights in. 
 
102 Conscience, Doing Violence to. 
 
 A man who believes it right to meet and worship on the Lord's 
 day, and fails to do it because he does not have a convenient 
 place or crowd to meet with, does violence to his conscience, 
 defiles it, and is in great danger of destroying his own soul. 
 The man who knows his duty and refuses to do it defiles his 
 conscience. It is no excuse for a man that others do not their 
 duty or that he has not many to meet with him. " Where 
 two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in 
 the midst of them." (Matt. 18: 20.) 
 
 We ought not to countenance the wrong ; we ought to prac- 
 tice the right. I would not whine about there being no con- 
 gregation with which to meet. You should constitute a con- 
 gregation yourself, or get one or two others and worship God 
 according to his appointments. He holds us accountable for 
 doing this. The results he will take care of. 
 
 CONTEND EARNESTLY FOR THE FAITH. 
 
 In the Gospel Review, Brother Warlick says that all men should be 
 careful to preach only the gospel of Christ, and to do this they should 
 preach only those things found in the Bible. In the Gospel Advocate, 
 Brother Elam says that affusion, infant baptism, counting beads, 
 burning incense, worshiping the Virgin Mary, and keeping Lent are 
 not in the gospel, are no part of the gospel; but he thinks that we 
 ought to be allowed to preach them. Please tell us who is right. 
 
 Brother W T arlick believes not only that we should preach 
 what is in the Bible, but that we should preach all that is in 
 the Bible. When a man does this as the Bible does, he will 
 preach ten times as much to keep things not commanded by 
 God out of the church and out of the practice of Christians 
 as he will to enforce what is commanded. There are ten pro- 
 hibitions and ten times as much space in the Bible taken up 
 with warnings, penalties, and prohibitions of adding things 
 to those in the Bible or doing things in religion not required 
 by God that there is telling what we must do. The reason 
 is that God understands what is in man, and he knows the pro- 
 pensity of humanity to assume authority and to displace the 
 appointments of God with his own plans and projects. In the 
 Sermon on the Mount itself ten times the space is devoted to 
 warnings and prohibitions of changing and perverting God's 
 laws and orders as is given to his positive requirements. The 
 Scriptures forbid additions to the order of God, and this is 
 more constantly urged than any one point connected with 
 man's duty. 
 
Contend Earnestly for the Faith. 103 
 
 Those who oppose contention for the truth and opposition 
 constant and unceasing to the introduction of error change the 
 whole order and spirit of God's law in its vital point. Such 
 a course condemns Jesus and all the apostles and betrays the 
 truth of God. Jude said : " I was constrained to write unto 
 you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which 
 was once for all delivered unto the saints." (Verse 3.) That 
 faith had been perfected and delivered " once for all " to the 
 saints. To " contend " for it was to oppose all modification or 
 change of it by addition to it or subtraction from it. He who 
 fails to do this is no true servant of God. 
 
 The life of Jesus was a life of contention and controversy 
 unto death itself with those who opposed the truth or sought 
 to teach things not required by God. He opposed the wrong 
 and frequently denounced the opposers. " Woe unto you,, 
 scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ! " is a common style of Je- 
 sus in opposing those who would pervert or corrupt the scrip- 
 ture order in his day. I do not think we ought to use lan- 
 guage so strong now, because none of us can know the hearts 
 of those who oppose the truth as did Jesus. But when we ob- 
 ject to opposing the introduction of things not taught in the 
 Bible or of bringing any and all errors into the church of 
 Christ, our fight is against the Bible, against Jesus Christ and 
 God; when we denounce contention for truth and opposition 
 to error, we denounce Jesus Christ. 
 
 Brother Elam did not say we should preach organs and so- 
 cieties. Brother Elam thinks, as I do, that it is an essential 
 part of the gospel to oppose everything not in the gospel ; that 
 we are compelled to preach against them when others preach 
 or practice bringing them into the church ; and he is right. 
 Brother Warlick and Brother Elam do not disagree about it. 
 
 These brethren that are so afraid of controversy mean they 
 will let the truth go rather than incur the displeasure of their 
 fellow-men by exposing and opposing their errors. That is 
 to betray the truth of God for the favor of men; that is to 
 leave men in error rather than incur their displeasure by cor- 
 recting their wrongs. That means you will let a man go to 
 hell rather than risk his displeasure by warning him of his 
 danger. This spirit is no akin to the spirit of Christ, of his 
 apostles, or of any of the true and faithful servants of God of 
 either the Old Testament or the New Testament. With all 
 
104 Contend Earnestly for the Faith. 
 
 this, there is ground for criticism of much of the religious con- 
 troversy of this age and country. The most objectionable 
 feature of much of it is its lack of truthfulness. Persons in 
 controversy so often misrepresent the positions of their oppo- 
 nents. To misrepresent a man's teaching is as mean lying 
 as can be done, yet it is very common among religious people. 
 Then it so often assumes the character of personal contest who 
 shall triumph and an effort to injure him whose teachings 
 we oppose. This is wrong, as a rule. Criticise as much as 
 you desire the style of unfairness and misrepresentation now 
 common in religious affairs and all unkindness and personality 
 in religious discussions ; but when you oppose discussion, the 
 sifting truth from error, the exposure of error, and opposition 
 to all practices not required by God, you oppose God and be- 
 tray the truth of God. Jesus and Paul and all the apostles 
 contended unto death. Arm yourselves with the same mind 
 that was in Jesus, and we will contend earnestly for the truth 
 and oppose all error unto death itself. Let us do this in the 
 spirit of fairness and of love, but do not let us betray the truth 
 for the sake of a false peace or for anything. 
 
 CONTRIBUTION, HOW TAKEN. 
 
 Please explain how Christians should contribute. They have been 
 passing the hat; but I do not think that is the correct way, for the 
 Lord tells us to lay by in store as he has prospered us. 
 
 To " lay by in store " means to collect together so it would 
 be safely kept until it could be sent where needed. The Scrip- 
 tures do not say whether it is to be collected in hats, bonnets, 
 baskets, or boxes. As the scripture says nothing as to this, I 
 can say nothing, save when people seek to decide questions of 
 this kind by divine authority they make little of God and his 
 commandments. You had as well ask whether a man should 
 eat with his fingers or a spoon, whether he should fasten his 
 clothes with buttons or hooks and eyes. There is a sect of 
 Christians that exclude their members for wearing buttons on 
 their clothes instead of hooks and eyes. All which shows how 
 anxious people are to make laws to govern God's people. Let 
 us obey the laws God has made, and leave men free where he 
 has made no laws, 
 
Cornelius, Conversion of. 105 
 
 CORNELIUS, CONVERSION OF. 
 
 I have been requested to ask that you explain the case of Cornelius. 
 If he was a sinner, why did God hear his prayer, and why did he give 
 him the Holy Spirit? 
 
 This has often been explained. The sinner whom God will 
 not hear is one who willfully turns from obeying him. All the 
 statements of Solomon in the book of Proverbs, the blind man 
 (John 9), and all the declarations of God's unwillingness to 
 hear sinners refer to those who claim to be his disciples, yet 
 refuse to obey him. These are the sinners whom God will not 
 hear. God has never said he would not hear one out of the 
 kingdom desirous to know and do his will. Jesus showed his 
 willingness to hear such when he heard the centurion's plea 
 to come and heal his servant (Matt. 8:5), the Syrophenician 
 woman who besought him for her daughter (Matt. 15 : 22), and 
 the Samaritan leper (Luke 17: 11-19). In this example the 
 prayer and alms of Cornelius come up for a memorial before 
 God. The truth is that God is always willing to hear sinners 
 in or out of the church who are desirous of knowing and do- 
 ing the will of God. He heard the publican who cried, " God 
 be merciful to me a sinner;" but he rejected the Pharisee 
 who did not think himself a sinner. Sinners anxious to do his 
 will, whether in or out of the church, are the very persons he 
 is ready to hear. God never turns a deaf ear to one who is 
 desirous of doing his will. The evil of praying for forgiveness 
 of sins is in praying for forgiveness while refusing to obey the 
 commands on which forgiveness is conditioned. If any one 
 teaches that God does not hear the prayer of one because he 
 is out of the church, tell him he is wrong. Then, while God 
 does not forgive and accept one as a child of God until he has 
 been baptized, until he puts off his sins in baptism, until he 
 is buried with Christ, he is not called a " sinner " when he 
 believes and is seeking to know and do the will of God. While 
 he has not put off his sins, he has ceased to commit sin and is 
 following God. In the Scriptures no one is called a " sinner " 
 while he is striving to know and do the will of God. There 
 is a point at which, while he has ceased to sin, he has not put 
 off his sins. Then there are two distinct manifestations of the 
 Spirit. One, called the " ordinary gift," is received into the 
 heart by receiving the word of God into the heart. This man- 
 ifestation is received and enjoyed according to the fullness 
 
106 Cornelius, Conversion of. 
 
 of the dwelling of the word of God in the heart. When this 
 dwells in the heart, it shows itself in obedience to the word 
 of God that is in the heart. There was a miraculous manifes- 
 tation of the Spirit, the direct gift of God, that is not given 
 in believing; it came to the believers, but did not come through 
 believing. It came to the disciples on Pentecost, long after 
 they believed; so it did to the Samaritans. (Acts 8: 9-18.) 
 The object of the miraculous gift of the Spirit was to show 
 God was present with those on whom the gift was bestowed, 
 and that what was done and spoken was from God and sealed 
 with his authority. At the house of Cornelius the apostles had 
 the gift of the Spirit ; but it was important that God should 
 approve the reception of the Gentiles, for it was generally be- 
 lieved he would not receive them. To settle this question he 
 gave this direct and miraculous manifestation of the Spirit to 
 them. So Peter asked : " Can any man forbid the water, that 
 these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy 
 Spirit as well as we ? " (Acts 10 : 47.) This shows that it was 
 to serve this end of showing God accepted the Gentiles as well 
 as the Jews. This was made even more clear when his course 
 was called in question on his return to Jerusalem. He told of 
 the gift of the Spirit, and asked : " If then God gave unto them 
 the like gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?" 
 (Acts 11: 17.) This shows the object of the bestowal of the 
 gift ; it must needs be given before the baptism, to satisfy them 
 that God had received them. The bestowal of this miracu- 
 lous gift no doubt qualified these Gentile converts to know 
 and teach the full will of God without being dependent upon 
 the Jews for it. « 
 
 COUNTENANCING SIN BRINGS GUILT. 
 
 Is any minister o£ the gospel justified in baptizing a man who is 
 guilty of adultery through having two living wives, when he knows 
 such to be the case? How could God accept of either of these men, 
 when John the Baptist refused to baptize the Pharisees who would 
 not repent? 
 
 I do not think John the Baptist refused to baptize those 
 Pharisees he denounced as a generation of vipers. The de- 
 nunciation was to show how he regarded the Pharisees and 
 scribes generally. These people were fleeing from the wrath 
 they believed impending upon the Jewish people. John's mis- 
 
Counting the Cost. 107 
 
 sion was to warn them to repent, turn from their sins, that 
 they might avoid the wrath of God. These Pharisees came to 
 John anxious to escape the coming" wrath impending over the 
 Jewish people. He asked them who warned them. Then, 
 having baptized them, he warned them to bring forth fruit 
 worthy of the repentance they had professed, and not continue 
 in the life of indifference to godliness, and not to> rely upon 
 their fleshly descent from Abraham for the blessing of God. 
 Then he told them that the ax is laid at the root of the tree 
 ready to hew down " every tree which bringeth not forth good 
 fruit." That is, Abraham's fleshly family will henceforth be 
 judged, and all that do not bring good fruit, or fruit worthy of 
 the repentance, will be destroyed as other nations. Notwith- 
 standing I believe John baptized these persons on the assur- 
 ance that they would bring forth fruit worthy of repentance, 
 I do not think a Christian ought to baptize a man living in 
 adultery, or any other known and habitual sin, without the 
 assurance that he will bring forth fruit worthy of repentance — 
 that is, that he will turn from his sin and live a righteous life. 
 The shame of the church is that it receives men and women 
 living in open defiance of the laws of God, without assurance 
 of bringing forth the fruits of repentance. Every preacher 
 and every Christian and every church that receives and en- 
 courages those guilty of known sins, without requiring them 
 to cease to sin and to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, 
 becomes partaker of their sins. He who encourages another 
 in a sin by countenancing him in the sin becomes a partaker 
 with him in the guilt of his sin. " If any one sin, in that he 
 heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether 
 he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear 
 his iniquity." That is, a man who conceals the sin of another 
 when called on as a witness shall be as guilty and bear the 
 same punishment as he who committed the crime. See Assist- 
 ing Others to Do Wrong. 
 
 COUNTING THE COST. 
 
 What is meant by " counteth the cost " and " he sendeth an ambas- 
 sage, and desireth conditions of peace?" (Luke 14: 28, 32.) Has not 
 any individual who has come to the years of maturity, is sane, and has 
 heard the gospel, the power or ability to become and live a Christian? 
 Will it ever be necessary for the humble and prayerful Christian, who 
 has forsaken all, made a complete surrender of himself and all that he 
 
108 Counting the Cost. 
 
 has to God, to send an ambassage and desire conditions of peace with 
 Satan? 
 
 We have long been satisfied that the two parables of the 
 man building a tower without counting the cost and one king 
 going to make war with another king are usually perverted 
 to teach exactly the opposite of what the Master intended to 
 teach by them. Certainly Christ never warned men to count 
 the cost of coming to him. On the other hand, he taught 
 them to come regardless of costs, to overstep all difficulties, 
 surmount all obstacles, and cut loose from all ties to come to 
 him. Nor did he admonish them to see whether they could 
 fight their own battles against the devil. On the other hand, 
 he told them if they would come to him, cast all burdens on 
 him, he would fight their battles for them and be their strength 
 and shield. He certainly did not advise any one, should he 
 feel his own insufficiency, to send an ambassage and desire 
 terms of peace with the devil. The meaning is : Come to God 
 at all hazards and regardless of costs ; but if you are thinking 
 of fighting against God, then count well the costs, lest you 
 begin to build not on his words and fail to finish and the world 
 laugh you to scorn. Are you able to fight against the armies 
 of the living God? Count well the cost; and if you are not 
 able, then seek peace with God. Whosoever will may come 
 to Christ, and such he will in no wise cast off. God will pro- 
 tect and shield from the wiles of Satan all who trust and con- 
 tinue faithful to him. We had better come to Christ and fail 
 a thousand times than to refuse to come. 
 
 COVENANTS, THE. 
 
 Please write an article on " The Old Covenant and the New Cove- 
 nant," bringing out as clearly as possible their relation, or identity, to 
 the Jewish Church and the church of Christ. In Heb. 8, 9, does the 
 writer refer to old and new churches, or what? In other words, what 
 are the old covenant and the new covenant? 
 
 The covenants — their relation to each other — were much 
 
 discussed fifty years ago, and then it was difficult to find a 
 
 disciple of any scriptural knowledge that was not sure of the 
 
 distinction between the covenants — the close of one and the 
 
 introduction of the other. The denominations around us had 
 
 failed to draw the distinction, had confounded the two, and 
 
 as frequently went to the old covenant as to the new to find 
 
 the terms of acceptance with God at this day. As is natural 
 
Covenants, the. 109 
 
 to human nature, extremes beget extremes ; and when the dis- 
 ciples saw the error into which they had fallen, they ran to 
 the other extreme and spoke of their being opposite the one 
 to the other, and they ceased to study the law of the old cove- 
 nant. This is wrong. The law of Moses was added because 
 of transgression, and was a schoolmaster to train the Jews to 
 receive Christ. The things written in the law and God's deal- 
 ings with those under the law happened for examples and are 
 written for our admonition, lest we sin as they sinned and fall 
 under condemnation of the Spirit. 
 
 The basis of the covenants was God's promise to Abraham 
 that he would give to his seed the land of Canaan for an ever- 
 lasting inheritance and that in his seed all the nations of the 
 earth should be blessed. The promise of this covenant was 
 repeated several times to Abraham — once, when he was tried 
 by the offer of his son, Isaac : "And the angel of Jehovah called 
 untO' Abraham a second time out of heaven, and said, By my- 
 self have I sworn, saith Jehovah, because thou hast done this 
 thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in 
 blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply 
 thy seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which 
 is upon the seashore ; and thy seed shall possess the gate of 
 his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth 
 be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen. 22: 
 15-18.) But Abraham did not enter into the enjoyment of the 
 blessings promised in this covenant in person. Stephen says: 
 "And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as 
 to set his foot on : and he promised that he would give it to 
 him in possession, and to his seed after him." (Acts 7: 5.) 
 " By faith he became a sojourner in the land of promise, as in 
 a land not his own, dwelling in tents, with Isaac and Jacob, 
 the heirs with him of the same promise." (Heb. 11 : 9.) 
 
 As a step toward the fulfillment of the promise, God made 
 the covenant of circumcision with him to separate the family 
 of Abraham from the nations of the earth and to prepare them 
 to enter into the enjoyment of all the blessings of the promise. 
 " This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and 
 you and thy seed after thee : every male among you shall be 
 circumcised. And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your 
 foreskin ; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and 
 you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised 
 
110 Covenants, the. 
 
 among you, every male throughout your generations, he that 
 is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner, 
 that is not of thy seed." (Gen. 17: 10-12.) 
 
 The children of Abraham did not enter into the possession 
 of this land until the return from Egyptian bondage. On 
 their return God renewed the covenant in a different form, 
 on the tables of stone at Horeb. This giving and accepting 
 the law of God through Moses on Mount Sinai, or Horeb, is 
 called the " covenant." " Now therefore, if ye will obey my 
 voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be mine 
 own possession from among all peoples : for all the earth is 
 mine. . . . Moses came and called for the elders of the 
 people, and set before them all these words which Jehovah 
 commanded him. And all the people answered together, and 
 said, All that Jehovah hath spoken we will do. And Moses 
 reported the words of the people unto Jehovah." (Ex. 19: 5- 
 8.) This was the covenant with the children of Israel, in- 
 tended to prepare and fit them for receiving the promised seed 
 — the Messiah. These ten commands were written upon the 
 two tables of stone, and then the laws and judgments grow- 
 ing out of them were written in the book of the law. " He 
 [Moses] took the book of the covenant, and read in the audi- 
 ence of the people : and they said, All that Jehovah hath 
 spoken will we do, and be obedient." (Ex. 24: 7.) This cov- 
 enant embraced the covenant of circumcision formerly given 
 to Abraham, and secured the possession of the land of Canaan. 
 It is henceforth spoken of as " the covenant with Israel " and 
 " the everlasting covenant." This covenant bound both God 
 and the children of Israel — the children of Israel to obey, and 
 God to give the land and bless so long as they were faithful ; 
 but if they were unfaithful, he would withdraw his blessings 
 and drive them out of the land he had given them. " But it 
 shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of 
 Jehovah thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and 
 his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these 
 curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee." (Deut. 28: 
 IS.) 
 
 After enumerating a multitude of afflictions that would come 
 upon them in their own country, he said : "And Jehovah will 
 scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end of the earth 
 even unto the other end of the earth; and there thou shalt 
 
Covenants, the. Ill 
 
 serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy 
 fathers." (Verse 64.) 
 
 The covenant of God with the children of Israel secured to 
 them the land of Canaan and abundant blessings if they would 
 be faithful to him, but it required their banishment from the 
 land given their fathers if they refused to obey God. 
 
 They broke the covenant of God, rebelled against his laws, 
 and, as a people, forfeited the blessings of his covenant and 
 called down upon themselves the curses of that covenant. 
 While the nation as a whole broke his covenant and rejected 
 his rule, there were a few that were willing to serve him, and 
 he took the broken covenant out of the way and made a new 
 and better covenant with them. Jeremiah foretold of this 
 covenant : " Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will 
 make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the 
 house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made 
 with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand 
 to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant 
 they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jeho- 
 vah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house 
 of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah : I will put my law 
 in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it ; and 
 I will be their God, and they shall be my people : and they 
 shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man 
 his brother, saying, Know Jehovah ; for they shall all know 
 me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith 
 Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I 
 remember no more." (Jer. 31 : 31-34.) 
 
 The old covenant was one of law to be obeyed, without 
 touching and changing the heart. So it was imperfect, and he 
 introduced one that would affect and enlist the heart and make 
 the service a heart service. The laws would be impressed on 
 the heart, so all the feelings of the heart would enter into the 
 service and make that service one of joy and gladness, instead 
 of fear and toil. The old covenant was fulfilled for man in 
 Christ. He completely complied with its laws and took it out 
 of the way and introduced the new covenant. " But now hath 
 he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he" 
 is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been 
 enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had 
 been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a 
 
112 Covenants, the. 
 
 second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the 
 days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant 
 with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah; not 
 according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in 
 the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out 
 of the land of Egypt ; for they continued not in my covenant, 
 and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the cov- 
 enant that I will make with the house of Israel after those 
 days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and 
 on their heart also will I write them : and I will be to them a 
 God, and they shall be to me a people : and they shall not 
 teach every man his fellow-citizen, and every man his brother, 
 saying, Know the Lord : for all shall know me, from the least 
 to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniqui- 
 ties, and their sins will I remember no more. In that he saith, 
 A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which 
 is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing 
 away." (Heb. 8: 6-13.) 
 
 The covenant he made with them when they came out of 
 Egypt is the law given by Moses. It was imperfect because 
 the children of Israel, by their transgressions, were not able 
 to appreciate or obey a better one. Both the covenants were 
 made in pursuance of the promise made to Abraham. The 
 one made through Moses was subsidiary and preparatory to 
 the one made through Christ. Paul says : "A covenant con- 
 firmed beforehand by God, the law, which came four hundred 
 and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to make the 
 promise of none effect. . . . What then is the law? It 
 was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come 
 to whom the promise hath been made ; and it was ordained 
 through angels by the hand of a mediator. ... So that 
 the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we 
 might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we 
 are no longer under a tutor." (Gal. 3: 17-25.) God promised 
 to bless the world through the family of Abraham. They 
 transgressed, so were not worthy to receive or bestow the 
 blessing, so God gave the law of Moses as a tutor to train 
 them for Christ ; but when Christ came, he took the law out 
 of the way and offered them the privilege of becoming children 
 of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 
 
 The two covenants are presented also in 2 Cor. 3: 6-11: 
 
Covered Heads. 113 
 
 " Who also made us sufficient as ministers of a new covenant ; 
 not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but 
 the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written, 
 and engraven on stones, came with glory, so that the children 
 of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses 
 for the glory of his face ; which glory was passing away : how 
 shall not rather the ministration of the spirit be with glory? 
 For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much 
 rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 
 For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been 
 made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that sur- 
 passeth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, 
 much more that which remaineth is in glory." 
 
 The covenant of Moses was fleshly, based on promise of. 
 temporal good, an earthly inheritance; the covenant through 
 Christ is spiritual, based on promises of spiritual and eternal 
 good, and of a heavenly inheritance that shall never fade away, 
 of a spiritual and eternal companionship with God. Paul 
 says: "And you, being dead through your trespasses and the 
 uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive to- 
 gether with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses ; having 
 blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against 
 us, which was contrary to us : and he hath taken it out of the 
 way, nailing it to the cross ; having despoiled the principalities 
 and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing 
 over them in it." (Col. 2: 13-15.) 
 
 These ordinances of the fleshly covenant were contrary to 
 the people of God. So he took them out of the way, nailed 
 them to the cross, and introduced them into the higher and 
 better covenant. We could quote many other scriptures 
 showing the distinctness of the two covenants, the superiority 
 of the one over the other, and that one served its end, was 
 contrary to the people of God, and was taken out of the way, 
 with all its fleshly, material, " dead-wood " services, and was 
 superseded by a living, spiritual covenant, in which all the 
 services must be in spirit and in truth. 
 
 COVERED HEADS. 
 
 Please explain 1 Cor. 11: 4-15. The male members of the church 
 
 are reproved for praying and prophesying with their heads covered. 
 
 With what did the men cover their heads? Was it with veils or some 
 
 other covering; and was it the face, the entire head, or only the top 
 
 8 
 
114 Covered Heads. 
 
 of the head that they covered? Is it known what covering, if any, 
 men wore on their heads when out of doors? Do you think our Sav- 
 ior wore a covering of any kind on his head? I never saw a picture 
 representing him with his head covered. With what did Paul require 
 the women to cover their heads? Was this covering to be worn over 
 the face, and was it in the church only, or at all times when men were 
 present, that they were required to wear this covering? Is it un- 
 comely for a woman to pray in her own room with her head uncov- 
 ered? How could a woman prophesy in the church, when she was 
 not permitted to teach or even speak in the church? Verse 15 reads 
 thus: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her 
 hair is given her for a covering." Is a woman's hair to be worn as a 
 covering to her head or to her shoulders, as nature would seem to 
 indicate? In other words, is she to let her hair hang loose, or twist 
 it up in a coil upon her head? The painters of the fourteenth century 
 (I believe it was) represented the women of the New Testament with 
 the hair down. I do not suppose they had any authority for so doing, 
 but I would like to know if there is any proof as to what Paul meant 
 and as to the way Christian women were required to wear their hair. 
 
 The men covered their heads with turbans, composed of a 
 cap with a sash of cloth wound around it. The men wore no 
 veils. The face was not covered with the turbans. When 
 they uncovered their heads, they took off their turbans. The 
 turban can be seen worn by Turks and Arabians who come to 
 this country. The turban covered the heads as the hat now 
 does. We know nothing of the clothing of Jesus, save as is 
 given in the account of his crucifixion. The clothing of which 
 the soldiers stripped him and for which they cast lots was 
 such as was worn by men of that age, and the presumption is 
 that he wore the turban, as was common with men. The 
 women wore very much the same clothing as men, frequently 
 only with a kerchief of cloth tied over their heads. The chief 
 difference was her long hair. There were three styles to wear 
 the hair: (1) To have the hair long; (2) to have the hair 
 cropped, as is common with men ; (3) to have it closely shorn, 
 as with lewd women. Paul required that a woman should 
 have her head covered with her long hair ; or, if her hair was 
 not long, she must have a veil or kerchief as a covering. For 
 her to have short hair, like a man's, and to be without cover- 
 ing was the same as to be shaven like a lewd woman. The 
 men and women in the days of the Savior, in going out, wore 
 large, loose coverings. The women frequently drew these up 
 over the head as a covering to the head. The Jewish women, 
 from the days of Abraham, through the period of the Savior, 
 down to the present time, have never veiled themselves in the 
 presence of men, either of their own family or that of strangers. 
 
Covered Heads. 115 
 
 Sarah did not go veiled when among strangers, nor Rebekah 
 (Gen. 24: 15), nor Rachel (Gen. 29: 11). The women that 
 journeyed around with Jesus and the apostles, that ministered 
 to them, were not veiled. The facts mentioned by the Scrip- 
 tures and the employment of these women prove they were 
 not. They went very much as our women do. Paul was not 
 telling them how they should appear before men, but before 
 God. When they came before God to pray or to prophesy, 
 they were to come with their heads covered in token of their 
 subjection to men. Jesus was the head of the man ; so he can- 
 not approach God save in subjection to his head, Christ. Man 
 is the head of the woman, and the woman cannot approach 
 God save in subjection to her husband or man. The token 
 of her subjection to man is her covered head. The head must' 
 be covered by having the hair long or having a veil over 
 her head. The covering is for the head, not the face. Then 
 a man must not have his head covered when he comes before 
 God, either with long hair or with a hat, veil, or cloth of any 
 kind. This would be a shame to him. He may have it cov- 
 ered at other times, but not when he approaches God to pray 
 or prophesy in his name. 
 
 The woman, when she comes before God in prayer or in 
 prophesying, must do it with her head covered either with 
 long hair or with a veil or covering of some kind. Paul is tell- 
 ing how she must appear before God, not before men ; and this 
 applies to her appearance before God in the closet as well as 
 in the public assembly. In the public assembly she may not 
 lead in prayer or prophesy in public. There were spiritually 
 gifted women who did prophesy or teach by inspiration. The 
 four daughters of Philip, the evangelist (Acts 21: 9), did 
 prophesy, but they did it at home. I do not doubt that Pris- 
 cilla was a spiritually gifted woman ; but when she taught, 
 she took them to themselves to do it. The women com- 
 manded to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14: 34) were inspired 
 women. The whole chapter is about those possessed of spir- 
 itual gifts. Many women in the days of the apostles possessed 
 these gifts. They exercised them in the private circle, never 
 in the public assembly. The veiling of the face in the East is 
 a Mohammedan custom, not a Jewish or Christian custom. 
 To cover the head in the presence of God is both Jewish and 
 Christian. 
 
116 Creed in the Deed. 
 
 CREED IN THE DEED. 
 
 Is it scriptural or right to insert in deeds for properties on which 
 to build houses of worship the restrictive clause — that is, that no or- 
 gan or missionary societies shall ever be brought or organized on the 
 said property? 
 
 Most certainly. There is not a deed made to a church in 
 Christendom that does not contain in it the creed of the church 
 to which it was made. When a deed is made to the Roman 
 Catholic Church, the property deeded is made for the use of 
 those holding the creed of the Catholic Church and the prop- 
 agation of its faith ; when a deed is made to the Presbyterian 
 or Methodist or Baptist Church, it is made for the use of those 
 holding the creed of the church to which it is made and for 
 the propagation of the doctrines that church holds. There is 
 not a court in the land that does not so decide. And property 
 so deeded can be used by no other religious body or for the 
 propagation of no other doctrines, except by the consent of 
 those to whom it is deeded. He is very ignorant of a very 
 common and patent truth that does not know in all such cases 
 the creed is contained in the deed. Where is the opprobrium 
 or wrong if a Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian insists, 
 when he gives means to build up what he regards the truth, 
 that it shall be used for what he gives it? Or who would not 
 say it is dishonesty to pervert property given to build up 
 Baptist principles, to pull them down? All the decisions of 
 all the courts in the world could not make it honest to per- 
 vert property given to build up Baptist churches and princi- 
 ples so as to destroy Baptist churches and principles and de- 
 vote it to the upbuilding of Methodist churches and principles. 
 These are the principles of common sense and common law 
 and common honesty required by the Bible and the law of the 
 land. 
 
 Among those claiming to be Christians only, fifty years ago, 
 all agreed the fundamental principle was : " We will do the 
 things required by the word of God, adding nothing thereto, 
 taking nothing from it." This was the universally recognized 
 principle of action. A change has come over many who have 
 since come into the church. They now claim the right to add 
 things not required by God. Some cling to the original 
 ground. Persons led by these different purposes cannot walk 
 together. It is impossible. It is folly to try. It is right to 
 try to convince each other of his wrong. But if they cannot 
 
Creed in the Deed. 117 
 
 be convinced, the. separation must come. " Can two walk to- 
 gether, except they be agreed?" The two paths lead in op- 
 posite directions. To do what God requires will lead to 
 heaven ; to add what man thinks is good will lead to hell. 
 " In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the com- 
 mandments of men." " They be blind leaders of the blind." 
 " Every plant, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, 
 shall be rooted up." (Matt. 15 : 9, 13, 14.) This is what Jesus 
 says of those who add the teachings of man to the appoint- 
 ments of God. If there is truth in the Bible, this path leads 
 to hell ; if there is truth in the Bible, doing what God com- 
 mands, adding nothing thereto and taking nothing from it, 
 leads to heaven. There can be no compromise or union be- 
 tween the two principles. In this separation contention arose 
 over the property acquired when all were agreed. 
 
 Many wish to give to build up the course that leads to 
 heaven and oppose that which leads to hell. To* protect this 
 from the Methodists or Baptists or Catholics, it was deeded 
 to the church of Christ, or, as it was called fifty years ago 1 , 
 " Christian Church." But people now claiming to be Chris- 
 tians, maintaining the right to add to the appointments of God, 
 try ten times as hard to take our property from us as do the 
 Methodists or Baptists. All deeds to churches are restrictive. 
 The names indicate to whom the deed first restricts the prop- 
 erty. But here are two distinct bodies, guided by diamet- 
 rically opposite principles, traveling in opposite directions, but 
 calling themselves by the same name. Shall those who op- 
 pose all additions to the word of God spend their money and 
 time in building houses to be taken by those who oppose their 
 work, without trying to preserve it to the cause of right by any 
 peaceable means in their power? It is folly to so act. 
 
 Men who have known the truth and turn from it are worse 
 and more dangerous than those who never knew it. As little 
 as we can do is to throw restrictions around the property in 
 the deed. This is writing the creed in the deed. We have 
 good authority for this. God deeded the land of Canaan to the 
 children of Israel. He wrote the creed in the deed. The 
 creed then was the same we insist upon now. " What thing 
 soever I command you, that shall ye observe to do: thou shalt 
 not add thereto, nor diminish from it." (Deut. 12: 32.) This 
 creed was so often repeated in the deed, too, lest they should 
 
118 Creed in the Deed. 
 
 forget. They did forget, and God issued an ouster and dis- 
 possessed them of the land he had deeded to them, because 
 they forgot the creed, and to-day the Jews are murdered by 
 the thousands in Russia as the result of their forgetting the 
 creed that was written in the deed made by God. 
 
 God has also given to his children a deed to the heavenly 
 Canaan. But the creed is written in that deed in letters of 
 blood— the blood, too, of God's beloved Son. "And the Spirit 
 and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, 
 Come. And he that is athirst, let him come : he that will, let 
 him take the water of life freely. I testify unto every man that 
 heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man 
 shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which 
 are written in this book : and if any man shall take away from 
 the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away 
 his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which 
 are written in this book. He who testifieth these things saith, 
 Yea: I come quickly. Amen: come, Lord Jesus." (Rev. 22: 
 17-21.) 
 
 God never made a deed without writing the creed in it ; and 
 a failure to observe the creed was the forfeiture of the deed. 
 Christians ought never to write a deed for themselves without 
 writing the creed in it ; and the oftener it is written, the better, 
 " lest they forget." Write God's creed in every deed you can. 
 He will bless. 
 
 CREEDS, DO HUMAN, MAKE CHRISTIANS? 
 
 Is there a creed of the Christians published other than the Bible? 
 If so, who is the author, and where may the book be found? 
 
 I never heard of any creed of the Christians, save the Bible ; 
 indeed, if they had any other creed, save the Bible, they would 
 not be Christians. The Bible is the only creed that can make 
 Christians. 
 
 I take it that the above answer is from the pen of Brother Lips- 
 comb. The Methodists have "a creed, save the Bible;" and as those 
 who have " a creed, save the Bible," are not Christians, the Methodists 
 are not Christians. The Baptists have "a creed, save the Bible;" 
 hence it follows as a logical conclusion that the Methodists, Baptists, 
 and all others who have " a creed, save the Bible," are not Christians. 
 How, then, can Brother Lipscomb receive such into God's church 
 without baptism, since those who have "a creed, save the Bible," are 
 not Christians? Can we receive into the church those who are not 
 Christians? What is the difference between receiving a man into the 
 
Creeds, Do Human, Make Christians? 119 
 
 church on his immersion who has " a creed, save the Bible," and is not 
 a Christian, and receiving a man who is sprinkled and has " a creed, 
 save the Bible,'' and who is not a Christian? Those who have ''a 
 creed, save the Bible," have a conversion which must be " wholly of 
 men;" hence, how can we receive such without baptism? 
 
 It is singular to me that a teacher of the Christian religion, 
 of experience and biblical knowledge, should ask such a ques- 
 tion as that. It is undoubtedly true that nothing can make a 
 Christian, save belief in Christ and obedience to the teachings 
 of the Bible. Even if the very acts the Bible requires are per- 
 formed because taught in some creed or by some church or 
 person, that service is not acceptable to God and cannot make 
 a man a Christian. Fear of the Lord " taught by the precept 
 of men" is displeasing to God. (Isa. 29: 13.) Whatever is 
 believed or practiced because it is taught in the Methodist, 
 Baptist, or Rebaptist creed injures a man and separates him 
 from God instead of drawing him to God. There are unwritten 
 creeds as well as written ones, and whatever man believes or 
 practices because some men or set of men teach it will not help 
 that man religiously; indeed, it will injure him. " In vain do 
 they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of 
 men." (Matt. 15: 9.) ''Whatsoever is not of faith is sin" 
 (Rom. 14: 23), and the faith must be in God. I believe this 
 as firmly as I believe the Bible. 
 
 The Baptists generally deny that they have any creed, save 
 the Bible • and it is true that not one in five hundred of them 
 have ever seen the creed or know what is in it, and many do 
 not believe it. I remember while I was in debate with Griffin 
 in 1870, in Gallatin, J. R. Graves stated before the audience 
 that he had never seen or read the " Philadelphia Confession 
 of Faith," and for some years I could not get a copy ; it was 
 out of print. But the Baptists do use, read, and preach from 
 the Bible ; they teach that God requires people to believe and 
 obey the things taught in the Bible. If some under Baptist 
 preaching hear or read the Bible and do the things commanded 
 in the Bible because God requires them, without any knowl- 
 edge or thought of what the creed teaches, why is not that 
 obedience acceptable to God? The obedience that was ren- 
 dered to God among the ten tribes after they had ceased to go 
 up to Jerusalem to worship was accepted of God when they 
 returned and united with the Jews in the full service ; they 
 were accepted of God and were not required to be again cir- 
 
120 Creeds, Do Human, Make Christians? 
 
 cumcised. See Hezekiah's invitation to all to return to Je- 
 rusalem and keep the passover. (2 Chron. 30: 1-21.) God 
 accepted them and made special allowance for those who had 
 been unfavorably situated for knowing and doing his will. 
 There is nothing of the Godlike spirit in proscribing those who 
 seek to do his will because they have been unfavorably situ- 
 ated for learning and doing it. 
 
 What is true of the Baptists, as stated above, is also true of 
 other denominations to a greater or less extent. What is done 
 to comply with any human creed or to please any church or 
 any human being is sinful ; but obedience rendered to God 
 among these sects will not be rejected because they are unfa- 
 vorably situated for knowing and obeying God's will, when 
 they seek the more perfect worship of God* These sects are 
 usually counted spiritual Babylon. Christians are com- 
 manded to come out of Babylon. (Rev. 18: 4.) A. Campbell 
 said : " Christians cannot come out of Babylon unless there be 
 Christians in Babylon." God requires us to encourage, and 
 not repel, all striving to do his will, even if they are unfavor- 
 ably situated for knowing and doing his will. As we judge 
 and treat them in their trials and misconceptions, so God will 
 treat us in our weaknesses and mistakes. If any man thinks 
 he understands and does the full will of God, he deceives him- 
 self, and needs to repent of his self-righteousness. (See Re- 
 baptism. 
 
 CUPS, HOW MANY, SHOULD BE USED? 
 
 Where I have been preaching recently the two leading brethren dis- 
 agree as to how many cups should be used in the Lord's Supper, and 
 they desire to hear from you on the subject. One brother contends 
 that we ought to use but one cup, and that to use more than one is 
 sinful; while the rest of the brethren think that the cup sustains the 
 same relation to the wine that the plate does to the bread, and hence 
 it is not the cup, but what it contains, that should be considered, 
 though, out of deference to him, they use only one cup. 
 
 It is difficult to tell how to treat those who exalt such whims 
 into matters of faith. They, as a rule, are good, morbidly 
 conscientious men, who, to say the least, are like some of 
 whom the Savior speaks, who " tithe mint and anise and 
 cummin, and have left undone the weightier matters of the law, 
 justice, and mercy, and faith." But these do not pertain to 
 the law of God at all. God teaches nothing on the subject 
 of whether there should be one loaf or cup or more. Matthew 
 
Cups, How Many Should be Used? 121 
 
 says: "As they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and 
 brake it; and he gave to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; 
 this is my body. And he took a cup, and gave thanks, and 
 gave to them, saying, Drink ye all of it ; for this is my blood of 
 the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of 
 sins. But I say unto you, I shall not drink henceforth of this 
 fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 
 in my Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26: 26-29.) When Jesus 
 speaks of this cup, " this fruit of the vine," he does not mean 
 that special cup before him, but the wine used for the same 
 purpose even till he comes again ; he will drink of this cup 
 when he comes again, which shows he means by this that 
 which is like this and used for the same end. 
 
 The abuses that grow out of the Supper show that they did' 
 not all drink of one cup. One ate and drank before another, 
 and each seems to have brought his own bread and wine and 
 plates and cups ; and, then, some got drunk, which they could 
 not have done if all drank from the same cup of wine ; there 
 would not have been enough in one cup to make them drunk. 
 This was an abuse of the Supper, of course, but an abuse that 
 could not have grown up if all had to partake of one cup. 
 The truth is, this Supper was instituted at the passover, and 
 the passover was a feast. Out of this feasting the abuses 
 grew, and Paul (1 Cor. 11) corrects the idea of its being a 
 feast to eat and drink, and makes it a memorial service to re- 
 fresh our memory of the kindness and love of Jesus in dying 
 for the world. 
 
 There is nothing taught as to whether one cup or more, or 
 one loaf or more, was used. This cup or this loaf did not con- 
 fine the Savior's language to the one cup or loaf he had in 
 his hand, but it meant : This cup or this loaf used to commem- 
 orate my sufferings, whenever and wherever it be, till I come 
 again. All efforts to make laws and restrictions where God 
 has made none are as sinful as to annul those he has made. 
 Both displace God's authority with man's. To bring in these 
 untaught questions is to disturb the peace of the church, and 
 falls under the law. " Him that is weak in the faith receive 
 ye, but not to doubtful disputations." Disputations over these 
 questions are forbidden, and he who occupies his mind with 
 these untaught questions cannot find time for the great and 
 important work of saving a lost and ruined world. 
 
122 David, a Man After God's Own Heart. 
 
 DAVID, A MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART. 
 
 (1) In what respect was David a man after God's own heart? 
 
 David was a man after God's own heart in that he sought 
 to do the will of God without changing it as Saul had done. 
 Saul was about to engage in battle. "And he tarried seven 
 days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed : 
 but Samuel came not to Gilgal ; and the people were scattered 
 from him. And Saul said, Bring hither the burnt offering to 
 me, and the peace offerings. And he offered the burnt offer- 
 ing. And it came to pass that, as soon as he had made an 
 end of offering the burnt offering, behold, Samuel came; and 
 Saul went out to meet him, that he might salute him. And 
 Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because 
 I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou 
 earnest not within the days appointed, and that the Philistines 
 assembled themselves together at Michmash ; therefore said I, 
 Now will the Philistines come down upon me to Gilgal, and 
 I have not entreated the favor of Jehovah : I forced myself 
 therefore, and offered the burnt offering. And Samuel said to 
 Saul, Thou hast done foolishly ; thou hast not kept the com- 
 mandment of Jehovah thy God, which he commanded thee : 
 for now would Jehovah have established thy kingdom upon 
 Israel forever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue : Je- 
 hovah hath sought him a man after his own heart, and Jehovah 
 hath appointed him to be prince over his people, because thou 
 hast not kept that which Jehovah commanded thee." (1 Sam. 
 13 : 8-14.) Saul changed God's law and made an offering him- 
 self when Samuel failed to come at the appointed time, when 
 he knew it was not lawful for any save a priest to offer. He 
 did it through an excess of religious zeal. He was again guilty 
 of the same sin when God sent him to destroy the Amalekites 
 (chapter 15), when he changed the command of God to slay 
 everything, man and beast, in their own land. Saul thoughl 
 to honor God more by bringing the fatlings back to Israel and 
 making a sacrifice to God. This he did, and God gave him 
 up and had Samuel to anoint David king. David would not 
 change the appointments of God ; and when he violated them 
 through fleshly lust, he made no effort to justify or excuse him- 
 self, but confessed his sin freely and without excuse. Men 
 frequently commit greater sins in trying to excuse and justify 
 their wrongdoing than the original sin. God loves the man 
 
Day, He that Regardeth the. 123 
 
 that desires to do his will without changing it, and when he 
 does wrong will freely confess the sin. David was in these 
 points a man after God's heart. Saul changed God's appoint- 
 ments and then sought to excuse and justify himself in it. 
 This shows a bad heart toward God. 
 
 (2) Was David an inspired man? 
 
 David was inspired in certain things. Inspiration bestows 
 certain gifts. A man is inspired along certain lines, not in 
 others. Samson, a wicked and loose man in some respects, 
 was inspired in some others. Judas Iscariot was inspired. 
 Inspiration taught the truth along certain lines, but did not 
 prevent sinning. Paul, with all his inspiration, had to keep 
 his body under, his lusts, lest, after having preached to others, 
 he should be a castaway. (1 Cor. 9: 27.) 
 
 DAY, HE THAT REGARDETH THE. 
 
 Please explain Rom. 14: 6: " He that regardeth the day, regardeth it 
 unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth 
 not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God 
 thanks; and he that- eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth 
 God thanks." This verse I have studied much, but cannot under- 
 stand it. 
 
 This is one of those passages of scripture that can be under- 
 stood only by understanding the Old Testament Scriptures. 
 Under the Jewish law there were many days held as holy 
 days, among them the first day of every month, the new moon, 
 with other feast and fast days. After the establishment of 
 Christianity, the questions came tip : Shall these days still be 
 observed to the Lord? Shall the meats and sacrifices be of- 
 fered to the Lord? The meats were eaten by the people to 
 the Lord. Paul tells them it is a matter of indifference. 
 Those who desire to observe the day can do so, if they will 
 spend it in true worship to the Lord ; others, who do' not de- 
 sire to observe these days, may refrain from it, if, in their fail- 
 ure to do it, they are still serving the Lord. The meats used 
 in the observance of this day may also be eaten or not. The 
 same days are referred to in Gal. 4 : 10, only here they had been 
 used to turn the people away from Jesus back to Judaism ; so 
 were observed, but not to the Lord, and worked injury. The 
 principle taught here, I think, authorizes a Christian to de- 
 vote any day he chooses to the service of God, but he must 
 
124 Day, He that Regardeth the. 
 
 not impose it upon others. This has no reference to the day 
 God has set apart for worship. That all must observe. But 
 if any desire to devote other days to the worship of God, they 
 may do so for themselves, but must not impose them upon 
 others. Col. 2 : 16 also refers to these days that were held to 
 be sacred among the Jews. God did not object to their wor- 
 shiping him on these days. Here he says : " Let no man there- 
 fore judge you " as to these days and services that have been 
 done away in Christ. He means by this : Do not let any lead 
 you into condemnation by turning you, through these observ- 
 ances, back to Judaism. Read this whole connection in Colos- 
 sians. They had been made complete in Christ. These days 
 and feasts were all types or shadows of truths to come, there- 
 fore do not turn back from Christ to them. Yet, as said above, 
 if any man wished to devote the new moon or any other feast 
 day to the worship of the Lord, he might do so. If a man 
 wishes to devote Saturday to the worship of God, he may 
 do so ; but he must not let it interfere with the worship God 
 has directed on the Lord's day, nor must he impose it on oth- 
 ers. See Doubtful Disputations. 
 
 DAY, WHAT, IS IT? 
 
 To what day is reference made in Heb. 10: 25? The verse is: " Not 
 forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of 
 some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see 
 the day approaching." 
 
 One interpretation is that it refers to the first day of the 
 week. On this day they met for worship. Some then, as 
 many now, failed to meet ; and as they would meet each other 
 as the day approached, they should admonish and exhort one 
 another to be faithful in the meeting. This would require 
 them to be more diligent in exhorting one another toward the 
 latter part of the week than during the early part of it, much 
 more diligent on Friday or Saturday than on Monday or Tues- 
 day. I do not think this is correct. There were prophecies 
 of the speedy destruction of Jerusalem among the Christians. 
 Jesus had foretold this and had given signs of the coming of 
 the day. He had warned them that when they saw these signs 
 imminent, they must flee the city. They were watching for 
 the signs of the coming of this day. But I think this was 
 the day of which they were to watch the approach and be 
 ready to leave the city before the evil came upon it. The 
 
Deacons and Their Work. 125 
 
 early histories of the churches state that no Christian suffered 
 in the destruction of the city, although the Jews perished in 
 great numbers. Eusebius, the earliest of the church histo- 
 tians, gives this account: "The whole body, however, of the 
 church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine rev- 
 elation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, 
 removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond 
 the Jordan, called Pella. Here those that believed in Christ, 
 having removed from Jerusalem as if holy men had entirely 
 abandoned the royal city itself and the whole land of Judea ; 
 the divine justice for their crimes against Christ and his apos- 
 tles finally overtook them, totally destroying the whole gen- 
 eration of these evildoers from the earth." (" Ecclesiastical 
 History," Book III., Chapter 5, page 86.) The destruc- 
 tion was by the Roman army in accordance with the prophe T 
 cies of Daniel (9: 26) and of Jesus (Matt. 24.) These historic 
 accounts may be exaggerated in some parts ; but the destruc- 
 tion was looked for and did come not a great while after the 
 •writing of this letter to the Hebrews, and I think the reference 
 was to this day. 
 
 DEACONS AND THEIR WORK. 
 
 In 1 Tim. 3 we find the character qualifications of deacons in the 
 church, and in Phil. 1 : 1 we find there were deacons in the church at 
 Philippi; but we have failed to find (to our understanding) the work 
 of the deacons outlined. What is their work? Some tell us that the 
 seven that were chosen to look after the wants of the Grecian widows 
 were deacons, and to serve tables is the work of deacons. Is this 
 true? We do not know where they are called deacons, and we find 
 that in a very short time two of that number (Stephen and Philip) 
 were preaching the gospel very successfully. 
 
 These seven are not called by any name or official designa- 
 tion. Shall we, therefore, conclude that they had no work to 
 do? No one is given an official designation in the New Testa- 
 ment service. Apostle is not an ofricial designation. It sim- 
 ply means " one sent," and it would be applied to any one sent, 
 regardless of the mission. So also of elders, bishops, deacons ; 
 they all designated the work they did, or the characters of 
 the qualities they possessed, rather than an ofricial position. 
 Diakoon, translated deacon, means simply a servant or minis- 
 ter. It does not make any difference whom or what he serves. 
 If he serves, he is a minister or servant or deacon. That 
 means that the work to be done was the important thing, not 
 
126 Deacons and Their Work. 
 
 the official authority. While the name diakoon, or servant, 
 is not used in Acts v 6, the verb diakonein, to serve, is men- 
 tioned, and diakoneo, the service rendered, is spoken of. To 
 say a man served, or did service, is about as definite as to say 
 he was a servant. That is what is done in Acts 6. A deacon, 
 then, is a servant of the church. These seven served the 
 church; they did service. Hence they have been called dea- 
 cons, or servants— I suppose, justly. The elders were the over- 
 seers, the teachers. The seven were appointed to look after 
 the neglected poor and needy, which the teachers could not 
 do without neglecting their duty as teaching. " It is not fit 
 that we should forsake the word of God, and serve tables" 
 (Acts 6:2), said the apostles who were teaching. It would 
 seem that it is not right to quit teaching the word to serve 
 tables. This service needed did not last long, because the 
 disciples were scattered abroad. These seven were designated 
 to supplement the work of the teachers in looking after the 
 poor. We find that the deacons were associated with the 
 teachers or the elders to do the work, to help on the affairs of 
 the church. Those who served the church did look after the 
 poor and see that their wants were supplied. Some of them 
 preached; all of them did, I suppose; so did all of the disciples 
 who were scattered abroad. 
 
 DEBT, PAYING. 
 
 If a Christian owes me or any other person a sum of money and 
 pays no part of the debt, can he contribute acceptably on the Lord's 
 day? If he contributes to any public enterprise — such as building an 
 academy or a church or to the need of any person — is the gift accepted 
 of God? Is he not giving the money of another, and should he not 
 first pay such money on his just and honest debts, and then, after hav- 
 ing paid his just debts, contribute to worthy enterprises? Can any 
 man take the oversight of a congregation acceptably who thus acts? 
 Can any man oversee or teach and discipline a congregation who fails 
 to teach and impress the truth upon his own family? Can a Chris- 
 tian make his wife a freeholder to hold property against his indebted- 
 ness? 
 
 It is wrong for any one to refuse or fail to pay his debts 
 when it is in his power. God set the seal of his condemnation 
 on it in the Old Testament. It was common then and recog- 
 nized as right for a man to sell himself and family to pay his 
 debts. (Ex. 21: 7, 8; Lev. 25: 47; Deut. 15: 12; Neh. 5: 8.) 
 In one case it is commanded that he should be sold. (Ex. 
 22: 3.) In the New Testament we are commanded: "Owe 
 
Decent, What is Healthful and? 127 
 
 no man anything." There are many admonitions and require- 
 ments that cannot be fulfilled save by avoiding debt. It is sin 
 for any man to make arrangements with his wife or any one 
 else to avoid paying his debts — that is, to defraud his cred- 
 itors ; and all fraud to avoid paying debts is dishonesty. A man 
 who owes others and is not able to pay ought not to give 
 money to the service of God. God likes clean offerings, and 
 will accept no other kind. But sometimes wives have prop- 
 erty left them and their children by parents or others that they 
 have no right to use in paying their husbands' debts, and their 
 husbands are misjudged in reference to these matters. I have 
 known cases of both kinds — where a husband put his property 
 in his wife's name to avoid paying his debts, and where wives 
 have property given them and their children which they have 
 no right to use to pay their husbands' debts. I have known- 
 husbands improperly blamed in these cases. It is right to be 
 sure of the wrong before it is charged ; but, with this caution, I 
 think there is no point at which the cause of Christ suffers 
 more than in the dishonesty and indifference of church mem- 
 bers to act honestly and uprightly and to be faithful in paying 
 their debts, or in trying as far as able to pay them. Then the 
 church treats these cases with indifference, honors men that 
 do not pay their debts, and the cause of God suffers. A re- 
 vival of honesty is greatly needed among Christians. 
 
 DECENT, WHAT IS HEALTHFUL AND? 
 
 In our school one of the teachers conducts a physical culture class 
 for young men. In this class the limbs and shoulders are exposed so 
 as to give more freedom to the muscles. After the exercises, all take 
 a shower bath. When this work is done orderly and for the benefit of 
 our health, is it either indecent, immoral, impure, unchaste, low, or 
 wicked? Some think we are guilty of all these crimes when we engage 
 in it. If it is either of these, we wish to drop the work at once. 
 Please tell us if you think we are doing wrong. What makes a thing 
 indecent, immoral, impure, or unchaste? 
 
 It is not true that clothing hinders the use of the muscles. 
 Of course, clothing might be so made as to hinder the use of 
 the muscles, but ordinary loose clothing does not. This is a 
 deception that professionals practice on themselves and the 
 public. 
 
 With this out of the way, the latter of the two questions 
 should be first answered. To determine what is evil as an- 
 nounced, we must have a standard. Things are good or evil 
 
128 Decent, What is Healthful and? 
 
 according to the standard used. Brutes do not have a sense of 
 right or wrong, nor a sense of shame, and the exposure of all 
 parts of the body is regarded as proper. 
 
 When man was first created, he was naked and without 
 shame. He was then very much of an animal and had no 
 sense of right and wrong. When he sinned and his sense of 
 right and wrong developed, his sense of shame came with it, 
 and Adam and Eve made aprons of fig leaves to hide their 
 nakedness. God sympathized with their sense of shame when 
 they came to know good from evil and made for Adam and 
 for his wife " coats of skin, and clothed them." (Gen. 3: 21.) 
 God thought people who knew good from evil ought to clothe 
 themselves so as to hide their nakedness. Again, one pos- 
 sessed with demons " wore no clothes." The demons were 
 cast out, and he was " clothed, and in his right mind." (See 
 Luke 8: 27-35.) This seems to settle it that people in their 
 right mind will clothe themselves. To this the judgment of 
 the world conforms. Uncivilized and savage nations, as a 
 rule, go partially clothed. As they rise in the scale of educa- 
 tion, civilization, and refinement, they wear more clothes. 
 
 If it be claimed this bareness of clothing is only for a short 
 period, the answer is: To return to a state of savage and 
 brutal indifference for only a short time leaves its evil influ- 
 ence upon the character of those doing it and upon all accus- 
 tomed to it. 
 
 In addition to this, the whole fad of gymnastics and violent 
 exercise is a hurtful mistake, physically and morally. The de- 
 velopment of the external organs and muscles does not add 
 to the life force or vitality of the person. The life force comes 
 from the internal organs — the stomach, heart, liver, and oth^ 
 ers. The office of the external organs, including the muscles, 
 is to work off and expend the surplus force and effete matter 
 supplied by the internal organs. If the external organs be- 
 come disproportionately large and expend the life force more 
 rapidly and more constantly than it is supplied, weakness and 
 exhaustion and permanent debility ensue. To suggest these 
 things is to prove them. The persons who live long are those 
 with good heart and lungs and other internal organs, with a 
 good venous system, indicated by large jugular veins, with 
 moderate muscular power. Athletes or persons with large 
 muscular development seldom live long. The reason is that 
 
 i 
 
Despisers of God. 129 
 
 they expend life force more rapidly than the internal organs 
 that eliminate it from the food taken can supply it. Exhaus- 
 tion, disease, and premature death follow. There is no surer 
 indication of a short life than weak internal organs coupled 
 with large muscular form. If a man can develop and 
 strengthen his internal organs and take such moderate exercise 
 as will keep them in healthy activity, the pores open, working 
 off the effete matter without exhausting them, he will secure 
 the best guarantee of health and long life that is possible to 
 man. 
 
 But what is indecent? Anything is indecent that suggests 
 and creates improper thoughts and desires. Seeing a woman 
 half naked suggests improper thoughts and creates lustful de- 
 sires in man, hence it is indecent for a woman to appear half 
 naked before men. The same is true of half naked men before 
 women. It is indecent for either sex to appear half naked be- 
 fore the other. It is also true that for those of either sex to 
 appear half naked before others of their own sex destroys their 
 sense of shame and modesty and educates them to have no 
 shame or to be indecent before the other sex. My judgment 
 is that the half-naked and violent practices are not good to give 
 strength and vigor to the body, but its tendency is to destroy 
 modesty and refinement of feeling and to produce coarse and 
 unrefined feelings and manners. These violent exercises bring 
 no good, but evil, to body and spirit. 
 
 DESPISERS OF GOD. 
 
 What is meant by the terms " hate," " love," and " despise," as ap- 
 plied to God and his law? In other words, is it possible for one to 
 think he loves God, when, as a matter of fact, he despises him? 
 
 God and the Bible deal with questions and use words in a 
 
 practical sense. We use them in a sentimental, emotional 
 
 sense, and often mistake their meaning and wrongly judge 
 
 ourself and our conduct by them. The words." hate" and 
 
 " love " are so misunderstood and misapplied. Many persons 
 
 who hate the Lord, through a false standard, think they love 
 
 him. Many who love him, through the false standard, are 
 
 much troubled lest they fail to love him. We treat and judge 
 
 them simply as emotions or magnetic attractions or repulsions. 
 
 One whose heart (and the heart is the inner spiritual man that 
 
 coolly judges and determines) is willing deliberately to serve 
 9 
 
130 Despisers of God. 
 
 the Lord, deny himself to obey and please the Lord, but is 
 lacking in emotional and magnetic sympathies, frequently 
 distresses himself with the thought that he does not love the 
 Lord. Another, who has quick emotions and excitable sym- 
 pathies, but will not give up his own ways to serve the Lord, 
 imagines he loves the Lord with a pure heart fervently. This 
 one frequently deceives his soul to his own undoing; the other 
 needlessly harasses his soul with doubts and fears. 
 
 God's test of love is the willingness to do what God com- 
 mands out of respect and reverence for the will of God. " This 
 is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." (1 
 John 5 : 3.) 
 
 It matters not what a man's emotions, sympathies, and at- 
 tractions may be, if he is not willing to deny himself and re- 
 ject his own wisdom and will to obey God, he hates God. Ac- 
 cording to this rule so strongly emphasized by God, if a man 
 do the things commanded by God as the dictate of his own 
 wisdom and not as obedience to the will of God, that doing 
 is not accepted as service to God. The principle and test of 
 love become simple under the law of God. Whenever a man 
 will forego earthly ends to obey God, he loves God better 
 than he loves these ends. The woman that is willing to. dis- 
 obey husband and so displease him in order to obey and please 
 God loves God better than she loves the husband — nay, in the 
 language of Jesus, she loves God and hates the husband. To 
 hate is to be willing to displease and break harmony with the 
 husband. When she is willing to disobey God to please the 
 husband, she hates God — is willing to break union with him 
 for the sake of the husband. 
 
 The word despise has much the same meaning of hate. We 
 use the word despise as an emotion that holds in contempt 
 and dislike a person or thing. That is not its Bible use. 
 Many persons who are very devout in their services to the 
 Lord really despise him ; they would be insulted and horri- 
 fied at the idea, but they will be turned aside at the last day 
 as despisers of Almighty God. 
 
 Moses says : " But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will 
 not do all these commandments ; and if ye shall reject my 
 statutes, and if your soul abhor mine ordinances, so that ye 
 will not do all my commandments, but break my covenant ; 
 I also will do this unto you: I will appoint terror over you, 
 
Despisers of God. 131 
 
 even consumption, and fever, that shall consume the eyes, and 
 make the soul to pine away." (Lev. 26: 14-16.) 
 
 To so reject the word of God as to refuse to do all that he 
 commanded them was to despise God — that is, when a man is 
 wise enough to set aside any part of God's law, he despises the 
 law of God. 
 
 Solomon says, " The foolish despise wisdom and instruc- 
 tion " (Prov. 1 : 7) — that is, they refuse to follow them. " De- 
 spise not thy mother when she is old " (Prov. 23 : 22) — do not 
 lightly regard and neglect her when she is old, infirm, and 
 helpless. 
 
 Malachi says : "A son honoreth his father, and a servant his 
 master : if then I am a father, where is mine honor? and if I am 
 a master, where is my fear? saith Jehovah of hosts unto you, 
 O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have 
 we despised thy name? Ye offer polluted bread upon mine 
 altar. And ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that 
 ye say, The table of Jehovah is contemptible. And when ye 
 offer the blind for sacrifice, it is no evil ! and when ye offer 
 the lame and sick, it is no evil ! " (Mai. 1 : 6-8.) These 
 priests were worshipers of God. They had come to set aside 
 his commands in their strictness, and did not bring the best 
 to the Lord. This was to despise him. 
 
 Jesus Christ said : " No man can serve two masters : for 
 either he will hate the one, and love the other ; or else he will 
 hold to the one, and despise the other." (Matt. 6: 24.) To 
 neglect a master and his will is to despise him. A man cannot 
 make a master of his conscience and of God, too. If he fol- 
 lows his conscience as a master, he despises God and rejects 
 him. Every man who sets up his conscience or his judgment 
 or reason or experience as a rule, or as deciding the right, 
 rejects God and despises him and his law. Jesus said : " He 
 that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you re- 
 jecteth me ; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent 
 me." (Luke 10: 16.) Here rejecting is placed as the oppo- 
 site of hearing. Every man that refuses to hear and be guided 
 by the words of the apostles despises both Jesus Christ and 
 God his Father. 
 
 Many preachers who are eloquent and pathetic in their ap- 
 peals for God will be turned aside with the sentence : " Be- 
 hold, ye despisers, wonder and perish ! " A man can worship 
 
132 Despisers of God. 
 
 God with zeal and pathos, with earnestness and deep feeling, 
 and yet despise him. A man who prefers his own wisdom to 
 the wisdom of God, a man who thinks the provisions of God 
 in any respect inefficient, lightly esteems that wisdom. When 
 he turns from God's appointments to the ways of man, he de- 
 spises the wisdom of God ; and when he despises the ways of 
 God, he despises God. At best, we approach God only in his 
 ways and in his appointments. To turn from these or to re- 
 ject them is to dishonor and despise God. 
 
 Jesus gives us an example of these : " Not every one that 
 saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
 heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in 
 heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we 
 not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, 
 and by thy name do many mighty works? " (Matt. 7: 21, 22.) 
 These persons are zealous and devoted worshipers of God. 
 They are so full of zeal and devotion, of earnestness and con- 
 secration, that they think they are able to prophesy in his 
 name, to cast out devils in his name, and in his name do many 
 wonderful works. Yet they were despisers of God. They did 
 not follow his will, but substituted their own ways of worship ; 
 were eloquent, devoted, zealous, and pathetic in their service, 
 but they despised God. They showed it in failing to do his 
 will. Paul says, "Therefore he that rejecteth, rejecteth not 
 man, but God, who giveth his Holy Spirit unto you" (1 
 Thess. 4: 8) — that is, God had given to the apostles his Holy 
 Spirit that they might know the mind of God. The apostles 
 delivered this mind, or will, of God to men ; and when they re- 
 jected or set aside the teachings of the apostles for the wisdom 
 of man, they did not despise man, but God. All the efforts to 
 exalt human wisdom and experience to a rule of action for 
 man is to despise the wisdom of God, is to despise God him- 
 self; and those who despise God, God will despise and con- 
 demn them with an everlasting destruction. 
 
 It is folly for men to go forward worshiping God, it matters 
 not how great the zeal and devotion, while they are failing to 
 do his will and are exalting any other rule or standard of right 
 and justice. "A man that hath set at naught Moses' law dieth 
 without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses: 
 of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged 
 worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
 
Difficulties, Rules for Settling. 133 
 
 counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified 
 an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of 
 grace?" (Heb. 10: 28. 29.) We have shown that to despise 
 Moses' law was to turn from it — to neglect to do all the things 
 that he commanded them. To tread under foot the Son of 
 God is to set at naught his precepts ; to count his blood un- 
 holy is to regard that which is not sealed with his blood as 
 sacred as that which is sealed with his blood. Whenever man 
 regards service not sealed with his blood as good as that sealed 
 with it, he counts the blood unholy, without sanctifying 
 power; and when he turns from the things revealed by the 
 Spirit of God, he does despite to the Spirit of grace. The 
 Spirit of God reveals the terms of mercy, the means of grace. 
 When we turn from them and rely on other ways to obtain 
 mercy, and when we seek for grace in other ways than those 
 given by the Spirit of God, we do despite to the Spirit of 
 grace, we despise God and his provisions of mercy and love. 
 
 Many of us who imagine we love God and give our service 
 to him, and are willing to give all that we possess and our 
 body to be burned, will wake up in the last day (when it is too 
 late) to the consciousness that, with it all, we despised God, 
 had not charity; that God rejects all the service we render and 
 will despise us as unworthy of his love and pity in the day 
 when, above all others, we shall need the love and pity of One 
 able to help and to save. 
 
 DIFFICULTIES, RULES FOR SETTLING. 
 
 Some of the members of the church at this place have requested me 
 to write to you and ask you to explain Matt. 18. Is that the rule by 
 which members are to adjust their differences? 
 
 I think the rule and spirit given in Matt. 18 the rule for set- 
 tling difficulties between brethren and in the church. This 
 direction was given especially for that purpose ; and if not 
 used for this end, I can see no use for it in the Bible. If this 
 is not the direction for settling difficulties, I do not know 
 where rules for doing this can be found. "And if thy brother 
 sin against thee, go, show him hjs fault between thee and him 
 alone." (Verse 15.) W nenever a man feels that his brother 
 has sinned against him, wronged him in any way, the first 
 duty is to go to him alone and tell him of the wrong. It 
 ought to be done promptly. " If he hear thee, thou hast 
 
134 Difficulties, Rules for Settling. 
 
 gained thy brother." If he listens to your remonstrance and 
 corrects the wrong, you have " gained " him in the sense of de- 
 livering him from sin. It gives him the opportunity, too, of 
 showing the aggrieved one that he may be mistaken and has 
 not been wronged. This step is the first and most important 
 one to be taken. It is one that men are least inclined to take. 
 It is easier to make public accusation and to talk before oth- 
 ers ; but God's law is to talk first between yourselves and try 
 to reach an agreement. If this were done promptly, nine- 
 tenths of the difficulties would be settled at once. Instead of 
 this, we generally refuse to do this, and let the matter ferment 
 and fester and grow into an ugly sore before an effort is made 
 to heal it. " But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or 
 two more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every 
 word may be established. And if he refuse to hear trlem, tell 
 it unto the church." (Verses 16, 17.) This shows that breth- 
 ren are not only to hear the facts, but to decide what is right 
 and urge the wrongdoer to do right, else he could not be said 
 to " refuse to hear them." " If he refuse to hear them, tell 
 it unto the church : and if he refuse to hear the church also, 
 let him be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican." Some- 
 times it is thought that this telling it to the church is merely 
 for information, and, if it is well known, that there is no call 
 to report it to the church ; the church may act from its knowl- 
 edge without conferring with the erring one. But the report 
 to the church is not to give information alone, but to call into 
 exercise the influence and weight of the church to induce the 
 erring one to correct his wrong. He is to hear or refuse to 
 hear the church before any action is taken in the case. To 
 "hear" is to act in accordance with the judgment of the 
 church ; to " refuse to hear " is to refuse to be guided by the 
 decision of the church. It is only when he has thus refused 
 to hear the church that he is to be withdrawn from and is to 
 be to them as a Gentile and a publican. The Jews had no 
 dealings or fraternal associations with these classes. The 
 question frequently comes up : Is to report the case to the eld- 
 ers to report it to the church.? It ought to be reported to the 
 church through them, or those acting as elders, and under their 
 supervision the church should reach a conclusion. This de- 
 cision may be announced by the elders or under their direc- 
 tion ; but the decision should be as nearly as possible that of 
 
Discipline of Preachers. 135 
 
 the whole church, that harmony and union may prevail. Spe- 
 cial efforts should t>e made to have accord in the church. See 
 Disorderly, Dealing with The. 
 
 DIGRESSIVES, WORSHIPING WITH. 
 
 If a Christian is located and has no chance to worship with loyal 
 brethren, should he worship with " digressives? " 
 
 I do not think a man is ever placed where he cannot worship 
 God acceptably without worshiping with those who add to the 
 appointments of God. I do not believe one can worship God 
 acceptably with those who add to the appointments of God, es- 
 pecially one who knows it is wrong. To do wrong knowingly 
 is worse than to do it in ignorant unbelief. A person can al- 
 most find one or two to meet and worship with him as God 
 requires ; and when two or three are gathered together in the 
 name of the Lord, he is with them. A Christian diligent and 
 anxious to serve God will seldom be placed so he cannot find 
 some to worship with him according to the will of God. We 
 get it into our heads we must have a church with large num- 
 bers to meet and worship God, and the great mass of professed 
 Christians will not attend if there are only a few meeting at 
 a private house. These, unless they can be converted and bet- 
 ter taught, cannot worship God acceptably anywhere. I do 
 not believe people ought to encourage or participate in what 
 they believe wrong under any circumstances. I believe that 
 if a person is diligent and faithful in serving God in the right 
 way, God will not leave him without facilities for serving him 
 aright. Do not worship wrong with others ; try to get others 
 to worship aright with you. 
 
 DISCIPLINE OF PREACHERS. 
 
 A is a Christian preacher. He travels far and near. He is a bad 
 character. Where he goes and holds meetings, he often conducts him- 
 self so badly that the cause is injured. He leaves the community, and 
 the brethren talk about his ungodly conduct to every other preacher 
 that comes along. In the meantime he is somewhere else pursuing 
 the same course. What should be done with such men? Should not 
 all Christian preachers be required to identify themselves with some 
 congregation where they can be dealt with by churches having been 
 imposed on as in the case of A? If a report is in circulation among 
 the churches that a certain preacher is guilty of a grave sin, and some 
 are opposed to encouraging such a character, while others think the 
 charges false, how can a number of congregations investigate the 
 charges and take action in the case? Should they compel said preacher 
 to name his " home congregation " and then refer all evidence to that 
 
136 Discipline of Preachers. 
 
 congregation? Can an assembly of elders be called and the charges 
 investigated by them? I am persuaded that if some plan is not better 
 understood and some action taken to stop the ravages of ungodly men, 
 the churches must suffer greatly. 
 
 Christian people, like all others, run from one extreme to 
 another. Some years ago great stress was laid upon persons, 
 preachers as well as others, having their names on the church 
 books, and having formal letters in going abroad or to other 
 places. I knew a preacher to live with and preach for a church 
 for a dozen years. He did badly; the church proposed to> dis- 
 cipline him; and he coolly told them he did not belong to that 
 church, he had never put his letter in, and they had no right 
 to deal with him. The position was that a man is not a mem- 
 ber of the church unless he is formally received into the 
 church and his name enrolled on the church list. Afterwards 
 it was contended that when a person is a member of the church 
 in one place, he is a member wherever he is, and that a letter 
 was a certificate of his membership, and not to dismiss him 
 from one congregation to enable him to unite with another. 
 This is true of the letters mentioned in the Scriptures. This 
 position involves another truth that stands with it, but that 
 is greatly ignored. That is, if a Christian is a member of the 
 church wherever he is or goes, he is subject to the discipline 
 and control of the church wherever he is or goes. This is the 
 true ground. If one claims the rights and privileges of a 
 church, he must bear the responsibility of membership as well 
 as receive the privileges of the church. The privileges and re- 
 sponsibilities of church membership go together. Where a 
 man worships with a church, he is accountable to that church 
 for his conduct. If he comes among them, acts as a Christian, 
 worships with them, they ought to commend him if he does, 
 well ; if he does ill, they ought to condemn him. When a man 
 comes into a congregation and worships with them and acts 
 unworthily, they ought to deal with him ; and if unworthy of 
 confidence, they ought to publish him to the world. It does 
 not require the assemblage of elders from different congre- 
 gations to deal with him. The elders where he commits the 
 wrong should discipline him. That is the way the civil au- 
 thorities do. When a man goes from Nashville to Texas and 
 commits a crime against the laws of Texas, they do not send 
 him back to Tennessee to punish him. Indeed, the authorities 
 in Tennessee cannot punish a man for a crime committed in 
 
Discipline of Preachers. 137 
 
 Texas. Where a man commits a wrong, he ought to be dis- 
 ciplined or dealt with for that wrong, and all other churches 
 are under solemn obligation to abide by the action of that 
 church. When the church acts as God directs/the decision of 
 the church is the decision of God. 
 
 There is no greater hindrance to the gospel than the failure 
 of professed Christians to live up to its requirements of mor- 
 ality, uprightness, and honesty. Elders and preachers often 
 forget their obligations and are untrustworthy in their deal- 
 ings and their associations with their fellow-man. So often 
 it is said a preacher is not truthful, a preacher does not pay 
 his debts and is disregardful of his promises and obligations. 
 We need a reformation on the line of integrity and honesty 
 among Christians generally. It is especially needed among 
 the elders and preachers. It should begin, but not end, with 
 them. It is more especially needed among them because they 
 are more conspicuous and exert a wider influence, both upon 
 the church and the world. Preachers traveling over the coun- 
 try with evil reports following them ought not to be counte- 
 nanced, and the principles of honesty and truth ought to be 
 enforced on all church members. 
 
 It is vain to talk of converting the world when the church 
 shows it is not converted, and tolerates, if it does not encour- 
 age, untruthfulness and dishonesty among its members. 
 These are often shown in other than overt acts and words. 
 Young preachers sometimes come to school and set in to work 
 their way. Sometimes we hear such reports as these : " They 
 do as little work and count in as much time as possible. " A 
 man who does this in any affairs of life is lacking in truthful- 
 ness and honesty. Every service that a Christian renders on 
 earth should be rendered as to God. Every contract should be 
 faithfully carried out. God will recompense us for our fidel- 
 ity or lack of fidelity in every relation of life. " Servants, obey 
 in all things them that are your masters according to the flesh; 
 not with eyeservice, as menpleasers, but in singleness of heart, 
 fearing the Lord : whatsoever ye do, work heartily, as unto the 
 Lord, and not unto men ; knowing that from the Lord ye shall 
 receive the recompense of the inheritance : ye serve the Lord 
 Christ. For he that doeth wrong shall receive again for the 
 wrong that he hath done : and there is no respect of persons." 
 (Col. 3 : 22-25.) That means that God will reward or punish 
 
138 Discipline of Preachers. 
 
 for the fidelity or lack of fidelity in all our transactions and 
 relations with our fellow-men. When we wrong them, God 
 will punish us. When we are faithful and render full service, 
 God will reward us. If the other party is exacting and unjust 
 and we still do faithful service, God will abundantly reward 
 us. All trying to put in time without faithful service, all 
 slighting of work we undertake, God punishes us for. God 
 demands his servants should show all fidelity in all our busi- 
 ness affairs and in all our relations with men. When we re- 
 fuse to do this, we reproach and dishonor God and his church. 
 
 DISCREPANCY HUNTERS. 
 
 Please harmonize Luke 14: 26 with 1 John 3: 15. Infidels in this 
 country are making capital out of it, and claim it is a flat contradiction, 
 and say it is impossible to harmonize the two. 
 
 Lack of brains and dishonesty of heart cause the greater 
 number of the contradictions of scripture to be seen. I can- 
 not remove these unless I could give honest hearts and a little 
 common sense. " This is the love of God, that we keep his 
 commandments." Hate is the opposite of love. To refuse 
 to keep the commandments is to hate him. This is the true 
 and Bible use of the terms love and hate. A child dishonored, 
 hated, cursed his parent when he disobeyed the parent. Then 
 Christ means that unless a man will disobey parent, husband, 
 wife, break the obligations of any relation of life to serve and 
 honor God, he cannot be the disciple of Christ. But when a 
 man wishes to be an infidel, answering his objections is cast- 
 ing pearl before swine. God always allows a man to be a 
 fool when he wishes to be. And " the fool hath said in his 
 heart, There is no God." Reconciling scripture for the benefit 
 of those who do not wish to see it reconciled is the poorest 
 business a man ever engaged in, except hunting discrepancies. 
 See Mote Hunters and Hobby Riders. 
 
 DISORDERLY, DEALING WITH THE. 
 
 (1) Who controls a congregation of Christ, the voice of the ma- 
 jority or the elders? How would you proceed in dealing with a dis- 
 orderly member after all means have been exhausted in trying to save 
 him? If the elders in their wisdom have decided that a member 
 should be withdrawn from, can they do so as long as there is one dis- 
 senting voice in the congregation? How much authority does the 
 eldership have in matters of discipline? 
 
Disorderly, Dealing with the. 139 
 
 The voice of God must control a congregation if it is a 
 church of Christ. This is the only test of fidelity to God. If 
 the voice of God does not control, it is not a church of Christ. 
 Elders are the older members, familiar with the Scriptures, 
 of good judgment, and imbued with the Spirit of God, whose 
 duty it is to see that all obey the word of God. If any one vio- 
 lates the law of God, it is the duty of those who know it either 
 to see him in person or to see that some one who has influ- 
 ence with the sinner warn him of his evil course and point out 
 the law of God he has violated, and admonish him that he 
 should repent. The elders are the head, or overseers, of the 
 church. If those who see the wrong fail to induce the sin- 
 ner to turn from it and confess it, it is their duty to take others 
 with them to remonstrate. If they fail (see the order, Matt. 
 18), tell it to the church. To do this is to report it to the eld- 
 ers, .the heads or rulers of the church. They are to examine 
 the case and determine what wrong, if any, he has committed, 
 seek to show him his wrong. If he hears them, they have 
 gained him. The elders should report the case to the church, 
 give the facts in the case, lay before the members the charges 
 and the evidence on which they are based, the Scriptures vio- 
 lated, and the law requiring the action taken. The vote ought 
 never to be put to the congregation as to whether they will 
 withdraw from him or not. There is no authority for such a 
 course, and such cases ought not to be decided by vote of the 
 congregation, but by the law of God. This question might 
 properly be put: Does any one know any reason why the con- 
 clusions set forth here are not true and scriptural? If so, the 
 elders will hear the reasons. And if they are found just, they 
 should have their influence. If not, the elders should seek to 
 show the truth both as to the facts and the scripture teaching 
 to those who do not see it, that all may act with unanimity in 
 the decision reached. This conference between the elders and 
 those dissatisfied will be much more free from passion and 
 feeling if private, yet the whole congregation is entitled to 
 know the facts. Patience and persistence should be exercised 
 in trying to get all to see the truth, that all may heartily agree 
 in the course. I will not say that no action should be taken 
 while one dissents. This might be proper if all were led by 
 the spirit of the gospel ; but many let their family pride and 
 fleshly feelings, rather than the word of God, control them in 
 
140 Disorderly, Dealing with the. 
 
 such matters. Some think they show love and kindness to 
 kindred and friends when they object to the church enforcing 
 the law of God on their families or friends, but this is a mis- 
 take. A father or mother shows true love for a child by de- 
 siring the laws of God to be enforced when he does wrong. 
 God's laws are for the good of all who sin. True love for the 
 sinner, even if he be our own child, will prompt us to see the 
 law enforced, that he may get the good that comes through 
 the law of God. We are real enemies to our children when 
 we object to their being dealt with according to the law of 
 God. The parents should be as ready to report the sins of a 
 child that they cannot correct to the church as any one else 
 would be or as they would be to report any one else. True 
 love for the child seeks the true good of the child, and that is 
 promoted by the discipline of the law of God ; but many are 
 not willing for the law of God to be enforced with reference 
 to their kindred or friends, and to say the discipline shall not 
 be enforced as long as one objects is to place it in the power 
 of one such to veto the enforcement of the law of God. It is 
 true that parents that object to the law of God being rigidly 
 applied to their own child, relative, or friend, are not worthy to 
 be members in the church of God, but they are often ; and 
 when this spirit manifests itself, such should be dealt with in 
 patience to save them from this sinful course ; but such should 
 not be permitted to hinder the enforcement of the law of God. 
 When the elders have labored patiently with those who are 
 unwilling to see the law enforced, and they fail to get them 
 to do right, then the facts should be stated to the congrega- 
 tion, the Scriptures read, and the congregation should sustain 
 the elders in their decision heartily and cheerfully. If the 
 friends and kindred remain perverse and fractious after all pa- 
 tience and effort to get them right, they should be disciplined ; 
 for no one who objects to the law of God being enforced upon 
 a child, a husband, a sister, a brother, or a parent, is a true be- 
 liever in the Lord Jesus Christ. But all this work must be 
 done by the elders in a spirit of Christian love and freedom 
 from personal or partisan feeling or partiality ; the good of all, 
 the salvation of those who sin, should be the one leading ob- 
 ject of all true servants of God. So all must be done in kind- 
 ness and love, that the sinning one may be made to feel that 
 the elders are his true friends and seeking his good. When 
 
Disorderly, Dealing with the. 141 
 
 he is made to feel this, then their work will be almost sure to 
 prove effective. The elders, acting according to the law of 
 God, have the full authority of God, just as the representative 
 of a government, acting according to the laws of the govern- 
 ment, carries the full authority of that government. If not 
 acting according to the law of God, they have no authority 
 whatever. What the proper representatives of a State do the 
 State does. No one would think that to enforce or execute the 
 laws of a State upon a violator of that law the people must 
 take a popular vote on trial of every case. That would be 
 clumsy ; and, left to a popular vote, the laws would not be 
 executed with any certainty. It would depend upon the preju- 
 dices and excited feelings of the multitude. These are noto- 
 riously unreliable. What the legally constituted representa- 
 tives of a people do in accordance with the laws governing 
 that people the people do. The New Testament is the law of 
 the church, and the elders are the scriptural representatives of 
 the church. The duty of the elders is to teach and enforce 
 obedience to the Scriptures. 
 
 (2) In the last issue of the Gospel Advocate it is stated that the 
 withdrawal of fellowship should not be left to the congregation. If 
 the New Testament supports this conclusion, please give us the pas- 
 sage, with explanation. 
 
 God decides all questions in his kingdom. He is the law- 
 maker and the executor. He executes through his servants. 
 Through what class does he execute his will or law in the 
 church? Under the patriarchal age he did it through the fa- 
 ther of the family. The father gave the law, taught the law 
 to his family, punished for the infraction of the law, and was 
 the executor of God's law to his family. God made Moses 
 the lawgiver to the children of Israel, and he was first made 
 judge of the infractions of the law and the executor to inflict 
 punishment on those who disobeyed the law of God. It was 
 God deciding the cases and executing the sentence of the law 
 on its violator through Moses. The elders, as an official body, 
 seem to have grown out. of the suggestion of Jethro, father- 
 in-law of Moses: "And it came to pass on the morrow, that 
 Moses sat to judge the people : and the people stood about 
 Moses from the morning unto the evening." He suggested : 
 " Thou wilt surely wear away, both thou, and this people that 
 is with thee : for the thing is too heavy for thee ; thou art not 
 
142 Disorderly, Dealing with the. 
 
 able to perform it thyself alone. Hearken now unto my 
 voice, I will give thee counsel, and God be with thee : be thou 
 for the people to Godward, and bring thou the causes unto 
 God: and thou shalt teach them the statutes and the laws, 
 and shalt show them the way wherein they must walk, and 
 the work that they must do. Moreover thou shalt provide 
 out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, 
 hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers 
 of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers 
 of tens: and let them judge the people at all seasons: 
 and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto, 
 thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves: so 
 shall it be easier for thyself, and they shall bear the burden 
 with thee. If thou shalt do this thing, and God command thee 
 so, then thou shalt be able to endure, and all this people also 
 shall go to their place in peace. So Moses hearkened to the 
 voice of his father-in-law, and did all that he had said. And 
 Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads 
 over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers 
 of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at 
 all seasons: the hard causes they brought unto Moses, but 
 every small matter they judged themselves." (Ex. 18: 13-26.) 
 So God set Moses and the elders the judges to decide the 
 difficulties that would rise among the Jewish people. These 
 elders in the different tribes, families, and cities continued to 
 adjudge difficulties and settle differences until the days of Je- 
 sus Christ. This order of elders, with their duties, was by Je- 
 sus and the Holy Spirit transferred to the churches of God, 
 and the same duties seem to have followed them. Paul told 
 the elders at Ephesus : " Take heed unto yourselves, and to all 
 the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to 
 feed the church of the Lord, which he purchased with his own 
 blood." (Acts 20 : 28.) They were to oversee the flock, keep 
 it in order, settle the difficulties that arise, and enforce the laws 
 of God. The apostles associated the elders with themselves 
 in deciding questions. (Acts 15 : 4-6, 22, 23 ; 16 : 4.) The eld- 
 ers were to rule. (1 Tim. 5: 17.) They are admonished to 
 take the oversight of the church, not for lucre, and to be ex- 
 amples unto the flock. (1 Pet. 5: 1.) Christians are exhorted 
 to obey them that have the rule over them, and submit to 
 them ; for they must give account for their ruling. (Heb. 13 : 
 
Divine Healing. 143 
 
 17.) The elders have been made the rulers, overseers, mouth- 
 pieces of God to his people in all dispensations of God to man. 
 They are the persons through whom God decides cases and 
 enforces his laws in the church. God has never in any age left 
 the decision of questions, and difficulties that arise among his 
 people to the vote of majorities — of the young, the thoughtless, 
 'the untaught, and inexperienced. To do this is to govern his 
 church by impulse, favor, passion, prejudice, not by the law 
 of God. No civilized people ever decided guilt by popular 
 majorities. While this is true, it is the duty of the elders 
 to satisfy all of the justness and uprightness of their decisions, 
 that there may be unity of feeling and harmony in the actions 
 of the church. The younger members ought to be taught to 
 respect and defer to the judgment of the elders. The body 
 acts in all things through its head. See Difficulties, Rules for 
 Settling. 
 
 DIVINE HEALING. 
 
 I wish you would tell what the New Testament says in favor of di- 
 vine healing as indicated in James 5: 13-15. Some claim that this is 
 applicable to churches nowadays. I would like to know what you 
 think of it. 
 
 I have often given my opinion of James 5 : 14, 15. I do not 
 believe the healing was ever miraculous, or that all the sick 
 on whom hands were laid recovered. If so, why should any 
 ever have died? If men could all be healed now by laying on 
 of hands of the elders and anointing with oil, who would die 
 or remain sick? All would comply with the conditions and 
 live. They were just as anxious to live and keep well in the 
 days of the apostles as they are now. When one got sick, he 
 would have sent for the elders and would be living now. The 
 only way for people to get to heaven would be to be translated, 
 as was Abel ; yet we find persons sickening and dying with 
 the elders and the apostles with them. (Phil. 2: 26; 2 Tim. 4: 
 20.) What is the meaning, then? Anointing with oil was 
 the common curative agent of that period and time. The 
 command was while using this to connect with it the prayers 
 of the elders. They represented the church, and through them 
 the church prayed for the sick. In the use of these means, 
 combining the prayers of Christians with remedial agencies, 
 all who could be cured would be. I think it, certain that there 
 was no miraculous healing then and has been none since. All 
 
144 Divine Healing. 
 
 pretenses among Roman Catholics, Mormons, or faith healers 
 have been deceptions. Some have imagined they were healed. 
 This is common. There have been so-called relics of saints 
 among Catholics, the touch of which would heal diseases. It 
 has been thought that these would be confined to the ignorant 
 and superstitious of Europe, and that such things would be 
 unknown in America. But they are growing as common here 
 as in Europe. Take Schlatter and Dowie and see what a num- 
 ber of followers each found, and how readily they enriched 
 the pretenders. Take this account, too, of those who visit the 
 relic of St. Anne in New York City. The New York Mail and 
 Express says : " There is no falling off in the number or fervor 
 of the pilgrims to the Shrine of St. Anne, at the Church of St. 
 Jean Baptiste, Seventy-sixth Street, near Third Avenue, the 
 crowds to-day differing only from those of the past three days 
 in the increased number of men and sick children. At times 
 the men venerating the relic outnumbered the women. The 
 most notable cure of the novena came to the attention of 
 Canon Petit this morning. All through the year a woman, 
 who was a hopeless cripple, has made pilgrimages to the 
 shrine. She was brought in a carriage and carried into the 
 crypt. On Thursday the relic was applied to her, and she was 
 carried home. Yesterday she came to the church with the 
 aid of her niece, on whose shoulder she leaned. This morning 
 she made her way unaided to the shrine to kiss the relic. She 
 knelt down and rose again without aid, her face beaming with 
 joy. Canon Petit, who related this incident, says that the 
 name of the woman is not known to the priests, but they are 
 sure she will make herself known before the novena is over." 
 See on what slight evidence a report of a wonderful cure 
 will be sent out to the world by the priests and the canon of a 
 Catholic congregation, men of eminence in the church. Out 
 of the thousands who visit this so-called relic of St. Anne, one 
 is claimed to be healed, and yet no one knows her name or 
 who she is. Such testimony would not be heard in a court 
 where thirty cents was at stake. The trouble is, in religion 
 people are ready to believe without certain testimony. They 
 are willing to accept the most unreasonable statements on 
 loose reports. The healings and miracles of the Bible were 
 definite and seen and known by many. See Mormon Preten- 
 sions (5, 6). 
 
Doubtful Disputations. 145 
 
 DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE. See Marriage and Di- 
 vorce. 
 
 DOUBTFUL DISPUTATIONS. 
 
 What is meant by: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but 
 not to doubtful disputations?" (Rom. 14: 1.) 
 
 Paul gave this counsel to his Roman brethren. A man's 
 faith is weak when it is troubled over untaught and doubtful 
 questions. A clear and strong faith looks to God and his 
 teachings without doubt or misgivings, and is not troubled 
 with untaught and unimportant questions. He gives two ex- 
 amples of those weak in faith. The first is that one has trou- 
 bles over whether a man should eat flesh or only vegetables. 
 It is a weak faith, and a morbid conscience growing out of 
 that weak faith, that troubles itself over this question. An- 
 other example is that one man esteems one day above another; 
 others esteem all days alike. This does not refer to the first 
 day of the week, appointed by God for his worship ; but there 
 were other days not set apart by God under the Christian 
 dispensation that some thought ought to be observed to God. 
 They were likely the days regarded as sacred under the law 
 of Moses. Many thought these days should be observed ; oth- 
 ers thought that they were not more sacred than other days. 
 The faith that was troubled over such questions was weak. 
 The church and Christians were not to reject or refuse to re- 
 ceive persons of this weak faith as brethren, but they were 
 not to receive them to engage in disputation over these un- 
 taught questions. No decisive conclusion could be reached 
 on such questions, for they were indifferent to God, and so 
 nothing is taught on them. The man is no better in the sight 
 of God for eating meat, and he is no worse for not eating it. 
 If any one wished to eat, none should hinder him ; if any did 
 not desire to eat, none should require him to eat. Let each 
 be persuaded in his own mind on these untaught questions, 
 and so act for himself, but he must not insist on others doing 
 as he does. 
 
 It was the duty of Christians to receive these persons of 
 
 weak faith and morbid consciences, but Paul forbade that they 
 
 should engage in the discussion of these doubtful questions. 
 
 It is sin to disturb the peace and harmony of Christians over 
 
 these untaught questions. The continual discussion of ques- 
 10 
 
146 Doubtful Disputations. 
 
 tions of this character will destroy the harmony and zeal of 
 any congregation, and Paul told the church in Rome that they 
 were not to permit it. On these untaught questions he says, 
 " Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God" (verse 22) 
 — that is, if one has faith, as he esteems it, let him keep that 
 faith to himself before God, not disturb the peace of the church 
 with it. It was wrong for the church to let a man teach and 
 argue and lead astray the weak and destroy the harmony and 
 zeal of the church with such questions. He who persisted 
 in it was a factionist, and was to be dealt with as a disturber 
 of the peace of the church. These questions mentioned are 
 only examples of many of the present day. 
 
 The questions that oftener disturb the peace of congrega- 
 tions are untaught questions. The order of worship, whether 
 Christians should build meetinghouses, what hour of the day 
 they should engage in the worship, the effort to prescribe how 
 and where the Scriptures should be taught, are all efforts to 
 enforce a rule where God has made none. Such questions are 
 untaught, and it is a sign of weak faith and morbid conscience, 
 and hone should be permitted to destroy the harmony and zeal 
 of Christians by doubtful disputations over them. Paul does 
 not pretend to decide which party to either of these questions 
 is right. He decides the questions are untaught, and there 
 is no profit, but much harm, to Christians in discussing them ; 
 so Christians ought to treat such questions in this age. The 
 churches, from the beginning, have been divided and weakened 
 over such questions. We are sometimes blamed for refusing 
 to permit endless controversies over such questions in the 
 Gospel Advocate. We have always given room for the fair 
 statement of what a brother thinks is right, with his reasons. 
 We have objected to continued repetition of the same imprac- 
 ticable and divisive thoughts. My conscience has hurt me 
 much more for what I have admitted than for what I have 
 excluded on these questions. Let us study and urge things 
 clearly taught, and then we will be on safe ground. See Day, 
 He that Regardeth The. 
 
 EAGLES GATHERED TOGETHER. 
 
 Please explain Matt. 24: 28. What are the eagles that will be gath- 
 ered together? 
 
Earthquakes and Cyclones. 147 
 
 The usual meaning of the expression is that, as the eagle or 
 vulture is a bird of prey, wherever a carcass or body of an 
 animal is, there they will gather. It is used to illustrate when 
 a nation has run its course and lost its energy and activity, 
 the other more vigorous nations are ready to destroy it and 
 divide its effects. At or before the coming of Christ nation 
 will destroy nation, the stronger will destroy the weaker, and 
 his coming* will destroy the last and strongest of all the king- 
 doms of earth. 
 
 EARTHQUAKES AND CYCLONES. 
 
 Are earthquakes and cyclones sent on people of this age as a pun- 
 ishment for their wickedness? 
 
 All disturbances in the material or moral world come as the 
 result of sin. Unto the woman he said : " I will greatly multi- 
 ply thy pain and thy conception ; in pain thou shalt bring 
 forth children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he 
 shall rule over thee." To the man he said : " Cursed is the 
 ground for thy sake ; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of 
 thy life ; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee ; 
 and thou shalt eat the herb of the field ; in the sweat of thy 
 face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; 
 for out of it wast thou taken : for dust thou art, and unto dust 
 shalt thou return." (Gen. 3 : 16-19.) All the sufferings of 
 men, all the disorders of earth, all disturbances of the har- 
 mony of the universe, come from sin, violation of God's law. 
 How man's sin affects the workings of God's law in the phys- 
 ical universe, I cannot tell ; but I am sure, from the statement 
 of the Bible and the workings of the laws of the physical 
 world, it does. When man sinned under Moses' law, the rains 
 were withheld or came in harvest time. It was so that phys- 
 ical evil came as the result of the violation of the moral laws. 
 There is a close relation and interweaving of the moral and 
 physical laws of God. They both emanate from one source 
 and are enforced by the same authority. All evils in the ma- 
 terial world come as the results of sin ; and when sin ceases, 
 all physical evil will pass away. Jesus said : " Or those 
 eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed 
 them, think ye that they were offenders above all the men that 
 dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, 
 ye shall all likewise perish." (Luke 13: 4, 5.) This does not 
 
148 Earthquakes and Cyclones. 
 
 say it was not the result of sin. But though they had per- 
 ished, it was no indication that they were sinners above others. 
 It was a warning that others would perish as they had, unless 
 they repent. So of all these catastrophes. They come as the 
 result and warning for sin. But why it falls on them rather 
 than others we know not. All will perish unless they repent. 
 
 ELDER, SHOULD A PREACHER BE CALLED? 
 
 Was Timothy an elder? The discussion came up in our congrega- 
 tion on last Lord's day, and two preaching brethren said he was not. 
 They also said it was wrong for a preacher to be addressed as " elder." 
 
 Timothy is nowhere called an " elder." He is exhorted : 
 " Be thou sober in all things, sutler hardship, do the work of 
 an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry." He is here called an 
 " evangelist." This is the latest report we have of Timothy. 
 He was evidently doing the work of an evangelist — that is, 
 preaching the word and setting in order the churches. This 
 was not the work of an elder. " Elder " means " older." It 
 means the elders, or bishops, were composed of the older per- 
 sons. It seems ridiculous to call a young person " elder." I 
 do not see why a preacher should be called an " elder," or 
 should have any title, any more than that a farmer or car- 
 penter should have a special title. Paul seemed to desire no 
 higher title than that of " servant of the Lord." When the 
 Campbells started out to return to the primitive order, all 
 titles of honor and dignity to preachers were ignored and re- 
 jected as unbecoming to saints. The titles and honors came 
 from the Catholics, with their different orders and classes. 
 But among Christians, who are all priests in the house of God, 
 there is no occasion for titles and honors of one before or 
 above others. If preachers were treated as men, and not as a 
 special class, they would be more practical and manly in their 
 lives and characters, and would exert a better influence among 
 men. 
 
 ELDERS, QUALIFICATIONS OF. 
 
 Can a member of a congregation act as an elder except he possesses 
 all of the qualifications that Paul speaks of to Timothy? It appears 
 to my mind that if a man should assume the office of elder without the 
 proper qualifications, as set forth by the apostle in 1 Tim. 3, he would 
 be a self-constituted elder, and that his actions as such would be void. 
 While I am of this opinion, there are many good brethren who differ 
 from me and say that if we have not the proper material we must do 
 
Elders, Qualifications of. 149 
 
 the best we can and appoint to the work the best material that we 
 have, whether they possess all of the qualifications or not. Now the 
 apostle says that a bishop must possess certain qualifications. The 
 question is: Can we place a man in the office, under any circumstances, 
 who does not possess all of these qualifications? Our congregation 
 has dispensed with the eldership in consequence of not having men 
 who possess all of the requirements. 
 
 Do you mean that your congregation has dispensed with 
 the work that elders should do? That nobody instructs the 
 congregation or looks after the weak members? That you 
 have no rule or discipline in the church? Do you mean that 
 nobody leads in the worship? Nobody asks another to give 
 thanks at the table or to lead in prayer? Nobody urges other 
 members to meet to worship God, or to live honestly, up- 
 rightly, and deal justly and fairly in the world? If you have 
 given up these things, you have given up being Christians. 
 
 A people cannot live Christians without doing all the work 
 for one another and the community that God requires. They 
 cannot do this without doing the work of elders and deacons 
 in a community. You cannot live as Christians in a commu- 
 nity without looking after the spiritual interests of the church 
 and the public and without helping the poor and the needy, 
 without teaching the ignorant and reproving the wrongdoers. 
 When this is done, the work of elders is done, and it is much 
 more important that the work of the elders than that the office 
 of elders should be looked after. We often so pervert the re- 
 ligion of Christ that we esteem the office of more importance 
 than the work. This is the world's order of things. It is 
 only in one sense that the word office is applicable to the work 
 in the church. It is not used in the church as it is in the gov- 
 ernment of the world. In this it means that when a man is 
 inducted into office, he is authorized to do certain things that 
 it would be a crime for him to do if he were not in this office. 
 Now in the Scriptures it has no such meaning. The man's be- 
 coming an elder authorizes him to perform no act that he was 
 not authorized to do before. It only makes it his business 
 especially to look after the work now. He is to be chosen be- 
 cause he has shown his fitness for the office by doing the 
 work beforehand. This shows it is not an office in the sense 
 of an office of a civil government ; but it is a duty imposed 
 growing out of a fitness developed for the work needed to be 
 done. Any one who does this work of an elder is in fact an 
 elder, whether he is appointed to it or not. The appointment 
 
150 Elders, Qualifications of. 
 
 gives him confidence and assurance in the work and makes 
 him feel it especially his duty to do the work. 
 
 Sometimes men are elected that have no fitness for the work, 
 and others do it who have a natural fitness for it, but are not 
 elected. A church in this condition has two sets of officers — 
 a man-made set and a God-made set. The man-made ones 
 are always a curse and a hindrance to the church. Better 
 not select any if you will not select the God-made ones. 
 These will do something of the work without appointment 
 from men ; and when the work is done, the office is filled. 
 
 But our brother says that they have none fitted for the work. 
 If so, there are no Christians there. A number cannot live 
 the Christian life and not develop the characters needed to do 
 Christian work. It is frequently said that nobody fills this bill, 
 when it is not true. You occasionally find a wicked man who 
 says there is no Christian ; and it is just about as hard to find 
 a Christian, according to the fault-finder's standard, as it is 
 to find one fitted for an elder. When the Holy Spirit requires 
 qualifications, he specifies them as they develop themselves 
 and exist among men, not as they exist among angels. The 
 man who expects perfection among men is an impractical 
 visionary. God does not expect it. When he says they must 
 be blameless, he means that they are blameless as weak hu- 
 man beings. Abraham was a model of God's men. We form 
 visionary ideas of Abraham's excellence ; but when we come 
 to solid facts, he was a weak, erring human. Twice under fear 
 of his life he lied. He occasionally went without God's di- 
 rection. He and his family suffered for it. I have no doubt 
 we have thousands of Christian men and women who are the 
 equals of Abraham and Sarah in fidelity and trustworthiness 
 before God and man. Peter was not faultless. He prevari- 
 cated. I have no doubt that our very exacting brethren, had 
 they lived in the days of Peter, would have said that he is not 
 fit to open the doors of the kingdom ; he denied the Savior ; 
 he is not fit to teach or be a leading apostle. When the Jews 
 came to Antioch, Peter dissembled and refused to eat with 
 the Gentiles, although God had taught him by a miracle that 
 he must receive and treat them as brethren. Yet God ac- 
 cepted him as the leading apostle. God held him blameless 
 as a man with human weakness and infirmities, when, as an 
 angel, he would have been blameworthy. It is not blame- 
 
Elders, When, Disagree, Who is to Decide? 151 
 
 worthy for a human being to err sometimes; it is for him to 
 persist in the wrong. I have no doubt we have thousands of 
 men — probably some in that very church — who are or may 
 be the equals of Peter in firmness and fidelity to truth. In- 
 spiration gave knowledge, but not moral strength. When we 
 dispense with the elders, we dispense with the work of God, 
 and many Christians are in moral character the equals of Pe- 
 ter, or Paul, or John, or James, or Abraham, or Isaac, or Jacob. 
 This fault-finding and depreciation of everybody else usually 
 arises from undue exaltation of self. It is not a healthy state. 
 
 The hypocritical sinner who stands off and carps at every- 
 body in the church as wicked means to say that he is very 
 righteous and very perfect. He is usually a self-deceived hyp- 
 ocrite. The same spirit in the church belongs to the self- 
 righteous. It is not healthy to be overmuch righteous or to, 
 demand it of others. 
 
 Acknowledge your own and your fellow-men's humanity, 
 your liability to err ; get clear of the foolish idea that men 
 with faults and human weaknesses are unfitted for the service 
 of God. He adapted his service to and for weak men liable to 
 err. Be willing to confess your faults when you do err. I have 
 noticed it in men, I have noticed it in papers, that when one 
 starts out to be over sweet-tempered, to keep out all human- 
 ity, it becomes one-sided, unfair, and the bitterest and most 
 intolerant of men and papers. They do not show goodness in 
 an honest, open, human, brave way. A paper that starts out 
 to have no controversies, to be overly peaceable, is as sure to 
 be filled with unjust insinuations and innuendoes as that to- 
 morrow's sun will rise. You cannot crush the humanity out 
 of men. Do not look for perfection in human beings, nor dis- 
 pense with the work of God while pretending to> be Christians. 
 When you do the work, you fill all the offices of his servants. 
 
 ELDERS, WHEN, DISAGREE, WHO IS TO DECIDE? 
 
 If there are a number of elders in a congregation who disagree in 
 their judgment concerning certain matters, the majority standing to- 
 gether and one standing alone, can a number of the members of the 
 congregation authorize the one who stands alone to exclude the others 
 from the eldership? 
 
 Nothing is said in the Scriptures of how decisions are to be 
 reached. They do not s§em to provide for divisions and dis- 
 
152 Elders, When, Disagree, Who is to Decide? 
 
 sensions among elders or even among disciples generally. The 
 elders should seek unanimity among themselves and among 
 the members. They ought all to be of one mind and one judg- 
 ment in the Lord. Paul told the elders of Ephesus (Acts 
 20: 30) that from among themselves should arise false teach- 
 ers to draw away disciples after them. It seems to recognize 
 that when they fail to agree and harmonize, one party draws 
 away from the truth, and this must result in separation. Then 
 no direction is given for the separated party, save to repent 
 and return to God. In returning to God, they come back to 
 those faithful to God. 
 
 The church can give the elders no authority. The church 
 is not the source of authority for elders or other Christians. 
 The authority the elders possess is from God. They must be 
 guided in all things by the word of God. Neither the elders 
 nor the church can set this law aside. One elder following 
 the law of God has more authority as the servant of God than 
 a dozen elders and a hundred members without the law. Dif- 
 ference and division between elders, if they are striving to do 
 their duty, is a difference as to the requirements of the Bible. 
 The way to remove the difference is not by vote 1 of the elders 
 or the members, but by studying and learning the will of God. 
 No elder or elders ought to enforce a decision by their author- 
 ity; that would be to lord it over God's heritage. They 
 should seek to enforce it as the will of God, by his authority, 
 and, in complying with the law, serve as ensamples to the 
 flock of God. Personal feelings and preferences should be 
 kept out when difficulties are to be settled, and in such cases 
 the only question asked: What is the law of God? When this 
 is done, it will not often be the case that disagreements on 
 vital matters will exist. 
 
 When either party is not willing to submit to the law of 
 God, that party ought not to be regarded the servant of God. 
 The law of God must be every Christian's rule. If they dis- 
 agree as to what this law is, unless this disagreement can be 
 healed, I see no other course than separation ; yet this ought 
 to take place only on differences on vital matters. So long 
 as a person or persons can remain in a church and do the will 
 of God, without approving things contrary to that will, he can- 
 not leave it. When he cannot do this, I see no alternative 
 but to separate from it. When a separation takes place, each 
 
Elders, Work of. 153 
 
 will claim to be the church of GocL In such case, others, as 
 they come in contact with them, must decide which is entitled 
 to be recognized as Christians. The one that follows the law 
 of God is the church ; the one that sets it aside, whether com- 
 posed of many or few, are heretics and factionists. There 
 ought t© be, and will be, but little difference in interpreting 
 the law of God if all are trying to follow it. Frequently in 
 these divisions both parties do wrong — violate the law of God. 
 When this is the case, the thing is to get each to see and cor- 
 rect its own wrongs. But the word of God, not members, 
 must decide who is right and who is wrong in troubles, as in 
 all service to God. 
 
 ELDERS, WORK OF. 
 
 Is an elder the ruler over a congregation of disciples? Is he the 
 pastor or shepherd and general supervisor? Do the elders constitute 
 an ecclesiastical court, from whose decision there is no appeal? Has 
 any of the laity any right to teach, admonish, exhort, administer the 
 Supper, or do anything in the church without the consent of the eld- 
 ers? Has a congregation any moral right to send out a preacher or 
 call on a preacher to work with them, or should the elders look after 
 this matter? Do the elders oversee the flock as a master workman 
 oversees hands or as a superintendent would oversee the working 
 hands in a cotton mill or workshop? Would it be right to ordain an 
 elder who has no ability to teach, but is naturally disposed to rule? 
 
 " The elders therefore among you I exhort, . . . Tend 
 the flock of God which is among you, exercising the oversight, 
 not of constraint, but willingly, according to the will of God ; 
 not yet for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind ; neither as lord- 
 ing it over the charge allotted to you, but making yourselves 
 ensamples to the flock." (1 Pet. 5: 1-3.) "For this cause 
 left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things 
 that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave 
 thee charge : if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, 
 having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or 
 unruly. For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward ; 
 not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not 
 greedy of filthy lucre ; but given to hospitality, a lover of good, 
 sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled; holding to the faith- 
 ful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be 
 able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the 
 gainsayers.'* (Tit. 1 : 5-9.) The same statement of the qual- 
 ifications and work of the bishop is given in 1 Tim. 3 : 1-7. 
 
154 Elders, Work of. 
 
 " Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to 
 them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that 
 shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not 
 with grief: for this were unprofitable for you." (Heb. 13: 
 17.) Paul said to the elders of Ephesus : " Take heed unto 
 yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit 
 hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord, which 
 he purchased with his own blood." (Acts 20: 28.) It does 
 not seem to me that I could make the points clearer or plainer 
 than they are made here. One point I think is not clearly 
 brought out in either translation. " If a man seeketh the of- 
 fice of a bishop, he desireth a good work." There is no word 
 in the original for office. A literal translation would be: He 
 who desires overseeing desires a good work. Of course this 
 is an office in the sense that the performance of any duty is 
 an office. But the work, rather than the position, is what he 
 is to seek. The elders are to rule, but it is to be according 
 to the will of God, or their rule is to consist in enforcing the 
 law of God. An elder has no more right to enforce anything 
 save the law of God than any one else has. If the elder has 
 no right to enforce, the members are under no obligation to 
 obey what God has not commanded. Each must determine 
 what is God's law — that is, a man who believes the decision of 
 the elders is contrary to the law of God must obey God. This 
 leads to rejection of the decision of the elders. If it is a prac- 
 tical and vital matter and harmony of judgment cannot be 
 brought about, I see no alternative but that in such cases sep- 
 aration must take place. In matters of mere expediency, in- 
 volving no question of fidelity to God, the elders, as the rulers, 
 should decide, but they should seek to unite and harmonize 
 all. The decision of the elders should be the decision of the 
 whole church. They should voice the judgment of the church. 
 They can do this only by consulting all. The elders are not 
 a separate and distinct party from the church, with separate 
 and antagonistic interests, any more than the parents are sep- 
 arate and distinct from the children. They must have .a com- 
 mon interest in, and direct for, the good of all. The Scriptures 
 especially condemn arbitrary rulings resting on the authority 
 of the elders. " Neither as lording it over the charge allotted 
 to you, but making yourselves ensamples to the flock." Lord 
 means ruler. To tell them that they are not to rule as lords 
 
Elders, Work of. 155 
 
 means that they are not to show their power or try to exer- 
 cise authority by virtue of their office. It means about the 
 same as the adage, " He rules best who rules least," or he who 
 rules without letting them know they are ruled is the wisest 
 ruler. Instead of seeking to show authority, let them, as fel- 
 low-workers, lead in every good work and persuade by ex- 
 ample. 
 
 The man who sympathizes with the weak and the tempted, 
 who in a spirit of meekness is found trying to save those who 
 have been overtaken in faults, considering that he is liable 
 to be tempted himself, is the one that seeks the work, not the 
 position of honor, and he is fitted for an elder. The work of 
 the elder, like that of the father, is to save every child from 
 his sins and the evil that comes with the sin. No elder who 
 is fit to be an elder will ever object to a member's doing any, 
 work in teaching or instructing or conducting the worship of 
 the church that he is capable of doing, unless there is some 
 moral obliquity that unfits him. The work of the elders is to 
 encourage and develop and strengthen all the members of the 
 church in all lines of Christian work. It is not a supposable 
 case that a true elder should object to Christians doing any 
 Christian work. 
 
 The. body of Christ should act as a unit ; the elders are but 
 the head of the body. The elders should not act independ- 
 ently of others of the church, nor the church of the elders. 
 They are one, and must act as a unit. 
 
 The elders should seek to encourage and develop the talent 
 of every one in the church, and should encourage and advise 
 all in every work as each has a taste or inclination to do. 
 This does not mean that a member is to do nothing until he 
 first consults the elders. What he has a talent and inclina- 
 tion to do is what the Lord calls him to do. In the doing of 
 this the elders should give such suggestions and encourage- 
 ment as they think will improve and strengthen him in a work. 
 The combination of all into one body in the church does not 
 destroy the individuality and personal responsibility of each 
 person to God, to do what he feels is his duty. The work of 
 the elders is to encourage and instruct the others in the work 
 they do. See Disorderly, Dealing with The (2). 
 
156 Emblems, More than Once a Day? 
 
 EMBLEMS, SHOULD ONE PARTAKE OF, MORE 
 THAN ONCE THE SAME DAY? 
 
 Is it right for a brother to commune more than one time on the 
 first day of the week? Is it right for one who has met and communed 
 on the first day of the week to meet with and wait upon a brother 
 (who was not able to meet with the brethren at the regular meeting) 
 at his home in the communion service on the same day? Cannot two 
 or three gather together in the Lord's name except when they come 
 together on the first day of the week to partake of the Lord's Supper? 
 
 I have under the circumstances mentioned communed twice 
 the same day ; sometimes I declined under the same circum- 
 stances. I have a few times communed with congregations 
 of whites in the forenoon and met with negroes in the after- 
 noon ; and lest they think I was unwilling to commune with 
 them, I have partaken of the emblems again with them. All 
 of which proves nothing, save that I am not very decided in 
 my mind on the question. The Bible teaches nothing directly 
 on the subject. But one observance fulfills the requirements 
 of the Scriptures, and to observe it twice goes beyond God's 
 requirements. I think satisfying the Scriptures is enough, 
 and to go beyond is to tread on dangerous ground. 
 
 EVANGELISTS AND THEIR WORK. 
 
 (1) Is the evangelist to be selected and sent out? If so, by whom? 
 
 I have never found in the Scriptures where a person or per- 
 sons were commanded to send out a preacher or evangelist. 
 Sometimes the apostles or a church, as the brethren at Anti- 
 och, sent a preacher or preachers to places on special missions 
 to do certain work. But I have not heard of a place where 
 one was pronounced worthy to preach and started out on a 
 preaching tour. The apostles were told to teach all " to ob- 
 serve [or do] all things whatsoever I commanded you." 
 (Matt. 28: 20.) Under this commission every one baptized 
 has the same commission and authority to preach that others 
 did. The same eldership that counsels and controls them in 
 trading horses or making a living controls them in this work 
 of preaching the word. It takes no more authority to regulate 
 their preaching than it does to regulate their lives in other 
 ways. 
 
 (2) If not selected and sent out, to whom is he answerable for his 
 conduct and preaching? 
 
Evangelists and Their Work. 157 
 
 He is answerable to the church where his membership is or 
 where he preaches. 
 
 (3) Who shall say whether or not a man has the scriptural qualifica- 
 tions for an evangelist? 
 
 Why not the elders of his church as much right to try and 
 test him as a preacher as any one else? 
 
 (4) If this important decision is left to the one aspiring to be an 
 evangelist, how shall the church protect herself against the unscrip- 
 tural, incompetent, self-styled " evangelist? " 
 
 Every Christian ought to realize that he is sent of God to 
 preach the gospel. The world will never be converted to 
 Christ until they do it. The idea that a man must orate is a 
 foolish whim. Any one can learn to preach the gospel that. 
 can tell the way to town. If he will become earnest and faith-, 
 ful, he will soon learn how. There is much more trouble in 
 getting men to preach than in keeping them from it. Occa- 
 sionally a man will preach who is incompetent, but he preaches 
 anyhow. 
 
 (5) If " the care of all the churches " came upon Paul " daily," who 
 should bear the burden to-day? 
 
 All Christians should daily bear the burden of the churches 
 for the Lord. 
 
 (6) When is an apostle an example to us? 
 
 Whenever the apostle obeys God. We cannot do every- 
 thing an apostle did ; but when he commands us to use our 
 faculties and abilities, we should do it as a duty to God, just 
 as an apostle did. 
 
 (7) If apostles are examples in some things and not in all things, 
 how may we determine when they are and when they are not exam- 
 ples? 
 
 When God commands us to do things, we can do them. 
 That is all that an apostle can do. " The harvest indeed is 
 plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the 
 Lord of the harvest, that he send forth laborers into his har- 
 vest." Let us not strive to keep them out of it. 
 
 (8) What is the work of an evangelist? 
 
 The work of the evangelist is to evangelize. That means 
 to make known the gospel. This includes all the teaching 
 
158 Evangelists and Their Work. 
 
 needed to make that gospel effective in the salvation of men. 
 There was originally a distinction in the meanings of the 
 words preach, evangelize, and teach. But the same person 
 was called to all to such an extent that the words greatly lost 
 their distinction and are used almost indiscriminately to refer 
 to all the preaching and teaching needed to save men. 
 
 EVANGELIZE, HOW TO. 
 
 If a church has a young brother that wants to preach and has the 
 talent, and the church refuses, or rather fails from neglect, to send 
 him out, and he is too poor to go at his own charge, and ten men of 
 different congregations hold a consultation and agree for one of their 
 number as their agent to send him out, and they guarantee him a cer- 
 tain amount of money, would not said ten men be a " missionary so- 
 ciety?" If not, why not? Would it be right to so act? If not, why 
 not? 
 
 I think there are two things in the supposition that are 
 unsupposable — impossible to be true. First, it is not true that 
 a young or old man can be so poor that he cannot preach 
 Christ. Poverty cannot prevent a man's preaching Christ. 
 Christ himself and Paul have proved this true. No one can 
 be poorer than was Christ. He had not where to lay his head, 
 and for forty days and nights had no food. Paul was so poor 
 that he suffered nakedness and hunger, and wrought with his 
 own hands to support himself and his companions while they 
 preached. Paul said to the Corinthians : "Are they ministers 
 of Christ? ... I more; in labors more abundantly, in 
 prisons more abundantly, in stripes above measure, in deaths 
 oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 
 Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suf- 
 fered shipwreck, a night and a day have I been in the deep ; 
 in journeyings often, in perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, 
 in perils from my countrymen, in perils from the Gentiles, in 
 perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the 
 sea, in perils among false brethren ; in labor and travail, in 
 watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in 
 cold and nakedness." (2 Cor. 11 : 23-27.) 
 
 No man is justified in ceasing or refraining from preaching 
 until his want and poverty exceed those Paul endured. Paul 
 tells Timothy: "Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier 
 of Jesus Christ." (2 Tim. 2: 3.) " Suffer hardship with the 
 
Evangelize, How to. 159 
 
 gospel." (2 Tim. 1 : 8.) Jesus said : "A disciple is not above 
 his teacher, nor a servant above his lord." (Matt. 10: 24.) 
 
 No man is too poor to preach the gospel. The great want of 
 the age is men who are in earnest, who are consecrated to the 
 service of God, who can suffer all things for the sake of Christ. 
 We are only playing at preaching the gospel, not willing to 
 suffer for it. I feel certain that if we could be earnest, ready 
 to deny self as the early preachers did, the result would be 
 much greater now than it was then. 
 
 These early preachers were endued with miraculous power, 
 but neither Christ nor any inspired prophet or apostle ever 
 used this power to avoid persecution or suffering or to supply 
 his bodily wants. But is it the preacher's duty to suffer, while 
 his brethren do nothing? It is not our duty to measure our- 
 selves by others. It is our duty to measure ourselves by the 
 laws and examples that Christ and his inspired apostles gave 
 us. He will certainly hold us to account if we fail to follow 
 these. He will do the same to these brethren and churches 
 who refuse to help those who deny themselves to preach the 
 gospel. He requires the sacrifice from all. It seems to me 
 that the great mass of professed Christians must fall under 
 condemnation. 
 
 " Many are called, but few chosen," is spoken of Christians. 
 God cannot approve the Christian that sees his brother striv- 
 ing to save men and fails to help him. But their failure will 
 not excuse the preacher. He must do his duty, though it 
 brings on him the suffering of Paul. His example of self- 
 denying devotion to the service of God and the faithful warn- 
 ing of their duty may be what these cold Christians need to 
 save them. At any rate, a willingness to suffer and to endure 
 want in order to preach Christ must be in us in order to save 
 ourselves ; and the example of fervor and zeal will excite some 
 others. Then the preacher ought not to wait for any one to 
 send him ; he ought to go and do his duty. So long as he 
 waits for some one to guarantee against suffering he encour- 
 ages these cold churches in their lukewarm, indifferent state. 
 He is in just that state himself, else he would not wait for a 
 support to be guaranteed. If he would lift himself out of it, 
 he would do much to lift them out of their coldness and life- 
 lessness. Then there" are ten brethren who see the evil of this 
 lifelessness and are anxious to do something. How shall they 
 
160 Evangelize, How to. 
 
 go about it? This is a dangerous point in the life of churches 
 and Christians. Hitherto these Christians and churches have 
 failed to do their duty. They now start out to do something. 
 The churches have been indifferent ; men are so> liable to lay all 
 the blame on the plan of work and to adopt some new method. 
 This is the way all societies begin. But we can work through 
 the churches just as easily as through any association or or- 
 ganizations of men. Under just such conditions the Jews de- 
 manded a king. The judges appointed by God " took bribes, 
 and perverted justice." Yet to change God's order when so 
 perverted and corrupted was to reject God. If these breth- 
 ren will say to their churches that the church ought to help 
 that brother who is sacrificing to preach the gospel, and that 
 here are ten, twenty, or fifty dollars that we wish the elders to 
 use in helping him, I do not believe that there is a church in 
 the world that would refuse it. If he will bring the matter 
 before the church as the duty of the church and lead in the 
 work, some of the others will be stirred to join with him in it. 
 He will encourage those who can give only a little to join 
 theirs with his and increase the fund. He will lead the church 
 to activity in this work and help to warm to life and so save 
 these cold, lifeless, and lost brethren. It is as important to 
 save them as to save the unbaptized sinners, and they are just 
 as sure to be damned if they do not do something to save 
 others as is the unbaptized infidel. I cannot see why the God- 
 appointed elders cannot do the work of conferring with the 
 preacher as well as the one selected by the ten brethren. This 
 seems to me the natural, reasonable way, as it is the scriptural 
 way for proceeding; and if it were not for man's love to or- 
 ganize and work through something of his own, instead of 
 God's appointments, I am sure he would never think of any 
 other way. 
 
 If half the time were given to presenting the matter to the 
 churches and interesting them in work that is given to meet- 
 ing and organizing and arranging new plans to work through, 
 ten times as many persons would be led to participate in the 
 work and the means would be greatly multiplied. God and 
 his appointments would be honored. But when the ten live 
 men draw off into a combination of their own, to work through 
 it, they deprive the church of their life and earnestness, leave 
 the cold members to grow still colder and the church of God 
 
Evangelize, How to. 161 
 
 more and more lifeless. The poor members who can give but 
 a little are discouraged, are made to feel that they have no 
 part nor lot in the work of spreading the gospel, are made to 
 feel that they are an ostracised class, and the preacher is taken 
 from under the control of the elders and from his connection 
 with the church and is placed under the control of the rich 
 men. I can conceive of nothing that can more effectually de- 
 stroy the church of Christ than such a course. 
 
 It is as though the eyes (if it were possible) in a number 
 of human bodies were to refuse to discharge their functions 
 in cooperation with the other members of the body, but were 
 to combine and make a new body — all eyes. This new body 
 could perform but one work. The old bodies deprived of 
 these members would be maimed and helpless. 
 
 While the regular work of contribution should go through 
 the church, and the church should communicate with the 
 teacher concerning giving and receiving, it is scriptural for 
 individuals, as they have opportunity, to do good to all men ; 
 and if a brother sees one engaged in the Lord's work, he may 
 as an individual, as a member of the body of Christ, help him. 
 But if he enters into another organization to do it, he does it 
 not as a Christian, a member of the body of Christ, not as a 
 member of the church, but as a member of this new organiza- 
 tion, which supplants, the church, usurps its work, deprives it 
 of its earnest and active members, and leaves it a mutilated 
 and helpless body. 
 
 Now, under the circumstances proposed, we will give a 
 clearly scriptural order for these members to go to work in 
 sending out the gospel. Here is the preacher, two or ten 
 churches, cold and lukewarm, with one or ten men who real- 
 ize that something ought to be done to have the gospel taught. 
 The preacher is or ought to be at work, preaching what he 
 can, but is hindered by having to give his time to " tent mak- 
 ing " or some other calling. A brother in a lukewarm church 
 sees that he ought to be helped. His duty may be first as an 
 individual Christian to improve the opportunity and help him 
 if the demand is pressing, but it is his duty to bring the mat- 
 ter before his church and to insist that every member accord- 
 ing to ability should aid in this work. He ought to insist 
 that it is the duty to sacrifice, not merely to give after gratify- 
 ing all desires. The scriptural order, first, is to have the 
 church communicate with the teacher as concerning giving 
 
162 Evangelize, How to. 
 
 and receiving; that the church should send to his necessities, 
 inquire as to his wants, and in sympathy seek to share in his 
 labors. Every member according to his ability should aid. 
 He should — kindly, forbearingly, but earnestly and persist- 
 ently — bring the matter practically before them by contrib- 
 uting freely to the church treasury to be used in this way. 
 It would be an exceedingly cold and dead church if this did 
 not lead some to unite with him in this work. Persisted in, 
 the good fruits from it will draw others into it until the whole 
 church is enlisted in the work. Paul says to the Corinthians 
 that Titus, " being himself very earnest, he went forth unto 
 you of his own accord." " We have sent together with him 
 the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all 
 the churches." " Whether any inquire about . . . our 
 brethren, they are the messengers of the churches, they are 
 the glory of Christ." (2 Cor. 8: 17-23.) These were to stir 
 the churches of Macedonia up to the duty of giving to the 
 saints at Jerusalem. 
 
 This interested individual may himself visit other churches, 
 and, as the above scriptures show, may lay the matter before 
 them and induce these churches to engage in this work. A 
 church engaging in the work may send a messenger to one or 
 more churches to ask aid in the work and to stir them up to 
 their duty. The teacher himself may send to the churches, 
 make his wants known, and communicate with them as con- 
 cerning giving and receiving. This is done by messengers, 
 not delegates. Delegates meet and form a new organization. 
 A messenger delivers a message to a congregation, receives 
 the answer, and returns. There is no authority vested in him, 
 there is no organization formed. Delegate or representative 
 meetings, or meetings of churches in one representative body, 
 necessarily form a new organization above and stronger than 
 the churches, because this meeting is composed of delegates 
 representing two or more congregations. Two or more are 
 superior to one. This necessarily grows into an ecclesias- 
 ticism. 
 
 For a number of individuals from one or different congre- 
 gations to unite and form an organization of their own through 
 which to work is to withdraw the means and activities de- 
 voted to this organization from the churches, so weaken and 
 destroy the churches. Both plans dishonor the church and 
 its founder. 
 
Evil, Does God Create? 163 
 
 God's plan, for which there is clear scriptural example, 
 reaches and presses upon and keeps before every member of 
 the body of Christ that it is his duty to help in the work. 
 The human plan withdraws the zealous and separates them 
 into a new body — leaves the cold and indifferent members to 
 grow colder and more indifferent till they die. The plan will 
 destroy the church of God. If these ten individuals should fail 
 to enlist any one else in the service, each could communicate 
 with the teacher and each help him as he is able and as the 
 teacher needs. This would give no organization supplanting 
 the church. 
 
 EVIL, DOES GOD CREATE? 
 
 Please explain Isa. 45: 7: "I make peace, and create evil." In what 
 sense does God create evil? 
 
 God creates evil in the sense of bringing punishment, afflic- 
 tion, and evil on people when they violate his laws or in any 
 way sin against them. The sin is not called the evil, but the 
 affliction that comes is the result of sin. When the Israelites 
 crossed the Jordan, they took the city of Jericho without loss. 
 In disposing of the spoils of Jericho, a sin was committed 
 against God. They then attacked the village of Ai. They 
 were defeated, and some of them slain. "And Joshua rent his 
 clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of 
 Jehovah until the evening, he and the elders of Israel ; and they 
 put dust upon their heads. And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord Je- 
 hovah, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over the 
 Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to cause 
 us to perish? would that we had been content, and dwelt be- 
 yond the Jordan!" (Josh. 7: 6, 7.) The defeat is the evil 
 that they say God has brought upon them. He brought the 
 evil, their defeat, on account of their sin. Again (1 Sam. 4: 
 1, 2) a battle is fought with the Philistines. Israel is defeated. 
 " The elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath Jehovah smitten 
 us to-day before the Philistines?" (Verse 3.) "Did not 
 your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon 
 us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel 
 by profaning the sabbath." (Neh. 13: 18.) They sinned; 
 God brought punishment or evil upon them for the sin. In 
 this sense God brings all the good and all the evil that come 
 upon man — the good for their obedience, the evil for their dis- 
 
164 Evil, Does God Create? 
 
 obedience. " Shall evil befall a city, and Jehovah hath not 
 done it?" (Amos 3: 6.) Look back a verse or two and see 
 it is God punishing them for their sins. So he created the 
 evil to punish their sin. All the evils brought upon persons, 
 cities, or countries are brought by the Lord to punish them. 
 He does it often through wicked, idolatrous nations and peo- 
 ple. David says: "The wicked, who is thy sword." (Ps. 17: 
 13, marginal note.) See Sin and Evil. 
 
 FAITH AND REPENTANCE, ORDER OF. 
 
 Does faith or repentance come first? The Baptists say repentance 
 comes first. 
 
 I do not think there is or can be much difference between 
 Baptists and disciples on the order of faith and repentance 
 when they define their words and understand each other. 
 Faith means belief in God through Jesus Christ. Repentance 
 is a godly sorrow for sin — that is, such a degree of sorrow for 
 the sins we have committed against God that we turn from 
 these sins, seek forgiveness, and strive to sin against him no 
 more. No sane mind can believe a person sorrows for sin 
 against God until he believes in God. No man can turn to 
 God in his feelings or purposes until he has some faith in God. 
 " Without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him ; 
 for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he 
 is a rewarder of them that seek after him." (Heb. 11: 6.) 
 Here faith and believing are used as referring to the same thing. 
 It states, too, that a person must " believe that he [God] is, and 
 that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him," before he 
 can come to him. Repentance, or turning to God, is the fruit 
 of faith. There is a growth of faith. There are degrees in 
 faith. " Your faith groweth exceedingly." The fruit it bears 
 marks the degree of its growth. Repentance marks a degree 
 of faith. The mistake which the Baptists make is that they 
 do not call the growing plant, that springs from the word of 
 God in the heart, " faith " until it manifests itself in repent- 
 ance. The Bible calls it " faith " from the beginning. The 
 Baptists maintain that it becomes a saving faith when it pro- 
 duces repentance; and when they say repentance precedes 
 faith, they mean it is belief, or, as they sometimes call it, 
 " historical faith," and not a saving faith until it produces re- 
 pentance. The Bible clearly teaches that faith is not a saving 
 
Faith as a Grain of Mustard Seed. 165 
 
 faith until it produces repentance. So far, with a proper un- 
 derstanding of each other's use of words, the Baptists and dis- 
 ciples agree. There is a growth in repentance as well as in 
 faith. Faith and repentance act and react on each other. 
 Faith leads to repentance and repentance strengthens faith. 
 Repentance affords a deeper soil in which faith may take root 
 and grow more vigorously. Faith not only leads to repent- 
 ance ; it leads through repentance to baptism. Repentance 
 marks the degree at which faith changes the affections, the 
 purposes, the will. Baptism marks the degree at which faith, 
 strengthened by repentance, brings the flesh, the body, the en- 
 tire man, into submission to the will of God. The disciple 
 maintains that the faith becomes a saving faith only when 
 it obtains the mastery over the flesh and brings the soul, mind, 
 and body into submission to the will and consecration to the 
 service of God. The Baptist, then, believes that faith becomes 
 a saving faith when it declares itself in repentance. The dis- 
 ciple or the Bible teaches that faith becomes a saving faith 
 when it is strengthened by repentance and declares itself in 
 baptism. The difference between Baptists and disciples is 
 not as to the order in which faith and repentance come, but 
 first as to whether the belief is called " faith " before it be- 
 comes a saving faith, which is a verbal difference. The real 
 difference is whether the faith becomes a saving faith when it 
 manifests itself in repentance or when it declares itself in bap- 
 tism. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." 
 (Mark 16: 16.) 
 
 FAITH AS A GRAIN OF MUSTARD SEED. 
 
 Please give the point of comparison between the mustard seed and 
 faith in Luke 17: 6. 
 
 There are few passages that I have studied more closely 
 than the point involved in this query, yet I have not been 
 able to reach a satisfactory conclusion. " For verily I say 
 unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall 
 say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place ; and 
 it shall remove ; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 
 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." 
 (Matt. 17: 20, 21.) This power they were to be enabled to 
 exercise by possessing faith as a grain of mustard seed was 
 the greatest. Nothing would be impossible to the power that 
 
166 Faith as a Grain of Mustard Seed. 
 
 came through the faith as a grain of mustard seed, and such 
 power went forth only through prayer and fasting. The office 
 of prayer and fasting in such cases, we understand, is to in- 
 crease the faith, subdue the resistance of the flesh, and to 
 bring the person into unresisting submission to the will of 
 God. When man is brought into a state of unresisting sub- 
 mission to the will of God, he has the greatest spiritual bless- 
 ing and power. This was true of both the miraculous and the 
 ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit. I once thought I 
 could solve it in this way: Regard it as elliptical, and let it 
 read : He that has faith as a grain of mustard seed has can 
 remove mountains. The grain of mustard seed has no faith, 
 no power to believe ; but it submits unresistingly to the laws 
 of God in the conditions in which it is placed. This is what 
 a perfect faith leads man to do. So the faith of the grain of 
 mustard seed would represent a perfect faith. This construc- 
 tion and exegesis requires " seed " to be in the nominative case, 
 but in the Greek it is not in the nominative case ; it is not the 
 subject, but the object; and so it must be construed: If you 
 have faith like to the mustard seed. The " faith " is com- 
 pared to the " mustard seed," and what the point of compari- 
 son is is difficult to see. He could not mean the smallest 
 amount of faith, as the mustard seed is " the smallest of all 
 seeds," for these disciples did have a small measure of faith. 
 Dr. Clarke thinks " our Lord means a thriving and increasing 
 faith; which, like the grain of mustard seed, from being the 
 least of seeds, becomes the greatest of herbs." This seems 
 far-fetched ; at least the passage does not suggest the thought. 
 Some say it was a proverbial expression, meaning that the 
 greatest results flow from the smallest beginnings. This is 
 true ; still the point of comparison between the " faith " and 
 the " grain of mustard seed " is not apparent. It may mean a 
 faith trusting and full of vitality as is the mustard seed ; but 
 there is difficulty in determining the point of comparison, yet 
 it seems to me that it must imply a faith complete and active 
 in itself. 
 
 FAITH, HOW IS THE HEART PURIFIED BY? See 
 Heart Purified by Faith. 
 
Faith, How Many Kinds of? 167 
 
 FAITH, HOW MANY KINDS OF? 
 
 Is there but one kind of faith mentioned in the Bible? If not, is 
 that faith produced by testimony, or is it miraculously shed abroad by 
 the Holy Spirit? 
 
 The Holy Spirit produced faith by giving testimony. (See 
 Acts 2.) The Spirit produced faith in those wicked persons 
 by presenting (1) the testimony of the works which Jesus 
 had done among them, as they knew; (2) the prophecies that 
 had gone before ; (3) God " hath shed forth this, which ye now 
 hear and see ; " (4) " we all are witnesses " of his resurrection 
 from the dead. " Therefore [that is, in consequence of these 
 testimonies] let all the house of Israel know assuredly [be- 
 lieve with all the heart], that God hath made that same Jesus, 
 whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." (Acts 2 : 36.) 
 The Holy Spirit produces faith by giving testimony. Paul 
 says : " Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
 God." (Rom. 10: 17.) John says: "These [things] are writ- 
 ten, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
 of God ; and that believing ye might have life through his 
 name." (John 20: 31.) I cannot conceive of God's even giv- 
 ing faith, save by giving the testimony to produce faith. Some 
 think that there was a common and a miraculous faith in the 
 days of miracles, as Paul speaks of the common faith ; some 
 conclude that there was an uncommon one to contrast with 
 the common. Of this I have always had misgivings. The 
 apostles were all brought to believe on Christ through the 
 testimonies given. Thomas saw his pierced hands and sides ; 
 and Christ prayed for those in after ages who should believe 
 on him through the words of the apostles. (John 17: 20.) 
 Paul himself was brought to believe in Christ through testi- 
 mony addressed to his senses. That testimony was miracu- 
 lous, as much of the testimony of the early days was, to sub- 
 stantiate the truth of the gospel. But the miracle was ad- 
 dressed to the senses, and reached the heart only through this 
 testimony addressed to the senses. There is certainly no way 
 of obtaining faith now, save through hearing the testimonies 
 concerning Jesus Christ given in the Scriptures, receiving this 
 into the heart, and so believing in him as the Son of God. 
 
168 Falling Away, Danger of. 
 
 FALLING AWAY, DANGER OF. 
 
 Please explain Heb. 6: 1-6. Some of the brethren think it has ref- 
 erence to us now, while others think it has reference to the apostles. 
 Please turn on the light, as we are anxious to be a unit on the question. 
 
 I do not think it difficult to understand, if we will consider 
 to whom it was written. It was written to Jewish converts 
 to Christianity. After the first glow of enthusiasm had sub- 
 sided and the converts met with the double persecution from 
 the Gentiles and their own brethren, they were discouraged, 
 disheartened, and disposed to give up Christ and go back to 
 Judaism ; and this letter was written to show them the supe- 
 riority of the law of Christ to that of Moses and the ruin they 
 would bring on themselves by such a course. The letter must 
 be studied with this thought. In chapters 1 and 2 Paul shows 
 that the angels brought the one law; that the Son of God 
 brought the other, and that he partook of the nature of man 
 that he might be tempted in all things as man is. In chapter 
 
 3 he shows that Moses, a servant, was mediator and lawgiver 
 of one ; Jesus Christ, the Son of God, of the other. In chapter 
 
 4 he contrasts the rest in the earthly kingdom with the better 
 rest that remains to the people of God in the heavenly Canaan, 
 and tells that our great High Priest has entered before us into 
 that heavenly rest. Chapter 5 is a contrast between our High 
 Priest and the earthly high priests. 
 
 I have often spoken of the meaning of chapter 6. The first 
 three verses are the difficult ones : " Wherefore leaving the 
 doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto 
 perfection ; not laying again a foundation of repentance from 
 dead works, and of faith toward God." To understand this 
 passage, we must remember this letter was written to the He- 
 brews who had been converted from Judaism to Christianity. 
 Judaism, or the law of Moses, had been superseded by the law 
 of Christ. The law of Moses was the tutor to bring the Jews 
 to Christ ; when Christ came, the law was done away. The 
 works of the Jewish law then became dead works, When 
 the law was done away, the works of the law were no longer in 
 force. This law could not make the comers thereunto perfect. 
 " For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment be- 
 cause of its weakness and unprofitableness (for the law made 
 nothing perfect), and a bringing in thereupon of a better hope, 
 through which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 7: 18, 19.) 
 
Falling Away, Danger of. 169 
 
 The Jewish law was the beginning of the doctrine of Christ; 
 it could not make perfect. Let us leave it, therefore, and go 
 on to perfection in the service of Christ. The practice of the 
 Jewish law was the foundation that demanded repentance 
 from the works of the Jewish law, now no< longer in force, so 
 dead. When they turned from the Jewish law to Christ, the 
 first things were faith in God, the teaching of baptisms, laying 
 on of hands in the beginning to impart spiritual gifts, and res- 
 urrection from the dead, and of eternal judgment. The ten- 
 dency of these Jews was to go back to Judaism and lay again 
 the causes out of which the necessity of these things grows. 
 Do not do this ; but having passed out of Judaism by faith in 
 Christ, go on unto perfection in him. The apostle says : " This 
 will we do, if God permit." (Verse 3.) A strong assertion 
 that he and the faithful will do it. This much is difficult ; the 
 rest is plain. If you Jews who have become Christians and 
 have been once enlightened by the gospel of Christ, have 
 tasted of the blessings bestowed in Christ, have been the re- 
 cipients of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, as these 
 Jewish Christians had done, and tasted of the good word of 
 God and the powers of the world to come (they had enjoyed 
 all these things in enjoying the miraculous gifts of the Spirit 
 as they had done) — now, if after these things you deliberately 
 give up Christ as the sacrifice for your sins, in this you cru- 
 cify him again to yourselves afresh and put him to open shame. 
 Those who thus turn to Judaism after they have known Christ 
 cannot be renewed to repentance. They reject Christ as their 
 sacrifice, and there is no other sacrifice to save them. The 
 same idea is presented in Heb. 10: 29. The man who rejects 
 Christ as the Mediator and Savior has no other that can save. 
 This is true. When he rejects Christ, it is impossible to re- 
 new him to repentance. But neither of these passages has 
 the least reference to persons being renewed again to repent- 
 ance who, while believing in Christ, fall through temptations 
 into sin. This is too clearly taught in many places of the 
 Scriptures for a moment to be doubted. This speaks of those 
 who give up Christ. They have no other approach to God. 
 I suppose the principle taught is applicable at all times and 
 places. When a man has come to know the gospel, with its 
 privileges, blessings, and hopes, and deliberately gives it up 
 and turns back to another religion, or to no religion, he is 
 guilty of the same crime and sin that those who gave up Christ 
 
170 Falling Away, Danger of. 
 
 and went back to Judaism were. See Apostatize, Can a Child 
 of God? 
 
 FAN, WHAT WAS THE? 
 
 What was the fan that Jesus had, and how did he use it? (Matt. 
 3: 12.) 
 
 John the Baptist told that " he that cometh after me is 
 mightier than I : . . . whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
 thoroughly cleanse his thrashing floor ; and he will gather his 
 wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with un- 
 quenchable fire." (Matt. 3: 11, 12.) The fan was a winnow- 
 ing fan that was used to separate the chaff from the wheat. 
 Jesus came under the law of Moses. He came to fully obey 
 that law, fulfill it, and take it out of the way. Like all laws 
 and institutions touched and used by man, it had been defiled 
 by many additions and changes by men. In the very begin- 
 ning of his public ministry Jesus began to separate the true 
 laws of God from the teachings and modifications of man that 
 had been added to this law by man through tradition handed 
 down from the elders. The Sermon on the Mount is a sepa- 
 rating the true teachings given by God from the additions and 
 changes by man. Even the things not approved by God, but 
 tolerated on account of the hardness of the hearts of the peo- 
 ple, were purged out from the law of God. These all consti- 
 tuted the chaff that was purged out and burned up by the un- 
 quenchable wrath of God. The truths that were pleasing to 
 God and that were eternal were brought over by Jesus Christ 
 in the kingdom of God. He purged and purified the law from 
 all human additions and obeyed the undefiled law of God be- 
 fore he presented it to his Father as fulfilled and to be taken 
 out of the way, nailing it to his cross. " Unquenchable fire " 
 declares God's wrath at adding to his order. The laws and 
 institutions given through Christ, while being operated by 
 man, will be contaminated by his touch and defiled by his ad- 
 ditions, as was the law of Moses. This church will undergo 
 the purifying process before it is given up to the Father. The 
 " wood, hay, stubble " of man's additions will be burned up, 
 and the " gold, silver, precious stones " will remain — proved — 
 "yet so as through fire." (1 Cor. 3: 11-15.) Of the same 
 purport is the following: "Then cometh the end, when he 
 shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when 
 
Fasting. 171 
 
 he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 
 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his 
 feet. . . . And when all things have been subjected unto 
 him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected unto 
 him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be 
 all in all." (1 Cor. 15: 24-28.) x^gain, Jesus said: "Every 
 plant which my Heavenly Father planted not, shall be rooted 
 up." (Matt. 15 : 13.) God's wrath at changing his appoint- 
 ments and order is unappeasable. 
 
 FASTING. 
 
 Is fasting enjoined on Christians now? Please give all the infor- 
 mation on the subject you can. 
 
 Fasting is nowhere commanded. It is spoken of as a serv- 
 ice acceptable to God and helpful to men. It is certainly, too, 
 spoken of as though God expected it to be observed. Jesus, 
 tells them when they fast, how it is to be done. (Matt. 6: 
 16-18; 9: 14; Mark 2: 18; Luke 5: 33; Acts 13: 2; 14: 23; 1 
 Cor. 7 : 5 ; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11: 27.) If Christ, the apostles, and the 
 early Christians needed to fast, why do we not need it now? 
 The teaching of the Bible is that fasting connected with prayer 
 and humiliation is intended to draw us nearer to God, that we 
 may be fitted to receive a fuller measure of God's blessing. 
 The fullness of his blessing depends upon our fitness to receive 
 and properly use the blessings bestowed. Fasting humbles 
 us, makes us feel our dependence upon God, and causes us to 
 earnestly and faithfully seek his help. When we are in dis- 
 tress and sorrow, it does us good to fast and pray. When we 
 grow cold and indifferent, when the fleshly appetites and lusts 
 and the selfish ambitions get the mastery over us, we should 
 fast and pray, humble ourselves and draw near to God, that 
 he may draw near to us, find a home in our hearts, and bless 
 and strengthen us. There are no commands given as to when 
 or how long we should fast and pray ; but I do not think the 
 apostolic and primitive order of fasting and prayer was a mere 
 matter of form, as it usually is at this day. The fasting now, 
 when observed at all, is to miss one meal and call it " fasting." 
 They usually miss breakfast, attend church at eleven o'clock, 
 and go home and eat a hearty dinner at one. Not much spir- 
 itual strength is gained by missing one meal. I am satisfied 
 that the fasting of primitive times extended over several days, 
 
172 Fasting. 
 
 eating but little and abstaining from fleshly indulgence during 
 the season. Missing but one meal requires little self-denial 
 and makes us feel but little humility or excites no great feel- 
 ing of dependence. To miss one meal and call it " fasting " 
 is very much to make an empty form of it. * I think the season 
 of fasting and prayer extended over several days, and during 
 this time but little was eaten. The length of time, however, 
 depends upon our condition, our needs, and our desire to serve 
 God. Fasting is a means of grace to enable us to overcome 
 the flesh and to be filled with and led by the Spirit of God. 
 But fasting, whether of one or more, should never be done 
 with ostentation or display; it should be done quietly, as a 
 service rendered to God, not to be seen of men. 
 
 FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. 
 
 (1) How may we know from the Scriptures which day is the first 
 day of the week? 
 
 The Bible does not tell which is the first day of the week. 
 It tells that we are to do certain things on the first day of the 
 week, taking it for granted that every accountable being knows 
 which is the first day of the week. If the meaning be, How 
 do we know the day we call the first day is the same as was 
 called the first day in the Scriptures? the proof is on the man 
 who says it has been changed. But this question arises only 
 with persons who have not studied the question. Suppose 
 some men were to undertake to change the first day in the, 
 week, how would they go about it? How could they get all 
 the peoples and families of all the earth to agree to such a 
 change? Could it be done, if done at all, without world-wide 
 controversy and persuasion? Could it be done at once? 
 When did such occur? As well undertake to make the sun 
 spread abroad darkness. World-wide practices cannot be 
 changed without world-wide commotions that leave their 
 marks in history. Astronomers can tell of the changes of the 
 sun, moon, and stars for a million of years to come. They 
 can calculate the times of those that occurred thousands of 
 years past. The passover or the day of resurrection is regu- 
 lated by the movements of the moon. The passover day for 
 every year since time began can be fixed just as easy as Easter 
 day ten years from now can be told. 
 
 But ask the next man who tells you we do not know whether 
 
First Day of the Week. 173 
 
 we keep the same day for the first day that was kept nineteen 
 hundred years ago to try to change a day now, and see that 
 he will have to change the records — political, religious, and 
 social — of every nation and family under the sun. This is as 
 impossible to do without leaving clear signs as it is to blot 
 the sun out of existence. 
 
 (2) Is there a positive command anywhere in the New Testament to 
 observe the first day of the week? 
 
 " Not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom 
 of some is." (Heb. 10: 25.) Is that a positive command? 
 What assembly has been established, and for what" purpose? 
 There are very few positive commands in the New Testa- 
 ment. It is not a system of slavery, but one of voluntary 
 service from the heart, and God touches the heart of man by. 
 the gift of his Son, so that man desires to know and do the 
 will of God. He loves God, and because he loves him he de- 
 sires to do what will please him. He does not need a posi- 
 tive command ; he only needs to know what will please God, 
 and as a loving and dutiful child he is anxious to do it, whether 
 there is a positive command to do it or not. God will never 
 save a man because he did this or that, and so brought God 
 under obligation to him. He will bless and save because man 
 so loves God as to conform his life and character to the will 
 and character of God ; and obedience to the commands of God 
 is the test, the only test and discipline of man's love for his 
 Maker. A man who does what he knows will please God 
 only because there is a positive command to do it is a poor 
 sample of a true child of God. 
 
 A man who desires to do God's will, who will study the ref- 
 erences to the meeting on the first day of the week, will see 
 that the apostles and early Christians met on every first day. 
 He who does not desire to obey God, but wishes the day as 
 a day for visiting, pleasure, and fleshly gratification, will find 
 no authority for it. God purposely leaves things thus. When- 
 ever any man will find authority for meeting on any first day, 
 he will find it for meeting every first day. The authority that 
 requires me to meet the first Sunday in the month requires 
 me to meet every Sunday in the month and of every month 
 and of every year. God nowhere tells us to meet or says 
 that the disciples met on one Sunday or another, but on the 
 first day. If there is authority for neglecting the meeting on 
 any first day, the same authority will permit us to neglect it 
 
174 First Day of the Week. 
 
 on every one. Every first day represents the resurrection day. 
 Not one in a month, not one in a year, but every first day rep- 
 resents the resurrection. The day is meaningless without 
 service in memory of Christ. The Jews were to observe the 
 Sabbath. The disciples met to break bread on the first day 
 of the week. Did the Sabbath mean every Sabbath to the 
 Jews? Why not the first day every first day to the Chris- 
 tian? One Jew probably thought it did not mean every Sab- 
 bath, so went out to gathering sticks. He had observed one 
 Sabbath ; he might take a little privilege on this one. He died. 
 I do not believe the man who neglects it only as it suits his 
 convenience can attend to it at all acceptably. 
 
 (3) What is the teaching of the New Testament on the subject of 
 keeping the first day of the week? How are we required to observe it? 
 
 The teaching of the New Testament is that Christ was 
 raised from the dead on the first day of the week. He met 
 with his disciples on three succeeding first days of the week 
 after his resurrection, and at no other time during the period. 
 I do not recall any evidence that Christ met with his disciples 
 after his resurrection at any time save on the first day, or 
 Sunday. The Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, the first 
 day of the week. The disciples met together on the first day 
 of the week under apostolic teaching. (Acts 20 : 7.) Paul said : 
 " Upon the first day of the week let each one of you lay by him 
 in store, as he may prosper.'' (1 Cor. 16: 2.) " Not forsaking 
 our own assembling together, as the custom of some is." (Heb. 
 10: 25.) The assembly on the first day of the week to engage 
 in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, and breaking of bread is 
 clearly set forth. It is the only regular service for which we 
 have precept or example in the New Testament. The ad- 
 monition not to forsake the assembling together must, then, 
 refer to this assembly for these purposes. To study the apos- 
 tolic teaching, break bread, engage in the fellowship and 
 prayer, are the services in these meetings. 
 
 God had plainly told under the Jewish law that both man 
 and beast needed one day of rest out of seven. This remains 
 true so long as the nature and needs of man and beast remain 
 as they are. He showed plainly, too, that for man to wor- 
 ship God, a day must be set apart for that service. If he at- 
 tended to secular business on that day, he would neglect the 
 worship of the Lord. So long as man's nature is unchanged 
 
Foot Washing. 175 
 
 this is true. Observation now will soon satisfy any man that 
 he who attempts to attend to worship and secular business 
 on the same day will crowd the worship out. God knew what 
 was in man when he provided for him, and all attempts to 
 change will show man a fool. 
 
 FOOT WASHING. 
 
 (1) When Jesus Christ washed the feet of his disciples and said 
 unto them, '* If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; 
 ye also ought to wash one another's feet," what did he lack of making 
 foot washing an ordinance? If the early disciples ought to wash 
 one another's feet, why ought not we? What is the proper explana- 
 tion of John 13: 14, 15? 
 
 Jesus ordained foot washing, and what Jesus ordained is an 
 ordinance of God. Anything Jesus ordained is an ordinance 
 of God. Jesus required his disciples to visit the sick. That 
 is an ordinance of God. He required parents to bring up their 
 children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. That is 
 an ordinance of God. But neither of these is a public church 
 ordinance like attending the Lord's Supper. An ordinance is 
 a rule established by authority. Rearing children in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord and visiting the sick are ordi- 
 nances of God, but they are not stated church observances. 
 
 Now, foot washing is an ordinance of the Lord ; and just as 
 Jesus observed it, and for the same ends, Christians should 
 observe it now. The question is : Did Jesus ordain it as a 
 stated public ordinance of the church, or as a private Christian 
 duty or good work? A good and safe rule is to let the Scrip- 
 tures explain themselves. When we do this, we find, under 
 the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that the Supper was observed 
 as a church ordinance. We so observe it because the Holy 
 Spirit led the disciples so to do. 
 
 The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are the 
 best interpreters of the meaning and intentions of the Savior's 
 language. They observed the Lord's Supper as a public ordi- 
 nance. (See Acts 2 : 42 ; 20 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 1 1 : 20-24.) About this 
 there can be no doubt. They did not so interpret the admoni- 
 tion to wash one another's feet. We have no account of their 
 having a public foot washing. The only account we have of 
 it is 1 Tim. 5 : 3-10: " Honor widows that are widows indeed. 
 But if any widow hath children or grandchildren, let them 
 learn first to show piety towards their own family, and to re- 
 
176 Foot Washing. 
 
 quite their parents : for this is acceptable in the sight of God. 
 Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, hath her hope 
 set on God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night 
 and day. But she that giveth herself to pleasure is dead while 
 she liveth. These things also command, that they may be 
 without reproach. But if any provideth not for his own, and 
 specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, and is 
 worse than an unbeliever. Let none be enrolled as a widow 
 under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, 
 well reported of for good works ; if she hath brought up chil- 
 dren, if she hath used hospitality to strangers, if she hath 
 washed the saints' feet, if she hath relieved the afflicted, if she 
 hath diligently followed every good work." (1 Tim. 5: 3-10.) 
 Here it is placed among entertaining strangers, rearing chil- 
 dren, administering to the sick and afflicted, and in engaging 
 in all good works. These were all personal and private duties. 
 The apostles interpreted it to mean that it should be a private 
 and social duty to be performed when needed. So I think it 
 ought to be observed now. The apostles did not seem to 
 think Jesus established a new ordinance, but gave a new mean- 
 ing to an old social custom. It had in the days of Abraham 
 been the custom to give water to wash the feet. It was some- 
 times done by the servants for the great. Jesus had told that 
 among his disciples he who would be greatest of all should 
 be servant of all. In this he gives an example that they should 
 perform for each other the humblest services. In washing the 
 feet, he who washes makes himself a servant and honors him 
 whose feet he washes. We do it to be seen of men. Jesus 
 desired it so done that God would see it and reward. If a 
 humble brother comes to your house and needs his feet bathed, 
 do it for him ; if a brother has been plowing in the field and 
 needs his feet bathed, do it for him. This is what Christ 
 meant as interpreted by the apostles. 
 
 (2) You say that foot washing is an act of hospitality and kindness 
 and was for the purpose of cleansing the feet. Why did Christ tell 
 Peter that unless he washed his feet he had no part with him? And 
 after he had washed their feet, he says they are not all clean. Had 
 he half done his work and showed partiality? 
 
 The habit was for the servant to wash the master's feet. 
 Now the Master reverses the order and washes the feet of the 
 servant. This was what troubled Peter, and he said to Jesus : 
 "' Thou shalt not wash my feet." Jesus said : " If I wash thee 
 not, thou hast no part with me." (John 13: 8.) If you do 
 
Forbidden Fruit. 177 
 
 not submit to my order, you are not my disciple. It most 
 likely carried a spiritual significance. Unless you are cleansed 
 from sin by me, you have no part with me. Peter then ran 
 to the other extreme, and wished him to wash him all over. 
 Jesus replied : " He that is bathed [or washed, as they kept 
 themselves] needeth not save to wash his feet " — meaning 
 only the feet need washing as liable to defilement in travel ; 
 but when the feet are washed, you are " clean every whit." 
 This shows that the object was to make them clean. Then he 
 adds : " Ye [disciples] are clean [referring to the spiritual 
 meaning], but not all [not all of you are clean]. For he knew 
 him that should betray him." This shows that he meant that 
 Judas was not spiritually clean. 
 
 FORBIDDEN FRUIT. 
 
 (1) Did Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the tree of life? My 
 understanding is that they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good 
 and evil. "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the 
 tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the Lord God sent him 
 forth from the garden of Eden," etc. (Gen. 3: 22, 23.) I understand 
 that death (separation) was the penalty for eating of the tree of knowl- 
 edge of good and evil. 
 
 "And Jehovah God planted a garden eastward, in Eden ; and 
 there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the 
 ground made Jehovah God to grow every tree that is pleasant 
 to the sight, and good for food ; the tree of life also in the 
 midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and 
 evil." (Gen. 2: 8, 9.) The two trees were, by superior im- 
 portance, worthy of special mention. 
 
 "And Jehovah God commanded the man, saying, Of every 
 tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat : but of the tree of the 
 knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it; for in 
 the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Gen. 
 2: 16, 17.) They were certainly permitted to eat of the tree of 
 life. It was good to perpetuate life. It would be strange if 
 they did not eat of a tree so important and helpful. The 
 woman knew their privileges. They ate of the tree of knowl- 
 edge of good and evil. (Gen. 3 : 6.) "And Jehovah God said, 
 Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and 
 evil ; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the 
 tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore ... he 
 drove out the man ; and he placed at the east of the garden 
 12 
 
178 Forbidden Fruit. 
 
 of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned 
 every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 22- 
 24.) Had he eaten of the tree of life at his -sin, he would have 
 still lived ; to prevent it; he was cut off from it. He was per- 
 mitted to eat of the tree of life, and did eat of it until he 
 sinned. God then cut him off from it, and he became a dy- 
 ing, perishing mortal. 
 
 (2) I have noticed that you refer to the apple as the forbidden fruit. 
 How do you know it was an apple? 
 
 It is commonly regarded as an apple. And since it teaches 
 precisely the same lesson to us whether it be an apple, a pear, 
 or a cherry, if I thought the public was mistaken on the sub- 
 ject, I would not criticise or controvert the question, when no 
 good could possibly come out of the criticism. But really the 
 word apple, in its generic use, is a word of wide application. 
 It embraces the apple as we call it, the pear, the quince, the 
 orange, the pomegranate, the tomato, the apples of Sodom. 
 The Greek word corresponding to our apple is malum. 
 Smith's Bible Dictionary says : " It was used by the Greeks 
 and Romans to represent almost any kind of tree fruit." The 
 Latin word for apple is pome, and means any kind of a fleshy 
 fruit in contrast with a nut. Our word pomace, crushed fruit, 
 comes from it. Apple, then, in its broadest sense, means any 
 kind of a fleshy or soft fruit, instead of a nut. I do not think 
 it was a hickory nut or a walnut, or any kind of nut that had 
 to be cracked, that beguiled Eve or with which she led Adam 
 into transgression ; but it was one of the attractive fruits, good 
 to look upon and pleasant to the taste, that comes under the 
 broad designation apple. While I do not think there is any- 
 thing in the question calling for discussion, yet I think it was 
 one of the many fleshy fruits that the Greeks called malum, 
 the Romans pomum, and the English apples, and not of the 
 nutty genus. 
 
 FOREKNOWLEDGE. See God's Foreknowledge. 
 
 FORGIVENESS UNDER THE JEWISH LAW. 
 
 You say: " Sins were not forgiven, but only rolled forward and sen- 
 tence suspended, under the Old Testament, until the blood of Christ 
 was shed, which alone could take away sin. So, then, no sin from that 
 of Adam in Eden has been forgiven, save through the death of Christ." 
 I am unable to make these remarks harmonize with some passages of 
 
Forgiveness Under the Jewish Law. 179 
 
 the Old and New Testament Scriptures. If no sin was forgiven be- 
 fore the death of the Savior, what did God mean in saying: " I have 
 pardoned according to thy word? " (Num. 14: 20.) And what did the 
 Savior himself mean when he said: "Son, thy sins be forgiven thee?" 
 (Mark 2: 5.) And what did he mean when he said: "Her sins, which 
 are many, are forgiven? " (Luke 7: 47.) 
 
 There was a forgiveness that freed from sin, or from the 
 remembrance of sin, for the year for which the offering was 
 made. The offering for sin was made every year because 
 there was a remembrance of sin every year — remembrance of 
 the same sin. There was a continual remembrance of a sin 
 committed until an offering or atonement was made for it. 
 After this was done, there was no more remembrance or hold- 
 ing the sin against him until the year closed ; then the sin 
 came against him as if no offering had been made for it. When 
 the offering was again made, this secured forgiveness of the 
 sin for another year. It was the high priest's duty to make 
 the yearly offering for the sins of the people — to roll forward 
 from year to year this forgiveness. This forgiveness did not 
 become so completed or perfected that the yearly sin offering 
 could be dispensed with until Christ, once for all, came and 
 offered himself as a Lamb without blemish for the sins of the 
 world. Then there were no more offerings for sins. 
 
 Hence, Paul says : " Therefore by the deeds of the law there 
 shall no flesh be justified in his sight : for by the law is the 
 knowledge of sin. [Nothing required in the law could justify 
 any being in the sight of God.] But now the righteousness 
 of God [God's order of making men righteous] without the 
 law [without the requirements of the law] is manifested, be- 
 ing witnessed by the law and the prophets ; even the righteous- 
 ness of God [God's plan of making men righteous] which is 
 by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that be- 
 lieve : for there is no difference ; for all have sinned, and come 
 short of the glory of God ; being justified freely by his grace 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God 
 hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, 
 to declare his righteousness [his plan of justifying] for the re- 
 mission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." 
 (Rom. 3: 20-25.) 
 
 These sins past were those committed under the Jewish dis- 
 pensation, passed over through the forbearance of God, now 
 taken away by the blood of Christ. The American Revised 
 Version brings out the idea more clearly : " Whom God set 
 
180 Forgiveness Under the Jewish Law. 
 
 forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show 
 his righteousness [plan of making men righteous] because of 
 the passing over of the sins done aforetime, in the forbear- 
 ance of. God; for the showing, I say, of ' his righteousness at 
 this present season: that he might himself be just, and the 
 justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." 
 
 Paul says that according to the law " were offered both gifts 
 and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service 
 perfect, as pertaining to the conscience ; which stood only in 
 meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, 
 imposed on them until the time of reformation." (Heb. 9: 
 9, 10.) If the offerings could not make the worshiper perfect 
 (or wholly free from sin), it could not secure final and ever- 
 lasting forgiveness. 
 
 " For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and 
 not the very image of the things, can never with those sacri- 
 fices which they offered year by year continually make the 
 comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have 
 ceased to be offered ? because that the worshipers once purged 
 should have had no more conscience of sins. But in those sac- 
 rifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year. 
 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats 
 should take away sins." (Heb. 10: 1-4.) 
 
 These passages plainly set forth that there was no final and 
 complete forgiveness of sins under the Jewish law. 
 
 " For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
 a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
 of the flesh : how much more shall the blood of Christ, who 
 through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, 
 purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living 
 God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testa- 
 ment, that by means of death, for the redemption of the trans- 
 gressions that were under the first testament, they which are 
 called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance." 
 (Heb. 9: 13-15.) 
 
 It is here plainly told that the death of Christ must occur 
 for the redemption of the transgressions that took place under 
 the first covenant, that they might inherit the promise of ever- 
 lasting life, showing that they did not inherit the promise of 
 eternal life under the first covenant, and could not until they 
 were fully redeemed by the blood of Christ. 
 
 The blood of animals was typical. It only secured a tern- 
 
Fornication, Daughter Commits. 181 
 
 porary forgiveness or respite from the condemnation of sin 
 until the blood of Christ was shed to take away sin, and then 
 there was no more offering for sin. 
 
 " For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through 
 the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful 
 flesh, and [as an offering] for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." 
 (Rom. 8: 3.) 
 
 Under the Jewish law an offering for sin was made. It 
 secured the forgiveness for a year, or to the date of the next 
 sin offering. Then it must be again atoned for, which secured 
 a respite for another year. If the person died with sin atoned 
 for, it, of course, held it in that condition until the shedding 
 of the blood of Jesus Christ, which finally and perfectly took 
 away the sins and gave promise of the eternal inheritance. 
 Such seems to me the teaching of the Bible. See Law of 
 Moses and Law of Christ. 
 
 FORNICATION, DAUGHTER COMMITS, WHAT 
 SHOULD MOTHER DO? 
 
 A sister, who is a widow, has two daughters living with her, both 
 of whom are members of the church of Christ. One of these has 
 twice been guilty of fornication. The church has withdrawn from her. 
 Now, what is the duty of the mother to her daughter? Would she be 
 justifiable in putting her away from her home? Would it be any sin 
 to keep her as one of the family? If so, what action should the church 
 take toward the mother? Would 1 Cor. 5: 9-11 condemn her in keep- 
 ing her daughter as one of the family? What is the meaning of " with 
 such a one no, not to eat," in verse 11? 
 
 " If any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or 
 covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an ex- 
 tortioner ; with such a one no, not to eat." (1 Cor. 5: 11.) 
 The Christian is forbidden as much to eat with these other 
 characters as with the fornicator. This crime ought not to be 
 singled out and dealt with more severely than the others. If 
 the daughter was guilty of these other sins, as extortion, re- 
 viling, or railing, would they ask how the mother should be 
 required to treat her? Again, were it a son that was guilty of 
 the same sins, would the same question arise? I ask these 
 questions not to say the law of God should not be obeyed, but 
 to ask whether it is the law of God or public sentiment that 
 is having its weight in this case. Public sentiment condemns 
 this sin above the other sins, and in woman rather than in 
 man. But if we are following the law of God, we will deal 
 with all alike. 
 
182 Fornication, Daughter Commits. 
 
 Some of the commands of God are more important than, and 
 take precedence of, others, because they regulate higher and 
 more important relationship. The command to obey God is 
 more important than the command that wives obey their hus- 
 bands in all things. It regulates a higher relationship. The 
 law to train a child in the way it should go defines a duty of 
 a parent to a child higher than the showing disapproval of a 
 wrong course in a Christian. It takes precedence of it and 
 regulates it. A daughter does not cease to be a daughter 
 when she is guilty of fornication. The duty still rests on the 
 mother to do what she can to save her daughter. If refusing 
 to eat with her or driving her from home would help to save 
 her from her sinful course, the mother should do it. If it 
 would dishearten her, discourage her, and drive her deeper 
 and more surely into sin, it would be wrong for her to send 
 her away. The law regulating the duty of the mother to the 
 child takes precedence of the duty to show disapproval of sin, 
 and should govern in the case. The mother should do what 
 she can to save the daughter, and the members of the church 
 and the elders should show their sympathy for both the 
 mother and the daughter in their trials and weaknesses, and 
 encourage to a better life, instead of pushing the weak and 
 tempted one off where she will find no help to withstand 
 temptation. I emphasize this because, as Christians, we do 
 so little to encourage a woman who has sinned to " go, and 
 sin no more." We are more like the Jews, ready to stone the 
 sinner, than the Savior, to say: " Neither do I condemn thee: 
 go thy way; from henceforth sin no more." (John. 8: 11.) 
 
 If this were a man instead of a woman guilty of the sin, 
 would it occur to us that we should insist on the mother driv- 
 ing him from home? The guilty woman is no worse than the 
 guilty man, and should be more carefully guarded, because 
 the world condemns her more severely and gives her less en- 
 couragement to repent. 
 
 I think it the duty of the church, and of the elders especially, 
 to show sympathy for both the mother and the daughter, 
 counsel and pray with and for both, and seek to help and 
 strengthen the mother in leading the daughter to a better life, 
 and the daughter in her efforts to resist temptation and live 
 a life of purity and virtue to God. " Brethren, even if a man 
 be overtaken in any trespass, ye who are spiritual, restore 
 such a one in a spirit of gentleness ; looking to thyself, lest 
 
Fraternal Orders, Should Christians Join? 183 
 
 thou also be tempted. Bear ye one another's burdens, and so 
 fulfill the law of Christ." (Gal. 6: 1, 2.) This is especially 
 applicable in such a case as this. 
 
 FORSAKING GOD TO FOLLOW WIFE. 
 
 A certain brother has a Baptist wife. In order to be in the church 
 with his wife, he proposes to join the Baptist Church. In order to get 
 into this sectarian organization, it will be necessary for him to submit 
 to baptism at the hands of a Baptist preacher. This he will do, not 
 because he believes the Lord has commanded it, but in order that he 
 may enjoy church fellowship with his wife. Please point out the sin 
 committed in this case. 
 
 If that be a true statement of the case, he will forsake God 
 to follow and obey his wife. He will be baptized professedly 
 in the name of the Lord ; but he cannot do things to please men 
 in the name of the Lord. It is not and cannot be in his name 
 if he believes he has been baptized in the name of the Lord, 
 because a man cannot twice be baptized in the name of the 
 Lord. If the preacher knows the facts when he holds up his 
 hand before God and says, " I baptize you in the name of Je- 
 sus Christ," he will tell a falsehood in the name of Christ the 
 Lord. Whether the preacher knows it or not, the man bap- 
 tized does, and he will be guilty of going through a farce to 
 please his wife, claiming that it is in the name of the Lord, 
 will cause the preacher to tell a lie in the name of the Lord, 
 and will incur all the guilt of such a lie in the name of the Lord. 
 It is a fearful thing to be doing things that God has not com- 
 manded in his name and so trifling with his holy name and 
 sacred appointments. 
 
 FRATERNAL ORDERS, SHOULD CHRISTIANS JOIN? 
 
 Is it right for a Christian to join the Odd Fellows' society? The 
 reason I ask you is because a bishop that has been serving us for 
 years has joined them. One of our preachers has also joined them. 
 
 It depends very much on the kind of a Christian a man pro- 
 poses to be whether it is wrong for him to join the fraternal 
 orders or not. If he intends to make an earnest, faithful, de- 
 voted Christian, he has no time, taste, or service for anything, 
 save the church of Christ ; if he intends to live the Christian 
 life and make himself a follower of Christ and fit himself in 
 character for heaven, he will give his talent, means, time, and 
 love to the church of Christ, with none to bestow on any other 
 
184 Fraternal Orders, Should Christians Join? 
 
 association or brotherhood ; but if he only intends to profess 
 to be a Christian, not to make a strict member, and live a life 
 of ease and pleasure and trust to church membership to save 
 him, without a godly and holy life, he had as well join these 
 brotherhoods and divide his time and means with these as to 
 take any other course of life that will not develop the Chris- 
 tian character. A prominent Mason, not a Christian, once 
 told me that while he was a Mason himself and thought Ma- 
 sonry did good in a temporal way and in various ways, he did 
 not see how a preacher or member of the church of God — 
 which is claimed to be the perfect organization, able to bestow 
 all good and entitled to all the service, time, and means of a 
 person — could join another institution and divide with it his 
 time, means, and affections. He said it in speaking of the 
 death of one of the most prominent preachers that ever lived 
 in Nashville, who died and was buried with Masonic honors. 
 He clearly intimated that his respect for that man was low- 
 ered by his joining a human society while claiming to be a 
 leader and teacher in a divine one. Preachers and others often 
 join organizations of this character thinking it will give them 
 influence, but it seems to me it declares to the world that 
 they do not find their religion and their church as good as 
 they claim to believe it, else they would not divide their time, 
 service, and means with other institutions, seeking the little 
 good they give. It seems to me that an elder or preacher who 
 does this weakens his religious influence and character in so 
 doing with all who know the claims of Christ and his church. 
 Teachers that do this certainly do not love the Lord with all 
 the strength and the mind and the soul, else they would have 
 no time to devote to these worldly institutions, and in this fail 
 to set the example Jesus requires of his teachers, as such lack 
 the essential qualifications of elders and teachers. The best 
 way is to teach them better. Show them the example of 
 earnest fidelity and singleness of purpose to serve the Lord. 
 Perhaps you show a failure to hold the church of God and his 
 religion in high esteem in some other way as displeasing as 
 this. Let us try the healing and saving process rather than 
 the destroying one. But Christians should do all they do in 
 the name of Christ and as members of his body, not as mem- 
 bers of other bodies. Christ provides for all good to his serv- 
 ants in his church. 
 
Future Punishment. 185 
 
 FUTURE PUNISHMENT. 
 
 We would like an article from you on the fate of the wicked after 
 death. We have some brethren here who take the position that the 
 wicked are annihilated, destroyed at once, and that there is no eternal 
 punishment. It seems to be a very wholesome doctrine and very full 
 of comfort to some. 
 
 I have never been able to see why any good man desires to 
 convince people that wickedness would not meet a terrible 
 punishment. This effort to convince them that the only pen- 
 alty for sin is to pass into nonexistence and forgetfulness en- 
 courages and satisfies people to remain in wickedness. Is not 
 that the meaning, the purpose, and the effect of it? Why ob- 
 ject to the idea of eternal punishment? Is not the answer: It 
 gives an idea of terrible punishment of sin and of cruelty of 
 God toward impenitent sinners? To whom does it give such 
 an idea, and who is it that draws back from the idea of that 
 punishment? Is it not the wicked? Yet it does not seem ter- 
 rible enough to deter them from wickedness. But God in- 
 tended the punishment he inflicted on sin to deter the wicked 
 from sin. John the Baptist warned them to flee from the 
 wrath to come. Paul says : " Knowing therefore the fear of 
 the Lord, we persuade men." (2 Cor. 5: 11.) Everywhere 
 God represents himself as a God of terror to the wicked. The 
 future punishment of the wicked, so far as time is concerned, 
 is described by exactly the same words that describe the du- 
 ration of the happiness of the righteous : " These shall go 
 away into eternal punishment : but the righteous into eternal 
 life." (Matt. 25 : 46.) John says of those who worship the 
 beast : " The smoke of their torment goeth up forever and 
 ever." (Rev. 14: 11.) Jesus says: "Be not afraid of them 
 that kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather 
 fear him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." 
 (Matt. 10: 28.) " The sons of the kingdom shall be cast forth 
 into the outer darkness : there shall be the weeping and the 
 gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 8: 12.) "So shall it be in the 
 end of the world : the angels shall come forth, and sever the 
 wicked from among the righteous, and shall cast them into 
 the furnace of fire : there shall be the weeping and the gnash- 
 ing of teeth." (Matt. 13: 49, 50.) "Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and 
 his angels." (Matt. 25: 41.) Take these expressions, and 
 suppose God had intended to teach eternal suffering; what 
 
186 Future Punishment. 
 
 words could he have used to teach it if these do not? God 
 used the words that, in their common and natural meaning, 
 convey the idea of eternal suffering. He could easily have 
 used words that mean annihilation. Why did he use those 
 which mean eternal suffering or punishment if he intended 
 to convey the idea of ceasing to exist at death? These per- 
 sons who now insist that he means ceasing to exist at death 
 never use the terms God used, except to try to explain them 
 away and break their force. Then the wicked are raised from 
 the dead. Why raise them from the dead to annihilate them? 
 They were to be punished with a punishment much sorer 
 than death without mercy. (Heb. 2: 2, 3.) There is a life 
 after death, a punishment worse than death ; and when does 
 that punishment after death end? It exists "forever and 
 ever;" it is eternal. No language has terms indicating a 
 longer existence than this in happiness or in woe. 
 
 It is said the wicked shall be destroyed. But destruction 
 does not mean annihilation ; it means the relations that the 
 person holds to other things will be broken and the asso- 
 ciations and connections that have hitherto brought good 
 will bring evil. A nation is destroyed by being broken up 
 in its relations and disorganized. It is doubtful if the idea 
 of annihilation of any thing or being is found in the Bible. 
 Paul describes the punishment that shall be inflicted upon 
 those that obey not the gospel : " Who shall suffer punish- 
 ment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and 
 from the glory of his might." (2 Thess. 1 : 9.) This plainly 
 says that the destruction shall be from the presence of God, 
 and this destruction shall be an eternal one. In the presence 
 of God are blessing and joy and all good ; away from that 
 presence are sorrow and woe and all evil. This is to be eter- 
 nal. These scriptures are so clear that it seems to' me none 
 willing to receive the truth can doubt them. In making the 
 punishment for sin light, we make the sin itself a light and in- 
 different matter. To make sin against God a light matter is 
 to derogate from the honor, majesty, holiness, and power of 
 God ; it derogates from the importance of the mission and 
 death of Christ. Is it likely that Christ would have left 
 heaven, with its glories, and have come to earth to suffer and 
 die to save men from a state of unconsciousness? All effort to 
 minimize or lighten the punishment of sin destroys the enor- 
 mity of the sinfulness of sin ; lessens the majesty, dignity, and 
 
Futures, Dealing in. 187 
 
 holiness of God ; lessens the magnitude and the grace of Christ 
 and the importance of his death. It derogates from man and 
 makes him only a brute ; it destroys the difference between 
 virtue and vice, sin and holiness, in men. The Bible affords 
 no ground for such a position and leads to no such conclu- 
 sions. If men would study to avoid sin instead of trying to 
 excuse it, it would be much better for men. See Annihilation. 
 
 FUTURES, DEALING IN. 
 
 Is dealing in futures gambling? Should a Christian deal in futures? 
 
 All trade or business with others that is legitimate for Chris- 
 tians is that which helps both parties to the trade ; the trade 
 which helps me, but injures another, is not lawful for a Chris- 
 tian. Only that business is legitimate for a Christian which 
 benefits and helps both parties or all parties affected by it. 
 What injures or wrongs any one, a Christian cannot engage 
 in. All gambling schemes or games by which one gains and 
 another loses are sinful. One gains without any adequate 
 or just returns ; another loses all, gets nothing in return. No 
 Christian can engage in such games. Men are led into such 
 by the love of money. They love money better than they 
 love justice, fairness, uprightness ; better than they love God. 
 Under this head of gambling come all speculation and buying 
 of futures. This is gambling upon what may be the price 
 of goods or values of any kind in the future. In this trading, 
 you get or lose money without any compensating good. Sell- 
 ing and buying wheat or cotton is legitimate business. The 
 owner needs the price of his wheat or cotton and is accom- 
 modated by the sale. The man buys for use or to hold and 
 sell to another when he needs it, and accommodates him by 
 buying and holding until he is ready to use it. He is entitled 
 to pay for taking and holding it. All parties trading are ac- 
 commodated and benefited by this trading; but when a per- 
 son " buys a future," he buys nothing that accommodates any 
 one, has nothing to sell that will benefit any one. He stakes 
 his money on what the price of the article will be in the fu- 
 ture. What he makes, some one else loses, without anything 
 in return ; or, if he loses, some one gets it without giving a 
 consideration in return. It is in all essential features gam- 
 bling, getting something for nothing; and this is not honest, 
 tested by Bible principles. That the others agree to take the 
 
188 Futures, Dealing in. 
 
 chances does not change the moral character of the transac- 
 tion. If a dozen men were to agree that they would engage 
 in stealing one from another, and they would not prosecute 
 one another, and he who succeeded in stealing the most could 
 hold it, this would not prevent it being stealing or change its 
 moral character in the sight of God. Nothing of value is 
 bought or sold in buying and selling futures ; no one is prof- 
 ited, save he who gets his fellow-man's money for naught, 
 and they who lose are injured. This is gambling; it is get- 
 ting another's goods for naught; it is dishonesty. This is 
 more hurtful than other forms of gambling or dishonest gains, 
 because it is regarded as more respectable and .honorable than 
 these. Men are led into this kind of business by the love of 
 money. Let all such heed the exhortation: "Let him that 
 stole steal no more : but rather let him labor, working with his 
 hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to 
 give to him that hath need." (Eph. 4: 28.) It is injurious 
 and hurtful to the man engaging in it in many ways. He is 
 badly injured in his moral and spiritual character when he 
 becomes willing to make a living for himself and family out 
 of the losses of others, for which they get nothing in return. 
 The gains are generally from the most needy and helpless 
 classes. The habit of making a living by these futures begets 
 a feverish state of mind that disqualifies the person for regu- 
 lar productive business of any kind that will bring good to all ; 
 it unfits him for the regular habits of worship and for attend- 
 ance upon the services of God ; it violates the laws of the 
 land, and so violates the law of God, which commands Chris- 
 tians to " obey the powers that be ; " it sets a bad example to 
 others, young and old, especially the excitable and the young, 
 to lead them to seek to make a living by chance or gambling, 
 that injures all and helps none, and unfits them for regular 
 habits of industry in that which is good ; it is not only sinful, 
 but it is supreme folly from a business standpoint. Where 
 one succeeds, a thousand fail- — spend their all and become pe- 
 cuniary wrecks. A man is a fool to engage in a business 
 where the chances of success are so few; those of failure, so 
 many. No sensible man would think of engaging in any 
 industrial calling with the chances of success so few. It is 
 only the gambling mania that leads them to risk so in dealing 
 in futures. 
 
Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail. 189 
 
 GAMBLING. See Card Playing at Home; Futures, Deal- 
 ing In. 
 
 GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL. 
 
 Please answer the following question: What was it that the gates of 
 hell should not prevail against? (Matt. 16: 18.) We have this up in 
 our Bible class, and we want some light on the subject. 
 
 There has been substantial agreement among students of 
 the Bible that Jesus meant the gates of hell should not pre- 
 vail against the church. If the scripture in its context alone 
 was looked to, no other interpretation would ever suggest it- 
 self, but the necessity of positions has suggested other theo- 
 ries. One of these is that the gates of hell shall not prevail 
 against the rock, Christ, on which the church is built. This 1 
 is usually extended to mean that the grave should not prevent 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Another the- 
 ory is : The gates of hell shall not prevail to hinder the estab- 
 lishment of the church of Christ. But the meaning that an 
 unbiased mind would naturally draw from the statement is: 
 The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church which 
 Jesus Christ said he would build on the truth confessed : that 
 he is the Christ, the Son of God. The indestructibility of that 
 church is so clearly taught elsewhere that there is no reason 
 for refusing to accept the plain, natural meaning of the lan- 
 guage here. Of this kingdom Daniel says it " shall not be left 
 to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all 
 these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." The trouble is 
 that people, in looking for this kingdom of God in the world, 
 look for a big, general, and overshadowing organization. The 
 kingdom of God was never to come in this form, nor has it 
 ever existed in it. It came without outward show or display ; 
 it exists in the humble followers of Christ, without organic 
 display. These general organizations are the perversions and 
 corruptions of the churches of God. I do not believe that 
 there has ever been a time when there were not true and hum- 
 ble followers of Christ on earth since the establishment of his 
 kingdom, nor do I believe there ever will be. These humble 
 followers of Christ, worshiping without display or show, con- 
 stitute the church of God on earth. 
 
190 Gentiles, Are Alien, Under God's Law? 
 
 GENTILES, ARE ALIEN, UNDER GOD'S LAW? 
 
 Are alien Gentiles under law to God? We know they are not under 
 the law of Moses. If they are under God's law, what law is it — the 
 gospel or some other law? If they are under the gospel, when were 
 they placed under it? Does God recognize as subjects of his law the 
 citizens of Satan's kingdom? If all are under law to God, what does 
 Paul mean by the expression: "To them that are without law?" (1 
 Cor. 9:21? 
 
 All peoples and things in the universe are under the general 
 government and rule of God. God gives men the privilege 
 of obeying him and being saved, or of rejecting him as ruler 
 and being condemned by him and punished for rebellion 
 against God. If they were not under the dominion and rule of 
 God, he could not punish them. Satan himself is under the do- 
 minion of God. God is the sole ruler of the universe. He 
 permits man to rebel, to refuse to submit, for a time ; but if 
 he does not repent, God, as the ruler of all, will punish him. 
 Every man now living ought to be under the gospel law. The 
 reason he is not is that he is unwilling to obey God. God per- 
 mits him to live a while in the state of rebellion ; then if he 
 refuses to repent and obey him, in the execution of the laws 
 of the universe, he will punish him in hell. God forbears with 
 men for a time, giving them time and opportunity to repent. 
 He gives laws only to those willing to serve him. Those un- 
 willing to serve him he leaves without law, not that they are 
 not accountable, but because they reject him as ruler. 
 
 Read Rom. 1. He gave laws to the Jews because they were 
 at times willing to serve the Lord. The Gentiles were not 
 willing to serve him. He left them without law. When any 
 Gentile was willing to obey God, he entered the Jewish family 
 and came under the Jewish law. Just so now; any soul that 
 is willing to obey God comes into the church of God and un- 
 der his law. If a man is not under law, it is because he is 
 not willing to obey God. 
 
 The Gentiles, who were without law in the days of Judaism, 
 became willing to obey God under Christ; hence they were 
 said to be without law, were not under the law of Moses. 
 
 GIFT OF GOD. 
 
 Please explain Eph. 2: 8: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; 
 and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God." What is the gift? 
 Some say it is grace, some say it is salvation, and others say it is faith. 
 
 Grace means favor, mercy, kindness. Out of mercy, or fa- 
 
God a Spirit. 191 
 
 vor, to man God proved he could be saved through believing, 
 or through faith; that salvation was not originated by our- 
 selves, nor was it gained by any merit in ourselves, but was 
 the gift of God. Neither was that salvation of works, lest 
 any should boast; for we are his workmanship, created in 
 Christ Jesus unto, or to do, good works. Salvation is the 
 subject of all the clauses, and the only one that makes sense 
 with them. The same word that is not of ourselves, but is 
 the gift of God, also is not of works, lest any should boast. 
 No one would think of saying grace, or faith, is not of works ; 
 yet if either be the subject of one clause, it is of all. Grace 
 is not of ourselves ; it is the gift of God — not of works, lest 
 any should boast. It is nonsense to say that grace is not of 
 works; it is the favor of God. Substitute faith for grace, and 
 it is as bad. Salvation is the subject of all the modifying 
 clauses. Grace, or favor, of course, is the gift of God. So is 
 faith. God gives man the capacity to believe, gives him the 
 thing to believe, and the testimony on which he believes. So 
 grace and faith, in a sense, are both gifts of God ; but in this 
 sentence he says salvation is the gift of God. 
 
 GOD A SPIRIT. 
 
 The Philadelphia "Confession of Faith" says: "God is a being 
 without body, passions, or parts." God is spoken of as having parts 
 of the body — eyes, mouth, feet, hands; and man is said to have been 
 created in the image or likeness of God. Can a person worship a be- 
 ing described as in the " Confession of Faith " and at the same time 
 the God of the Bible? 
 
 If a man must understand all that is said in reference to 
 God in the Bible before he can serve him, no one will be saved. 
 But much of the confusion in the religious world results from 
 a misunderstanding of the language of each other. It seems 
 the confounding of the language at Babel rests upon the reli- 
 gious world to-day. So it is always well to define our terms 
 that we may understand each other. What is a body? Web- 
 ster defines it : " The frame of an animal ; the material organ- 
 ized substance of an animal, whether living or dead, as dis- 
 tinguished from the spirit, or vital principle." This is the first 
 and principal meaning. In this sense of a material substance 
 as distinct from spirit, no one believes God has or is a body. 
 The makers of the creed used it in this sense and meant God 
 is a Spirit without a material body, or material parts, or the 
 passions that rage in our fleshly bodies. The discussion over 
 
192 God a Spirit. 
 
 this question arises from a failure to understand as simple and 
 common a word as body. 
 
 A spiritual body is spoken of as distinct from the fleshly 
 body. Jesus says : "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye 
 behold me having." (Luke 24: 39.) The spiritual body is 
 not material substance. I take it that there is a spirit that 
 corresponds to each material body in such way that other 
 spirits will recognize it as having dwelled in and animated 
 that body on earth. This is called a spiritual body — a figura- 
 tive use of the term body. 
 
 At any rate, the creed makers used the word in its first and 
 common meaning, and in that sense their statement is true. 
 We ought not to misrepresent for their own sakes, but much 
 more for our own sakes. To misrepresent is a greater sin and 
 crime and shame than to be misrepresented. God loves the 
 man that " sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not ; " that 
 will always tell the truth, even if it injures himself or helps 
 his opponent. The world is now waiting for a people that will 
 be just and upright and truthful and just to all. 
 
 GOD HAS MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL. See Mercy. 
 
 GOD'S FOREKNOWLEDGE AND MAN'S RESPONSI- 
 BILITY. 
 
 If God sees the end from the beginning and knows all that will 
 come to pass, how can men change that order or be responsible? 
 
 It is not my business to tell how God can do this or that 
 and be consistent with the ideas we form of right and justice. 
 I may fail utterly to comprehend how he can do it, but that 
 does not alter the facts as to what he knows and does. Some 
 one propounded this difficulty to Paul, or he saw that it would 
 be asked and forestalled the trouble others would have in an- 
 swering it ; so he gave the answer, approved by the Holy 
 Spirit : " So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom 
 he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why 
 doth he still find fault ? For who withstandeth his will ? Nay 
 but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall 
 the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou 
 make me thus ? Or hath not the potter a right over the clay, 
 from the same lump to make one part a vessel unto honor, 
 and another unto dishonor? " (Rom. 9: 18-21.) That is pre- 
 
God's Foreknowledge. 193 
 
 cisely the question : If God foresaw it as it is, who hath re- 
 sisted his will? How could it be helped? I am not .called 
 on to give a different answer from Paul's. If our faith rests 
 on our understanding of how God does this or that, it is not 
 acceptable. But why should not God know all things from the 
 beginning? Did he order affairs that he did not know how 
 they would work? Does he foreknow anything? If he sees 
 one thing in the future, as we call it, why not everything? 
 What hinders? Man foresees some things, but not all things. 
 Why? Because his vision is feeble; he has only one-sided 
 views of premises ; some things are too high for him to see 
 over them, some difficulties too dark for him to see through 
 them. But are any of these things true of God? Is his vision 
 feeble? Does he have to take one-sided views of things? Are 
 hills too high for him to overlook them? Are not all the 
 premises and conditions laid bare to him? What hinders him 
 from seeing the results that flow from the causes he has him- 
 self set in motion? We must not attribute human weakness 
 to God. God has foresight ; he did foresee and foretell many 
 things that would come to pass. If he could foresee one thing 
 in the future, why could he not foresee everything? Man 
 can foresee some things, and not others, because his vision is 
 weak, partial, one-sided, and he understands but few of pres- 
 ent conditions from which future results flow ; but none of 
 these weaknesses are true of God. He sees the end from the 
 beginning, and our not seeing how to reconcile it with other 
 things that we think are true is not sufficient ground for deny- 
 ing these qualities and this power. Man can see everything 
 within the range or scope of his vision, save what imperfection 
 or weakness of that vision hinders ; God can see everything in 
 the range or scope of his vision, time, and space, unless im- 
 perfection prevents. Is God's vision weak? If God can look 
 down the vista of time and see one thing that will happen one 
 thousand years hence, what can hinder his seeing everything 
 that can happen during that thousand years? But God is an 
 eternal I Am. Time and space with him are nothing. Study 
 these things, and do not measure the perfection of God by 
 our frail and weak senses and imperfect reasonings. See 
 Mercy. 
 18 
 
194 Golden Rule. 
 
 GOLDEN RULE. 
 
 Is the Golden Rule (Matt. 7: 12; Luke 6: 31) the standard by which 
 Christians may measure, judge, and justify themselves in matters of 
 church discipline? 
 
 The Golden Rule, properly understood, is a rule for settling 
 all difficulties and matters in the church. or out of it, if a Chris- 
 tian can have a difficulty not a matter of church discipline. 
 That law does not require us to do what our fleshly impulses 
 and passions would prompt us to desire one would do to us. 
 It means to do to others as we, enlightened by the word of 
 God, desirous of doing his will, would desire them to do to us. 
 This would lead us to do what would promote the spiritual 
 good of the other. Certainly this is what should be done in 
 discipline. 
 
 GOSPEL AND GRACE, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN. 
 
 What is the difference in meaning between gospel and grace? 
 
 Grace means favor. Grace prompts all the favors of a ma- 
 terial or spiritual nature that God shows to man. The high- 
 est and greatest act of favor God ever bestowed on man was 
 to send Christ on his mission to man. This mission consti- 
 tuted the gospel. The gospel is the highest manifestation of 
 the grace, or favor, of God to man. Hence, it is called " the 
 grace of God." (Tit. 2: 11.) Luke (2: 40) says that the 
 grace of God was upon the child Jesus. God's favor rested 
 upon him. Christians are said to be " good stewards of the 
 manifold grace of God" (1 Pet. 4: 10) — that is* they are to 
 dispense the various boons and trusts bestowed on them for 
 the good of others. Grace properly means the disposition to 
 do kindness and to favor others. The acts which grow out 
 of this disposition are acts of grace. Gospel, by itself, means 
 good news. The gospel of Christ is the good news that he 
 came to earth to save the world. This was an act prompted 
 by his and his Father's love for man, and hence an act of grace. 
 
 GOSPEL, HOW REACH THE PEOPLE WITH THE? 
 
 How shall we reach the people with the claims of Jesus Christ? 
 
 Manners and customs and methods of living often change. 
 But human nature is essentially the same in all ages and 
 among all peoples, Jesus in the days of his flesh gave an 
 
Gospel, How Reach the People with the? 195 
 
 example of true wisdom in the work he came to do, that of 
 reaching the lost with the truth of God and so saving them. 
 He was born among the humble and lowly; he was reared 
 and trained to labor among the common laboring people ; and 
 after he was anointed by the Holy Spirit and began the work 
 of preaching the gospel, he lived among the poor and humble, 
 commingled with them in their homes, and was one of them 
 in all his feelings and sympathies. He went among the pub- 
 licans and sinners, showed sympathy for them in their weak- 
 ness, temptations, and sins, and by personal contact with them 
 showed his love for them and his desire to help them. This 
 class learned to love him, and the common people heard him 
 gladly. We cannot improve on his methods. Then, as now, 
 there were self-righteous Pharisees and scribes who felt it was 
 contamination to go near these weak, sinful classes, and even 
 refused to countenance Jesus when he was working signs and 
 wonders, because he went among these weak and sinning 
 classes. It was a serious charge they made against him, that 
 " he eateth with publicans and sinners." His response is wis- 
 dom and instruction to us if we will hear and be guided by it: 
 " I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." 
 Jesus did not seek the rich or the fashionable, the learned or 
 the elite, but he came to call sinners to repentance. To those 
 who felt and acknowledged themselves to be sinners he went, 
 and they heard. " Many publicans and sinners " sat with him 
 at meat. The self-righteous asked : " Why eateth your Mas- 
 ter with publicans and sinners?" "The publicans and the 
 harlots go into the kingdom of God before you." " The pub- 
 licans and the harlots believed " on the preaching of John, 
 while the respectable religious class refused both John and 
 Jesus. Among his chosen twelve was a publican ; among his 
 most beloved and faithful followers was a woman out of whom 
 seven demons had been cast. The apostles followed the ex- 
 ample of the Master and went to the lost, the poor, the out- 
 casts of earth, and suffered hunger and nakedness, and with 
 tears and entreaties from house to house besought the people 
 to serve the living God. This is God's way of reaching and 
 converting men and women. These classes converted make 
 the most active and faithful servants of God and are efficient 
 in saving others. The poor and industrious of one generation 
 are the leaders and rulers of the next. If a preacher is a true 
 follower of Christ and the apostles, when he goes into a com- 
 
196 Gospel, How Reach the People with the? 
 
 mimity to preach the gospel, he will go to the poor and the 
 humble, and he will seek to save these, and in saving these he 
 will save all others willing to be saved. The rich, especially 
 those whose heart is set on riches and who pride themselves 
 on their riches, more often than otherwise prove a hindrance 
 and not a help to the gospel. " Not many wise after the flesh, 
 not many mighty, not many noble, are called." (1 Cor. 1 : 26.) 
 Go to the common people. See Evangelize, How To. 
 
 GOSPEL, WHAT IS THE? 
 
 What is the gospel? Some preachers who make it clear that man 
 should obey the gospel do not give a clear definition as to what is the 
 gospel. I am greatly surprised that preachers give different answers. 
 
 It is nothing strange that persons should give answers to 
 the questions that differ in form and in words. Possibly fifty 
 answers may be given to the question differing in words, but 
 meaning the same things. " God so loved the world, that he 
 gave his only begotten Son [to die], that whosoever believeth 
 on him should not perish, but have eternal life " (John 3 : 
 16), is one form of telling the gospel. Another is: " Even so 
 must the Son of man be lifted up ; that whosoever be- 
 lieveth may in him have eternal life." (Verses 14, 15.) 
 The gospel is often presented in a series of statements and 
 illustrations showing that Jesus came into the world to 
 save sinners, as in the case of the woman of Samaria. Then 
 the Holy Spirit preached the gospel on P.entecost, the same 
 things expressed in different words. There are many exam- 
 ples of the preaching of the gospel in Acts, hardly ever pre- 
 sented in exactly the same words, but always giving the same 
 ideas. Paul gives a definition of the gospel. (1 Cor. 15: 
 1-10.) Gospel means good news. The good news is that, 
 when man was a sinner, God so loved him as to give his Son 
 to die to save him from his sins. In the development of that 
 gospel the conditions on which that salvation could be enjoyed 
 are given. The gospel can be appropriated and enjoyed in 
 complying with the conditions laid down. All these things 
 enter into the gospel as opened to man. So in one sense the 
 mission of Christ to the earth with all his teachings and re- 
 quirements constitute the gospel, and to fully preach the gos- 
 pel is to preach Christ and all the teachings and requirements 
 be made to save man. It would be strange if men now did 
 not give answers differing in word and form, but agreeing in 
 
Guile. 197 
 
 thought, when Jesus and the Holy Spirit expressed it in so 
 many varied ways. When we restrict meanings to terms to 
 which God has not restricted, we do violence to God's order. 
 
 GUILE. 
 
 Please give us some light on the word guile as found in Ps. 32: 2; 
 .34: 13; 55: 11; John 1: 47; 1 Thess. 2: 3; 1 Pet. 2: 1, 22; 3: 10; Rev. 14: 
 5. Some members of the church say that the word guile is not here 
 used in the sense of sin, or wickedness; so I want you to give the true 
 definition of the word. 
 
 Webster defines guile thus : " Craft, deceitful cunning, arti- 
 fice, duplicity, wile, deceit ; used usually in a bad sense." This 
 shows that it is sometimes used in a sense not bad. All 
 craft, cunning, is not bad or used for bad ends, though it is 
 most frequently used in that sense. When Paul claimed to 
 be a Pharisee and turned the wrath of the Pharisees and 
 Sadducees away from him and against each other, he used 
 craft, or guile, in protecting himself; but I do not think there 
 was any wrong in it. If two fierce dogs were after me, and I 
 could divert their attention from me by making them fight 
 each other over a piece of meat, I would use guile, or craft, 
 or cunning, or artifice, in doing it ; but this would be no sin. 
 The seventh-day observers lay great stress on the apostles' 
 attending the synagogue and preaching on the Sabbath to 
 prove that it is the proper day to observe. In discussion with 
 one on a Sunday afternoon, I asked him if they had preaching 
 that morning. He said : " Yes." I then asked : " Will you 
 have preaching again to-night?" "Yes, sir," he replied. I 
 then asked him how many times he had services on Saturday, 
 or the Sabbath. He replied : " Only once." I then said : " It 
 is singular that — if you believe Saturday, instead of Sunday, 
 the proper day for worship — you should meet for worship on 
 Sunday so much oftener than on Saturday." He said : " We 
 do it because the people are accustomed to meet on Sunday, 
 and turn out to hear so much better than on Saturday." I 
 had used guile, or craft, or cunning, to make him answer by his 
 own argument why the apostles met on the Sabbath to teach 
 the people — because they could get a hearing that day. Ev- 
 ery time we set a trap with bait to entice an animal into it, 
 we practice guile. Is it always sinful ? I think not. Yet. the 
 word guile is used generally, as the dictionary says, in an evil 
 sense ; and while I have not examined, it may be so used in 
 
198 Guile. 
 
 all the other passages referred to. Many think that 2 Cor. 
 12: 16 means: My enemies say that I was crafty and caught 
 you with guile. Believing, as I do, that there is a good sense 
 in which the terms crafty and guile are used, I see no necessity 
 for straining the language to mean this. 
 
 HAND OF FELLOWSHIP. See Right Hand of Fellow- 
 ship. 
 
 HEADS COVERED. See Covered Heads. 
 
 HEART, ALL SERVICE MUST BE FROM THE. 
 
 Please explain 2 Cor. 3: 3; also Heb. 8: 10; 10: 16 — whether it be 
 a fleshly heart or a heart of mind. 
 
 The word heart, as generally used in the Bible, means the 
 inner, spiritual man, as distinct from the outer, fleshly one. 
 So the different powers of thinking, perceiving, loving, hating, 
 purposing, desiring, rejoicing, sorrowing, willing, fearing, hop- 
 ing, fainting (or giving up), being courageous and persever- 
 ing, or believing and understanding, are attributed to the heart. 
 It is used to represent the whole spiritual, or inner, man, and 
 all the faculties and powers of the inner, or spiritual, man are 
 attributed to the heart. It occasionally refers to the fleshly 
 heart, but the context clearly shows this, as "Joab thrust a 
 dart through the heart of Absalom." The examples in which 
 it is so used are few. 
 
 In 2 Cor. 3 : 3 Paul tells them that instead of needing an 
 epistle of commendation to or from them, since they had been 
 converted by the Spirit of God through him, that their lives 
 and work were his commendation of him that could be seen 
 and read of all men. His work as shown in the lives of these 
 Corinthian brethren would commend him instead of written 
 letters on paper, and they were converted by the Spirit writ- 
 ing or impressing his truths upon their hearts instead of upon 
 the tables of stone, as the Mosaic law was written. We fre- 
 quently say a man's children are his best letters of commenda- 
 tion. The other two passages referred to are quotations of 
 the same prophecy (Jer. 31 : 33), that in the new covenant that 
 he would make with them he would write his laws on their 
 hearts instead of upon stone, as he had written the law of 
 Moses. The writing it on the hearts would be to so impreg- 
 
Heart, the, Purified by Faith. 199 
 
 nate the heart with the love of God as manifested in the death 
 of Christ that the hearts of all believers would desire to obey 
 God, and would love God because- he first loved us. The 
 hearts of people under Christ would be touched and aroused 
 as they were not under the law of Moses. So all service un- 
 der Christ must be from the heart — a glad, joyful service to 
 God. 
 
 HEART, THE, PURIFIED BY FAITH. 
 
 Please explain Acts 15: 9; 1 Pet. 1: 22. Is the heart, in a Bible 
 sense, purified by faith before obeying the truth? Some teach that 
 faith purifies the heart, that repentance changes the life, and that bap- 
 tism changes the. state. Could one's heart be said to be purified by 
 faith before he is baptized? 
 
 " Faith, if it have not works, is dead " (James 2: 17) — that 
 is, it ceases to be faith when it dies. A dead faith will not 
 purify the heart or work any other good. A faith that works 
 through love purifies the heart and justifies from sin by bring- 
 ing the person into Christ. Faith purifies the heart by work- 
 ing in the heart. It is not faith alone or faith without works, 
 but a working faith, that purifies the heart. The same faith 
 produces repentance. Repentance is a fruit, or development, 
 of faith ; and through repentance faith changes the life, and, 
 changing the life, directs or controls the body and causes the 
 person to be baptized. So baptism is the fruit, or result, of 
 faith. But faith brings to baptism only after it has passed 
 through repentance. Repentance and baptism are fruits of 
 faith, marking the degrees, or growth, of faith. Baptism is 
 the outgrowth and manifestation of faith. So is a holy life 
 and godly walk. " For whatsoever is not of faith is sin. ,, 
 (Rom. 14: 23.) Faith is the great, leading, consecrating prin- 
 ciple that connects man with his Maker. It leads to and con- 
 secrates all service to God. It might be proper, with a true 
 understanding, to say that repentance is the change of pur- 
 pose and life, and baptism is the change of state. They are 
 all the outgrowth of faith, and mark the growth and develop- 
 ment of faith in the heart and life of the child of God. It is 
 difficult to separate faith, repentance, and baptism, or their 
 fruits, because they are so intimately associated and blended 
 in one. A man's heart must be pure when he comes to bap- 
 tism. The faith that brings him to baptism purifies his heart 
 in the bringing. There is no separation of faith from the serv- 
 
200 Heart, the, Purified by Faith. 
 
 ice to which faith leads. " Without faith it is impossible to 
 please him [God]." (Heb. 11:6.) 
 
 HEATHEN, WILL, BE SAVED WITHOUT GOSPEL? 
 
 Will the heathen be saved without the gospel, or will he be saved 
 if he is never taught? If not, what does Paul mean in Rom. 4: 15; 
 5: 13? 
 
 What is the use of their hearing the gospel if they can be 
 saved without it? The gospel does them no good if they do 
 not hear it. Why should Jesus have died to save those not 
 lost? Simon Peter said: "To whom shall we go? thou hast 
 the words of eternal life." (John 6: 68.) "I said therefore 
 unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for except ye believe 
 that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8 : 24.) " He 
 that believeth on him is not judged : but he that believeth not 
 hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the 
 name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3: 18.) Je- 
 sus came and suffered and died because men were lost and 
 ruined. " The wicked shall be turned back unto Sheol, even 
 all the nations that forget God." (Ps. 9: 17.) The heathen 
 are the nations that forget God, and Paul tells why they are 
 in sin and without the knowledge of God : " Because that, 
 knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave 
 thanks ; but became vain in their reasonings, and their sense- 
 less heart was darkened." (Rom. 1 : 21.) Because they were 
 unwilling to honor God when they knew him he withdrew his 
 knowledge from them, and left them to worship the creature 
 more than the Creator. When they become willing to honor 
 him, he will send his law to them. "And in none other is 
 there salvation : for neither is there any other name under 
 heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved." 
 (Acts 4: 12.) I could not make it plainer or stronger than 
 these Scriptures, with many others. 
 
 The Scriptures (Rom. 4: 15) say that where no law is there 
 is no transgression. There are two classes of sins in the Bi- 
 ble. Transgress means to go beyond and add to the laws of 
 God. Where there is no law this sin cannot exist. From 
 Adam to Moses there was no code of divine laws, so no trans- 
 gression. Yet they sinned and died. God gave no law, be- 
 cause they would not hear, and he did not cast pearls before 
 swine. Paul says : " Sin was in the world ; but sin is not im- 
 puted when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from 
 
Hog Meat, Is it Wrong to Eat? 201 
 
 iVdam until Moses, even over them that had not sinned after 
 the likeness of Adam's transgression, who is a figure of him 
 that was to come.'' (Rom. 5 : 13, 14.) Adam's transgression 
 was setting aside a positive law. From Adam to Moses there 
 was no code of laws, so they did not sin as Adam did. Yet 
 they were wicked beyond measure ; so God destroyed them. 
 The sin of transgressing law was not imputed, but the sin 
 and wickedness prevented God giving law, and they perished 
 without law. (See Gen. 6: 11-13.) 
 
 HIS OWN. 
 
 Please explain John 1: 11: "He came unto his own, and his own 
 received him not." To whom does his own refer? If to the Jew- 
 ish nation, as most of our commentators say, how do you reconcile 
 that with verse 13, where it is affirmed that they " were born, not of 
 blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God? " 
 
 I have long thought his own referred to those prepared 
 by John for him. They embraced a large portion of the Jew- 
 ish nation, but only those who voluntarily took upon them- 
 selves the obligations by being baptized. This was a radical 
 change in the order of God's dealings with the Jews. Hith- 
 erto those he recognized as his servants were born after the 
 flesh. All that were born of the fleshly family of Jacob were 
 his servants. Now the voluntary principle was introduced by 
 John. None were his, save those who, through faith in John's 
 teaching, voluntarily took on themselves the obligations im- 
 posed in baptism. This principle introduced into the provi- 
 sional and introductory stages of the kingdom was to be the 
 distinguishing principle of God's government henceforth. 
 Hence these to whom Christ came were his own, prepared 
 for him by John, and they " were born, not of blood, nor of the 
 will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God," inasmuch 
 as they were, begotten by the word of God preached through 
 John. 
 
 HOBBY RIDERS. See Mote Hunters. 
 
 HOG MEAT, IS IT WRONG TO EAT? 
 
 Please explain whether it is a sin to eat hog meat or not, and 
 whether we are under the old law yet or not. We have an elder in 
 our country who says it is unscriptural to eat hog meat. He is get- 
 ting up strife among us. He also says we are still under the old law. 
 
 The apostles and disciples wrote to the Gentiles : " It seemed 
 
202 Hog Meat, Is it Wrong to Eat? 
 
 good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater 
 burden than these necessary things : that ye abstain from 
 things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things 
 strangled, and from fornication ; from which if ye keep your- 
 selves, it shall be well with you." (Acts 15: 28, 29.) If it 
 is necessary to refrain from eating swine's flesh, the Holy 
 Spirit forgot to mention it. Then read Jer. 31 : 31. Paul said 
 to some who insisted that the Gentiles should keep the law of 
 Moses : " Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye 
 should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither 
 our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that 
 we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like 
 manner as they." (Acts 15: 10, 11; see also 2 Cor. 3: 1-12; 
 Gal. 3: 1-10; Gal. 4.) The first ten chapters of the letter to 
 the Hebrews are devoted to showing the difference between 
 the new and the old testaments, and that the old was done 
 away. I do not see why brethren cannot refer to passages 
 like these to settle such questions themselves. If they do not 
 know of them, they are very ignorant of the Scriptures and 
 ought to study them. But if the elder wishes a question on 
 the hog to create disturbance in the church, I can give him 
 one that is much better for the purpose than whether it is 
 right to eat the flesh. It is this : Does a hog lose his teeth 
 before he is three years old? I knew a good, strong church 
 " busted up " over that question. It is better for the purpose 
 of an angry dispute, because the Bible says nothing about it. 
 That kind of a question is much better to quarrel over than 
 one concerning which the Bible teaches. Let the elder get 
 them in a disputing spirit and I will warrant it to succeed. 
 I have seen it trjed. If he wishes pointers as to how to man- 
 age it, if he will get his church in a real quarreling spirit and 
 write to me, I will give him pointers as to how it was done. 
 A church that will have elders that are so spoiling for a fuss* 
 deserves to be " busted up " or prayed for very faithfully. 
 
 HOLINESS. See Sanctification. 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT BAPTISM. See Baptism in Holy Spirit. 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT, DIFFERENT MEASURES OF. 
 
 There are some scriptures that seem to contradict each other, 
 which I wish you to reconcile. Isaiah (63: 10) says that after the 
 
Holy Spirit — His Office. 203 
 
 children of Israel crossed the Red Sea, God gave them his Holy- 
 Spirit; David (Ps. 51: 11) asks God not to take the Holy Spirit from 
 him; Luke (11: 13) says that God gives the Holy Spirit to those who 
 ask him; Paul (Eph. 1: 13) speaks of being "sealed with that Holy 
 Spirit of promise," and tells them (Eph. 4: 30) to "grieve not the 
 Holy Spirit of God;" John (7: 39) says that the Holy Ghost had not 
 yet been given; and Christ said that when the Holy Ghost should 
 come upon the apostles they should be witnesses to him, both in Je- 
 rusalem and Judea and Samaria. Now, Philip had the Holy Ghost 
 and went down to Samaria and testified relative to Christ. Now it 
 seems to me that Philip had something that David did not have. 
 
 The difficulty about saying David possessed the Holy Spirit 
 or the Spirit of God came upon persons, and then Christ say- 
 ing the Holy Spirit was not yet given, arises from there being 
 different degrees and manifestations or gifts of the Spirit. 
 " Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit." (1 
 Cor. 12: 4.) Under the Jewish dispensation there were spirit- 
 ual influences or gifts, including prophecy and other gifts ; but 
 when Christ ascended to his Father, he sent the Holy Spirit 
 himself, who became henceforward the representative of God 
 in the church. " If I go not away, the Comforter will not come 
 unto you; but if I go, I will send him unto you." (John 16: 
 7.) The gifts and influences of the Spirit were sent to them 
 before Christ returned to the Father ; but when he returned, 
 he sent the Holy Spirit to his disciples. The Spirit in person 
 came on the day of Pentecost, took up his abode in the church 
 of God, and dwells in the church. We are under the minis- 
 tration of the Spirit. The same Spirit dwells in the church 
 and in the apostles that was with David, but in a different 
 measure and manifestation ; the same Spirit dwells in the 
 church now that dwelt in the apostles, but a different measure 
 and manifestation. The Spirit came to the apostles directly 
 from God, as life came to Adam; the Spirit comes to us 
 through the laws God gave to bestow the Spirit on man, just 
 as life is given through the laws God has given to transmit 
 and perpetuate life. The life we enjoy is the same life given 
 to Adam that has been transmitted to us through the laws 
 given to perpetuate that life to his descendants. The manner 
 of bestowing it differs. 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT— HIS OFFICE. 
 
 Are the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit the same, and what part 
 does he take in the conversion of a sinner? 
 
 The Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are one and the same. 
 
204 Holy Spirit — His Office. 
 
 Holy Spirit is the better expression, as a ghost is the disem- 
 bodied spirit of a dead person, so understood generally. But 
 the Holy Spirit is not the ghost of a dead or departed being; 
 he is a living Spirit, a Person of the Godhead. Hence, it is 
 not well to call him a ghost, even a Holy Ghost. 
 
 The Spirit performed the same office in the material world 
 that he performs in the spiritual world. In the material world 
 God the Father provided all things ; Jesus, the Word, created 
 all things. (John 1:1-3; Heb. 1:2; Col. 1 : 16.) Then when 
 all things had been created, the Spirit moved upon the face 
 of the waters and organized and put in working order that 
 which had been created by the Word. (Gen. 1 : 2.) So all 
 the six days' work recorded in Gen. 1 was performed by the 
 Spirit, who organized and gave laws to this matter, and in 
 and through these laws guides matter forward in the work it 
 was created to accomplish. " By his Spirit the heavens are 
 garnished." (Job 26: 13.) "Thou sendest forth thy Spirit, 
 they are created ; and thou renewest the face of the ground." 
 (Ps. 104: 30.) This refers to the putting forth of vegetation 
 in the spring season of the year. Again : " The grass wither- 
 eth, the flower fadeth, because the breath of Jehovah bloweth 
 upon it." (Isa. 40: 7.) These seem to teach that the Spirit 
 of God organized matter, gave it laws to govern its operations, 
 and he dwells in and through these laws and directs matter 
 forward to the end for which it was created. 
 
 So in the spiritual world. God the Father provided, Jesus 
 the Son came and created, the matter and beginning of the 
 spiritual world, and the Holy Spirit, on the day of Pentecost, 
 came to that new creation, organized it, gave it laws, and took 
 up his abode in these laws and is guiding it forward to the 
 accomplishment of the work it was created to accomplish. 
 
 On the day of Pentecost (Acts 2) the Holy Spirit came 
 down from heaven ; he took up his abode in the new creation, 
 and, through the apostles, the Holy Spirit taught the sinners 
 that they must believe that Jesus the Christ is the Lord, must 
 repent of their sins and be baptized unto the remission of their 
 sins. This was the miraculous beginning; but the work of 
 the Holy Spirit is clearly manifested. He, through the disci- 
 ples, preached Christ to the sinners ; told them to believe, re- 
 pent, and be baptized, that their sins might be forgiven, and 
 they should then receive the Holy Spirit as the abiding guest 
 to dwell with them. But as Adam and Eve were miracu- 
 
Holy Spirit — His Office. 205 
 
 lously created, and after them no life has been imparted di- 
 rectly and no child has come into existence, save through the 
 laws given by the Spirit for procreation, so no one since the 
 first age of the church has received the Spirit miraculously or 
 directly from God, but through the laws the Spirit gave to 
 impart and develop spiritual life. 
 
 When the. Holy Spirit came on Pentecost, he, through the 
 apostles, told the people what to do ; they did it. In doing 
 what the Spirit commanded them, they were led by the Spirit 
 unto the remission of their sins and into the church of God. 
 The Spirit led them through the words he spoke. Every one 
 who received those words into the heart and obeyed them was 
 led by the Spirit into the church of God. These words were 
 not only spoken, but they were written down and perpetuated 
 for all people for all time. The Holy Spirit does not come 
 down directly from heaven as he did then and put words into 
 the minds of disciples to teach others. The words spoken 
 then and written down and perpetuated are as much the di- 
 rection of the Spirit now as they were then. If one hears 
 those words, believes them, and obeys them, he as much fol- 
 lows the directions of the Spirit as did those people on Pente- 
 cost. 
 
 Again, the Spirit preached the gospel to the world through 
 the disciples. He still does this. When the disciples hear 
 the words spoken by the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, receive 
 them into their hearts, mold their lives according to these 
 words, and teach these same things to sinners, the Spirit of 
 God is teaching sinners through the disciples as much as he 
 did on Pentecost, because the words written are as much the 
 words of the Spirit as the same words spoken are. So spirit- 
 ual life is transmitted and perpetuated through the laws the 
 Spirit gave in the spiritual world just as it is in the material 
 world. The Spirit takes up his abode in the laws of the spir- 
 itual world just as he did in the laws of the material world. 
 "It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: 
 the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are 
 life." (John 6: 63.) The Spirit gives life, and the words are 
 spiritual and life-giving, are the points that correspond and are 
 explanatory of each other. To receive spiritual life, the words 
 that are spirit and living must be received into the heart. To 
 this agrees the parable of the sower : " The seed is the word 
 of God." (Luke 8: 11.) In the seed dwells the principle that 
 
206 Holy Spirit — His Office. 
 
 is to be quickened into life. Many other passages teach the 
 same thing. 
 
 The Spirit, when he came direct from heaven, took up his 
 abode in the hearts of Christians and through them spoke to, 
 pierced the hearts, and taught sinners the way of life. The 
 Spirit of God dwells in that word, and through that word re- 
 ceived into the heart molds the feelings of the heart, directs 
 the lives, and makes their characters like to the character of 
 the Son of God. 
 
 Every word of the Scriptures was written by the Holy 
 Spirit. The things taught in the Scriptures are the teaching 
 of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is the teaching of the Holy 
 Spirit to the world. There is not a spiritual truth or thought 
 among men that is not revealed and does not come through the 
 Bible. The Bible is the teaching of the Spirit to the world ; 
 it is the only teaching the Spirit has ever given the world. 
 The office of the Spirit was to give the Bible tx> the world, 
 then in and through that Bible to guide the world and to fit 
 all who will receive that word into the heart for heaven. 
 Without the word of God no one would know there is a Holy 
 Spirit or a Christ, the Savior of the world ; nor would any one 
 know God as he is. 
 
 HOLY SPIRIT, WHAT IS THE GIFT OF THE? 
 
 What is meant by " the gift of the Holy Spirit " in Acts 2: 38? 
 
 The gift of the Spirit promised in Acts 2 : 38 was the Spirit 
 itself. The gift of the Spirit itself was in two forms. First, 
 it was bestowed in its miraculous manifestation as the apostles 
 themselves received it on the day of Pentecost, fully inspiring 
 them and enduing them with miraculous powers. The Spirit 
 was so given in the first establishment of the church to guide 
 and teach the infant church. " I will pour out my Spirit upon 
 all flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy. 
 . . . And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the 
 earth," etc. This pertained to called-and-sent apostles to pro- 
 claim and confirm the gospel to the world, and was peculiar 
 to that age. When the inspired men had been led into all 
 truth — that is, when the perfect will of God was revealed to 
 them — this miraculous manifestation of the Spirit ceased, and 
 the Spirit in his regular manifestations through the laws re- 
 mained. Secondly, there is a presence of the Spirit with and 
 
Honor Parents. 207 
 
 in "all Christians. They are said to "drink into this Spirit." 
 They receive it gradually as they receive the word of God 
 into the heart as the seed of the kingdom, and as it permeates, 
 guides, and directs the thoughts, feelings, and desires of the 
 person. By receiving and cherishing the word in the heart, 
 the Spirit enters and abounds more and more in the person, 
 making him like Jesus in his thoughts, feelings, works. I feel 
 sure this is the manifestation of the Spirit promised to those 
 who would repent and be baptized. If they would repent 
 and be baptized, receiving and cherishing the word of God in 
 their hearts, this Holy Spirit as the indwelling guest of the 
 church and the Christian would be their portion. This Spirit 
 enters the heart with and through the word of God, and 
 spreads and strengthens as the word of God, the seed of the 
 kingdom, more and more is understood and cherished in the 1 
 heart. The presence of the Spirit is manifest in causing us 
 to walk by the Spirit that was in Christ, to do the will of God 
 as he did it, and to be willing to deny ourselves and save oth- 
 ers, as Jesus died to save us. 
 
 HONOR PARENTS. 
 
 Please give your exegesis of Eph. 6: 1, 2. Dwell on the words 
 children and honor. Is a child a child when he is fifty years old and 
 has a family? Is Deut. 27: 16 in force? 
 
 The relation of child and parents exists so long as the child 
 and the parents live. It is the duty of the child to honor 
 the parents so long as he and they live. What constitutes 
 honor changes somewhat as the conditions of the parties to 
 the relation change. While the child is young and immature, 
 to honor the parents is to obey them, do their will, and be obe- 
 dient in all things ; to dishonor them is to disobey them. An 
 example of dishonoring the parents is given by Moses : " If a 
 man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not obey 
 the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and, though 
 they chasten him, will not hearken unto them : then shall 
 his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him 
 out unto the elders of his city, and unto< the gate of his place ; 
 and they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son 
 is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice ; he is a 
 glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone 
 him to death with stones : so shalt thou put away the evil from 
 the midst of thee ; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." (Deut. 
 
208 Honor Parents. 
 
 21 : 18-21.) This was a son in his minority. This disobedi- 
 ence is elsewhere called " cursing father or mother." " He 
 that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death." 
 (Matt. 15: 4.) These words were spoken primarily of the 
 child in his minority; but when the parent grows old and in- 
 firm in body and mind and the child has reached the strength 
 and wisdom of manhood, honor then demands support and 
 help, but always deference, kindness, and respect. The prin- 
 ciples that regulated the relation in the Old Testament have 
 been transferred to the New Testament. The only change 
 would be that the manner of punishing the child that dishon- 
 ors, or curses, the parent would not be the same now as was 
 then prescribed. To curse means to violate the relations and 
 obligations due; to curse God means to set aside and reject 
 the relations and obligations due him. To treat the parents 
 with discourtesy and neglect is to curse them. 
 
 HOUSE SWEPT AND GARNISHED. 
 
 Please explain Luke 11: 24-26. What state was the man in from 
 the time the unclean spirit left him until it returned to find the " house 
 swept and garnished?" Give us a full explanation of these three 
 verses. 
 
 The man was a Jew, became wicked, and an evil spirit made 
 a home in his heart. The spirit was cast out, but the man 
 failed to fill it with a good spirit, until the evil one, with his 
 more wicked companions, returned and made a home in his 
 heart. This has its counterpart to-day in this : A man's heart 
 is wicked ; he leads a wicked life ; he hears the truth, and the 
 evil disposition in him is for the time cast out ; but he fails 
 to go forward under the good impulses in righteous life, the 
 evil disposition comes back with stronger force, and he be- 
 comes a worse man than he was before. He is worse because 
 he has resisted the influences for good. This may occur to a 
 man either in or out of the church. 
 
 HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, WORK THROUGH, OR DO 
 NOTHING? 
 
 Which is better, to work through human institutions to convert the 
 world or to do nothing? 
 
 There is nothing better, or even good, in either alternative. 
 Both are evil, and very evil, and there is not the least neces- 
 
Idle Words. 209 
 
 sity for any Christian's adopting either alternative. The 
 Scriptures never require men to take a choice of evils in serv- 
 ing God. His service is such that no Christian is dependent 
 upon others for ability to do the will of God. He can do 
 God's will without reference to the course of others, and God 
 will hold him accountable if he does not do it. Each man and 
 woman can do what they are able, in God's appointed way, 
 in preaching the gospel to the lost and helping the needy, re- 
 gardless of the course of others. While there are different 
 classes and degrees of sin — that is, some sins are more offen- 
 sive to God than others — it is always hurtful to say that one 
 had better do this wrong than that. It is hurtful because it 
 encourages the wrong that is regarded the less ; and to do the 
 less sin in this spirit of indifference is to commit the greater. 
 That is presumptuous sin, adding to the appointments of God, 
 legislating for his people, setting aside his laws, and is a 
 greater sin than a sin of omission arising out of human weak- 
 ness. But when one deliberately commits the sin of omission, 
 it becomes the presumptuous sin. Then man does not look at 
 these sins as God does. Man regards the presumptuous sins 
 as light, the sins of passion and lust as heinous. I have often 
 referred to the sins of Saul and David. Saul, in an excess 
 of religious zeal, forced himself and made offerings to the 
 Lord, in the absence of Samuel, then changed the command 
 of God to slay all Amalekites and their animals because he 
 thought it would bring greater honor to God to carry the fat 
 ones into Judea and there sacrifice them to the Lord. For this 
 repeated presumption, arising from overzeal toward God, no 
 forgiveness could be granted. David was guilty of adultery 
 and murder, and, while he was punished, found forgiveness. 
 But to excuse a sin or to neglect it, to speak lightly of it, is to 
 make the sin of weakness a presumptuous sin. 
 
 IDLE WORDS. 
 
 Please explain Matt. 12: 36. What is meant by idle words? 
 
 Idle means useless, unprofitable, pernicious, and hurtful; it 
 
 means what is idle, useless, and hurtful in the sight of God. 
 
 The same kind of words or speech is referred to by Paul : 
 
 " Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth, but such 
 
 as is good for edifying as the need may be, that it may give 
 
 grace to them that hear." (Eph. 4: 29.) Here the corrupting 
 14 
 
210 Idle Words. 
 
 speech that excites sinful lusts and desires is contrasted with 
 that which is good, and administers good to the hearers, and 
 edifies them, and fits them for receiving the blessing or favor 
 of God. The idleness or hurtfulness is such in the sight of 
 God, not in the sight of man. Many things that God would 
 consider idle and hurtful man would not, and what man calls 
 " idle " is not always such in the sight of God. God consid- 
 ers all conversation that would lead away from God to an un- 
 due devotion to the things of the world as idle, pernicious, 
 hurtful. Man does not so consider. Light, pleasant words 
 that bring joy and happiness to ourselves or others and lead 
 none into evil, man is apt to consider idle and profitless, but 
 God does not so consider them. All words of a hurtful, vi- 
 cious tendency that excite evil thoughts and sinful desires are 
 what God would call idle, useless, pernicious ; and for the use 
 of such words men will be held to account by God. " Evil 
 communications corrupt good manners." (1 Cor. 15: 33.) 
 Again : " Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with 
 salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each man." 
 (Col. 4: 6.) Evil, vicious conversation that excites the lusts, 
 passions, evil desires, often does more harm than many sinful 
 deeds, and God forewarns that for all this men will be held 
 to a strict account. 
 
 IMMORTAL, IS MAN BORN? 
 
 Is man an immortal being when born into this world? If so, when 
 does he lose his immortality? And is there a passage of scripture 
 that teaches beyond a doubt that all people will be resurrected in the 
 last day? 
 
 Immortal means not mortal. Immortality means more than 
 eternal existence; it means freedom from pain, suffering, de- 
 cay, or corrupton. In this, the true sense, man is not im- 
 mortal. He will render " to them that by patience in well- 
 doing seek for glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life." 
 (Rom. 2: 7.) 
 
 The devil and the spirits of the lost have eternal existence, 
 but not immortality, because they suffer. They do not pos- 
 sess what is called eternal life, in contrast with eternal death, 
 a constant suffering. " Who [God] only hath immortality, 
 dwelling in light unapproachable." (1 Tim. 6: 16.) Only 
 that which is free from corruption or suffering is immortal, 
 in the true meaning of the word. " Marvel not at this : for 
 
Infant Baptism. 211 
 
 the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear 
 his voice, and shall come forth ; they that have done good, 
 unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, 
 unto the resurrection of judgment." (John 5 : 28, 29.) If that 
 does not teach it, I would not know how to frame a sentence 
 that would. " When the Son of man shall come in his glory, 
 and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne 
 of his glory : and before him shall be gathered all the nations : 
 and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd 
 separateth the sheep from the goats : and he shall set the sheep 
 on his right hand, but the goats on the left." (Matt. 25: 31- 
 33.) A man who is not satisfied that these scriptures teach a 
 universal resurrection and judgment is too much wedded to 
 some hobby of his own that blinds him. 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 (1) Where is adult baptism expressly commanded? 
 
 Neither adult nor infant baptism is taught in the scriptures. 
 Believers — persons who understand, believe, and repent — are 
 the scriptural subjects of baptism. An unbelieving adult and 
 an unbelieving infant are equally disqualified for baptism. 
 
 (2) Where is infant baptism forbidden? 
 
 Infant baptism, meaning the baptism of infants incapable 
 of understanding or believing, is forbidden in every passage in 
 which intelligent hearing, thinking, or acting is indicated as 
 prerequisite to baptism. No infant is capable of any of these 
 things ; hence, in restricting the command to be baptized to 
 persons with these capacities, it is forbidden to infants, or they 
 are exempted from the obligations of the command. No scrip- 
 ture is found requiring one person to have another baptized. 
 Each is commanded himself to be baptized. No person in- 
 capable of this is a subject of the command. 
 
 (3) Where is any command which expressly specifies the subjects 
 of baptism? 
 
 If there be no command that specifies the subjects of bap- 
 tism, then who can obey a command not given specifically 
 to any one or any character? " If the trumpet give an uncer- 
 tain sound, who shall prepare for the battle? " 
 
 Every passage of scripture commanding baptism or imply- 
 
212 Infant Baptism. 
 
 ing its obligation, taken in its proper connection, clearly indi- 
 cates the characteristics of* the proper subject of baptism, be- 
 ginning with John's baptism. " In those days cometh John 
 the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, Re- 
 pent ye; for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. . . . Then 
 went out unto him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the re- 
 gion round about the Jordan ; and they were baptized of him 
 in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." (Matt. 3 : 1-6.) 
 Here clearly they were persons capable of hearing, under- 
 standing, repenting, and confessing their sins. They were re- 
 sponsible persons with capacity to act. Any one of these acts 
 precludes incapable infants. The requirements indicate 
 clearly that the subjects believed and repented. The corre- 
 sponding passages clearly express the same truth. (Mark 1 : 
 1-8; Luke 3: 3-10.) 
 
 The commission given by the Savior, " Go ye therefore, and 
 make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name 
 of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit " (Matt. 
 28: 19), declares these nations were to be taught as prelimi- 
 nary to, and a condition of, their baptism. If there be any 
 doubt of this, the same commission as given by Mark places it 
 beyond a doubt : " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gos- 
 pel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved ; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." 
 (Mark 16: 15, 16.) Preaching " the gospel to the whole crea- 
 tion " explains exactly what is meant by teaching all nations. 
 But baptism is clearly restricted to those who believe or are 
 taught as Matthew records it. 
 
 Not only does this fully explain that baptism is commanded 
 only to those who are discipled, who believe ; but in the 
 preaching of the gospel, these apostles, under the guidance of 
 the Holy Spirit, explain fully who of the whole creation are the 
 subjects of baptism. Peter was made to exclaim, at the house 
 of Cornelius : " Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter 
 of persons : but in every nation he that feareth him, and work- 
 eth righteousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10: 34, 35.) 
 Paul says : " Through whom we received grace and apos- 
 tleship, unto obedience of faith among all the nations, for 
 his name's sake." (Rom. 1 : 5.) Again : " But now is mani- 
 fested, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the 
 commandment of the eternal God, is made known unto all the 
 nations unto obedience of faith." (Rom. 16: 26.) These 
 
Infant Baptism. 213 
 
 scriptures plainly declare that the preaching of the gospel to 
 all nations would result in the obedience to the faith, or that 
 the purpose for which the gospel was to be preached was to 
 bring them to obedience through faith. If it was to bring to 
 the obedience of faith, those without faith, whether by inca- 
 pacity or indisposition, could not come to the obedience. 
 Hence, infants are not embraced as a part of all nations that 
 were to be baptized. 
 
 Not only do these explanations show who of " the whole 
 creation " were to be baptized, but the Holy Spirit came from 
 heaven to call all things commanded by Jesus to the minds 
 of the apostles and to guide them into all truth. Under this 
 guidance of the Holy Spirit the apostles, in carrying out this 
 commission, became the infallible interpreters of its meaning. 
 On the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came fresh from 
 the Father to guide these apostles in carrying out this com- 
 mission. After presenting the gospel of the Son of God and 
 the testimonies needed to produce faith, he exhorted : " Let 
 all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God 
 hath made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye cru- 
 cified. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their 
 heart, and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Breth- 
 ren, what shall we do? And Peter said unto them, Repent 
 ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
 Christ unto the remission of your sins. . . . They then 
 that received his word were baptized; and there were added 
 unto them in that day about three thousand souls." (Acts 
 2: 36-41.) Here only those who could "know assuredly/' or 
 believe with the fullness of the heart, who repented, who 
 received his words, were baptized. There could have been 
 no infants among these. The conditions prescribed exclude 
 them. 
 
 "And Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and pro- 
 claimed unto them the Christ. And the multitudes gave 
 heed with one accord unto the things that were spoken by 
 Philip, when they heard, and saw the signs which he did. 
 . . . But when they believed Philip preaching good tidings 
 concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, 
 they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts 8: 5-12.) 
 Here the baptizing is specifically confined to the men and 
 women who heard, understood, and believed. "And Philip 
 opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture, preached 
 
214 Infant Baptism. 
 
 unto him Jesus. And as they went on the way, they came 
 unto a certain water ; and the eunuch saith Behold, here is 
 water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And he com- 
 manded the chariot to stand still : and they both went down 
 into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
 him." (Acts 8: 35-38.) Here the demand to be baptized 
 is positive evidence that he believed that which was preached ; 
 then no infant incapable of believing can ever be a fit sub- 
 ject for baptism. 
 
 Saul is the next recorded convert. He was first required 
 to believe ; he repented in sorrow and anguish for three days 
 before baptism. (See Acts 9 : 1-22.) Cornelius and his house- 
 hold were the next converts. To them the angel said : " Send 
 to Joppa, and fetch Simon, whose surname is Peter ; who shall 
 speak unto thee words, whereby thou shalt be saved, thou 
 and all thy house." (Acts 11: 13, 14.) When he came, he 
 said to them, " That saying ye yourselves know, which was 
 published " (Acts 10: 37) — as he explains, embodying the gos- 
 pel of Christ. " They heard them [Cornelius' household] 
 speak with tongues, and magnify God." (Verse 46.) No one 
 incapable of hearing and being affected by words, of knowing 
 the gospel, and of speaking and magnifying God, were among 
 these converts. "And on the Sabbath day we went forth with- 
 out the gate by a riverside, where we supposed there was a 
 place of prayer; and we sat down, and spake unto the women 
 that were come together. And a certain woman named Lydia, 
 a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshiped 
 God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened to give heed 
 unto the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she 
 was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If 
 ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my 
 house, and abide there. And she constrained us." (Acts 16: 
 13-15.) Here there were women met to worship away from 
 their native city. He preached to them. The preached word 
 was the means of bringing them to baptism ; they believed. 
 
 The jailer said: "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And 
 they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, 
 thou and thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord 
 unto him, with all that were in his house. And he took them 
 the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and 
 was baptized, he and all his, immediately. And he brought 
 them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced 
 
Infant Baptism. 215 
 
 greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." (Acts 
 16: 30-34.) Here he spake the word of the Lord to all in his 
 house; all believed, all rejoiced. None but believers were 
 here baptized. "And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, be- 
 lieved in the Lord with all his house ; and many of the Co- 
 rinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." (Acts 18: 8.) 
 
 Paul, finding certain disciples at Ephesus, asked: "Did ye 
 receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed? . . . And when 
 they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. . . . And they were in all about twelve men." 
 (Acts 19: 2-7.) These are all the cases in which people are 
 said to have been baptized ; and each one of them indicates 
 clearly that faith was an essential prerequisite to baptism. 
 There are other accounts of persons being converted — turn- 
 ing to the Lord, entering into Christ — in which baptism is not 
 specifically mentioned ; but in every case it is clearly implied 
 that faith in Christ is set forth as the essential prerequisite 
 to baptism. 
 
 Coming to the letters to the churches, it is clear that these 
 churches were composed of believers only. 
 
 Without specially examining these letters, I will affirm that 
 every letter to the churches and every allusion to them recog- 
 nizes clearly that the churches were composed of understand- 
 ing, believing, accountable persons, and that there is not an 
 allusion to an infant incapable of believing in them. Children 
 are addressed in some of the letters — commanded to obey their 
 parents. They were children capable of hearing, understand- 
 ing, obeying — children that had reached the age of account- 
 ability. 
 
 This accords fully with the prophecy : " Behold, the days 
 come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with 
 the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah : not accord- 
 ing to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day 
 that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land 
 of Egypt ; which my covenant they brake, although I was a 
 husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant 
 that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, 
 saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and 
 in their heart will I write it ; and I will be their God, and 
 they shall be my people and they shall teach no more every 
 man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know 
 Jehovah ; for they shall all know me, from the least of them 
 
216 Infant Baptism. 
 
 unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive 
 their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more." (Jer. 
 31:31-34.) 
 
 They had entered the old fleshly covenant by an involun- 
 tary birth of the flesh, totally ignorant both of God and of the 
 laws of the covenant ; hence, needed to be taught to know God, 
 and they must learn his laws after becoming members. But 
 in the new covenant they must know him before entering into 
 this covenant, must voluntarily from a hearty love of him and 
 his law accept of his service; hence, there would be no neces- 
 sity for teaching these members to know the Lord, as they all 
 knew him before entering into him. This is the distinction 
 the Savior made to Nicodemus. A birth of the flesh brought 
 you into the fleshly kingdom of Judaism ; a birth of the Spirit, 
 of the water and the Spirit, is necessary to enter the spiritual 
 kingdom. This is the distinction between the Jewish and the 
 Christian covenants. In the one, the fleshly man was born 
 by a birth of the flesh into the fleshly kingdom ; in the other, 
 every one must be born by a birth, a renewal of the spirit, 
 which produced faith ; then he is brought forth into the king- 
 dom of the water. Most emphatically are those who believe 
 and repent, and they alone, specified and declared, at divers 
 times and in sundry places, by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, 
 and the Holy Spirit, to be the only subjects of baptism. 
 
 (4) Is there any other command in all the New Testament which 
 expressly specifies who are to be baptized than the great apostolic 
 commission in Matt. 28: 19, 20? 
 
 The commission by Matthew and Mark and the teaching 
 connected with every case of conversion under that commis- 
 sion clearly define that the believers, the taught only, are to 
 be baptized. 
 
 (5) Does that commission specify either infant or adult by name? 
 Does it exclude either? 
 
 Neither that commission nor any other scripture specifies 
 either adults or infants, but believers, as the proper subjects 
 of baptism. It excludes, as already shown, unbelievers, both 
 adult and infant, from baptism. 
 #• 
 
 (6) What command, therefore, is there, or what " Thus saith the 
 Lord," for adult baptism that is not also for infant baptism? 
 
 There is no command for either adult or infant baptism, but 
 
Infant Baptism. 217 
 
 for believers' baptism — " he that believeth and is baptized." 
 " Hearing believed, and were baptized." Those who cannot 
 or do not believe are not not fit subjects for baptism. Every 
 reference to baptism in the Bible proclaims that the man must 
 hear, understand, believe, as a prerequisite to baptism. In- 
 fants cannot do this, hence are clearly excluded. 
 
 (7) Is any instance mentioned in Scripture of the head of a house- 
 hold receiving baptism without the household also receiving it at the 
 same time? 
 
 There were doubtless thousands of heads of families among 
 the converts at Jerusalem and other places, but they were not 
 specified as such because their families were not converted, 
 hence their names were not mentioned. No one in the Scrip- 
 ture is mentioned in connection with baptism as the head of 
 a household, save for the purpose of telling that his household 
 heard, believed, and were baptized, and rejoiced in Christ with 
 the head. This being true, in every case the household is 
 mentioned as having been baptized with the head. 
 
 (8) How came the apostles to baptize the household of a believing 
 parent at the same time the parent was baptized if they did not " be- 
 lieve in infant baptism? " 
 
 The apostles baptized the household without believing in 
 infant baptism, because the households baptized believed, and 
 did not include infants incapable of believing and repenting. 
 The occurrences at the house of Cornelius convinced Peter 
 that in every nation " he that feareth him, and worketh right- 
 eousness, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10: 35.) Again, Peter 
 said to them : " The word which he sent unto the children of 
 Israel, preaching good tidings of peace by Jesus Christ (he is 
 Lord of all) — that saying ye yourselves know, which was pub- 
 lished throughout all Judea." (Verses 36, 37.) The words 
 preached were : " He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
 saved." " They heard them speak with tongues, and magnify 
 God." " He commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
 Jesus Christ. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." 
 They were to hear words whereby they were to be saved, 
 which shows that those baptized could and would fear God 
 and keep his commandments, did know the word of God, did 
 believe, did speak with tongues, did hear and understand, and 
 were saved by the words spoken to them, any one of which 
 qualifications precludes the idea of infants being among them. 
 
218 Infant Baptism. 
 
 Or like Lydia's household, composed of women, hundreds of 
 miles from home, engaged in selling the dyes for which their 
 native city was celebrated, who assembled on the river bank 
 for prayer, and could hear and understand what Paul spoke 
 to them. (Acts 16: 13.) Or like those of the jailer's house, 
 of whom it is said : " They spake the word of the Lord unto 
 him, with all that were in his house. And he . . . re- 
 joiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." 
 (Acts 16 : 33, 34.) Or like " Crispus, the ruler of the syna- 
 gogue," who " believed in the Lord with all his house." (Acts 
 18: 8.) 
 
 No infants were among the baptized of these households. 
 All were believers. Then the apostles baptized, in every case 
 mentioned in the Bible, the household with the head, because 
 all the household believed with the head. 
 
 .(9) Does the Bible anywhere teach that baptism is to be admin- 
 istered solely upon condition of faith and repentance? If so, wfiere? 
 
 The commission, the only authority for baptism, says: 
 " Make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them [the disci- 
 pled] into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the 
 Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28: 19.) "He that believeth and is 
 baptized shall be saved ; but he that disbelieveth shall be con- 
 demned." (Mark 16: 16.) " Let all the house of Israel there- 
 fore know assuredly, that God hath made him both Lord and 
 Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. . . . Repent ye, and 
 be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto 
 the remission of your sins. . . . They then that received 
 his word were baptized." (Acts 2: 36-41.) According to the 
 terms laid down in the New Testament, baptism was to be 
 administered solely to those who had faith and had repented. 
 
 (10) Did Lydia's children understand what was being done when 
 they were baptized? 
 
 Among the Jews the married woman was never recognized 
 as the head of the household, but always the husband. Hence, 
 Lydia was not a married woman, but an old maid, with women 
 servants or helpers, skilled in the art of dyeing. They were 
 over a hundred miles from home, and as unmarried women 
 in the East were shy of mixed assemblies, they met out of 
 the city by the riverside to worship, with no man present. 
 She was a virtuous old maid and had no children, but her 
 household was composed of women capable of hearing the 
 
Infant Baptism. 219 
 
 word spoken, of understanding and obeying it. This is a 
 much more reasonable supposition than to guess she had in- 
 fants, and guess that these infants, contrary to all the teach- 
 ings of scripture, were baptized, and on this guess build a 
 practice contrary to all the teaching of the Bible on the subject 
 of baptism. 
 
 The facts in every other case of baptism mentioned in the 
 Scriptures render infant baptism absolutely impossible. In- 
 terpreted in the light of the only commission under which any 
 one was ever authorized to baptize, and in the light of any 
 or every other baptism mentioned in the Scriptures, including 
 other household baptisms, it is absolutely certain that no un- 
 believing infants were included in the baptism of Lydia's 
 household. Yet pedobaptists insist on considering this case 
 unexplained by the commission, which alone authorizes bap-' 
 tism, separated from every other case of baptism recorded in 
 the Scriptures. They build a theory that annuls and makes 
 void the commission, and that is out of harmony with the 
 plain facts in every other example of baptism in the Scrip- 
 tures, and totally destructive of the only baptism commanded 
 by the Savior, approved by the Spirit, or practiced by the in- 
 spired apostles — that is, believers' baptism ; for if infant bap- 
 tism should become universal, believers' baptism would be 
 totally supplanted and abolished. Is it wise to build a prac- 
 tice so contrary to God's teaching and so destructive of his 
 institution? 
 
 (11) Did the Philippian jailer's children understand? 
 
 Yes, beyond a doubt. " They spake the word of the Lord 
 unto them, with all that were in his house. And he . . . 
 set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, 
 having believed in God." (Acts 16: 32-36.) His children 
 certainly did understand and believe. 
 
 (12) Does God never bestow any spiritual blessing upon those who 
 do not and cannot understand what it means at the time? 
 
 God never bestows spiritual blessings that he prepared for 
 those who understand, believe, and repent, and that he has 
 conditioned on the doing of these things, upon those not doing 
 them or those not capable of doing them. Baptism is not a 
 spiritual blessing, but a condition on which the believer may 
 receive a blessing. 
 
220 Infant Baptism. 
 
 (13) Did the little infants brought by their mothers to Jesus un- 
 derstand what that act meant? And yet was not the blessing be- 
 stowed, nevertheless? 
 
 They did not understand, neither were they baptized. The 
 question is: Who is a proper subject for baptism? A bless- 
 ing was doubtless bestowed ; but baptism is not a blessing, 
 but the condition, when properly submitted to, of receiving 
 a blessing. These infants did not receive the blessing condi- 
 tioned on baptism — the forgiveness of sins — for they were not 
 sinners, so needed no forgiveness. 
 
 (14) Did their being brought to Jesus, therefore, do no good? 
 Cannot the parent understand, and does not God understand, what 
 baptism means? 
 
 It doubtless secured a blessing to the child, but it did not fit 
 for baptism nor secure the forgiveness of sins, conditioned 
 to the believer on baptism, nor any of the blessings that come 
 through faith and obedience. A man cannot believe for his 
 child, cannot repent for his child, cannot be baptized for his 
 child, nor impart to his child his own righteousness. " The 
 soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear the in- 
 iquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity 
 of the son ; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon 
 him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." 
 (Ezek. 18: 20.) All that the parent can do is to bring up his 
 child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, so that 
 he will remember his Creator in the days of his youth, and so 
 that the seed received into a good and honest heart may bring 
 forth fruit unto everlasting life. God understands what man 
 desires, and because he does understand he demands that a 
 man should believe, repent, and be baptized. God's order can- 
 not be changed. 
 
 (15) Does it, therefore, do no good merely because the infant 
 cannot understand what it means? 
 
 Inasmuch as baptism is commanded only to them that be- 
 lieve and repent ; inasmuch as no man is ever commanded to 
 baptize or have baptized his own or the infant of another; 
 inasmuch as none can enter the kingdom of heaven (the 
 church) except those who believe, baptism can do no good to 
 the unbelieving infant. It may do him great harm by prevent- 
 ing the voluntary obedience of faith when he comes to years 
 of maturity ; it may be a great harm to the parent for him to 
 
Inspiration. 221 
 
 set aside the baptism ordained by God and substitute for it 
 an invention of man. 
 
 (16) If the same command for baptism which includes the adult 
 includes the infant also; if the apostles administered baptism to the 
 household at the same time that it was administered to the believing 
 head of the household; and if the Scriptures nowhere teach that bap- 
 tism is to be administered solely upon condition of repentance and 
 faith, or that it is to be confined solely to those who are able to un- 
 derstand what it means, then by what right is baptism denied to the 
 infant of believing parents? 
 
 All the conditions of this question having been shown to be 
 wrong, the infant of the believing parent is not entitled to 
 baptism, because baptism is never commanded to the infant, 
 but always to the believer. The trouble is that infant baptism 
 grew out of the dogma of infant guilt and infant damnation. 
 These dogmas now having been given up as groundless, the 
 practices growing out of or based on them should likewise be 
 surrendered. Neither the idea of infant guilt, infant damna- 
 toin, nor the authority or example for infant baptism can be 
 found in the Scriptures. Those who reverence and honor God 
 and are willing to be led by the direction of his Spirit as re- 
 vealed in his holy word should surrender the practice and 
 maintain the only baptism authorized by God — the baptism 
 of penitent believers. 
 
 INHERITED WEAKNESSES. 
 
 Do children inherit the habits of lying and stealing? Please give 
 a scriptural answer. 
 
 Children inherit weaknesses of character that render them 
 liable to yield to temptations to do these things. The proof is : 
 " God said, Let the earth bring forth living creatures after 
 their kind." (Gen. 1 : 24.) All living creatures, including 
 men, would bring forth children like the parents. Again, God 
 visits the iniquities of the fathers upon the children and the 
 children's children to the third and fourth generations. 
 
 INSPIRATION. 
 
 What does the Bible mean when it uses such terms as " the inspi- 
 ration of the Bible," or has it failed to use them? What is the dif- 
 ference in the working of the providence of God and his work in in- 
 spiration? To get the point which I wish you to bring out^ more 
 clearly before you, I will say that I am very confident you will say 
 inspiration is a mirncnloi's process and its products are the fruits of 
 miraculous force; while the providences of God overlook, control, and 
 
222 Inspiration. 
 
 guide both law and miracle "to attain an object. If inspiration is not 
 a miraculous process and its product a miraculous thing, then what 
 is it? If this is true, then were all the writers of the Bible miracu- 
 lously endowed with a knowledge of all the things they have given us 
 in the Bible? It appears to me that the Bible clearly teaches that God 
 is as infallible and certain in his providence over law and men as he is 
 in miracles, and that he only used the miraculous as a creative and 
 generative power in both the formation of the Bible as well as in his 
 works in nature, and that the miraculous is not used for the general 
 propagation and preservation of the things created. A clear denning 
 of distinctions along this line by the word of God will give great light 
 to many. 
 
 We do not usually use the word inspiration in a very defi- 
 nite or exact sense. We generally mean that the thing is re- 
 vealed or guaranteed as true by God, regardless of how it is 
 made known or assured to man. Inspire means " to draw in." 
 Inspiration definitely means to draw the Holy Spirit into the 
 soul, so that he will direct the thoughts and words of the in- 
 dividual. It is not surprising that persons gave different an- 
 swers, "because there are different methods of making known 
 God's will to his servants. There are two methods — revela- 
 tion and inspiration. Revelation was made by dreams or by 
 speaking in an audible voice and telling what he wished them 
 to know; inspiration is the entrance of the Holy Spirit into 
 the heart so as to mold and direct the spirit of the person. 
 Both methods of making God's will known to men were used 
 by God. He spoke by dreams to Jacob and Joseph; he spoke 
 in words they heard to Abraham, Moses, and Saul on the way 
 to Damascus. In other instances the Holy Spirit entered into, 
 abode with, and directed the minds and words as one's own 
 spirit does. This is properly inspiration. Peter says : " For 
 no prophecy ever came by the will of man : but men spake 
 from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1 : 21.) 
 The will of the man did not control this, but the Holy Spirit 
 in him moved him to speak the words of the Spirit. The 
 prophets did not always know the meaning of what the Spirit 
 spoke through them. " Concerning which salvation the 
 prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied 
 of the grace that should come unto you : searching what time 
 or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them 
 did point unto, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of 
 Christ, and the glories that should follow them." (1 Pet. 1: 
 10, 11.) They understood that blessings were promised, but 
 not what, when, or where they should be bestowed ; were anx- 
 ious to know, but did not understand. The apostles received 
 the same kind of inspiration on the day of Pentecost. They 
 
Inspiration. 223 
 
 spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. Peter prophesied 
 that all that were afar off, as many as the. Lord God should 
 call, would receive the Holy Spirit; but he did not understand 
 that this referred to the Gentiles. There were degrees in this 
 kind of inspiration, graduated from those endowed with the 
 teaching gifts up to the apostles, who were fully endowed and 
 whom the Spirit would guide into all truth and call to their 
 remembrance all things that Jesus had said to them. The 
 apostles possessed this highest degree of inspiration, so their 
 teachings must be accepted as the teachings of God and infalli- 
 bly true. 
 
 There seems to be no doubt that on Pentecost the Spirit 
 gave the very words that were spoken — that is, the Spirit 
 used the mouths of the apostles to speak the words he dic- 
 tated. But that degree of inspiration was not needed in all 
 the narratives made or teachings done, and the degree of in- 
 spiration seems to have been graded to the requirements of 
 the occasion. The promise of Jesus was that the Holy Spirit 
 would guide them into all truth. All the truth of God needed 
 for their works would be made known to them, and they would 
 know to reject all error. I am sure all these forms and de- 
 grees of revelation and inspiration were used by God in mak- 
 ing known his will to men. The apostles would be guided 
 into all truth, and whatever degree of inspiration was needed 
 to make known the truth was supplied. 
 
 All making known the will of God to man, whether by rev- 
 elation or inspiration, was miraculous, and pertained to the 
 preparatory and creative age of God's work. The Jewish age 
 was preparatory to the permanent and perfect kingdom. 
 When the people were obedient to the law of Moses, the proph- 
 ets did not appear. Blessings came through obedience to the 
 laws of God. Now the blessing for obedience is just as sure 
 and as much to be depended on as if bestowed through mir- 
 acle, but the kingdom was established and the law given by 
 miracle to attest that they were from God. Man was cre- 
 ated by miracle. His life is perpetuated and transmitted 
 through the laws God gave to regulate this procreation of the 
 species. The same order prevails in the spiritual world. 
 " Providence," as we use the term, can lead into truth, but 
 cannot reveal it. See Baptism in the Holy Spirit. 
 
224 Instrumental Music in Worship. 
 
 INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN WORSHIP. 
 
 (1) The preacher who has preached for us two years is a strong 
 advocate of instrumental music in the worship, and quotes Eph. 5: 
 19 and Col. 3: 16 as authority for using it. He claims there is as 
 much authority for using it as we have for immersion for baptism. 
 Please tell us what these scriptures teach. 
 
 These very points have been frequently discussed, but we 
 do it again, and ask all to note them. The passages referred 
 to are : " Be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be 
 rilled with the Spirit; speaking one to another in psalms and 
 hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with 
 your heart to the Lord/' (Eph. 5 : 18, 19.) " Let the word 
 of Christ dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and ad- 
 monishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual 
 songs, singing with grace in your hearts unto God." (Col. 3 : 
 16.) These passages mean exactly the same. To be filled 
 with the Spirit and to have the word of God dwelling in the 
 heart richly are one and the same thing ; to sing and make 
 melody in the heart to the Lord and to sing with grace in the 
 heart to the Lord are one and the same thing, and mean to 
 bring the thoughts and feelings of the heart into harmony 
 with the sentiment sung. It is the sentiment that is sung 
 that constitutes the worship ; there is no acceptable worship 
 in music distinct from the sentiment sung. The music of the 
 song is only a means of impressing the sentiment sung more 
 deeply on the hearts of both singer and hearer. What is sung 
 must be the outgrowth of the word of God dwelling richly in 
 the heart. It is to be done by speaking that word of God in 
 song. The purpose is to praise God and teach and admonish 
 one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, sing- 
 ing and making melody in the heart to the Lord. No per- 
 formance of an instrument can possibly grow out of the word 
 of God in the heart ; an instrument cannot speak that word 
 either to praise God or to teach and admonish one another. 
 The sound of the instrument drowns the words sung and hin- 
 ders the teaching and admonition. 
 
 The use of the instrument hinders and destroys the essential 
 purpose of the worship in song. It works an entire change 
 in the song service ; it sooner or later changes it from a service 
 of praise to God and of teaching and admonishing one another 
 in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs into a musical and 
 artistic entertainment that pleases and cultivates the fleshly 
 
Instrumental Music in Worship. 225 
 
 and sensuous nature. A more hurtful change could not be 
 made in the worship than this change in its spirit and purpose. 
 The contention is this : The psalms carry the idea of singing 
 with an instrumental accompaniment. But if the word carries 
 that idea, it makes it necessary to use the instrument. To 
 fail to use it is to disobey God, for he commanded just what 
 the word means. No church could neglect the instrument 
 without disobeying the law of God. Is any one prepared for 
 that? If to teach and admonish in psalms means to use the 
 instrument with the song, the Greek Church, which to this 
 day speaks the language in which these letters were written, 
 has never found it out. It not only does not use, but pro- 
 hibits all instrumental music in its services. Not only is this 
 true, but the very churches to which these exhortations were 
 given did not understand it, for they never used them ; and 
 no church claiming to worship Christ for six hundred years 
 ever used an instrument in its service. No intelligent and 
 truthful man will deny this. McClintock and Strong's Ency- 
 clopedia says : " The Greeks as well as the Jews were wont to 
 use instruments as accompaniments in their sacred songs. 
 The converts to Christianity accordingly must have been fa- 
 miliar with this mode of singing; yet it is generally thought 
 that the primitive Christians failed to adopt the use of instru- 
 mental music in their religious worship. The word psallein, 
 which the apostle uses in Eph. 5 : 19, has been taken by some 
 critics to indicate that they sang with such accompaniments. 
 . . . But if this be the correct inference, it is strange in- 
 deed that neither Ambrose, nor Basil, nor Chrysostom, in the 
 noble encomiums which they severally pronounce upon music, 
 makes any mention of instrumental music. Basil, indeed, ex- 
 pressly condemns it as ministering only to the depraved pas- 
 sions of men, and must have been led to this condemnation 
 because some had gone astray and borrowed this practice from 
 the heathens. Thus it is reported that at Alexandria it was the 
 custom to accompany the singing with the flute, which practice 
 was expressly forbidden by Clement of Alexandria, in A.D. 190 
 as too worldly, but he then instituted in its stead the use of 
 the harp. . . . The general introduction of instrumental 
 music can certainly not be assigned to a date earlier than the 
 fifth and six centuries ; even Gregory the Great, who, toward 
 the end of the sixth century added greatly to the existing 
 
 church music, absolutely prohibited the use of instruments, 
 15 
 
226 Instrumental Music in Worship. 
 
 . . . The first organ is believed to have been used in church 
 service in the thirteenth century. Organs were, however, in 
 use before this in the theaters. They were never regarded 
 with favor in the Eastern church, and were vehemently op- 
 posed in the Western churches." (" Music," Volume VI., 
 page 759.) 
 
 Then these churches speaking the language in which the 
 letters were written did not understand that they carried the 
 idea of instrumental accompaniment, nor did any church or 
 people so understand from six hundred to thirteen hundred 
 years after. Not only the churches and people to whom the 
 letter was written did not so understand it, but the writer 
 (Paul) did not so understand it, for he did not use the in- 
 struments. Paul was faithful to observe the requirements of 
 God — would do it at all hazards and under all difficulties. 
 Nothing could deter him. Neither he nor any other apostle, 
 nor the Lord Jesus, nor any of the disciples for five hundred 
 years, used instruments. This, too, in the face of the fact that 
 the Jews had used instruments in the days of their prosperity 
 and that the Greeks and heathen nations all used them in 
 their worship. They were dropped out with such emphasis 
 that they were not taken up till the middle of the Dark Ages, 
 and came in as part of the order of the Roman Catholic 
 Church. Not only did none of these understand that it car- 
 ried the idea of instrumental accompaniment, but the same 
 encyclopedia further says : " In the English convocation held 
 A.D. 1562, in Queen Elizabeth's time, for settling the liturgy, 
 the retaining of organs was carried only by a casting vote." 
 (Ibid., page 760.) Again : " The early reformers, when they 
 came out of Rome, removed them as the monuments of idol- 
 atry. Luther called the organ an ' ensign of Baal ; ' Calvin 
 said that instrumental music was not fitter to be adopted into 
 the Christian church than the incense and candlestick; Knox 
 called the organ a ' kist [chest] of whistles/ The Church of 
 England revived them, against a very strong protest, and the 
 English dissenters would not touch them." (Ibid., page 762.) 
 John Wesley and Adam Clarke strongly opposed them, and 
 Alexander Campbell refused to speak when one was used. 
 They have come into use as Christians have lost their zeal 
 and devotion and fidelity to the appointments of God, as par- 
 ties do as they grow numerous, and have sought to be popu- 
 lar and fashionable and have catered to the fleshly and sensu- 
 
Instrumental Music in Worship. 227 
 
 ous tastes and feelings of the world. It cannot be otherwise 
 than sinful to use them, as they constitute no part of the wor- 
 ship of God. 
 
 It seems there cannot be a doubt but that the use of instru- 
 mental music in connection with the worship of God, whether 
 used as a part of the worship or as an attractive accompani- 
 ment, is unauthorized by God and violates the oft-repeated pro- 
 hibition to add nothing to, take nothing from, the command- 
 ments of the Lord. It destroys the difference between the 
 clean and the unclean, the holy and the unholy, counts the 
 blood of the Son of God unclean, and tramples under foot the 
 authority of the Son of God. They have not been authorized 
 by God or sanctified with the blood of his Son. A Christian 
 loyal and true to the Lord Jesus Christ cannot use them, nor 
 in any way countenance the setting aside the order of God 
 by adding to or taking from his appointments, even in the 
 smallest matters, as washing of hands. While forbearance 
 and love should be exercised in showing the sinfulness of their 
 use, when the church determines to introduce a service not 
 required by God, he who believes it wrong is compelled to 
 refuse in any way to countenance or affiliate with the wrong. 
 To do so is to sin against God and his own conscience and to 
 encourage by example others to violate their consciences and 
 the law of God ; it is to lower the standard of regard for the 
 authority of God. 
 
 (2) Is it, or is it not, a great sin to divide a congregation over so 
 small a matter as instrumental music? 
 
 Those who claim this force others to fellowship the use of 
 instruments against their conscience or disrupt the church, 
 while acknowledging that they are not required by God. God 
 plainly requires his children to withdraw from such. (Rom. 
 16: 17.) The test of a church of Christ is: It recognizes God 
 as the only Lawgiver. " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy 
 God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 3 : 10.) When 
 it consciously changes the smallest appointment of God, it 
 dethrones God as the only Lawmaker and ceases to be a 
 church of God. The test of personal discipleship to God is : 
 That in all matters in which God has given order we will do 
 what God commands, adding nothing thereto, taking nothing 
 therefrom, and we will forsake any thing or person that leads 
 us to violate this rule. To add as simple and harmless a thing 
 
228 Instrumental Music in Worship. 
 
 as the washing the hands before eating, as religious service, 
 destroys discipleship to Christ. (Matt. 15: 5-15.), 
 
 " Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least com- 
 mandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in 
 the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and teach 
 them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." 
 (Matt. 5 : 19.) " He that is faithful in a very little is faithful 
 also in much : and he that is unrighteous in a very little is un- 
 righteous also in much." (Luke 16: 10.) Our fidelity to God 
 is tested as easily in little things as in great ones ; rather, 
 nothing is little where God's authority is at stake. Witness 
 the sin of our first parents and the fearful results. Paul kept 
 a good conscience in all things ; so God honored him and chose 
 him to be the great apostle to the Gentiles. 
 
 (3) A large part of our congregation wants the organ, and would 
 it not be better for me to yield than create division? 
 
 A church that requires disobedience to God to maintain 
 peace in it is already an apostate church; it has rejected God 
 as its only Ruler. For one to go with a church in a wrong 
 is to encourage them in apostasy. It injures both the church 
 and the person going with the church in the wrong. While 
 forbearance and love should be exercised in seeking to show 
 them the right and persuading them to do it, it is sinful to so 
 affiliate with them as to encourage and build up a church that 
 is going wrong. It is a greater sin for those who' know it is 
 wrong to go with those in the wrong than for those who think 
 it right, because those who know it is wrong sin against light 
 and knowledge. The greater sinners in every congregation 
 that departs from God's order in these things are those who 
 know the wrongs, yet remain with and build up the congrega- 
 tions in the practice of the wrongs. " That servant, who knew 
 his lord's will, and made not ready, nor did according to his 
 will, shall be beaten with many stripes ; but he that knew 
 not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with 
 few stripes." (Luke 12: 47, 48.) There can be no doubt that 
 those who cling to the church and build it up, knowing that 
 it is maintaining practices contrary to the word of God, are 
 worse sinners before God than those who introduce them be- 
 lieving they are right. Sometimes persons think that as the 
 Lord tolerated these sins in Israel he will tolerate them under 
 Christ. This would be to subvert the purpose of his exam- 
 
Instrumental Music in Worship. 229 
 
 pies so as to make what he gave as a warning to be avoided 
 an example to be followed. It would nullify the purpose of 
 the Jewish law. (See 1 Cor. 10: 1-10.) 
 
 (4) My lifelong friends and associates are in a church that uses 
 an organ, and so also are my children and grandchildren. Shall I 
 leave them or remain with them? 
 
 To leave them is to bear earnest testimony to them for the 
 truth and to warn them that there is danger and ruin in de- 
 parting from the law of God; to go with them is to affiliate 
 with and build up the wrong and to encourage them in the 
 way lhat leads to ruin. To depart from the order of God to go 
 with them is to love friends, father, mother, brothers, and 
 sisters more than God. " He that loveth father or mother 
 more than me is not worthy of me ; and he that loveth son. or 
 daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matt. 10: 37.) 
 " If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, 
 •and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, 
 yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 
 14 : 26.) These mean that a man must separate from and give 
 up all these to be true to Christ. True love to these friends 
 and ourselves demands the same course. There is no real 
 kindness in going with them in wrong courses and encour- 
 aging them in setting aside the law of God ; it may gratify 
 the fleshly feelings, but it only helps them and ourselves for- 
 ward to ruin. Love " is the fulfillment of the law." True 
 love to every creature in the universe is perfected and mani- 
 fested in doing the will of God. That is love to God, and love 
 to God is the only true love to every being in the universe of 
 God ; and be sure God is not pleased when his children violate 
 his law to preserve standing in and harmony with a church 
 setting aside his order. It will be no alleviation of the tor- 
 ments of hell to us or them to think we encouraged our chil- 
 dren and friends in the course of rebellion by going with them. 
 God especially warns : " Thou shalt not follow a multitude to 
 do evil ; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to turn aside after 
 a multitude to wrest justice." (Ex. 23 : 2.) 
 
 (5) I am opposed to the use of instrumental music in the worship 
 and protest against it. Will God hold me responsible if I worship 
 where an instrument is used? 
 
 Pilate protested against the crucifixion of Jesus, yet went 
 with the party that crucified him. Was he guiltless? The 
 
230 Instrumental Music in Worship. 
 
 protest is the proof of conscious guilt in participating in the 
 wrong. 
 
 Then my faith is that it is the duty of those who believe a 
 church sets aside the order of God to strive to correct that 
 wrong, to be patient and forbearing in it; and if they fail in 
 this, to withdraw and at once go actively to work to form a 
 true church and observe the true service of God. If they quit 
 work because others have gone wrong, they will die and the 
 cause of truth will perish in their midst. Go to work to main- 
 tain the truth of God and to induce others to accept it, and 
 God will bless you. " I call heaven and earth to' witness 
 against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, 
 the blessing and the curse : therefore choose life, that thou 
 mayest live, thou and thy seed ; to love- Jehovah thy God, to 
 obey his voice, and to cleave unto him ; for he is thy life." 
 (Deut. 30: 19,20.) 
 
 INVENTIONS OF MEN, CORRUPT AND BRING EVIL. 
 
 Can man devise an institution that will bring honor to God and 
 bless man? Has he ever done it? Has man ever founded an institu- 
 tion that is good? 
 
 Man is evil. He is fleshly, mortal. "Jehovah saw that the 
 wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every im- 
 agination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil contin- 
 ually." (Gen. 6: 5; see also 8: 21.) If man is so evil and 
 all the imaginations and thoughts of his heart are evil, and 
 that continually, could he without God do good? "They are 
 all gone aside ; they are together become filthy ; there is none 
 that doeth good, no-, not one." (Ps. 14: 3.) How can such 
 evil and sinful beings bring forth good institutions or do that 
 which will bring good to man? "A good tree cannot bring 
 forth evil fruit." God cannot establish an institution that 
 brings evil. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. 
 
 Man, wicked and corrupt, with a continued tendency to evil, 
 cannot bring forth or establish an institution that will bring 
 good to man. " God made man upright ; but they have sought 
 out many inventions." (Eccles. 7: 29.) God created man in- 
 nocent, upright, with capacity for understanding and follow- 
 ing that which is good, yet, in his evil surroundings, prone to 
 tollow that which is evil. Man's only hope of attaining to 
 God is by hearkening to and following the directions of God. 
 To rely on and follow the directions of God, to walk in his 
 
Inventions of Men Bring Evil. 231 
 
 institutions, is to walk in the light of God's wisdom. To do 
 what God commands us to do, and work in and through his 
 appointments, is to have God to work in and through us " to 
 will and to work, for his good pleasure." (Phil. 2 : 13.) This 
 is to do the works of God and is to* seek good in accordance 
 with the good pleasure of God. When man turns from the 
 appointments of God and relies on his own wisdom and in- 
 ventions, his own institutions, he rejects the wisdom of God 
 and walks by his own wisdom ; he is relying on his own works, 
 not on the works of God, to bring good tO' himself and the 
 world. Man cannot serve in both institutions nor the two 
 masters. He will " hate the one, and love the other; " he will 
 "hold to one, and despise the other." (Matt. 6: 24.) He 
 cannot dovetail or graft the one into the other. 
 
 The inventions of man cannot be brought into the church 
 of God without defiling and corrupting that church and its 
 service, without defiling the service and worship of God with 
 the precepts of men, which render the service offered vain 
 worship. " In vain do they worship me, teaching as their 
 doctrines the precepts of men." (Matt. 15: 9.) Man's own 
 institutions are evil and corrupting. They bring evil and not 
 good to man. To add the inventions of man to the order 
 of God in his service, worship, or work must defile it, must 
 bring evil and not good. 
 
 Every evil that has ever been brought into this world has 
 come through man's seeking good in his own inventions and 
 ways instead of in God's. This disposition has brought evil 
 continually. It never has brought good to man. It cannot 
 bring good to man until man gets wiser than God. This is 
 true of earthly kingdoms. 
 
 There has never been a human addition to the church or 
 worship of God that did not bring evil and not good. This 
 grows out of the fact that man is evil, is weak and sinful. 
 God is wise and good. The conflict from the beginning of 
 the world has been whether man will follow his own wisdom 
 or do the will of God. That brought death and ruin into the 
 world. They will continue to reign in the world and among 
 men until men learn that God's appointments are better than 
 man's, that God is wiser than man. Which shall we follow, 
 God or man? 
 
232 Israel, Who Disturbs? 
 
 ISRAEL, WHO DISTURBS? 
 
 One R. P. Meeks is holding a meeting for the " digressives " at this 
 place. I met him on the street and asked him if he was preaching the 
 same doctrine he preached before those innovations came up in the 
 church. He saicl he was. He said that the Gospel Advocate was the 
 cause of all the trouble and division in the church to-day; that it was 
 opposing brethren's voting and belonging to secret orders, mission 
 work, and boards for that purpose. He further said that brethren 
 would not accept such extreme ideas. I have been reading the Advo- 
 cate a long time. I am sure it has always been on the side of peace 
 among the brethren, and has contended for the only true ground of 
 union. He told me that I read only one side of the question, which 
 I admitted to be so; and that is the Lord's side, revealed to us in his 
 holy word. I told him I had read the ''digressives'" side some; and 
 the more I read it, the more I was convinced of their errors. I be- 
 lieve fully the Advocate's grounds the only true grounds that will 
 " keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." 
 
 It is natural that Meeks should lay the evil growing" out of 
 his own departures from the truth upon others. This is hu- 
 man nature. I remember to have seen a letter written by him, 
 in which he said if he had it in his power he would chop ev- 
 ery organ in the world into splinters ; but now he thinks those 
 who oppose the use of the organ in the worship bad fellows. 
 
 Ahab, king of Israel, carried the people generally into the 
 worship of Baal. Elijah was left alone of the prophets of 
 God. He kept alive the worship of the true God in Israel. 
 Ahab sought him in every nation to slay him. Finally, Elijah 
 met King Ahab. "And Ahab said unto him, Is it thou, thou 
 troubler of Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled 
 Israel ; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have for- 
 saken the commandments of Jehovah, and thou hast followed 
 the Baalim." (1 Kings 18: 17, 18.) Had Elijah gone with 
 the rest, they would have had a unanimous thing for Baal. 
 So if all Christians had set aside the commandments of God 
 and gone off with those who set aside the order of God, they 
 would have a unanimous thing for this modern order. But 
 it is true now, as in the days of Elijah, that those who depart 
 from the law of God, no matter how many they may be, are 
 the guilty disturbers of Israel. God cannot condemn those 
 who remain true and faithful to his order. He must condemn 
 those who depart from his order. 
 
 A similar lesson is taught us in 1 Kings 22. Jehoshaphat, 
 king of Judah, made alliance with this same Ahab, king of Is- 
 rael and worshiper of Baal, to recover Ramoth-gilead from 
 Syria. "Jehoshaphat said unto the king of Israel, Inquire 
 
Israel, Who Disturbs? 233 
 
 first, I pray thee, for the word of Jehovah. Then the king of 
 Israel gathered the prophets [of Baal] together, about four 
 hundred men, and said unto them, Shall I go against Ramoth- 
 gilead to battle, or shall I forbear? And they said, Go up; 
 for the Lord will deliver it into the hand of the king. But 
 Jehoshaphat said, Is there not here a prophet of Jehovah be- 
 sides, that we may inquire of him? And the king of Israel 
 said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man by whom we may 
 inquire of Jehovah, Micaiah the son of Imlah : but I hate him ; 
 for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And 
 Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so." (Verses 5-8.) 
 They sent for Micaiah and called him before the two kings. 
 " The messenger that went to call Micaiah spake unto him, 
 saying, Behold now, the words of the prophets declare good 
 unto the king with one mouth : let thy word, I pray thee, be 
 like the word of one of them, and speak thou good." (Verse 
 13.) What an appeal for union! What a wretch not to yield 
 to the appeal ! " Micaiah said, As Jehovah liveth, what Jeho- 
 vah saith unto me, that will I speak." (Verse 14.) Yet he 
 answered as did the others, but in a tone that showed he did 
 not mean it. "And the king said unto him, How many times 
 shall I adjure thee that thou speak unto me nothing but the 
 truth in the name of Jehovah? And he said, I saw all Israel 
 scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shep- 
 herd : and Jehovah said, These have no master ; let them re- 
 turn every man to his house in peace. And the king of Israel 
 said to Jehoshaphat, Did I not tell thee that he would not 
 prophesy good concerning me, but evil?" (Verses 16-18.) 
 Now was not Micaiah a harsh-spirited, contentious wretch, to 
 refuse such overtures for harmony and sweet-spirited appeals 
 for peace and union? 
 
 The present plea for union and harmony is in the same 
 spirit and on the same grounds as that made to Micaiah. We 
 are under the same obligations to be true to the Lord and his 
 word that Micaiah was. There would have no good come of 
 a union gained by Elijah or Micaiah surrendering the truth 
 to bring about this union. It would have rested under the 
 curse of God. A union now not based on a strict observance 
 of the law of God can bring no good to' any being. A union 
 brought about by departing from his order or in compromises 
 of the truths of God must rest under the curse of God. The 
 wrath of God cannot rest upon those who through faith in 
 
234 Israel, Who Disturbs? 
 
 Christ cling firmly to his law. His condemnation must rest 
 upon those who set aside God's order and change his appoint- 
 ments. If these propositions are not true, the Bible is not 
 true. 
 
 But the efforts to unite by setting aside the order of God 
 never bring union. Some one sent me a clipping of McGar- 
 vey's from the Christian Standard, insisting that the line be 
 drawn to sever the more advanced from the more conservative. 
 Where shall such a line be drawn, and who shall draw it? 
 God alone has the right to draw the line. When we neglect 
 his line, other lines are vain. McGarvey meant by this that 
 quite a number of preachers and some churches had gone so 
 far in setting aside the order of God, and substituting in its 
 place the ways and authority of men, that it is wrong to rec- 
 ognize them as Christians, and a line should be drawn cutting 
 them off from those more faithful to God. But who shall 
 draw the line, and where shall it be drawn? Who has the 
 right to draw a line denning the bounds of the church of the 
 living God? Surely no human being or set of human beings 
 has the right to draw such a line. Only God himself has the 
 right to draw a line denning the limits and bounds of the 
 church of God. For men to do this is to assume the authority 
 and power of God. God has drawn that line. Jesus drew it 
 when he said : " Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, 
 shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the 
 will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 7: 21.) Again: 
 " In vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the 
 precepts of men." (Matt. 15: 9.) "This is the love of God, 
 that we keep his commandments." (1 John 5: 3.) The line 
 has been drawn by God, marked by the blood of the Son of 
 God. All that the child of God is required to do is to stand 
 faithful to the requirements of God, and the line will show 
 itself. Those who forsake the law of God will depart and 
 lay the blame on the faithful ones. 
 
 JACOB AND ESAU. 
 
 Was the way that Esau was treated by Jacob and his mother, and 
 the treatment that Joseph received of his brothers, contrary to the 
 will of God? 
 
 The treatment of Esau and Joseph was sinful. It was done 
 in a wrong spirit and for a wicked purpose. Jacob and the 
 brethren of Joseph all suffered intensely for the wrongs they 
 
Jewelry as an Ornament. 235 
 
 did. Jacob suffered in the exile from his family and the fear 
 and dread of meeting Esau, and the similar things he endured 
 from Laban and his sons. The brothers of Joseph suffered 
 terribly for their sins, as may be seen in the account of his 
 being made known to them in Egypt. It would be difficult 
 to conceive of a greater punishment than they endured. 
 While they sinned, God overruled their sins to work out his 
 own purposes and ends. He brought both Jacob and the 
 brothers of Joseph to repentance, and in their repentance they 
 found a blessing. Both Esau and Joseph were disciplined by 
 the wrong they endured. Joseph accepting it in a proper 
 spirit, it brought good to him. He was without doubt unduly 
 puffed up with his importance, and God, through his disci- 
 pline, took it out of him and made him a true and humble ser- 
 vant of God, anxious to return good for the evil his brothers 
 had done him. So Jacob received his blessing in spite of his 
 wrong, and Joseph, through the wrong of his brothers, was 
 schooled for his work. 
 
 JEWELRY AS AN ORNAMENT. 
 
 Please tell me if it is scriptural to wear rings, watches, lockets, 
 bracelets, and gold-rim spectacles. 
 
 Paul says : " In like manner, that women adorn themselves 
 in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety ; not with 
 braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which 
 becometh women professing godliness) through good works." 
 (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) Peter says: "Whose adorning let it not 
 be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing 
 jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel; but let it be the hid- 
 den man of the heart, in the incorruptible apparel of a meek 
 and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price." 
 (1 Pet. 3: 3, 4.) I do not see how any one can fail to see 
 that wearing gold as an ornament is forbidden. I do not 
 know how, nor do I have any desire to explain the prohibition 
 away. I think it a mark of reckless folly for any one to disre- 
 gard the command of God for the little gratification of pride 
 found in the wearing of a little gold. There are doubtless 
 uses for which gold serves a better purpose than anything 
 else. But when used as an ornament, it is a sin, because it 
 violates the law of God. 
 
236 Job and His Afflictions. 
 
 JOB AND HIS AFFLICTIONS. 
 
 Tell us how long Job was afflicted with the sores. 
 
 I know of no data for determining, with any deflniteness, 
 this question, nor did I ever see an opinion on the subject. 
 In thinking of it, I would say that it lasted him for a season — 
 a few months. First, it was common among the patriarchs 
 to come up yearly with offerings to the Lord, as it became the 
 law among the Jews. It is thought that the day when the 
 sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord re- 
 ferred to this yearly gathering. On one of these gatherings 
 God gave permission to Satan to strip Job of his property — 
 children and all that he had. This was done. Job remained 
 faithful. On the next annual gathering before the Lord, God 
 delivered him to Satan to afflict his person. This was done 
 with sores and boils very soon. He was afflicted long enough 
 for his friends, of Teman, Shuah, and Naama, to hear of it 
 and come to mourn with and comfort him. Life was long 
 and people did not hurry then. They doubtless camped in 
 tents, as most of the men of the East did, both at home and 
 especially in traveling. They remained seven days before 
 they approached him, and then through the period of his af- 
 fliction. While it is not so said, the facts indicate that they 
 remained until his recovery, and he made offerings for them. 
 It is possible that this did not occur during their stay, but the 
 facts strongly point to it. I would then say that it all oc- 
 curred within the dry season of the year — three or four months. 
 
 We know nothing of the age in which he lived, save what 
 we gather from his surroundings. His herds in different 
 places and the marauding bands of thieves would favor an 
 early age. He was old enough when introduced to us to have 
 seven sons and three daughters. The eldest brother has a 
 home and house of his own, and the other nine are all at his 
 house feasting and drinking wine. This would show that 
 they were all probably well grown. The children were killed ; 
 the affliction of boils came upon him. He must have been 
 what would now be called a man well advanced in age. He 
 was healed, seven sons and three daughters were again born 
 to him, and he lived after he was healed one hundred and forty 
 years, and gained riches and enjoyed prosperity greater than 
 before. 
 
 I think the circumstances would indicate that the affliction 
 
Jonah, Repented unto the Preaching of. 237 
 
 and healing occurred within one season of the year — the dry 
 season — within from three to six months. This is the best I 
 can do for it. 
 
 JOHN'S BAPTISM. 
 
 Do you think John's baptism was a Christian baptism? Were the 
 people who were baptized by John still under the law? When were 
 the old laws repealed? What does the word unto in Acts 19 mean? 
 If these disciples were rebaptized, why was not Apollos? 
 
 The old law was authoritatively taken out of the way when 
 Jesus was crucified ; he fulfilled the law, taking it out of the 
 way, nailing it to the cross. Yet it is sure there was a grad- 
 ual relaxing of the claims of the law and the introduction of 
 the reign of the Messiah before his death. "The law and the 
 prophets were until John : from that time the Gospel of the 
 kingdom of God is preached, and every man entereth violently 
 into it." (Luke 16: 16.) Then some of the ordinances of the 
 law were observed, after the death of Jesus, until the destruc- 
 tion of the temple in Jerusalem. The law gradually gave 
 way; the rule of Christ gradually came in. So it was not an 
 abrupt ending of one jutting up against a square beginning of 
 the other. One was spliced upon the other. Pentecost, fifty 
 days after the resurrection of the Lord, is regarded as the 
 time when the kingdom was opened to men. 
 
 I do not think John's baptism was the same with Christ's 
 baptism. One was intended to introduce the other, as the 
 author of one introduced the author of the other. I do not 
 believe that those baptized into John's baptism, while it was 
 in force, were required to be baptized into Christ. They con- 
 stituted his own, prepared for him at his coming. (John 1 : 
 1-12.) They were in the transition state. If the apostles and 
 others had been rebaptized when accepting Christ, it certainly 
 would have been mentioned. If it was common to rebaptize 
 all of John's disciples, then the baptism of John's disciples 
 (Acts 19) would not have been told. It is told as a peculiar 
 case. It is supposed that Apollos was baptized while John's 
 baptism was in force — that is, before Pentecost; the others, 
 after John's mission had ended. 
 
 JONAH, REPENTED UNTO THE PREACHING OF. 
 
 Does eis ever mean because of? " They repented at the preaching 
 of Jonah." (Luke 1.1: 32.) Did they repent in order to his preaching 
 
238 Jonah, Repented unto the Preaching op. 
 
 or because of his preaching? I desire to know the truth along this 
 line. 
 
 They repented unto the preaching of Jonah, or in order to 
 practice the teaching of Jonah. While the preaching of Jonah 
 may have been the occasion and ground of their repentance, 
 the end or purpose of the repentance was that they might re- 
 ceive the blessings or promises contained in the preaching. 
 Eis never points backward, but always forward. 
 
 JUDAS ISCARIOT. 
 
 (1) Luke (22: 3) says: "And Satan entered into Judas who is called 
 Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." Was Judas a righteous 
 man before this, or was he a devil from the beginning of his apostle- 
 ship? (See John 6: 70.) From what did Judas fall? (Acts 2: 25.) 
 These questions came up in our Bible lesson, and one brother took 
 the position that Judas was a righteous man until Satan entered into 
 him and he went to betray the Master. 
 
 I do not think Satan ever entered a man unless he was a wel- 
 come guest. I do not think he ever entered a good man's 
 heart or a clean animal. He entered the swine ; they were 
 unclean. When the demon was cast out of a man, he returned 
 only when he found his house " empty, swept, and garnished. " 
 (Matt. 12: 44.) Six days before the passover, when the devil 
 is said to have entered into him, Jesus said : " He was a thief, 
 and having the bag took away what was put therein. " (John 
 12: 6.) Before this, "J esus answered them, Did not I choose 
 you the twelve, and one of you is a devil? Now he spake 
 of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he it was that should 
 betray him, being one of the twelve." Judas was one who had 
 the character that would admit the devil when he offered in- 
 ducement enough. 
 
 (2) In answer to a query, you say: "Judas was pointed out as 
 traitor, and left before the Lord's Supper was instituted." I have con- 
 tended all the while that Judas was present when the Supper was in- 
 stituted and that he partook of the bread and wine, and have been 
 taking for proof Matt. 26: 17-23; Mark 14: 17-23; Luke 22: 14-23, espe- 
 cially Luke 22: 21, which reads thus: "But, behold, the hand of him 
 that betrayeth me is with me on the table." Please answer, giving the 
 proof that "Judas . . . left before the Lord's Supper was insti- 
 tuted," for the benefit of myself and others. 
 
 The only difficulty in the matter is that no one of the evan- 
 gelists gives a full, connected account of the institution of the 
 Supper. It was instituted at the close of the passover supper. 
 Judas was present at the passover supper. During the supper 
 
Judas Iscariot. 239 
 
 Jesus told them one of them would betray him, and pointed 
 out Judas as the traitor. Matt. 26: 20-25 tells this. John (13 : 
 20-30) tells that Jesus pointed Judas out, and* he went out 
 immediately and sought the mob that would take Jesus. After 
 he was gone, Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper and gave to 
 his disciples. John then tells that he spoke to them what is 
 presented in Matt. 14-16 before they went to Gethsemane. 
 Matthew tells after the Supper that they sung a hymn and 
 went out. So many conclude that they did this without do- 
 ing anything else. All the records should be studied together. 
 They met for the passover supper. Jesus washed his disci- 
 ples' feet. While eating the supper, he pointed out Judas as 
 the traitor. Judas immediately left to get his band ; the 
 Lord's Supper was instituted ; then, after the Supper, Jesus 
 made the talk as given in John 14-16, closing with the prayer 
 in John 17. They then went to Gethsemane, and he three 
 times prayed that this cup pass " from me : nevertheless not 
 my will, but thine, be done." Then Judas appeared with his 
 band and arrested him, carried him before the high priest, and 
 the trial began. It all occurred the same night. 
 
 (3) In our Bible class we had the question: "Who filled the place 
 of Judas Iscariot — Matthias or Paul? " We have some very fine Bible 
 students that differ. Some think Matthias, others think Paul. So I 
 come to you for information. 
 
 I cannot see why such questions are asked. The Bible as 
 plainly says Matthias was to take the place of Judas as it is 
 possible for it to say it. If it does not tell the truth when it 
 tells this, I do not know whether it tells the truth anywhere 
 or not. If the book tells what is not true in as simple a mat- 
 ter as this, it is not worthy of credit in anything. Peter not 
 only said he took the place of Judas, but Luke wrote it forty 
 years after the occurrence. Both of them bear false testimony 
 if Matthias was not selected to take the place of Judas. On 
 the other hand, it is not once hinted that Paul had any con- 
 nection with Judas or his place. Judas was one of the apos- 
 tles to the Jews, or the twelve tribes of the house of Israel ; 
 Paul and Barnabas were the apostles to the Gentiles. People 
 get wise above " what is written " in another point that leads 
 to their denial of " what is written " — that is, they conclude 
 that there could be but twelve apostles. There is nothing in 
 the Bible that indicates this is true. We first make a law 
 that there could be but twelve apostles, then charge the Bible 
 
240 Judas Iscariot. 
 
 with telling what is not true to prove it. This is lower crit- 
 icism. Between the high and the low critics, the old Book 
 gets many a buff and rebuff ; but I think it will stand despite 
 them all. 
 
 JUDGING. 
 
 Please explain Matt. 7:1; Rom. 2: 1. Harmonize them with 1 Cor. 
 5: 12; 1 Cor. 6: 2-5. I do not understand these scriptures. Under 
 what consideration is one commanded to judge, and under what con- 
 sideration is one commanded not to judge? 
 
 Judge is used in the sense of condemn. Be not too ready to 
 condemn. Some persons are ready to put the worst construc- 
 tion on the actions of all and to condemn harshly and unjustly. 
 People who so judge or condemn others will be judged in the 
 same way. The Scriptures require us to put the best con- 
 struction on the acts of our fellow-men, not to condemn them 
 until forced to do so — that is, until no other construction can 
 be put on their actions. It is the same thing as to condemn 
 " evil surmising," " charity thinketh no evil," and like phrases. 
 On the other hand, when the actions of persons will allow 
 no other construction, one must apply the laws of God to them 
 impartially. In dealing with those in the church, do it accord- 
 ing to the law of God. I do not know in what sense Chris- 
 tians are to judge angels, but so it is. 
 
 JUDICIAL OATHS. 
 
 One of the sisters here desires your explanation of Matt. 5: 33-37. 
 Please pay especial attention to the custom of swearing in court, etc., 
 for that is the point about which there is some trouble. 
 
 The subject of swearing is one on which there has been 
 much difference of judgment. Many insist that this prohibi- 
 tion does not apply to judicial oaths, but that vows and obli- 
 gations of a different character are here forbidden. The first 
 statement, " Ye have heard that it was said to them of old 
 time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto 
 the Lord thine oaths," would seem to show that he was speak- 
 ing of obligations, oaths, or vows made to the Lord. These 
 were not uncommon in the days of Moses. " When a man 
 voweth a vow unto Jehovah, or sweareth an oath to bind his 
 soul with a bond, he shall not break his word ; he shall do ac- 
 cording to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Num. 30: 
 2.) Jephthah's vow was of this kind. " When thou shalt vow 
 
Justification by Faith. 241 
 
 a vow unto Jehovah thy God, thou shalt not be slack to 
 pay it : for Jehovah thy God will surely require it of thee ; 
 and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to 
 vow, it shall be no sin in thee." (Deut. 23: 21, 22.) These 
 were vows made to the Lord to do certain things if he would 
 bless, etc. This kind of vow is forbidden by Jesus Christ. 
 The meaning is : Ask God to bless you ; do the best you can 
 without vows and oaths of any kind. While Jesus forbids the 
 taking of these oaths and vows, he goes further and forbids 
 all oaths. You cannot swear by heaven, or earth, or Jerusa- 
 lem, or anything else. James repeats the same : " But above all 
 things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by 
 the earth, nor by any other oath ; but let your yea be yea, and 
 your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment." (James 5: 
 12.) This seems to me to forbid all confirming of our state- 
 ments by oaths or vows. An oath is an appeal to God to, 
 witness the truth of what is said, with an imprecation of 
 his wrath if we tell not the truth. This seems to be more 
 than letting your yea be yea or your nay be nay; and if 
 so, it is prohibited. The courts of the country do allow per- 
 son to affirm a thing as true without calling on the namt of 
 the Lord. Some think this as bad as the other. It may be; 
 but, when in doubt, I always take the safer ground, and so, 
 when called into court, ask to let me affirm without calling on 
 the name of the Lord. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Will you please give us an article setting- forth fully and completely 
 the scriptural teachings of Rom. 5: 1 — "Being therefore justified by 
 faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ " — for 
 the benefit of some of us who want to be fully satisfied in regard to 
 this much-disputed scripture? 
 
 Excepting that this passage has been mystified by a vicious 
 theology, it would be difficult to make it clearer. Therefore 
 shows this the conclusion of the foregoing facts and reason- 
 ing. The apostle has been contrasting the idea of justification 
 and salvation through Christ and through the works of the 
 Jewish law. Paul says : " Because by the works of the law 
 shall no flesh be justified in his sight ; for through the law 
 cometh the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law 
 a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed 
 
 by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God 
 16 
 
242 Justification by Faith. 
 
 through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe." (Rom. 
 3: 20-22.) This is a plain declaration that God justifies not 
 through the righteousness that comes by the law (the law of 
 Moses is meant, for he says this law and the prophets witness 
 of Christ), but by the righteousness that comes through faith 
 in Christ Jesus. If man becomes righteous, some one is en- 
 titled to the credit of it ; and if man himself works this right- 
 eousness, it allows boasting. Paul asks : " Where then is 
 the glorying? It is excluded. By what manner of law? of 
 works? Nay: but by a law of faith." (Rom. 3: 27.) This 
 shows that the righteousness which is of faith and which does 
 not allow boasting comes through " a law of faith." The law 
 of faith is the law to which faith leads a man to submit — the 
 law given by him in whom we believe, Christ Jesus. Faith 
 in Christ binds a man to walk according to the law of Christ. 
 The law of Christ, then, is the law of faith. Justification 
 comes by this law of Christ. But a law justifies none, save 
 those who walk in it. Then faith justifies only those who 
 walk in the law of faith. 
 
 In Rom. 4, Abraham is given to us as an example of justi- 
 fication by faith. The law of Moses was not given in Abra- 
 ham's day. No general law to govern 'man was revealed, but 
 he was required to believe in God and to walk according to the 
 directions God gave. 
 
 In doing these things commanded by God, James says that 
 he obeyed God, and in this obedience his faith was made per- 
 fect and was imputed unto him for righteousness. A faith 
 made perfect by obedience to God alone justified Abraham. 
 After Abraham's day the law was added. During the reign 
 of the law the principle of justification was, " The man that 
 doeth the righteousness which is of the law shall live thereby " 
 (Rom. 10: 5), without any reference to his faith. "But the 
 righteousness which is of faith saith thus, Say not in thy 
 heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ 
 down :) or, Who shall descend into the abyss? (that is, to bring 
 Christ up from the dead.) But what saith it? The word is 
 nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart : that is, the word of 
 faith, which we preach : because if thou shalt confess with 
 thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt believe in thy heart that 
 God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved : for with 
 the heart man believeth unto righteousness ; and with the 
 mouth confession is made unto salvation." (Rom. 10: 6-10.) 
 
Justification by Faith. 243 
 
 Showing plainly that the word of faith must be received, Christ 
 must be confessed with the mouth and in the life. " But they 
 did not all hearken to the glad tidings. For Isaiah saith, Lord, 
 who hath believed our report?" (Verse 16.) Showing 
 plainly that obedience to the gospel and believing in Christ 
 are the same, and that justification by faith involves obedi- 
 ence such as Abraham rendered, involves walking in his steps, 
 involves obedience to the law of faith and obedience to the 
 gospel. 
 
 Abraham was justified by faith through doing the will of 
 God. The law was added and reigned from Moses to Christ. 
 When the law was taken out of the way, the principle of justi- 
 fication by faith — by the law of faith, the words of the gospel — 
 was restored. If any one will examine and see how Abra- 
 ham's faith justified him, he can easily determine how our 
 faith will justify us. 
 
 " Being therefore justified by faith " means exactly the same 
 as the expression : " For ye are all the sons of God through 
 faith." (Gal. 3: 26.) 'Those who are justified by faith are 
 made sons of God through faith. Faith justifies a man at the 
 same time and in the same way that faith makes him a son 
 of God. The Spirit of God says : " Ye are all sons of God, 
 through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were bap- 
 tized into Christ did put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) Show- 
 ing that faith makes a man a son of God by leading him to 
 trust God — to distrust himself and his own works, to be bur- 
 ied out of self and to be raised in Christ Jesus: In the same 
 way it justifies him. Some say that faith is used to indicate 
 the whole plan of salvation, the leading principle of which 
 is faith. This may be so. If so, it does not alter a single 
 truth here stated. But it is not needed to so construe this 
 to get clear of any imaginary difficulty thrown in the way 
 by the vicious theology of past or present ages. God, in 
 speaking of faith, always means an active, working, obedi- 
 ent faith, a faith that perfects itself by works; and a faith 
 that does not lead to obedience he characterizes as a dead 
 faith. He likens it to a body without spirit or life. Paul ex- 
 plains (Gal. 3 : 26) how faith justifies or makes us sons of God. 
 Whenever a man is spoken of as being a son of God through 
 faith or of enjoying any of the benefits and blessings of a child 
 of God by faith, the means by which faith makes us children of 
 
244 Justification by Faith. 
 
 God are necessarily implied as conditions of the attainment of 
 the blessing. 
 
 KEYS OF THE KINGDOM. 
 
 (1) Please explain what you understand Christ meant by " the keys 
 of the kingdom." (Matt. 16: 19.) Does the last clause of the same 
 verse give the apostles right to make laws for the church, or what 
 does it mean? 
 
 The use of keys is to lock and unlock, to close and open the 
 door. Peter was authorized to open the door of the kingdom 
 to the world. He made known the terms on which men 
 could enter and the terms that would bar their entrance into 
 the kingdom, or church, of God. " He that believeth and is 
 baptized " tells the conditions of entrance ; " He that disbe- 
 lieveth shall be condemned" (Mark 16: 16) gives the condi- 
 tions that bar an entrance ; " Repent ye, and be baptized " 
 (Acts 2: 38), gives the conditions of entrance. To refuse this 
 is the bar to the entrance. If it was intended to ask why 
 keys are in the plural, I do not believe it has any significance. 
 Keys is more euphonious and more easily pronounced than 
 key; so the plural form was used. The clause, "Whatsoever 
 thou shalt bind [or loose] on earth shall be bound [or sanc- 
 tioned] in heaven," only means to say that the Spirit shall 
 guide in this work of declaring the conditions of entrance, and 
 they will all be sanctioned in heaven. There is no legislative 
 power for the church of God, save God himself. The apostles 
 were only the agents through whom God made known his 
 laws. A church that has other laws or introduces anything 
 not ordained by God into its service so far rejects God as the 
 Lawmaker, and ceases to be a church of God. 
 
 (2) Does any one on earth hold the keys of the kingdom? If so, 
 who is it? 
 
 Jesus said (Matt. 16 : 16-18) that he would build his church 
 on the truth that Peter confessed — that "Jesus is the Christ, 
 the Son of the living God." If any doubt that he meant this 
 truth is the rock on which he would build, let him read the 
 following: "For other foundation can no man lay than that 
 which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3: 11.) The 
 Holy Spirit said that no other foundation for the faith of the 
 Christian or the foundation of the church could be laid than 
 Jesus the Christ. Paul states the same thing. (Eph. 2: 20.) 
 
Killing a Human Being. 245 
 
 Jesus then says to Peter : " I will give unto thee the keys of 
 the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on 
 earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt 
 loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." What Peter bound 
 with the keys was forever bound in heaven ; what he loosed 
 with them on earth God forever loosed in heaven. In other 
 words, Peter locked and unlocked the doors once, and no 
 change has been made of. them since. He gave the terms of 
 admission ; God approved them, and they can never be 
 changed. No one on earth has the keys of the kingdom of 
 heaven. 
 
 KILLING A HUMAN BEING. 
 
 (1) If a man has a desire to kill a man, and that desire is so great 
 that he would kill him if he had the chance, is he not just as guilty as 
 though he had committed the deed — in God's sight, I mean? 
 
 I take it that the man, after the excitement was over, did not 
 treasure the desire in his heart. If he did, while not as guilty 
 as though he had killed the man, he is at heart a murderer. 
 His sin is against himself and God, but no injury to the other. 
 
 This is the same old question under a different form. Is 
 the will taken for the deed? If a man under strong religious 
 excitement feels like he would obey the gospel if circum- 
 stances favored, but, as. they do not, he fails to do it, the ex- 
 citement passes away, and he does not obey, will the mo- 
 mentary purpose when the feelings were aroused afterwards 
 be accepted for the service itself? No one will say that it 
 would be. In this case the man became excited with feelings 
 of animosity, so he would have killed the man had the cir- 
 cumstances favored. They did not favor it, his excitement 
 cooled, and he now would not do it. Is he as guilty as though 
 he had done it? Most certainly not. He sinned in letting his 
 feelings get the mastery of him, but he committed no sin on 
 the man. The providence of God hindered him. The feel- 
 ings, the will, are nowhere taken for the deed. The sin was 
 in his own heart, momentarily cherished, but no wrong was 
 done to the other, to his family, to the public. 
 
 (2) Is life taking justifiable under any circumstances? I beg leave 
 to state I am not seeking any one's life, but want information. 
 
 There is no example in the New Testament of a Christian 
 taking the life of his fellow-man, and hence of God's treatment 
 
246 Killing a Human Being. 
 
 of such a case under the New Testament law. This would 
 indicate that it is not allowable for a Christian to shed blood. 
 We know that it is contrary to the law and spirit of the Scrip- 
 tures. Paul suffered much from the hands of men — the mob 
 and the civil rulers. He appealed to the civil authorities 
 sometimes to protect himself from their cruelty and to save 
 his life from the mob that threatened it ; but he never appealed 
 to the authorities to punish those who persecuted or beat him 
 contrary to the law. He appealed to the law to protect him- 
 self from lawless persecution, but never to punish or take 
 vengeance on his persecutors ; -he left vengeance in the hands 
 of the Lord. So it is wrong to premeditately shed blood. 
 Thus it is wrong for a Christian to determine beforehand that 
 he will shed blood or take the life of a fellow-man, to prepare 
 for it or determine in any emergency that he will take life. 
 It is his duty to pray God to deliver him from the temptation, 
 keep him from the evil, and seek in every way to avoid the 
 temptation to do it. While this is true, I think it possible 
 that a Christian man might be placed in circumstances that, 
 under strong temptation, he might kill a fellow-man and be 
 excused in the sight of God. It is, on the other hand, highly 
 probable that if a Christian striving constantly to live as God 
 would have him live, seeks to avoid the temptation to sin, 
 prays to be delivered daily from temptation, he will never be 
 tempted to sin. 
 
 KING, IS CHRIST NOW? 
 
 Is Christ a king? If so, when was he crowned? Can he be a king 
 and a prince at the same time? How can he be a king- and an advo- 
 cate at the same time? 
 
 If Christ is not a King now, I cannot see when he ever will 
 be. Paul said : " Then cometh the end, when he shall deliver 
 up the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have 
 abolished all rule and all authority and power. For he must 
 reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. The 
 last enemy that shall be abolished is death. . . . And 
 when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the 
 Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things 
 unto him, that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15 : 24-28.) He 
 reigns now, will reign till the last enemy is destroyed, then 
 he (Christ) will be subject unto him (God) that put all things 
 under him. He now possesses an authority that he will not 
 
Kingdom, Has the/Been Established? 247 
 
 possess when he, having conquered the last enemy, will be- 
 come subject to God, that God " may be all in all." Paul said 
 to Timothy : " Who [Christ] is the blessed and only Poten- 
 tate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords." (1 Tim. 6: 
 15.) Christ clearly has as much authority as he will ever 
 have. In the exercise of that authority it takes time to over- 
 come his enemies. When they are overcome, he will surren- 
 der the kingdom that he has rescued up to the Father and be 
 subject to him. The word prince is often used in the sense 
 of king. Webster defines it: "(1) The one of highest rank; a 
 sovereign; a monarch. (2) The son of a king or emperor, or 
 the issue of a royal family." Jesus Christ is the Son of the 
 King or Emperor of the universe. He is in the exercise of 
 kingly powers and prerogatives. He was given the kingly 
 prerogative when all authority in heaven and earth was given 
 into his hand. If we will follow him, we will find his power 
 sufficient to save us. No truth can be elicited by trying to 
 draw a distinction between him as Prince and King, and the 
 effort to draw these unreal and speculative distinctions indi- 
 cate a disposition to follow untaught and unprofitable ques- 
 tions. 
 
 KINGDOM, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHURCH AND. 
 
 Does the kingdom and the church mean the same thing or not? 
 Give your reasons for thinking them the same, if so. 
 
 Not exactly. The kingdom embraces the church, but is, I 
 think, more extensive in its signification. The church em- 
 braces the disciples of Christ separated from the world by obe- 
 dience to Christ. It has both a local and a general applica- 
 tion. In its local application it refers to those in a community, 
 separated from the world, meeting together to worship God 
 in his appointments. In its general application, it embraces 
 all the disciples in a country, nation, or the world, separated 
 to the service of God. The kingdom of God embraces every 
 thing and person in the universe over which God rules as 
 King. The term kingdom is not only more extensive in its 
 reach, but it is viewed from a different standpoint. 
 
 KINGDOM, HAS THE, BEEN ESTABLISHED? 
 
 (1) What is meant by the following expressions in Dan. 2: 44? 
 " In the days of these kings." Make these kings clear, for Adventists 
 
248 Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 
 
 tell us that there were no kings at the Pentecost period that fill this 
 demand of prophecy. 
 
 The usual interpretation placed on this image that Nebu- 
 chadnezzar saw is that of the four kingdoms indicated by the 
 metal forming the body of a man. The gold represented the 
 first, or Babylonian, empire ; this attained practically to uni- 
 versal dominion. There probably was never a time when 
 some provinces or minor kingdoms were not in rebellion 
 against the emperor, or king, of Babylon ; but practically the 
 Babylonish empire ruled and hectored over the known world. 
 Still the language of Daniel was direct and specific : " Thou, 
 O king, art king of kings, unto whom the God of heaven hath 
 given the kingdom, the power, and the strength, and the glory ; 
 and wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the 
 field and the birds of the heavens hath he given into thy hand, 
 and hath made thee to rule over them all : thou art the head 
 of gold." (Dan. 2: 37, 38.) The application of this head of 
 gold to the king or kingdom of Babylon is settled by the 
 prophet himself. The image bearing the form of man, com- 
 posed of these different metals, is accepted to mean that these 
 kingdoms were of human origin in contrast with the kingdom 
 of God represented by the little stone cut out of the mountain 
 without hands, without human providing, wisdom, or skill. 
 Only this one kingdom is clearly identified to Nebuchadnezzar 
 at this time. This was to warn him that his kingdom must 
 end. In connection with this is given here the truth that of 
 these human kingdoms three others in succession, one after 
 another, will rise and fall — come to an end; but the fifth king- 
 dom, represented by the little stone cut out of the mountain 
 without hands, that " cometh not with observation " or show 
 of outward earthly power, as says Jesus in Luke 17: 20, or the 
 " stone rejected in the beginning by the builders," became the 
 head of the corner, would stand forever. He tells of the suc- 
 ceeding kingdoms, one after the other, absorbing the strength 
 and possessions of the preceding, so that the riches, power, 
 and strength of all are concentrated in the last. So in its de- 
 struction by the little stone cut out of the mountain without 
 hands, it is truly said that it will break in pieces the gold, sil- 
 ver, brass, and iron, or the strength of all these concentrated 
 in one. Adventists confound the first coming of the kingdom, 
 when it was without observation, with the second coming of 
 the Son of God, which is to be as the lightning that shineth 
 
Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 249 
 
 out of one part under the kingdom of heaven unto the other 
 part under heaven. The point of the prophet here was to in- 
 dicate to this ruler of the first kingdom the destruction of his 
 kingdom by his own subjects, the absorption of it in these 
 other kingdoms, and the destruction of all by this kingdom to 
 be set up by the God of heaven, which must break in pieces 
 and destroy all these kingdoms ; and it should stand forever. 
 
 In Dan. 7 these four kingdoms are again set forth under 
 the type of four ravenous beasts. The beasts that typify these 
 three kingdoms are mentioned ; that which typified the fourth 
 is not named. In Dan. 8 Gabriel told him what should come 
 to pass at the destruction of the kingdom of Babylon. Two 
 kingdoms are presented — one typified by the ram with two 
 horns, which he says was Media and Persia, followed by the 
 he-goat, which represents Grecia. (Verses 20, 21.) This 
 fixes the three kingdoms represented by the gold, silver, and 
 brass on the Babylonian, the Medo-Persian, and the Grecian. 
 If it be asked why the fourth is not mentioned specifically as 
 these, I can only say that I do not know ; probably because 
 the advent of the fourth kingdom was not at hand, would not 
 be seen by any living, and these details of the working here 
 given were given to test the truth of the prophecies and the 
 claims of Daniel to be a prophet, speaking for God. The du- 
 ration of the kingdoms of the Medes and Persians was short, 
 that of Greece was longer, and none then living would see the 
 advent of the fourth kingdom. The only question in the in- 
 terpretation of the figure is : What constituted the fourth king- 
 dom, and what was the kingdom of God? 
 
 The fourth kingdom was represented as of iron, stronger 
 and more durable than all other metals. It was to follow, 
 overcome, and absorb the Grecian kingdom. There can be no 
 doubt as to what government or kingdom did this. All the 
 circumstances point to the Roman Empire, or government. 
 That government succeeded to the inheritances and powers 
 of the three preceding ones ; embodied the strength, riches, 
 and power of all. There is no doubt of this. The expression, 
 " In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a 
 kingdom," is commented on from different standpoints. One 
 is, these kings refers to all the four kingdoms typified in the 
 metallic body. If this were true, it would not materially alter 
 the truth. The kingdom of heaven was in preparation from 
 the days of Babylon. The Israelites in Babylon, especially 
 
250 Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 
 
 the prophets in the household of the ruler, were preparing for 
 the kingdom of heaven. This was continued through the 
 kingdoms of the Medes and Persians, of Greece, to the day of 
 its establishment under the Roman Empire. Each of these 
 empires was broken and destroyed to show them and the 
 world that the mightiest of earthly kingdoms must be de- 
 stroyed. They were destroyed because of their refusal to con- 
 form to the will of God ; they were destroyed because they 
 were founded by mortals, and, being mortal, must perish. It 
 may be truthfully said that each of these kingdoms was broken 
 in pieces by the kingdom of God, yet in its preparatory and 
 elementary state. 
 
 But these kings must refer more directly to the kings em- 
 braced in the iron empire. Sometimes it is said that there was 
 but one king reigning on the day of Pentecost. On that 
 day the kingdom in its completed state was opened to the 
 world. The work of establishing it was then completed ; the 
 purpose and preparation of establishing it existed from the 
 days of Babylon. Jesus said : " The law and the prophets 
 were until John : from that time the gospel of the kingdom of 
 God is preached, and every man entereth violently into it." 
 (Luke 16: 16.) The eight years of the Revolutionary War 
 and many years preceding were devoted to the establishment 
 of the government of the States, but it was completed only 
 when their independence was acknowledged and the govern- 
 ment was instituted. The work of establishing the kingdom 
 was actual and drawing to completion from the days of John 
 the Baptist. The birth and growth of Jesus were directly 
 parts of the establishing of the kingdom. It was completed 
 only on the day of Pentecost by the descent of the Holy Spirit 
 and the planting of the first and mother church ; but from the 
 birth of Christ to the Pentecost on which the church was 
 completed by the Holy Spirit descending and taking up his 
 abode in it three or four kings sat upon the throne of the 
 empire. Kings in the plural would necessarily be used in 
 telling of these things. 
 
 Again, the term king is used to mean ruler. Many rulers 
 of different degrees of power, as the Herods and Pilate, were 
 called kings. The pretext that there were no kings at the 
 time the kingdom of God was set up is the flimsiest pretext 
 to avoid the force of truth. 
 
Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 251 
 
 2. "Shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom?" Again, Advent- 
 ists affirm that there was nothing set up on the day of Pentecost. 
 
 To set up means to fix, place, establish, to cause to appear 
 or exist. The first church of Christ did appear and exist on 
 that day. The Holy Spirit on that day descended from heaven 
 and bore testimony to it as he had descended upon Jesus at 
 his baptism and bore testimony to him. The prophecy, "A 
 stone was cut out of the mountain without hands " (Dan. 2 : 
 45), shows that it originated with small beginnings, without 
 the display of power usual in the establishment of kingdoms. 
 The statement of Jesus, " The kingdom of God cometh not 
 with observation" (Luke 17: 20), means the same — not with 
 those outward displays of power usual in the establishment 
 of earthly kingdoms ; yet he told them in the next verse : " The 
 kingdom of God is within [or among] you." The kingdom, 
 then, in all its elements, unorganized, was in their midst. 
 These elements were brought together by the Holy Spirit on 
 the day of Pentecost and put into harmonious and working 
 order. Adventists fail to see that there are two periods, or 
 stages, of the kingdom foretold by Daniel and confirmed by 
 Jesus — (1) when it is represented by a little stone cut out 
 of the mountain without hands ; (2) when it became a great 
 mountain, breaking in pieces and destroying all the kingdoms 
 of the world. The Jews made the same mistake about Jesus. 
 He was to manifest two apparently antagonistic characters — 
 (1) a sacrificial lamb, led as a sheep to the slaughter, not 
 opening his mouth ; (2) a conquering hero, a King on whose 
 shoulders the government rests. The Jews looked for him as 
 the conquering King, and did not recognize the King in " the 
 Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world/' Je- 
 sus said, " The kingdom of God cometh not with observation " 
 in its beginning. When he comes the second time: "As the 
 lightning, when it lighteneth out of the one part under the 
 heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven ; so shall the 
 Son of man be in his day." (Luke 17 : 20, 24.) The church is as 
 much the kingdom of God when it does not attract attention 
 as when he comes in his power and glory. It is called " the 
 kingdom of God " when a little stone, when it attracts no at- 
 tention by outward displays of earthly power; it is called " the 
 kingdom of God " when preached by John, when among the 
 disciples in its elements during the life of Jesus ; and all 
 through the days of the apostles it was recognized as an estab- 
 
252 Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 
 
 lished kingdom, received by them, and preached as an existing 
 kingdom. (Matt. 12: 28; Luke 10: 9-11; 11: 20; Matt. 21: 
 31, 43; Mark 9: 1; 15: 43; Luke 6: 20; 7: 28; 9: 27; 12: 32; 
 16: 16; 17: 21; 1 Thess. 2: 12; Heb. 12 : 23 ; Rev. 1: 9.) All 
 these passages speak of a kingdom existing on earth when they 
 were written. 
 
 (3) "Which shall never be destroyed." Again, they tell us that if 
 the church is the kingdom in any sense, it was destroyed during the 
 " Dark Ages." 
 
 Adventists are noted as manufacturers of history to suit 
 their demands. The first day of the week was observed by 
 the disciples from the beginning as the day of worship. When 
 Christians had multiplied in the empire and Constantine be- 
 came favorable to the Christian religion, he set apart the first 
 day of the week as a rest day, because the Christians already 
 observed and honored it. The Adventists now say that Con- 
 stantine first set apart the day. When it suits their purpose, 
 they say that the Roman Catholic Church changed the day. 
 The church existed before the Dark Ages and from the days 
 of the apostles. If it was destroyed during the Dark Ages, 
 when was it reestablished, and by whom? I never, with any 
 degree of assurance, place interpretations on prophecies not 
 clearly indicated by the Holy Spirit ; but it has been usually 
 agreed, and I think justly, that Daniel gives the history of 
 that kingdom after it was set up. It was not a history of 
 unbroken triumphs and victories. " I beheld, and the same 
 horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them ; 
 until the ancient of davs came, *nd judgment was given to 
 the saints of the Most High, and the time came that the saints 
 possessed the kingdom. Thus he said, The fourth beast shall 
 be a fourth kinedom upon earth, which shall be diverse from 
 all the kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall 
 tread it down, and break it in pieces. And as for the ten 
 horns, out of this kingdom shall ten kings arise: and another 
 shall arise after them ; and he shall be diverse from the former, 
 and he shall put down three kings. And he shall speak words 
 against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the 
 Most High ; and he shall think to change the times and the 
 law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and 
 times and half a time. Rut the judgment shall be set, and 
 they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy 
 it unto the end. And the kingdom and the dominion, and -the 
 
Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 253 
 
 greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be 
 given to the people of the saints of the Most High : his king- 
 dom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve 
 and obey him. Here is the end of the matter. As for me, 
 Daniel, my thoughts much troubled me, and my countenance 
 was changed in me : but I kept the matter in my heart." 
 (Dan. 7: 21-28.) Now, this seems to declare after the king- 
 dom was set up, opposing powers and influences would pre- 
 vail against it and bring it to the very verge of destruction, 
 to the gates of death itself; but the judgment shall sit, and 
 the rule and dominion of the whole earth would be given to 
 the saints of the Most High, and the opposing powers would 
 be destroyed. The end of all the strifes and conflicts of earth 
 would be that the kingdom and dominion and greatness of 
 the kingdom under the whole heaven shall be given to the 
 people of the saints of the Most High. His kingdom (that 
 was to be prevailed against for a time) is an everlasting king- 
 dom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him. " Here is 
 the end of the matter." The strifes and conflicts of the king- 
 doms of earth will end in this final triumph of God's kingdom. 
 If this does apply to a period of disaster and evil to the king- 
 dom that it had been foretold God would set up, this prophecy 
 concerning it was fulfilled in the Dark Ages, when church and 
 State were united and used their power to destroy the true 
 church of God. It was brought to the verge of destruction, 
 yet lived and survived. That kingdom had to undergo that 
 or a similar history, or the prophecy was false. Adventists 
 make the fulfillment of the prophecy the reason for saying it 
 was not the kingdom set up by God. 
 
 If the kingdom had to undergo that history and it is not 
 yet set up, it will have to undergo a similar period of depres- 
 sion and destruction after Christ comes and sets it up, or the 
 prophecy of Daniel will fail. The truth is" that the church, or 
 kingdom, set up by the God of heaven was during the Dark 
 Ages, just when God said she should be, under the power of 
 her enemies overcome, persecuted, cast down, yet never de- 
 stroyed. Because she went through the trials God said she 
 should pass through, it is denied that it was the kingdom God 
 set up. The truth is that if the church, or kingdom, had not 
 gone through that period, as foretold by the prophet, she 
 would not be the true church, or kingdom, of God. The 
 church was not destroyed during the Dark Ages. At all ages 
 
254 Kingdom, Has the, Been Established? 
 
 since the kingdom was set up evidences can be found of peo- 
 ple worshiping God according to the requirements of the 
 Scriptures. The disadvantage is all with him who seeks to 
 find these people, because the writings were few and those 
 of the persecuted class were destroyed by their enemies, and 
 we are greatly left to the accounts of their enemies for reports 
 of their teaching. We know how little this can be relied on, 
 even when we are at lioerty to reply to and retain our writings. 
 The very fact that the kingdom set up by the God of heaven 
 did in its early history pass through the trials and was brought 
 to the verge of destruction, as foretold in history, yet did not 
 perish, is the strongest assurance that its future history of tri- 
 umph and glory will be as foretold in the prophecies. But 
 this cannot be until the citizens of his kingdom do his will 
 on earth as it is in heaven. Do what he commands, adding 
 nothing thereto, taking nothing from it. 
 
 KISS, HOLY. 
 
 Why is it that the disciples of Christ do not heed the command 
 given in Rom. 16: 16; 1 Cor. 16: 20; 2 Cor. 13: 12; 1 Thess. 5: 26; 1 Pet. 
 5: 14, as they do the one given in Heb. 10: 25? 
 
 They do not believe the scriptures quoted command to kiss ; 
 but when the kissing is common, as it was in those countries, 
 the command was that the kiss should be a holy one, not a 
 lustful one. This is mentioned only among the salutations 
 and incidentals of their life. No ordinance of God is so 
 treated. All the commands or ordinances of God are com- 
 manded by Jesus Christ, repeated by the apostles, and then 
 embodied in the main teachings of the Holy Spirit ; not left 
 simply to the salutations and greetings at the close of the 
 letters to the churches. Take baptism : it was introduced by 
 John, approved by Jesus during his life, commanded in the 
 commission given by Jesus and in the first sermon by the 
 Holy Spirit on Pentecost, is constantly presented in Acts of 
 Apostles, then through the letters to the churches. Or, take 
 the Lord's Supper : it was solemnly instituted by Jesus in per- 
 son, with the command to the disciples to observe it in mem- 
 ory of his death. Then the Holy Spirit presents it (Acts 2: 
 42) ; it was observed by the apostles (Acts 20: 7, with other 
 clear allusions to it) ; then it was commanded in the main 
 body of the Epistles, to be observed by the disciples. On the 
 other hand, Jesus did not practice or command kissing, so far 
 
Law, Going to. 255 
 
 as recorded. We have no example of the apostles practicing 
 it. It is nowhere mentioned in the body of the letters, but is 
 given at the close, among the incidentals and the salutations 
 to the individuals. 
 
 Kissing was the salutation of the East, and the apostle cau- 
 tioned that it should be a pure and holy kiss. He did not or- 
 dain kissing as a mode of salutation. He found it and cau- 
 tioned that it should be pure and holy among Christians. 
 
 LAW, GOING TO. 
 
 (1) Are there circumstances tinder which one Christian would be 
 justified in going to law with another Christian? There is a conten- 
 tion that the apostle taught the Corinthian brethren that, where com- 
 petent brethren can be found in the church, Christians do wrong to 
 resort to law; but where the brethren are incompetent or refuse to 
 bring about a settlement, one brother has a scriptural right to sue an- 
 other. Is this true? 
 
 There are no conditions connected with going to law with 
 brethren. It is placed in strong terms. I quote : " Dare any 
 of you, having a matter against his neighbor, go to law before 
 the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Or know ye not 
 that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world is 
 judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest mat- 
 ters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much 
 more, things that pertain to this life? If then ye have to judge 
 things pertaining to this life, do ye set them to judge who 
 are of no account in the church? I say this to move you to 
 shame. What, cannot there be found among you one wise 
 man who shall be able to decide between his brethren, but 
 brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbeliev- 
 ers? Nay, already it is altogether a defect in you, that ye 
 have lawsuits one with another. Why not rather take wrong? 
 why not rather be defrauded? Nay, but ye yourselves do 
 wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren. Or know ye not 
 that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?" 
 (1 Cor. 6: 1-9.) 
 
 Paul says that it is absurd that men cannot be found among 
 Christians competent to judge in matters arising among them. 
 Then he declares that they had better suffer wrong and be 
 defrauded than to appeal to the courts of the unbelievers 
 rather than to Christians to settle the difficulties. Then he 
 intimates clearly that those who go to law before the courts 
 
256 Law, Going to. 
 
 do it to wrong and defraud their brethren, and warns them 
 that such shall have no inheritance in the kingdom of God. 
 
 The prohibition is strong and positive against going to law 
 before the courts of the country. Sometimes business in fidu- 
 ciary capacities has to be settled in the courts, and involves 
 more or less of the formalities of the law ; but in a matter be- 
 tween brethren the prohibition is clear and unmistakable. 
 For a man to think that Christian men cannot be found compe- 
 tent to decide what is right is evidence that he desires more 
 than is just. 
 
 Christians are sometimes inclined too readily to compromise 
 matters of difference and not decide according to strict justice, 
 but they need to have practice in the work to make them feel 
 the responsibility that God has laid upon them. The reading 
 shows that competent men are to be selected to settle the dif- 
 ficulties, and one disposed to honor God's law will be very 
 slow to set aside these directions of the Holy Spirit. The spirit 
 of the instruction is that men in the church competent to de- 
 cide should be selected, and that they should be strictly just 
 and impartial in the decision. 
 
 (2) When prominent members of a congregation resort to law to 
 settle their financial differences, refuse to speak to or .in any way rec- 
 ognize each other, and the elders for any cause fail to settle the mat- 
 ter, what is the duty of the congregation to its officers, the offended 
 parties, and to itself, and what is the duty of a congregation that has 
 one of the parties to the lawsuit employed as its pastor? 
 
 The law of God is just as clear and distinct in directing how 
 difficulties between brethren must be settled as it is how a 
 man shall put on Christ. Jesus lays down the law: "And if 
 thy brother sin against thee, go, show him his fault between 
 thee and him alone: if he hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
 brother. . But if he hear thee not, take with thee one or two 
 more, that at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word 
 may be established. And if he refuse to hear them, tell it unto 
 the church : and if he refuse to hear the church also, let him 
 be unto thee as the Gentile and the publican. Verily I say 
 unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be 
 bound in heaven ; and what things soever ye shall loose on 
 earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18: 15-18.) The 
 same authority is given to the church in this case that is given 
 to Peter (Matt. 16) when he delivers the terms of entrance 
 into the kingdom of God. It ought not to he neglected in any 
 
Law of Moses and Law of Christ. 257 
 
 case. Sometimes persons think that trouble has gone so far 
 and has become so public that it is needless to attend to the 
 first requirement, but this is a mistake. It is God's order, 
 and should be observed. If there is any goodness or sincerity 
 in men, if they will to themselves talk over and try to settle 
 the difficulties between themselves, they will do it. Troubles 
 and difficulties grow in magnitude and number because when 
 they arise the parties get wrathy and refuse to talk them over 
 quietly and try to understand each other and remove the diffi- 
 culties. They can never go so far as to be beyond the reach 
 of God's means, nor can a Christian afford to ignore the means 
 provided by the Lord. I need not dwell upon the successive 
 steps if this fails. They are plain and easily understood and 
 obeyed. It is ordered that the offended party, the one that 
 first feels himself wronged, shall take the lead in this. If he 
 does not, it is the duty of the elders to see that he does it. 
 This law of God should no more be neglected or set aside 
 than any other appointment of God. It is the duty of the 
 elders to insist on the one aggrieved doing this. If they do 
 not, they fail of their duty and are accountable for the trou- 
 ble in the church. When we do what God tells us to do, and 
 trouble comes despite it, as it will sometimes, then we are not 
 responsible ; but if we do our duty, and evil comes, we are 
 clear. I do not believe God approves of pastors separate 
 from elders, nor do I believe God makes distinction as to the 
 observance of his law between persons — that is, his law ap- 
 plies with equal force and authority to all the servants of God 
 alike. If one of another congregation violates the law toward 
 one of this congregation, it is none the less the duty of all 
 to try to induce him to comply with the law of God, and, if 
 he does not, to lay it before the congregation of which he is a 
 member. To follow the law of God is the only way to secure 
 his blessing and to carry out his work here on earth. 
 
 LAW OF MOSES AND LAW OF CHRIST. 
 
 Can salvation be obtained now by keeping the law of Moses, which 
 includes the observance of the seventh, or Sabbath, day? If not, 
 when and by what authority d~d the law and the Ten Commandments 
 pass away, and by what authority does salvation exist under the dis- 
 pensation of Christ and the Lord's day, or first day of the week? Are 
 any of the Ten Commandments binding on us under the law of Christ? 
 If so, which, and how? Please set forth clearly the conditions of sal- 
 vation under the law of Christ. Please make it plain. I am very 
 much interested, as I have a friend who is an Adventist, who has never 
 17 
 
258 Law of Moses and Law op Christ. 
 
 heard the plea for New Testament Christianity, but who seems very 
 conscientious. 
 
 Paul says: "Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, 
 and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many ; but 
 as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. Now this I say : 
 A covenant confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which 
 came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, 
 so as to make the promise of none effect. For if the inherit- 
 ance is of the law, it is no more of promise : but God hath 
 granted it to Abraham by promise. What then is the law? 
 It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should 
 come to whom the promise hath been made ; and it was or- 
 dained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a me- 
 diator is not a mediator of one ; but God is one. Is the law 
 then against the promises of God ? God forbid : for if there 
 had been a law given which could make alive, verily righteous- 
 ness would have been of the law. But the scripture shut up 
 all things under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ 
 might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, 
 we were kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith 
 which should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is be- 
 come our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be 
 justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no 
 longer under a tutor. For ye are all sons of God, through 
 faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized 
 into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor 
 Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no 
 male and female ; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. And 
 if ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, heirs according 
 to promise." (Gal. 3: 16-29.) 
 
 This passage shows that the law was given as a temporary 
 arrangement to last till Christ should come. The promise 
 was made to Abraham that in his seed (Christ) all the nations 
 of the earth should be blessed. On account of transgression 
 they were unfitted to receive the promise, and the law was in- 
 troduced as a tutor to train and fit them to receive Christ. 
 And this law was to remain until Christ came; then it was 
 to be taken out of the way and give place to Christ and his 
 rule. He says, too, that the inheritance could not come 
 through the law, but through the promise made to Abraham — 
 that is, through Christ. 
 
 That means not a soul was ever saved by the law of Moses, 
 
Law of Moses and Law of Christ. 259 
 
 because none ever obeyed it, save Christ Jesus ; and he was 
 not lost, to need salvation. Persons under the Jewish law 
 were saved, but it was by and through Christ. Their sins, 
 by the blood of animals, were rolled forward from year to 
 year, until Christ came and took them away by the shedding 
 of his own blood. " Because by the works of the law shall 
 no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh 
 the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law a right- 
 eousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by 
 the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God 
 through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for 
 there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of 
 the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through 
 the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God set forth 
 to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his 
 righteousness because of the passing over of the sins done 
 aforetime, in the forbearance of God; for the showing, I say, 
 of his righteousness at this present season : that he might him- 
 self be just, and the justifier of him that hath faith in Jesus." 
 (Rom. 3 : 20-26.) " The righteousness of God " means God's 
 provisions for justifying man. No man could be justified by 
 the law, because all sinned and violated the law; and law 
 condemns, and does not justify, or purge from sin. What 
 the law could not do was done through Christ, the law and the 
 prophets leading up to and bearing witness to Christ. All — 
 Jew and Gentile — have sinned, or broken the law, so cannot 
 be saved by the law. They are " justified freely by his grace 
 through the redemption " provided in Christ Jesus. God set 
 Jesus Christ forth to be a sacrifice and propitiation, through 
 faith in his blood, for the remission of the sins committed un- 
 der the law that had been passed over through the forbear- 
 ance, or long-suffering, of God. God had foreborne to exe- 
 cute sentence on those under the Jewish law until Christ came, 
 shed his blood, and took away their sins once and forever. 
 None were saved by the " law of works, . . . but by the 
 law of faith." 
 
 Of the same purport is : " For the law of the Spirit of life 
 in Christ Jesus made me free from the law of sin and of death. 
 For what the law [of Moses] could not do, in that it was 
 weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the like- 
 ness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh : 
 that the ordinance of the law might be fulfilled in us, who 
 
260 Law of Moses and Law of Christ. 
 
 walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Rom. 8: 
 2-4.) 
 
 Read 2 Cor. 3: 6-11, where he calls the law of Moses written 
 on stones " the ministration of condemnation," that which 
 " passeth away ; " and the law of Christ, " the ministration 
 of life and glory." The one was the ministration of death, 
 because it brought the knowledge of sin and death, but did 
 not give life, because none kept its requirements ; the other 
 was the ministration of life, because it provided for pardon 
 and life in Christ Jesus. The one was done away and swal- 
 lowed up in the transcendent glory of the other. 
 
 To the Galatians he says : " Knowing that a man is not justi- 
 fied by th£ works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, 
 even we believed on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified 
 by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the law : be- 
 cause by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 
 . . . I do not make void the grace of God : for if righteous- 
 ness [justification] is through the law, then Christ died for 
 naught." (Gal. 2: 16-21.) If men could be justified by the 
 law of Moses, there was no reason for the death of Christ. 
 
 Then the letter to the Hebrews is taken up chiefly with 
 showing the old covenant was defective and taken out of the 
 way, and gave place to the superior or new covenant in Christ 
 Jesus. In chapters 1, 2, the superiority of Christ, who brought 
 the one, over the angels, who brought the other, is presented. 
 From chapter 3 to chapter 7 the superiority of Christ as the 
 High Priest of the new covenant over the high priest of the 
 Levitical order is argued at length. " For the priesthood be- 
 ing changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the 
 law." (Heb. 7: 12.) He then shows the superiority of the 
 priesthood of Christ over those of Levi : " For the law maketh 
 men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the 
 oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is con- 
 secrated for evermore." (Verse 28; read chapters 7, 8.) The 
 first covenant was a shadow. " But now hath he obtained a 
 ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the media- 
 tor of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better 
 promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then 
 would no place have been sought for a second. For finding 
 fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the 
 Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of 
 Israel and with the house of Judah ; not according to the cove- 
 
Law of Moses and Law of Christ. 261 
 
 nant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took 
 them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt ; 
 for they continued not in my covenant, and L regarded them 
 not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make 
 with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I 
 will put my laws into their mind, and on their heart also will 
 I write them : and I will be to them a God, and they shall be 
 to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his fel- 
 low-citizen, and every man his brother, saying, Know the 
 Lord : for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of 
 them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their 
 sins will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new cove- 
 nant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming 
 old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away." (Heb. 
 8: 6-13.) Chapter 9 is a contrast between the blood by which 
 the two covenants are sealed. One, the pattern, was sealed 
 by the typical blood of animals ; the other, by the blood of the 
 Son of God. One was called " the old covenant ; " the other 
 was called " the new covenant." In the offerings of the old 
 covenant there was " a remembrance ... of sins year 
 by year. For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and 
 goats should take away sins." (Heb. 10: 3, 4.) "He taketh 
 away the first, that he may establish the second. . .. . And 
 every priest standeth daily ministering and offering often- 
 times the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 
 but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for- 
 ever, sat down on the right hand of God. . . . For by one 
 offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified." 
 (Verses 9-14.) 
 
 No truth is more frequently or plainly taught than that no 
 person was ever saved by the law of Moses, because no man 
 ever kept that law, save Jesus Christ. That law was given 
 as a training school to prepare them for the reception of Je- 
 sus Christ, the promised seed, in whom alone all the nations 
 of the earth should be blessed. When Christ came, he fulfilled 
 the law, obeyed it ; but he was not a sinner, not lost, so could 
 not be saved. Paul says : " Having blotted out the bond writ- 
 ten in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary 
 to us : and he hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the 
 cross." (Col. 2: 14.) The Mosaic law condemned, but could 
 not save, so "was contrary to us;" it was taken out of the 
 way when Christ was nailed to the cross. From that day for- 
 
262 Law of Moses and Law of Christ. 
 
 ward the Jewish law, including the commandments written on 
 stone, was done away with, and no part of it has been in force 
 since that time ; but the moral principles and the obligations 
 to God embodied in the law of Moses have been intensified 
 and made more sacred under the law of Christ, dedicated by 
 his blood as part of the perfect and eternal law of God. 
 
 The Sabbath, or seventh, day, as a day of rest and worship, 
 was taken out of the way by the taking the law that con- 
 tained it out of the way. Christ was raised on the first day 
 of the week, and from that time forward his disciples have 
 met on the first day to worship God. 
 
 It is a singular thing that after God had given the law of 
 Moses and had tested it for. fifteen hundred years and not a 
 soul was saved by the law, and God had then taken it out of 
 the way, bearing testimony that " it is impossible that the 
 blood of bulls and goats should take away sins ; " " For what 
 the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, 
 God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and 
 for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8: 3) ; "So that 
 the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we 
 might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we 
 are no longer under a tutor " (Gal. 3 : 24, 25) — it is singular, I 
 say, that any one should contend that it is in force. No truth is 
 more clearly taught in the Scriptures than that no soul could 
 be purified and justified by the law of Moses, and none more 
 clearly and fully taught than that the law of Moses was taken 
 out of the way by the death of Christ and man can only be 
 justified by the blood of Christ. See Forgiveness Under Jew- 
 ish Law. 
 
 LAWLESS ONE. See Man of Sin, The. 
 LAY BY IN STORE. See Church Treasury. 
 LEAVE THY GIFT BEFORE ALTAR. See Altar. 
 
 LETTERS OF COMMENDATION. 
 
 Should persons be received into the fellowship of a local congrega- 
 tion without letters of commendation? Is it not scriptural to demand 
 a letter? If there is any cause for exclusion of persons from the 
 church that they hold membership with, should we take them before 
 said cause is removed? 
 
 Letters of commendation were given to certify that those 
 
Literature, Should, be Used in Teaching? 263 
 
 who bore them were in good standing in the churches that 
 gave the letters. They were given to those going among 
 strangers, that they might be received and treated as breth- 
 ren. The letters did not dismiss them from the church. If 
 a Christian went from Rome to Corinth, the church gave a 
 letter certifying that the bearer was a member of the church 
 at Rome. Wherever he went this assurance gave him ad- 
 mission to the churches of Christ. It entitled him to all the 
 privileges of the church wherever he went. It did not dis- 
 miss him from the church at Rome. A member at Rome is a 
 member wherever he goes. His worshiping with the church 
 at Corinth makes him a member there. If he is not in good 
 standing at Rome, he is not anywhere. If there is any doubt 
 of a man, he ought to be required to bring a letter from home, 
 where he is well known, to show his standing. If he cannot 
 bring that, he ought not to be received. Of course no man 
 should be received into a church when there are grounds un- 
 removed that hinder his being a member anywhere and every- 
 where, and specially where he is well known. See Added to 
 the Church, How? 
 
 LITERATURE, SHOULD, BE USED IN TEACHING? 
 
 Is it right to use literature in the Sunday school? We have a 
 brother who objects to the use of literature. 
 
 Webster defines literature as learning. Anything learned 
 is literature. It more especially refers to what is learned from 
 books or things written. To spell and read is to use litera- 
 ture. Anything learned from the Bible is literature. We 
 usually call that which is learned from the Bible " sacred " 
 literature ; that learned from other things, " secular," " com- 
 mon," or " profane " literature. The Bible is literature in the 
 strictest sense. It is written. When one speaks or hears 
 what is taught in the Bible or other books or things, he uses 
 literature, just as much as he does who writes or reads what 
 is taught. Every one who studies and teaches or hears the 
 Bible uses literature. Every thought and word that God has 
 given to the world was first spoken, then written by God's 
 Spirit. God has just as much authorized us to teach and learn 
 by reading as he has by hearing. A truth that goes into the 
 heart through the eye will save just as surely as a truth that 
 goes through the ear. All objection to literature by persons 
 
264 Literature, Should, be Used in Teaching? 
 
 who talk or hear, write or read, to teach or learn, is self-stulti- 
 fication. My observation has been that those who object to 
 printed or written literature are those who think they are very 
 wise and know everything themselves, and the use of the 
 printed literature prevents their explaining their literature 
 orally. In other words, it cuts them out of the opportunity 
 of speechmaking. Their talking may be a good thing if they 
 know what to say and how and when to say it. A thoughtful 
 and studious teacher can often apply what he learns to the 
 special condition of those he is teaching in a way that no 
 writer or speaker to a general audience can do. On the other 
 hand, to refuse all outside literature is to cut them off from 
 much helpful teaching. The thing to do is to follow God's 
 example. Use both speaking and writing as a means of teach- 
 ing — that is, let the teacher study the lessons for himself and 
 add all thoughts and suggestions he can, and apply the teach- 
 ing to the conditions of the pupils. The great evil is that nei- 
 ther teacher nor pupils study the lessons. I think the old way 
 of having the young especially memorize portions of scripture 
 the better way. It will then stay with a child through life. 
 Though he may not then understand it, it will often come up 
 to him in life and cause him to think of it. It seems to me 
 that it would not be a heavy task for the pupils to memorize 
 and repeat the scripture lesson. Then use the literature, writ- 
 ten and oral, in explaining it. How many will undertake to 
 memorize the scripture lesson? 
 
 LORD'S DAY. See First Day of the Week. 
 LORD'S SUPPER, THE. 
 
 (1) Some of our preaching brethren contend that to fail to meet on 
 the first day of the week to break bread is to commit an unpardonable 
 sin, giving as reference Heb. 10: 26: ''There remaineth no more sac- 
 rifice for sins." I think it means if we fail to avail ourselves of the 
 blood of Christ or come in contact with his blood by complying with 
 his word, we need not expect any other sacrifice for sins. 
 
 A failure to attend the Lord's-day services is not the un- 
 pardonable sin ; but if persisted in, in a spirit of indifference 
 or defiance to the laws of God, it will become an unpardonable 
 sin. When a man presumes in his heart that any appoint- 
 ment of God is not essential and deliberately sets it aside or 
 fails to observe it, he is guilty of the presumptuous sin — that 
 
Lord's Supper, The. 265 
 
 is, he presumes to know better than God and substitutes his 
 own will for the will of God. This is an unpardonable sin. 
 It is probable that neglect to observe the Lord's Supper is 
 more fatal and far-reaching than some other neglect of duty, 
 since this act of worship is one intended to furnish food and 
 strength to the spiritual nature, and without this food the 
 whole spiritual being is weakened and broken down. A fail- 
 ure to take food weakens the body more than a misuse of the 
 hand or the foot. The brother gives the correct meaning of 
 the passage. If we fail to appropriate the blood of Christ, 
 there is no more sacrifice for sin. His blood is the only sac- 
 rifice that takes away sin. But we can appropriate the cleans- 
 ing power of the blood of Christ only by coming to his ap- 
 pointments, sealed by his blood. We first receive its efficacy 
 in believing, repenting, and being baptized into his death. 
 But we need its cleansing power all along the journey of life. 
 We can reach it only by taking his laws, sealed by his blood, 
 into our hearts and obeying them ourselves. The Lord's Sup- 
 per is one of these blood-sealed appointments. When we neg- 
 lect it, we cut ourselves off from the help of his blood ; so, will- 
 fully persisted in, it easily becomes an unpardonable sin. 
 
 (2) Please give us some light on who should or should not officiate 
 at the Lord's table. 
 
 I have never found a word in the Scriptures about officiat- 
 ing at the Lord's table or any service of God. The Lord's 
 table is for his disciples. They are to give thanks and give 
 one to another. All formality in it is without divine warrant. 
 One, of course, leads in giving thanks. This is not officiating, 
 for any disciple can do this. It does not pertain to any office. 
 The elders, or those who preside, can call on any disciple to 
 do this. He only expresses aloud and leads in what every 
 disciple does. That one who stands up and hands the bread 
 and wine to the others any more officiates in the sense of offi- 
 cial duties than he who partakes is a priestcraft that does not 
 pertain to the new institution. Every disciple is a priest 
 to offer his own sacrifice or offering to God. Each should 
 break of the loaf for himself as each sips of the cup for him- 
 self. He who stands up and gives thanks is not a whit above 
 him who receives and partakes of it. I find not a thing taught 
 concerning this, except all as brethren and equals are to par- 
 ticipate in the service. One has as much right as another, 
 
266 Lord's Supper, The. 
 
 save the elders should direct and see that all things are done 
 decently and in order. 
 
 (3) Is the Lord's Supper, of which we partake on the first day of 
 the week, a duty which we owe to God, or is it a duty to man? We 
 have a brother in our congregation who claims that it is a duty which 
 we owe to man. 
 
 I am not able to draw nice distinctions like these. Just as 
 well ask : Is eating our daily bread a duty we owe to God or 
 our fellow-man? Partaking of the Lord's Supper and similar 
 services stand related to our spiritual life as eating food does 
 to our fleshly life. It is necessary to its existence. A Chris- 
 tian cannot indifferently neglect the Lord's Supper and the 
 other acts of worship and devotion and remain a Christian. 
 He will die spiritually, just as sure as he will die bodily if he 
 refuses to eat food. A man is under obligation to himself, 
 to his fellow-man, and to his Maker to eat to sustain the life 
 God has given him for his own good and the good of others. 
 A Christian is under obligation to himself, to his fellow-man, 
 and to God to engage in the service God has ordained to per- 
 petuate the spiritual life that God has given for his own good, 
 the good of others, and the honor of God. A man oughft to 
 partake of the Supper because he is a poor, weak, helpless 
 being, needing help and strength from God. This ought to 
 swallow up all other thoughts and purposes. Coming in this 
 spirit, he will grow strong, be enabled to help his fellow-man, 
 and honor God. To come in any other spirit than that of a 
 needy suppliant for divine help is to fail at the essential point. 
 For people to persuade themselves that they do not need the 
 help that comes through the service to God, but that they will 
 attend to it to help others and confer honor and favor on God, 
 is a specious manifestation of presumptuous pharisaism. Man 
 should serve God because he is a lost sinner and needs God's 
 help. 
 
 (4) We are divided on the time to break bread. One of our elders 
 takes the position that it is wrong for us to break bread when we come 
 together for preaching. We meet on each Lord's day in the evening, 
 except on our Lord's day for preaching, and on that day we break 
 bread just after preaching. But our elder will not partake, but gener- 
 ally gets up and leaves the house. He says we ought to come to- 
 gether for the sole purpose of breaking bread; and if we come to- 
 gether for preaching and break bread, our work is vain. We want 
 3'ou to give an article setting forth the scriptural time for coming to- 
 gether and as to whether it is right for us to break bread after preach- 
 ing at the eleven-o'clock service. 
 
Lord's Supper, The. 267 
 
 I think your elder, if he is properly understood, has become 
 wise above what is written ; at least I have never found where 
 the Scriptures say that breaking of bread was the sole object 
 of the meeting when bread was broken. All the scriptures I 
 know bearing on this subject show plainly that breaking bread 
 was not the only purpose of coming together when bread was 
 broken. Matthew (26: 30) says after partaking of the Sup- 
 per, " when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the 
 mount of Olives." Singing, then, was attended after break- 
 ing bread. John (chapters 13-17) shows that the teaching 
 contained in these chapters was given by the Savior after at- 
 tending to the Supper, before they went out to the mount of 
 Olives. Then, in Acts 2 : 42, it is said : " They continued 
 steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the 
 breaking of bread and the prayers." This is universally 
 regarded as telling what was done at the worship on Lord's 
 day. They had the apostolic teaching, they engaged in the 
 fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers. These 
 were all attended to at the meeting and should still be. The 
 apostolic teaching is as much a part of the service as the 
 breaking of bread ; and if your preacher does not give apostolic 
 teaching, he ought not to preach at that meeting or at any 
 other ; if his teaching is apostolic, then it is one of the objects 
 of that meeting when bread is broken. So the objection to it is 
 contrary to scripture. In Acts 20 : 7 we have this : " Upon the 
 first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break 
 bread, Paul discoursed with them, intending to depart on the 
 morrow." In 1 Cor. 11: 17-34 is an account of their meeting 
 to attend to the Lord's Supper. Evils that have crept in are 
 corrected; and then the subject is continued in chapters 12-14, 
 in which Paul -defines the relative importance of the differ- 
 ent gifts and how they were to be used in these meetings, 
 showing that at these meetings all these gifts were used in 
 teaching the congregation. So the preaching and teaching 
 were done at this same meeting in which bread was broken 
 in commemoration of the Lord's body. Every allusion to the 
 Supper shows that teaching was connected with the service. 
 The teaching then was not so formal sermonizing as we have 
 now, but it was done at this meeting. They prophesied, spoke 
 with tongues, interpreted, and engaged in all kinds of teaching 
 that was proper at any other time. I think when a man comes 
 to meeting only when there is preaching, and never comes to 
 
268 Lord's Supper, The. 
 
 partake of the Supper, but does it when he comes to preach- 
 ing, that man's partaking of the Supper is hardly acceptable. 
 But the teaching then is apostolic. 
 
 (5) Which is the worse sin — failing to meet on the first day of the 
 week, when a man knows his duty, or to get drunk? 
 
 I know of no rule of grading sins, as one being greater than 
 another, save this : The spirit that prompts a sin adds intensity 
 to it. One man's neglecting the Lord's-day meeting may be 
 worse than another, owing to the spirit that prompts the neg- 
 lect. A spirit of self-sufficient indifference to the commands 
 of God, feeling he does not need the help of God, that leads 
 one to neglect the weekly meeting, is worse than the one who 
 does it through weakness of the spirit under unfavorable sur- 
 roundings. So, too, one man's getting drunk may be a greater 
 sin than another, owing to the spirit that leads to it. One 
 feels he can drink, and goes in the way of the temptation, and 
 invites the sin ; another, through weakness of the flesh, is 
 tempted and overcome. The former sin is the worse. So 
 neglecting the Lord's Supper may be worse than getting 
 drunk, owing to the influence that led to it. There are two 
 causes of sin — human weakness and human presumption. 
 God is more forbearing with the former. 
 
 LOT, HOW DID CASTING THE, DECIDE? 
 
 Please explain how the lot was cast in Esth. 3: 7; Matt. 27: 35; Acts 
 1: 26. Was it by vote or expression by word, or was it by chance, as 
 drawing straws, or as our civil courts draw names from a hat in se- 
 lecting their juries? 
 
 The lot was what man would call chance. It was not 
 chance, but not an appeal to God to direct ; so the choice would 
 be his, not man's. " They prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, who 
 knowest the hearts of all men, show of these two the one thou 
 hast chosen." (Acts 1 : 24.) In the vote, those who vote 
 choose ; in the lot, God chose. When they prayed to God and 
 cast the lot, he directed it as he chose ; when wicked men cast 
 lots, it was chance. " The lot is cast into the lap ; but the 
 whole disposing thereof is of Jehovah." (Prov. 16: 33.) 
 
 LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW. 
 
 Paul says: "He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law." 
 (Rom. 13: 8.) How is love the fulfilling of the law? 
 
Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. 269 
 
 Here is a definition. Which is defined — love or the fulfill- 
 ing of the law? The hidden, the more obscure, is defined by 
 the clearer and better understood. WJiich of these is the 
 clearer and more easily understood? A great many persons 
 are ready to say that love is the clearer. Love is more 
 easily understood. We are ready to say that everybody 
 knows what love is. The apostle did not so regard it. He 
 starts out to tell us what love is. Jesus, Paul, John, and 
 Peter, all took up considerable space seeking to make the dis- 
 ciples of the Lord understand what love is. Jesus says : " If 
 ye love me, ye will keep my commandments." (John 14: 15.) 
 " He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is 
 that loveth me : and he that loveth me shall be loved of my 
 Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto 
 him." (Verse 21.) He then puts it in a different form, and 
 says : " If a man love me, he will keep my word : and my Fa- 
 ther will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our 
 abode with him." (Verse 23.) Jesus is here trying to get 
 the true idea of love into the minds of his disciples — what it 
 is, what it does. Then, by way of contrast, he adds : " He 
 that loveth me not keepeth not my words." (Verse 24.) Fol- 
 lowing up the idea as to what constitutes love, that they may 
 know whether they love Christ or not, he tells his disciples: 
 "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in 
 the vine; so neither can ye, except ye abide in me." (John 
 15: 4.) "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a 
 branch, and is withered ; and they gather them, and cast them 
 into the fire, and they are burned." (Verse 6.) " If ye keep 
 my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have 
 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." 
 (Verse 10.) Christ is teaching his disciples the absolute ne- 
 cessity of obedience in order to entering into and abiding in his 
 love. While doing this he is telling them what love is — how 
 we may gain it, how we m&y know we possess it, and how 
 we may abide in love. The same principle that keeps love 
 alive in our own hearts secures and retains for us the love of 
 God. If we love God, we keep his commandments ; if we 
 continue to keep his commandments, we abide in his love and 
 secure the perpetual presence of God with us. He that does 
 not keep the commandments of God does not love God. God 
 will not abide with him, and, as a withered branch, he will be 
 cast forth to be gathered and burned. Christ, in these chap- 
 
270 Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. 
 
 ters, is presenting the importance of love — what it is, and how- 
 it may be gained and retained. After showing the impor- 
 tance of love, John says : " Hereby we know that we love the 
 children of God, when we love God and do his command- 
 ments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his com- 
 mandments: and his commandments are not grievous." (1 
 John 5 : 2, 3.) "And this is love, that we should walk after 
 his commandments." (2 John 6.) 
 
 In all these scriptures keeping his commandments is taken 
 as the clear and well-known term denning what love is. We 
 have very crude and indefinite ideas of what love is. Con- 
 founded with love is a number of dissimilar and antagonistic 
 feelings or emotions. Passion, or lust, is often confounded 
 with it; yet they are the opposites. Passion is self-seeking, 
 self-gratifying ; love is self-denying, and seeks the good of the 
 loved one. Love is frequently confounded with fleshly mag- 
 netism, and attracts two bodies as the magnet and the steel at- 
 tract each other. Sympathetic emotions often pass for love. 
 But James tells us : " If ye fulfill the royal law, according to 
 the scriptures, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye 
 do well." (James 2 : 8.) " The royal law," as given by Christ, 
 is, " Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even 
 so do ye also unto them " (Matt. 7: 12) ; and to love the ene- 
 mies is to bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate 
 you, and pray for them that despitefully use you .and perse- 
 cute you. 
 
 Love, then, beyond all doubt, is doing good to a person. 
 When we do good to a person, we love him, it matters not 
 whether the good we do pleases or displeases him. The ques- 
 tion arises : How may I know what is for his good ? Here 
 we are in doubt, but the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit have 
 abundantly decided that question. Do toward him what the 
 divine law commands, and we do him good. It frequently 
 will offend him. Be it so, love demands that we should help 
 him, do him good, even if he persecutes us for it. That was 
 the love of Christ to man. He loved him, although his love 
 excited the wrath and enmity of man. He loved man in spite 
 of man and did him good against his will. If God had waited 
 until man would receive his offices of love with thanks, then 
 man would never have been redeemed — would have gone on 
 down to death without a Savior. Love is doing a man good, 
 and the divine law tells us that it is the only way in which we 
 

 Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. 271 
 
 can do a man good ; hence, " love is the fulfilling of the law." 
 Love requires us to do unto a man whatever the law of God 
 requires us to do to him. Unless we do this, we do not truly 
 love. A mother loves her child only as she does to the child 
 what the law of God says she must do to the child. She must 
 bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord — that 
 is, she must train it from infancy to be guided by the Spirit, 
 and to practice the precepts that God has given for his chil- 
 dren to walk in. A mother that does not do this does not 
 love her child. The great and all-wise God declares this. 
 We shall all be judged by this law at last, and our eternal 
 destiny depends on our fulfilling the law. A man loves his 
 wife and the wife loves her husband only as each fulfills the 
 law of God to the other ; so the child loves the parent. A man 
 loves his enemies when he obeys the law to do good to them, 
 prays for them, and in all things manifests his desire to do 
 them good. 
 
 Love may exist independent of emotions or the fleshly af- 
 fections. A man sees that it is his duty to do good to his en- 
 emy — to return good for evil, blessing for cursing. All his 
 fleshly emotions and feelings may demand that he should re- 
 turn evil for evil, cursing for cursing. With a resolute will 
 he restrains these feelings, and, instead of these, he does him 
 good, a kindness ; he prays for him ; he blesses him. It may 
 be mechanical and outward, as we call it — that is, the fleshly 
 feelings do not enter into it. Yet it is love, love of the high- 
 est type, love that springs wholly from the purposes and will 
 of the spirit — the inner man. This is the battle between the 
 flesh and the spirit within man. The flesh demands railing 
 for railing, and cursing for cursing; the spirit, good for evil. 
 If we are faithful to the purposes of the heart, it gradually 
 brings all the impulses of the flesh into subjection to the will 
 of the soul ; and the finished and final work of love is to bring 
 all the impulses of the flesh into subjection to the will and 
 purposes of the soul, guided by the will of God ; or, as Paul 
 expresses it : " Bringing every thought into captivity to the 
 obedience of Christ." (2 Cor. 10: 5.) Every thought and 
 feeling may be gradually and finally brought into obedience 
 to Christ. Then the emotions, feelings, and sentiments all 
 will run in harmony with the higher purposes of the soul to 
 honor and obey God. 
 
 It is looseness and indifference, not love, that makes man 
 
272 Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. 
 
 look with allowance on a rejection of God's law, that makes 
 him encourage his fellow-men in disobeying the law of God. 
 To do this is neither love to God nor to man. It is a loose, 
 indifferent regard to the honor of the one and the welfare of 
 the other. . He does not love his fellow-man most or best that 
 goes with him in evil, that walks with him in rejecting God's 
 law, or encourages him to set aside the appointments of God. 
 Loyalty to God is the only true love to man. Such a course 
 is enmity to both God and man, and God has fully warned 
 us that he will so adjudge at the last day. We should be wise. 
 Love is loyal to God. 
 
 LOVE OF GOD SHED ABROAD. 
 
 What is meant by the statement in Rom. 5: 5 that ''the love of 
 God hath been shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit? " 
 
 In this passage Paul tells what being justified by faith does 
 for us. He says that it enables us " to rejoice in hope of the 
 glory of God " — in hope that we shall share the glory that God 
 has. Not only does it give us hope of sharing God's glory, 
 but it enables us to glory in tribulations that we suffer for 
 Christ's sake, knowing that the suffering of tribulation here 
 gives the promise of the greater glory hereafter. " If we suf- 
 fer [with Christ], we shall also reign with him." Tribulation 
 works a patient spirit within us. This gives us experience, 
 and experience arouses and strengthens hope, and hope of the 
 future hinders our being ashamed in our present afflictions 
 and evil state, " because the love of God hath been shed abroad 
 in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which was given unto us." 
 We think this sentence is greatly misunderstood. In the first 
 place, it tells that the Holy Spirit has been given to us. It 
 is given by God. It possibly refers here more especially to 
 the miraculous gift bestowed upon the apostles in the begin- 
 ning. But the same principles pertain to the Holy Spirit as 
 received by all children of God. 
 
 This Holy Spirit was given by God. It was given to im- 
 part the mind of God to the person to whom it was given. 
 " But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit 
 which is from God; that we might know the things that were 
 freely given to us of God." (1 Cor. 2: 12.) In imparting 
 to us the knowledge, he also imparts the mind or temper of 
 God. He imparts to us the same feelings and disposition that 
 God possesses and cherishes. 
 
Love of God Shed Abroad. 273 
 
 In this passage (Rom. 5:5) it is not intended to say that 
 the Holy Spirit sheds abroad in our hearts a love for God; 
 but the Spirit, coming from God into our hearts, imparts the 
 same kind of love to our hearts that dwells in the heart of 
 God. It causes us to love just as God loves — to love the same 
 objects that God loves, and to love them in the same way that 
 God loves them. The Holy Spirit in our hearts sheds abroad 
 the same mind, temper, and disposition that dwells in the 
 heart of God. 
 
 The next verses show what character of love dwelled in 
 God, and, hence, what we should cherish in our hearts. Verse 
 6 says : " For while we were yet weak, in due season Christ 
 died for the ungodly." This was the character of God's love 
 to man. When man was weak and when the law could not 
 save, then Christ died to save the ungodly. He shows in 
 the seventh verse the difference between the highest type of 
 the love of the best men and this love of God that led Jesus to 
 die for his enemies. God commends this love which is shed 
 abroad in the heart by the Holy Spirit to man by the death 
 of Jesus while we were yet sinners. We must cultivate the 
 same spirit or feeling that will cause us to help those in need — 
 to support, to lift up those who are enemies to God and ene- 
 mies to us. W T e are, like God, to bless our enemies, do good 
 to them that revile and persecute us, and to pray for them that 
 despitefully use and abuse us. The same thought is here 
 presented : " Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ 
 Jesus: who, existing in the form of God, counted not the be- 
 ing on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied 
 himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the like- 
 ness of men ; and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled 
 himself, becoming obedient even unto death, yea, the death 
 of the cross. Wherefore also God highly exalted him, and 
 gave unto him the name which is above every name." (Phil. 
 2: 5-9.) 
 
 Christ had the mind to humiliate himself, to take the human 
 body and its infirmities, that he might lift man up to save his 
 spiritual and immortal state and to partake of his glory. This 
 was the mind that was in Christ, this was the kind of love 
 God possessed. The Holy Spirit came to shed the same love, 
 the same spirit of devotion and self-sacrifice, in the heart of 
 man. This is the love of God that is shed abroad by the Holy 
 Spirit. The man who has the Spirit of God in his heart will 
 IS 
 
274 Love of God Shed Abroad. 
 
 find pleasure and joy in sacrificing all temporal favors and 
 fleshly blessings to benefit and save men, as God through 
 Christ Jesus did. Unless we have this Spirit of Christ, we 
 are none of his. This Spirit within us is at first a feeble plant 
 in an uncongenial soil. It needs to be nursed and cultivated. 
 Noxious weeds spontaneously grow from the fleshly soil of 
 our hearts. These need to be repressed and rooted out; but 
 if we nurture the Spirit of Christ, if we cultivate the love of 
 God in our hearts, it will respond freely to all culture. It will 
 grow and bestow its fruits of " joy and peace in the Holy 
 Spirit." 
 
 If a man begins the habit of self-denial to help trfose need- 
 ing help, the Spirit will grow rapidly, and he will find the 
 true joy that the Spirit of God alone can give. 
 
 If we repress the impulses to do good, our hearts will grow 
 hard, cold, and selfish. There is no joy for a heart of this 
 kind, neither for time nor eternity. A kind, tender, sympa- 
 thetic heart and a generous hand bring happiness and peace 
 here, joys pure and holy, then share in all the glories of God 
 in the world to come. But we must nourish and cherish the 
 love of God spread abroad by the Holy Spirit. We must let 
 the same mind that was in Jesus dwell and rule within our 
 hearts. 
 
 MAJORITY RULE. 
 
 What do you understand to be the duty of members who do not 
 favor church festivals in the church, where the majority overrules and 
 brings them in? 
 
 A church in which majorities rule is not a church of Christ. 
 In his church his law rules, and the elders see that it is en- 
 forced. While one violation of a law does not unchristianize 
 a man or a church, if it is repented of, yet a persistent adop- 
 tion of another law than the word of God does place the 
 church or individual out of Christ. The thought of appealing 
 to the flesh to raise money for the Lord is grossly violative 
 of his law and insulting to God. He desires freewill gifts 
 from faithful hearts. 
 
 MAN, IS THE BODY OR THE SPIRIT THE? 
 
 If the spirit of the child is born of the spirit of the father and 
 mother, as the fleshly part of the child is, by what right is the infant 
 an heir of the kingdom of heaven until it has been regenerated by the 
 
Man, Is the Body or the Spirit the? 275 
 
 Spirit of God, seeing many children are born of unconverted parents, 
 and must of necessity inherit unregenerate spirits, as you say " like 
 begets its like?" What do you mean by the human spirit being made 
 a new spirit, or soul? Is the human spirit mortal or immortal? Who 
 gave it, God or man? If man imparts spirit to his own natural off- 
 spring, by what law of reproduction is mankind the offspring of God? 
 You say: "Man is a spirit, and Adam was a living soul." Do you 
 intend to convey the idea that all men living in the fleshly body are 
 not living souls in the same sense that Adam was when God created 
 him and pronounced him such? 
 
 The Bible says God created the herbs and trees each to bear 
 fruit after his kind, and the living creatures each after his 
 kind ; and then " God created man in his own image. . . . 
 And God blessed them : and God said unto them, Be fruitful, 
 and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it." (Gen. 
 1 : 27, 28.) This meant that he was to multiply beings like 
 themselves ; and whatever parts and faculties the parents have 
 are transmitted to the child If the parents have souls, or 
 spirits, above that of beasts, the children are begotten with the 
 same spirits, or souls. It would not be a multiplication of 
 men and women if this were not so. The child is born, not 
 with the faculties of the brute, the pig, or the cattle, but with 
 those of its parents. The child inherits from its parents a 
 mental and spiritual likeness, as well as a bodily likeness. 
 
 The souls, or spirits, of the first parents were not guilty 
 or under condemnation until they sinned ; neither are those 
 of the children. The soul of the child, like those of the first 
 parents, is overcome and brought in bondage of the flesh. 
 " For the flesh . . . and the Spirit . . . are contrary 
 the one to the other." So the spirit is overcome by the flesh, 
 is in a body of death, from which it then must be delivered 
 in order that it may be saved. " What the law [of Moses] 
 could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, send- 
 ing his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, 
 condemned [or overcame] sin in the flesh." (Rom. 8: 3.) 
 The belief of the gospel of the Son of God renews this spirit 
 in man that has been defiled by sin, and makes it a new heart 
 and a new spirit. Ezekiel says : " I will put a new spirit 
 within you" (Ezek. 11: 19; 36: 26) ; "And make you a new 
 heart and a new spirit " (Ezek. 18: 31). Jesus says: " Except 
 one be born anew, ... be born of water and the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John 3: 
 3-5.) The word of God, the seed of the kingdom, is received 
 into the heart of man, and so strengthens it as to transform 
 
276 Man, Is the Body or the Spirit the? 
 
 it from a soul dominated by the flesh into a soul led by the 
 Spirit of God. God gives the human spirit just as he gives 
 the human life and the human body through the father and 
 mother ; he gives the divine Spirit through the word in which 
 he dwells. So the heart that hears the word, and cherishes it, 
 brings forth fruit, " some a hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some 
 thirtyfold." So the human spirit comes from God through 
 the parents. The Bible says Adam was the son of God. Per- 
 haps he became such by God breathing into him the breath 
 of life by which he became a living soul. He forfeited the 
 rights of sonship through sin. His children do the same. As 
 Adam polluted his life and cut himself off from the bless- 
 ing of immortality through sin, his children do like him. They 
 are born sinless beings. As such they are entitled to all the 
 privileges of spiritual life. They inherit mortal bodies from 
 Adam. They forfeit spiritual life, as he did, through sin. 
 All sin, and all who sin need the atoning blood of Jesus to 
 save them. This blood is appropriated through walking " in 
 the light, as he is in the light." (1 John 1: 7.) Eternal ex- 
 istence is not immortality. The devil will exist forever, but 
 God only hath immortality. Man will exist forever, but he 
 seeks for immortality by welldoing. 
 
 The Gospel Advocate, no doubt, errs sometimes ; it claims 
 no exemption from this ; but sometimes the error is in the 
 standpoint of the reader. Many confound eternal existence 
 with immortality. Another error I was trying to correct and 
 guard against is that they make the material body the man, 
 and the spirit, or soul, an appurtenance or faculty of the body. 
 The Bible clearly makes the spirit, or soul, the man, the part 
 that lives and endures, while the body is but its temporary 
 home in which the real man dwells. When the man dies, the 
 body is buried and molders into dust; the man is carried to 
 Abraham's bosom or is found in hell. To mistake the nature, 
 the essential being of man, and to make him simply a material 
 animal, is an error, surpassed only by mistaking who God is 
 and what his character. God is a Spirit, and only spiritual 
 beings who serve him in spirit and truth can dwell with him. 
 As the outer man decays, the inner man is renewed day by 
 day. The man which is seen is temporal ; the man which is 
 unseen is eternal. One of the old philosophers — Plato, I be- 
 lieve it was — trying to teach this truth to his pupils, took a 
 hammer, struck a fragile piece of ware, and broke it in many 
 
Man of Sin, The. 277 
 
 pieces. He asked: "Who did that?" The answer was: 
 "You did it." "What office did the hammer serve?" The 
 reply was : " It was the instrument you used in breaking it." 
 He then took a piece of the same substance, struck it with his 
 fist, and broke it. He asked: " Who did that? " The answer 
 again was : " You did it." " What office did the fist per- 
 form ? " Then the answer was : " Your fist was the instru- 
 ment you used." This brought out the thought that there is 
 an internal man that directs and uses the hand, the foot, the 
 eye, the ear, and all the organs of the body as material instru- 
 ments for the use of the man. 
 
 After a while the internal man shall have accomplished its 
 work on earth, and, like the butterfly, it will lay aside the ex- 
 ternal shell which henceforward would be a hindrance, and 
 not a help. The spirit, freed from its earthly incumbrances, 
 enters a new and higher stage of existence. It is henceforth 
 a spirit without flesh and blood or body. 
 
 MAN OF SIN, THE. 
 
 I wish an explanation of 2 Thess. 2: 3-12. Is it the same he to be 
 taken out of the way that "now letteth?" To what does the pro- 
 noun he refer? Also, who is "the man of sin" or "the mystery of 
 iniquity?" If you will give an explanation of this passage, you will 
 not only assist me in understanding it, but many others. 
 
 I think that he in the two places refers to the same person. 
 The person who hinders will hinder until he (the person who 
 hinders) is taken out of the way. My judgment is that Paul 
 was the person who hindered or restrained the development 
 of the man of sin, and he says he would continue to restrain 
 so long as he lived. When he died, or was taken out of the 
 way, then the mystery of iniquity without hindrance would do 
 his work and develop himself. The Scriptures give no clear 
 evidence of what the mystery of iniquity was, save that it was 
 to become the man of sin, " the lawless one, who opposeth and 
 exalteth himself against all that is . . . worshiped, . . . 
 sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth as God." 
 But it is universally agreed that it means an apostasy in the 
 church would take place before the day of the Lord, or the 
 judgment of the world, should come. A power would arise in 
 the church that would turn away from the law of God, that 
 would exalt itself into the place of God. God's place is to 
 make laws for his people. This power would take this author- 
 
278 Man of Sin, The. 
 
 ity on itself and change and modify the laws of God. So it is 
 said to sit in the temple of God, to exalt and oppose God as 
 the only ruler and lawgiver, and set itself forth as the rival 
 of God. Paul said that this power would come, according to 
 the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying won- 
 ders, and with all deceit of unrighteousness for those who 
 refuse to receive the truth in the love of it. That power Je- 
 sus will destroy with the breath of his mouth and bring it to 
 naught by the manifestation of his presence. God permits 
 this delusion to come upon his people, that they might believe 
 a lie and be damned, because they did not believe his truth, 
 but had pleasure in unrighteousness. The Holy Spirit says 
 that this would come to pass. The question of difficulty is: 
 When did it come to pass, and what are the manifestations 
 of it? This power was to rise in the church, be of a religious 
 character, set aside the law of God, and make laws to take 
 the place of these laws of God. Almost all commentators of 
 the Protestant churches apply this to the Roman Catholic 
 Church, or to the papacy. Alexander Campbell, in his debate 
 with Purcell, affirmed that this portrayed the Roman Catholic 
 Church. I have been inclined to believe that it applies to a 
 principle rather than a development of that principle. The 
 principle was the claim to make laws for the church of God. 
 To do this is to sit in his seat, to show by his acts that he is 
 God, the lawmaker; that he is above the law, or is lawless. 
 If it applies to a principle, the Romish Church, or papacy, 
 is one development of this principle, the Greek Church is an- 
 other, the Church of England is another, and every church or 
 organization in religion that grows out of man's adding to, tak- 
 ing from, or changing the order of God is an outgrowth or de- 
 velopment of the same principle. If either of these positions 
 be correct, the disposition to use this power manifested itself 
 while Paul yet lived. He held it in check during his life, but 
 after his death, unchecked, it grew rapidly. If the papacy 
 be a development of the principle, it is easy to trace it back, 
 and find its first development after Paul's death. Mosheim 
 says : " During a great part of this [second] century all the 
 churches continued to be, as at first, independent of each other, 
 or were connected by no consociations or confederations. 
 Each church was a kind of small independent republic, gov- 
 erning itself by its own laws, enacted or at least sanctioned 
 by the people. But in process of time it became customary 
 
Man of Sin, The. 279 
 
 for all the Christian churches within the same province to 
 unite and form a sort of larger society or commonwealth, and, 
 in the manner of confederated republics, to hold their conven- 
 tions at stated times, and there deliberate for the common 
 advantage of the whole confederation. The custom first arose 
 among the Greeks, with whom a (political) confederation of 
 cities and the consequent conventions of their several dele- 
 gates had been long known ; but afterwards, the utility of the 
 thing being seen, the custom extended through all countries 
 where there were Christian churches. Such conventions of 
 delegates from several churches assembled for deliberation 
 were called by the Greeks Synods, and by the Latins Coun- 
 cils; and the laws agreed upon in them were called canons — 
 that is, rules. These councils, of which no vestige appears 
 before the middle of this century, changed nearly the whole 
 form of the church. For by them, in the first place, the an- 
 cient rights and privileges of the people were very much 
 abridged ; and, on the other hand, the influence and authority 
 of the bishops were not a little augmented. At first the bish- 
 ops did not deny that they were merely the representatives 
 of their churches and that they acted in the name of the peo- 
 ple ; but by little and little they made higher pretensions, and 
 maintained that power was given them by Christ himself to 
 dictate rules of faith and conduct to the people. In the next 
 place, the perfect equality and parity of all bishops, which ex- 
 isted in the early times, these councils gradually subverted. 
 For it was necessary that one of the confederated bishops 
 of a province should in those conventions be intrusted with 
 some authority and power over the others, and hence origi- 
 nated the prerogatives of Metropolitans. And, lastly, when 
 the custom of holding these councils had extended over the 
 Christian world and the universal church had acquired the 
 form of a vast republic composed of many lesser ones, certain 
 head men were to be placed over it in different parts of the 
 world as central points in their respective countries ; hence, 
 came the Patriarchs, and ultimately a Prince of Patriarchs, 
 the Roman pontiff." (" Institutes of Ecclesiastical History," 
 Century II., Chapter 2, Sections 2, 3, pages 116, 117.) 
 
 Paul died in the latter part of the first century. These 
 meetings to deliberate and legislate concerning the good of 
 all sprang up soon after his death, and they with regular steps 
 grew into the papacy. The papacy is held as the most noted 
 
280 Man of Sin, The. 
 
 and most objectionable outgrowth of this principle to us, be- 
 cause we have not come in contact with the Greek Church; 
 but all dissatisfaction among Christians with the laws and ap- 
 pointments as God gave them is a manifestation of this spirit 
 of lawlessness or rebellion against God, and all organizations 
 growing out of this spirit of dissatisfaction are manifestations 
 of the man of sin. Roman Catholicism, I do not doubt, is the 
 highest manifestation of the spirit of the man of sin; but every 
 effort to set aside God's order and to substitute human wis- 
 dom for it is a working of the principle, or a development of 
 " the mystery of lawlessness." It applies to every effort to 
 depart from God's order in work, worship, or living of the 
 individual Christian. See Branches, Who Are The? (2). 
 
 MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 
 
 (1) If a brother and sister marry and live together for a while and 
 then separate without a Bible cause, and at the time of the separa- 
 tion the brother pleads with the sister to stay with him, makes all 
 necessary acknowledgments, begs her pardon, and promises to do bet- 
 ter in the future, but she will not hear him, has either party, under 
 the circumstances, the right to marry again? If either party marries 
 again, will that give the other one the right to marry also? 
 
 The Bible is very clear that nothing, save adultery on the 
 part of one party, breaks the marriage bond. Paul says : The 
 Lord gives charge " that the wife depart not from her hus- 
 band (but should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or else 
 be reconciled to her husband) ; and that the husband leave not 
 his wife." (1 Cor. 7: 10, 11.) This shows the possibility of 
 their living separate, but they must remain unmarried. There 
 is no ground given for either to marry, unless one be guilty 
 of adultery. For either to marry is to be guilty of adultery; 
 so if either marries, that one is guilty of adultery. This 
 breaks the marriage bond, and the other is free to marry, I 
 would say, though many deny the right of a person once mar- 
 ried to marry again during the life of the other party. In a 
 separation, the one who forces the other to leave does what 
 causes that one to commit adultery; and if one, by a sinful 
 course, forces another to commit adultery, that one is as guilty 
 as the one that commits the sin. While I think the Lord al- 
 lows the innocent party to marry again, I have never known 
 a person to marry one divorced that did not, to some extent, 
 lose his or her standing thereby. There is a public feeling 
 that once marrying is enough while both partners still live; 
 
Marriage and Divorce. 281 
 
 and Christians cannot be too careful to avoid all doubtful 
 courses. 
 
 (2) Miss A and Mr. B married. Later, B, having another wife, ran 
 off and put A away. She then married Mr. C, and they spent a few 
 years together and separated. She then obeyed the gospel, and in 
 process of time she married Mr. D, who was not, nor is he yet, a 
 Christian. Now the question is: Is she living an adulterous life or 
 not? If not, why not? I read in Mark 10: 2-12 the Savior's decision 
 of the matter. Now, Sister A has been withdrawn from on the charge 
 of adultery, and she wants to be restored to fellowship; but, as I see 
 the case, we cannot afford to take her in unless she quits the act. 
 Now, I will say that Sister A got a writing of divorcement before she 
 was married to Mr. D; but, as you well know, that was not intended 
 from the beginning of creation. 
 
 No man or woman with a living wife or husband not guilty 
 of adultery can marry another without adultery, and no lapse 
 of time will purge the cohabitation of its sinfulness. The one 
 who separates from the other tempts the other to> commit 
 adultery. This is plain ; I cannot write more clearly than the 
 Bible is on this subject. 
 
 The querist says that this woman obeyed the gospel while 
 living separate from her husband. If the obedience was from 
 the heart, she made an earnest effort to live with him. The 
 Bible requires Christians to make an earnest and sincere effort 
 to be reconciled to the unbelieving companion from whom 
 separated. "Should she depart, let her remain unmarried, or 
 be reconciled to her husband." (1 Cor. 7: 11.) A person in 
 a state of sin cannot become a Christian without trying to cor- 
 rect that wrong. Repentance involves the confession of all 
 our sins as occasion may demand, and of our undoing our 
 wrongs as far as in our power. A failure to make an effort 
 to correct our wrongs shows a lack of faith from the heart and 
 of genuine repentance toward God. Neither the woman nor 
 the man with whom she cohabits can live the Christian life 
 without ceasing their adulterous life. 
 
 (3) We have a case like this: A woman married A, and separated 
 from him; she then married B, and separated from him. Then she 
 obeyed the gospel and lived a consistent member for some years, when 
 she married C, and was withdrawn from for living in adultery. Now 
 she wants to come back to the church. What would be the proper 
 steps to take in her case? 
 
 I am afraid she has done too much marrying and separating 
 ever to be saved. God does not intend his institutions to be 
 dishonored in any such way. The loose way of marrying and 
 unmarrying here indicated is but little better than promiscu- 
 
282 Marriage and Divorce. 
 
 ous whoredom. The woman lawfully lived only with her first 
 husband — rather, he is her only husband in the sight of God — 
 and she could not have lived a consistent Christian life sepa- 
 rated from him. 
 
 (4) In a recent issue of the Gospel Advocate a question was asked 
 about a woman who separated from A and B, then obeyed the gospel 
 and lived a consistent member several years, then married C, when 
 she was withdrawn from for living in adultery, and now wants to 
 come back to the church. He wants to know what steps to take. 
 You say: "I am afraid she has done too much marrying and separat- 
 ing ever to be saved." You make the impression on my mind that 
 she is past redemption. I am seventy-one years old, have preached 
 over twenty-seven years, have read the Advocate about thirty years, 
 have helped to settle several such troubles, and I cannot harmonize 
 your position with the Scriptures. Do you believe that she is a 
 greater sinner than Saul of Tarsus, who persecuted the Son of God 
 and called himself " chief of sinners," and yet obtained mercy (1 Tim. 
 1: 13-16); or the Jews that crucified the Son of God, and were offered 
 remission of their sins (Acts 2: 23, 36, 38) ? John says: " The blood of 
 Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 1: 7.) If 
 the blood of Jesus " cleanseth from all sin," the sin of the " chief of 
 sinners " and murderers, will it not also cleanse from adultery? The 
 questioner does not state what she separated from her first husband 
 for; so how do we know but what she had the ''one cause?" I lived 
 in the sectarian world about forty-two } r ears, and I found very few 
 men but what Jheir wives could have proven the " one cause," if they 
 could have secured the right witnesses to testify. Is a sinner, a citi- 
 zen of the devil's kingdom, subject to the law of Christ? My under- 
 standing of the Scriptures is that a citizen of the world is not under 
 the law of Christ, but is under the law of our land; and if a woman 
 gets a legal divorce from her husband, she has a right to marry again, 
 and is not living in adultery, according to the laws of our land. If 
 she then obeys the gospel, all of her past sins are blotted out, washed 
 away, and will be remembered against her no more forever. If I do 
 not misunderstand you, your position brings the sin she committed in 
 separating from her first husband over into the church? How can a 
 sin be blotted out, washed away, and still be held against her? This 
 is a very important question. 
 
 This quitting one man or woman and taking up with an- 
 other ought not to be called marriage. This was a more 
 demoralizing plea than usual, so I publish and notice. 
 
 There are many worse sinners than was Paul or the cruci- 
 fiers of the Son of God. Paul said he wast " chief of sinners," 
 but said that he obtained pardon because he " did it ignorantly 
 in unbelief." (1 Tim. 1: 13.) He was chief of those who 
 sinned ignorantly. There were sins for which there was no 
 forgiveness. Those who committed these sins were worse sin- 
 ners than Paul or the murderers of Christ, and the apostle 
 declared that the rulers crucified him " in ignorance." (Acts 
 3 : 17.) Then there are pretending Christians who " crucify 
 
Marriage and divorce. 283 
 
 to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open 
 shame." (Heb. 6: 6.) It is impossible to renew that class 
 to repentance. They are much worse than Paul or the mur- 
 derers of God's Son. Those who betray and maltreat and cor- 
 rupt the spiritual body of Christ are worse sinners and more 
 hopeless than those who crucified his fleshly body. Those 
 who knowingly and willfully change, add to, or take from the 
 commands of God are more hopeless and worse sinners than 
 Paul or the murderers of God's Son, who sinned ignorantly 
 and repented. 
 
 Some sins were not even to be prayed for. The reckless 
 repetition of a sin adds to its enormity. I know nothing of 
 the case criticised, save that the woman, without scriptural 
 ground, married and unmarried and remarried with such reck- 
 less disregard to the law of God or common virtue and de- 
 cency as to destroy her sense of right, and there is no founda- 
 tion on which to found a Christian life or to build a Christian 
 character. A person is then in a hopeless condition. Only a 
 good and honest heart can produce good fruit. 
 
 Whom does the blood of Christ cleanse from sin? Only 
 those who obey his laws, only those who repent of their sins. 
 This woman married a man, left him, took up with another, 
 left him, and while separated obeyed the gospel, and the 
 writer says that she lived a consistent life until another fel- 
 low came along who was willing, and she took up with him, 
 and while with him now wants to come back to the church. 
 It ought not to be called marrying. The case as stated is that 
 the woman did the separating without scriptural ground. If 
 so, I deny that the blood of Christ cleansed her from any of 
 her sins. She did not repent. Had she repented, she would 
 have sought to live with her scriptural husband. She was not 
 only guilty of adultery herself, but was guilty of tempting 
 her husband to adultery by refusing to be a wife to him. 
 (Matt. 5: 32.) These things are true, not of that woman 
 alone, but of every man and woman who refuses to discharge 
 the marriage duties to the one to whom married. If they sep- 
 arate and one becomes a Christian, the first thing to do is to 
 seek reconciliation and try to live with the unbeliever. 
 
 The idea that God takes no cognizance of the sinful lives 
 and states they enter before becoming Christians, and they 
 are all blotted out and forgotten when baptized, and the per- 
 son may persist in the same course afterwards, is contrary 
 
284 Marriage and Divorce. 
 
 to the truth and most demoralizing. Read 1 Cor. 7 and see 
 there that the marriage between sinners is recognized as sa- 
 cred. The man is sanctified to the woman, the woman to the 
 man, else your children are unclean. It seems to me that is 
 on a par with saying that a man might steal a fortune before 
 he obeys the gospel. God does not deal with him then, but 
 the civil law. He then obeys the gospel, all his sins are 
 washed away by the blood of Christ, and he is left in the pos- 
 session of his ill-gotten gains. God forgives no sin until it is 
 repented of and undone to the extent of the ability of the 
 penitent person. 
 
 The writer of the above, in a private note, says that he 
 knows a preacher who married a woman while his first wife 
 was living. He now wishes to get rid of the second one to 
 take up with a third one. He thinks he uses the position I 
 advocate as an excuse for this. Paul could not prevent hypo- 
 crites from perverting most sacred truths for wicked purposes. 
 Neither can I. But the man who could use a truth for an end 
 so base is unfit to associate with penitentiary convicts. That 
 people could retain a man who would so act in a church shows 
 how low their estimate of Christianity is. 
 
 MARRIAGE, FORCED. 
 
 In a certain community a young - man made love to a girl. They 
 both belonged to respectable families. The fathers of both parties 
 and the young lady belong to the church of Christ; the young man 
 does not belong to any church. The girl was young, and seemed to 
 love the young man very devotedly. After they were engaged, as I 
 gather the facts, he made improper propositions to her, and urged that, 
 as they were engaged, there would be no harm. She finally yielded, 
 and after this he seemed to lose interest in her and began to pay his 
 respects to another young lady. Some time after this the injured girl 
 moved to another county, and soon after this the young, man moved 
 to another State. The father of the girl knew nothing of her condi- 
 tion till a few hours before the baby was born. He then wrote to the 
 young man, .as I have been informed, saying nothing rough, but urg- 
 ing him to come and marry the girl. The young man at once came 
 home. He said he did not want to marry her, as he loved another girl 
 better; but if his folks said so, he would do it. The young man's fa- 
 ther said it would be better to blight the life of one person than the 
 lives of three; so he thought the proper plan would be to pay the 
 injured girl money to satisfy her and let his son marry the other girl. 
 He sent a man (a brother in Christ) to make the proposition, and it 
 was rejected. Then the young man wrote the young woman that he 
 did not intend to marry her. Her father then began to take steps to 
 force him to do something, and he went and married her and then 
 went back to his home; and I am told that he says he will never see 
 her again, and is very anxious for her to give him a divorce. Now, 
 
Marriage, Forced. 285 
 
 what I want to know is: Did the father of the young man commit sin 
 in the course he took, and did the brother whom he sent to make the 
 money proposition commit sin? What would have been the scriptural 
 course for all parties concerned to have taken? 
 
 The community from which our brother writes is, in many- 
 respects, one of the best communities I know. It is composed 
 of that class of industrious people, without extremes of wealth, 
 fashion, and idleness, or extreme poverty, want, and degra- 
 dation, that produce the best results morally and religiously; 
 yet we hear of more complaint along the line here indicated 
 in that community than from any other. The foundation 
 cause of the prevalence of the sin, I believe, is in the free-and- 
 easy handling of the girls by the boys that is tolerated by the 
 fathers and mothers. It may be accepted as a maxim that a 
 girl, a woman, who permits herself to be handled and caressed 
 by a man, places herself at his mercy, commits her virtue 
 to his keeping, and in doing this so excites and inflames his 
 lusts that she tempts him to destroy that virtue. That is the 
 evil of the dance. The contact, the handling, and the caress- 
 ing invited in the dance inflame the lust and weaken the self- 
 control and sense of virtue, so that ruin follows. For a young 
 man to clutch a girl by the arm and hold it through a night 
 walk of a mile or two, continually repeated, invites familiarity 
 that so excites the lust and weakens the self-control that they 
 would have to be more than human not to be led frequently 
 into lewdness. For this the fathers and mothers who tolerate 
 the lust-exciting freedom are primarily guilty. Fathers and 
 mothers sin against both their sons and their daughters when 
 they tolerate customs that inflame the lusts and weaken the 
 power of self-control. 
 
 When they have been both led into the wrong, the man 
 ought to feel himself in honor bound to bear with the woman 
 the guilt of that wrong ; he ought to do it ; for, let society view 
 it as it may, he is as guilty as she is, and for him to shirk 
 out of his share of the shame or refuse to shield her from 
 shame is unmanly and dishonorable. But with the prevail- 
 ing sentiment that the crime is the woman's, it is natural 
 that he should desire to avoid marriage, lest she yield to the 
 fascination of some other man. Women, more than men, are 
 to blame for the different degrees of shame attached to the 
 lewdness of men and women. They are more tolerant of the 
 lewd man, more intolerant of their erring sister, than men are. 
 This ought not to be so. 
 
286 Marriage, Forced. 
 
 If the man refuses to take the girl as his wife, it is both 
 folly and sin in her parents to try to force him to do it ; it only 
 complicates matters and brings additional trouble and shame 
 upon all parties. Instead of forcing him to marry her, they 
 ought to shield her from him as they would from a foul beast. 
 The idea of forcing a woman on a man as his wife that lie 
 does not want is an outrage on the woman. The disposition 
 to do this arises from the false idea that the woman is ruined 
 who is guilty of this sin. This is a sad mistake. She is no 
 more polluted in soul or in the sight of God than the man is, 
 often not so much. She often throws herself away because 
 the world frowns upon her so bitterly ; but she ought, by pru- 
 dence and virtue, to show that she is not lost, and she can 
 command the respect of the world by fidelity. Society, her 
 friends, all Christians, and especially her father, mother, broth- 
 ers, and sisters, should tenderly encourage her and help her 
 to retrieve her wrong step and live a useful and happy life. 
 That a respectable girl would marry the polluted man any more 
 readily than a respectable man would marry the polluted girl 
 (they are equally polluted) shows how unjust society is. It 
 would be folly for the man's father to insist on his taking the 
 girl as his wife when he could not willingly do it. For him to 
 offer a money consideration for the wrong done is probably 
 the only compensation he can make for the wrong done, and 
 it is something to his credit that he is willing to do this. He 
 ought to do what he can to lighten the wrong done by his son, 
 and he ought to charge it to his son, so as to make him pay 
 the penalty for his wrong. There is nothing wrong that I can 
 see in the man who conveyed his proposition ; nor would there 
 be wrong in the girl's father in receiving the money for her 
 and the innocent offspring of the sins of its parents and so- 
 ciety. To receive the money after the sin has been committed 
 to help out of the difficulty is very different and should not be 
 thought of as a sale of the woman's virtue or a justification 
 of the man's wrong; it is the willingness of the father to do 
 what he can to atone for the wrong done by his son. It leaves 
 the man and the woman in their guilt. But society is largely 
 responsible for the sins into which it leads the young. 
 
 MARRIAGE OF CHRISTIANS TO UNBELIEVERS. 
 
 Please tell me whether a Christian would be justifiable in marry- 
 ing a woman that was riot a Christian. If so, where will I find the 
 scripture for it? 
 
Marriage of Christians to Unbelievers. 287 
 
 The New Testament nowhere gives specific directions to a 
 Christian man as to whom he should marry. The only direc- 
 tion given restricting marriage is that a widow " is free to be 
 married to whom she will; only in the Lord." (1 Cor. 7: 39.) 
 I know of no reason why a widow should be restricted in the 
 matter more than maidens. Perhaps it might be considered 
 better for a man to marry out of Christ than for a woman, 
 since he is supposed not to be so much under her control as 
 she is under his ; but under the law of Moses the man was 
 prohibited marrying out of the family of God, save when the 
 woman would identify herself with the people of God. The 
 reason given was, lest they draw them into idolatry. Solo- 
 mon violated the law, and, despite his wisdom and power, his 
 wives drew him into idolatry. Influence is frequently more 
 potent -for good or evil than authority or power. The sons 
 of Elimelech and Naomi, when they went down into the land 
 of Moab, married heathen wives — Ruth and Orpah — and' it 
 brought Ruth to the service of God. This marriage was when 
 there were none others to marry. The law of Moses is an 
 earthly type of the law of Christ. The inference would be 
 that the children of God could not marry out of the family of 
 God. " Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers : for what 
 fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what com- 
 munion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath 
 Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an 
 unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with 
 idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God 
 said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will be 
 their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come 
 ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, 
 and touch no unclean thing ; and I will receive you, and will 
 be to you a Father, and ye shall be to me sons and daughters, 
 saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 6: 14-18.) 
 
 To be unequally yoked would be to be so connected with 
 the unbeliever that the Christian would be controlled by the 
 unbeliever. I know no relation in which this would be more 
 so than in the marriage relation. The whole drift and tenor 
 of the Scriptures, both the Old and the New Testament, is 
 that in the close and intimate relations of life the children of 
 God should seek the companionship of servants of God, that 
 they might help and encourage each other in the Christian 
 life. When both are working together, man in his weakness 
 
288 Marriage of Christians to Unbelievers. 
 
 often becomes discouraged ; it is greatly worse when the near- 
 est and dearest one pulls us from Christ and duty. Then, too, 
 when people marry, they ought to consider the probability of 
 rearing children. It is the duty of Christian parents to rear 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 How can one do this when the other sets the example of un- 
 belief and disobedience to God? The spirit and teaching of 
 the Bible seem to me against it, and yet there is no direct and 
 specific prohibition of it. God recognizes it as a necessity 
 for some to marry in order to live virtuously. If such cannot 
 marry Christian wives, they will marry those not Christians. 
 Then it is their duty to try to convert them to Christ Jesus. 
 
 MARRIAGES, WHO HAS RIGHT TO OFFICIATE AT? 
 
 I am a member of the church of Christ, and have been a preacher 
 of the gospel for six years. During that time I have married many 
 couples, and all these marriages have been duly recorded as provided 
 by law, no complaint ever having been made as to my authority to 
 perform such ceremony. Recently, however, I was the officiating 
 minister at a marriage, one of the parties to which was the daughter 
 of a Methodist preacher, who, being informed of the affair, forced the 
 couple to marry again, saying that neither our church nor I have the 
 right to marry people. The matter has created a sensation all over 
 this country. What shall I do in regard to the matter? 
 
 I would not do anything. I would let him froth out his 
 folly and shame without my help in any way. There is no 
 law, human or divine, to prevent a man's showing his igno- 
 rance and bigotry when he is full of them. I would say noth- 
 ing; but if authorized by my church to perform such rites, I 
 would marry others whenever they desire me. That preacher 
 is mistaken; hf did not make them marry over again. They 
 cannot be married more than once without getting a divorce. 
 The first ceremony is, in the law, the marriage ; the second 
 was a meaningless farce. Persons coming together as hus- 
 band and wife constitute marriage in the sight of God without 
 any ceremony ; but God requires us to submit to the civil law, 
 unless it demands of us something that violates the law of 
 God. Performing a ceremony violates no law of God and is 
 a proper requirement on the part of the civil government to 
 protect the innocent people from the reckless and vicious. 
 Then this ceremony must be observed ; but the civil law makes 
 a marriage performed by a Mormon elder or an idol wor- 
 shiper as valid as when performed by the oldest and highest 
 bishop of the Methodist Church. This may be humiliating to 
 
Married to Christ. 289 
 
 some, but it is law none the less. This is not the first time 
 such charges have been made. J. R. Graves once published 
 it in his paper; but no one paid any attention to it, and its 
 only effect was to lessen him in the esteem of all fair-minded 
 people. The civil government, in permitting preachers, eld- 
 ers, and clerks authorized by churches to perform these cere- 
 monies, agrees to take the services performed by the churches 
 in lieu of their performance by its own officers on condition 
 that the marriage is returned to its clerks and a record be kept 
 of it. 
 
 MARRIED TO CHRIST. 
 
 If we are not married to Christ when we become Christians, what 
 right have we to wear his name? What right have we to call the 
 church by his name unless she is married to him now? What right 
 has she to bear fruit if not married to him? Please explain the latter 
 part of Rom. 7:4. 
 
 The passage in Rom. 7: 4 shows plainly that when they 
 died to the law, they were married to Christ. They died to 
 the law that they might be married to Christ, and that when 
 married to Christ they might bring forth fruit to him. The 
 church is represented as the wife and Jesus as the husband. 
 (Eph. 5 : 22.) Disciples are children of God and must have had 
 a mother. Interpreting these relations as applying to the future 
 is hurtful. It leads to much error, too, when a figure is used 
 to illustrate one point of likeness, to try to make the things cor- 
 respond in all points. Because the union with Christ is 
 likened to a marriage in one point, to argue that it must be 
 like it at all points is misleading. A marriage with Christ 
 may represent the first union, and yet not represent the other 
 relations. It might not imply that we must wear the name 
 of Christ as a wife wears her husband's name ; yet it is taught 
 by other scriptures that we are to be baptized into his name, 
 put on his name, and walk worthy of his name. 
 
 The church was married to Christ by each person entering 
 into Christ, and so becoming a member of his body. Jesus 
 frequently used an illustration to point out one particular qual- 
 ity or relation of the church or of our relations to God. To 
 make the illustrations apply in other points is to do violence 
 to the teaching of the Savior and lead into error. Because 
 the acceptance of Christ in one point is likened to a marriage 
 
 does not imply that the relations to Christ conform in all 
 39 
 
290 Married to Christ. 
 
 points to the marriage relation. The same people that are said 
 to be married to Christ or to constitute his wife are in other 
 places called " the children of God," " the brethren of the 
 Lord." If the relation of children must be conformed to in 
 all points, they could not be called brethren nor be said to be 
 married to him. We are sons of God ; we are the brethren of 
 the Lord ; we are married to him and must bear children to 
 him. These relations are all represented in our relations to 
 Christ, and are present, not future. 
 
 MARRYING A CHRISTIAN TO AN UNBELIEVER. 
 
 Suppose a bishop, or preacher, has taught to the best of his ability 
 the people where he labors or teaches the will of God concerning- whom 
 disciples should marry, showing conclusively that under the old cove- 
 nant, and also under the new, God wills for his people to be equal, 
 and not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; that four classes 
 of God's children are plainly told what kind of companions they should 
 have — preachers', bishops', and deacons' wives must be " faithful in 
 all things" (1 Tim. 3: 11), widows are to marry "only in the Lord" 
 (1 Cor. 7: 39); and that God is no respecter of persons (Rom. 2: 11; 
 Eph. 6: 9). Then a young lady who has been taught thus engages 
 herself to a disobedient young man, and each of them, with the par- 
 ents on both sides, earnestly desires and solicits said preacher to offi- 
 ciate in their marriage. The preacher then again takes the liberty to 
 instruct the young lady of her duty and the impending danger of dis- 
 obeying God, also instructing the young man of his duty and earnestly 
 urging him to comply with the same, at the same time telling the cou- 
 ple it is against his will to perform the marriage ceremony for them; 
 yet, after all this, they each, with tremulous voice and eyes blinded 
 with tears, say: "You are our choice above all other men." What 
 does duty demand of a true gospel preacher under such circumstances? 
 Can a gospel preacher be consistent with truth divine and unite a dis- 
 ciple and an unbeliever in marriage? Or if he should teach them, as 
 in this case, their duty, and fully believe that his refusal might be an 
 offense and might drive one or both farther into disobedience, and, 
 upon this conclusion, marry them, does the preacher do wrong? 
 
 It is the duty of preachers and elders to teach the young 
 and the old what is right in choosing companions. When 
 they have faithfully done this, they have done all they can do. 
 People, young and old, when they catch the marrying fever, 
 often seem to lose their regard for God and for common sense. 
 Often the old men and women are more foolish than the 
 younger ones. The teachings of the Bible are advisory rather 
 than mandatory on marriage — that is, while the whole trend of 
 the Bible is against marriages other than among the people of 
 God, there is no specific command of God forbidding it, save to 
 widows; and there is a command that when married to live 
 together, with the hope that the faithful one will win the un- 
 
Mercy, God Has, on Whom He Will. 291 
 
 believer. But the ceremony of marriage is not recognized in 
 the Scriptures. It is a requirement of the civil government 
 and is performed in obedience to its laws. It is not a religious 
 service, save. as it is right to obey the civil laws. Not long 
 since a Christian girl, contrary to the earnest wishes of her 
 parents, determined to marry out of Christ. The parents 
 yielded to what they could not prevent, and wished the elder 
 of their church and their lifelong preacher to perform the cer- 
 emony. He consulted me about it, and I felt that it would 
 be harsh in him not to perform the ceremony, as the parents 
 desired it. It was to accommodate them, not to encourage 
 marriages out of Christ. I do not think he sinned in so do- 
 ing. In these matters no explicit law is given, and, with the 
 general principles laid down, each is left to act in each case as 
 his judgment approves. 
 
 MERCY, GOD HAS, ON WHOM HE WILL. 
 
 What is meant by the following? " I will have mercy on whom I 
 have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion. 
 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of 
 God that hath mercy." (Rom. 9: 15, 16.) 
 
 The first of these verses is a quotation from what God said 
 to Moses. In his dealings with Moses, God defined the classes 
 to whom he would show mercy. When the people trusted 
 and obeyed him, he had mercy on them ; when they refused to 
 trust and follow him, he refused to have mercy upon them 
 and punished them. This was so universally understood to 
 be the law of God that Solomon put it in a proverb (a proverb 
 is the expression of a well-known and universal truth) : " He 
 that covereth his transgressions shall not prosper ; but whoso 
 confesseth and forsaketh them shall obtain mercy." (Prov. 
 28: 13.) The whole dealings of God with man under the pa- 
 triarchal and Mosaic dispensations illustrate and enforce this 
 truth. When God, then, says, " I will have mercy on whom 
 I will," he means that he will have mercy on those who con- 
 fess and turn from their sins and transgressions ; and nothing 
 that others may do will turn him from it. In the preceding 
 verses he has been speaking of his choosing Jacob and refus- 
 ing Esau. He illustrates what he means by this case. Isaac 
 willed that Esau should inherit the blessing, and Esau ran 
 with haste to obtain the venison for his father, that he might 
 inherit the blessing; but neither Isaac's will nor Esau's run- 
 
292 Mercy, God Has, on Whom He Will. 
 
 ning could defeat the purpose of God to bless Jacob. If Esau 
 had possessed the character approved by God, God would have 
 willed to bless him ; but as he did not possess the character 
 approved by God, his father's preference or his anxiety for the 
 blessing could not secure it. 
 
 He then uses Pharaoh as another example. Pharaoh was 
 wicked. God did not make him wicked, but he determined 
 to make an example for the world, to show his power and de- 
 termination to punish the wicked and rebellious ; so he raised 
 the wicked Pharaoh up before the world to show that all the 
 power of the Egyptian throne could not defeat his purpose. 
 He raised Pharaoh, already wicked and depraved, to show his 
 power. When Pharaoh was disposed to relent and turn back 
 before the place of his punishment was reached, God hardened 
 his heart to lead him on to the place where he would show his 
 divine power to punish sin in the mightiest king of earth. 
 Keep it in mind that God did not make Pharaoh wicked. 
 Had he permitted the Israelites to defeat him, it would not 
 have been clear to the world that God did it ; as it was, all 
 must see that God did it, and none could " stay his hand, or 
 say unto him, What doest thou? " 
 
 None of these examples affect the truth that God will have 
 mercy upon those who confess and turn from their sins. 
 When he says, " I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, 
 and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion," he 
 affirms the truth that he will have mercy and compassion on 
 the humble and contrite in heart, whether Jew or Gentile ; and 
 all the opposition or claims of the Jews will not hinder his 
 purpose to save the believing Gentiles, because it was his will 
 to save these. God's will, not man's, shall prevail. See God's 
 Foreknowledge. 
 
 MESSENGERS, SENDING BY. 
 
 (1) In talking to the society advocates in reference to doing mission 
 work, they claim that their opposers depart themselves from an apos- 
 tolic example by not selecting a messenger, as the church at Philippi 
 did (Phil. 4: 18), and sending him direct to the preacher in the field. 
 They claim that, as their opposers depart from this one example, they 
 have the same right to go a few steps farther and organize the board. 
 Will you give the reasons why the society advocates have not the same 
 right to depart from an apostolic example, and send missionary money 
 in a different way (through the board), as their opposers have to de- 
 part and send it through the mail instead of sending it direct to the 
 preacher in the field? 
 
Messengers, Sending by. 293 
 
 The difference between the two is: One interferes with an 
 ordained order of God, and the other does not; one is in the 
 realm of divine ordinances, the other is in the class left to 
 human expediency. There is no word of the Scriptures that 
 shows that God ordained that personal or special messengers 
 should be sent to carry help to the workers in the field, nor has 
 he made any order about sending. They were sent as the 
 only means they had of getting help to them, but it is nowhere 
 spoken of or treated a's an order of God. They had no banks, 
 no system of exchange, no mails, no regular means of com- 
 munication, save by sending messengers ; so they adopted it 
 just as they traveled on foot, on land, and by ship on water; 
 they had no other way of travel. That was not ordaining 
 that Christians could not travel by stage or steam car,- or by 
 boats, when they were available. God never ordained special 
 messengers ; the disciples used them without divine order, 
 when there were no other means of sending help. They be- 
 long to the class of human expediences left by God to human 
 wisdom. But God did ordain his churches and his disciples to 
 carry forward his work of spreading the gospel. Societies to 
 take the work out of their hands were just as feasible then 
 as they are now. They did not use them because they could 
 not do it without setting aside the God-ordained order. To 
 do that is to exalt man above God, to make him sit in the seat 
 of God, and displace God as the only Ruler and Lawgiver. 
 Paul (2 Thess.) speaks of this tendency working in his day, 
 and he calls it " the man of sin." The church and the individ- 
 ual Christian God has ordained to preach the gospel to> the 
 whole world. For man to organize other means to do this 
 is to set aside the authority of God with his own wisdom. 
 God has given no order as to how help shall be sent to the 
 worker in the field. The apostles set the example of using 
 what means were at command, and so left man to adopt just 
 such means as he finds at hand ; so we may follow their ex- 
 ample in both cases. 
 
 (2) What would be your advice if a brother, in the congregation of 
 which you are an elder, should object to the congregation sending 
 missionary money in any way except by selecting a messenger and 
 sending him direct to the missionary in the field? 
 
 I would show him God made no order on the subject, but 
 used such means as were available ; so had given us the ex- 
 ample to follow. If we determine our course by results as 
 
294 Messengers, Sending by. 
 
 they appear to us, we set aside the law of God altogether ; we 
 substitute what appears to us good in place of his law. 
 
 MIRACLES, WHEN DID, CEASE? See Baptism in the 
 Holy Spirit. 
 
 MORAL AND POSITIVE LAW. 
 
 What is the difference between moral and positive law? I would 
 like to hear from you to be enlightened. Is meeting together upon 
 the first day of the week a positive command? If so, do we not sin 
 willfully when we fail to comply with that command, if not provi- 
 dentially hindered? 
 
 There is no such distinction in the Bible as that between 
 moral and positive law. There are differences between laws 
 given in the Bible, and men have drawn distinctions between 
 them as moral and positive law. There are certain laws given 
 in the Bible that men have pronounced as moral and others 
 as positive laws. The moral law is that from which the re- 
 ceiver of the law can see the good. A man may obey the law 
 of God because he sees good in it, not as a test of his obedi- 
 ence to God. Obedience to the moral laws may show that 
 man obeys them to obtain the good they present, regardless 
 of the authority by which they are clothed. 
 
 " Positive laws are precepts which are not founded upon any 
 reasons known to those to whom they are given. Thus, in the 
 state of innocence, God gave the law of the Sabbath, of absti- 
 nence from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, etc. In child- 
 hood most of the parental commands are necessarily of this 
 nature, owing to the incapacity of the child to understand the 
 grounds of their inculcation. " (McClintock and Strong's 
 Encyclopedia.) So positive law is given to test man's will- 
 ingness to obey God. There is no moral character or influ- 
 ence connected with it separate from the command of the 
 Author. Dr. R. B. C. Howell, a leading Baptist of the gen- 
 eration past, said in his work on " Communion " (page 37) : 
 " Those [duties] commanded by positive law are right for no 
 other reason than because they are commanded. They are 
 based solely upon the authority of the Lawgiver, and are de- 
 signed to test our disposition to bow to his requirements. 
 . . . The positive code is right because it is commanded." 
 Positive commands test our loyalty to God. They are such as 
 do not commend themselves to man's reason, are generally 
 

 Moral and Positive Law. 295 
 
 repulsive to his sensuous or fleshly feelings, and require self- 
 denial and humiliation to submit to them. There can be no 
 motive to lead an honest man to obey the positive ordinances, 
 save the desire to obey and honor God. The positive ordi- 
 nances test the willingness and the eagerness of the spirit to 
 obey God, which overcomes the weakness and unwillingness of 
 the flesh. Baptism is an ordinance, a positive ordinance of 
 God — ordained to test and prove the earnestness of man's 
 faith, the whole-heartedness of his repentance or desire to sub- 
 mit to him. There is no ordinance, no act of which man can 
 conceive, more humiliating, more repulsive, to all the fleshly 
 feelings of man than the giving himself up as one dead into 
 the hands of another, to be buried out of himself as a lifeless 
 and unclean thing. When man believes in Jesus and repents 
 toward God with sufficient strength to lead him to submit to 
 this test of his love, God promises to forgive his sins. As an 
 example, in 2 Kings 5 there is an account of Naaman, the 
 leper, going to Elisha to be healed of his leprosy. He came 
 with all the pomp and splendor of the greatest captain of the 
 mightiest nation of earth. The prophet did not go out to see 
 him, but sent the message : " Go and wash in the Jordan seven 
 times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt 
 be clean." There was nothing in the water or the dipping that 
 could heal. Naaman's reason was outraged at the proposed 
 condition, and so he turned away in a rage. But at the protest 
 of his servants he reconsidered the matter, laid aside his wrath, 
 put away the objections of reason, denied the fleshly feelings, 
 and submitted to the command of God ; " and his flesh came 
 again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." 
 The water did not do the healing, the dipping did not do it. 
 God healed him, and he did it only when he had submitted 
 to his positive ordinance, or had complied with the condition 
 on which God had suspended healing. 
 
 So God has ordained baptism as a positive ordinance with 
 which to test the strength and sincerity of man's faith and re- 
 pentance ; and when he embodies them in this act of submis- 
 sion to God, God, who alone can forgive sin, promises to for- 
 give his sins. Positive ordinances embody and express the 
 faith and test the loyalty of man to God. In this sense, and 
 in this only, is baptism for the remission of sins to the peni- 
 tent believer. Baptism to him that believes in Christ and re- 
 pents toward God is for the remission of sins. Jesus Christ 
 
296 Moral and Positive Law. 
 
 gave the condition, sealed it with his blood, the Holy Spirit 
 through the apostles required all to submit to it, and all to- 
 day who believe in Christ are required to prove their loyalty 
 to God, their faith in Christ, and repentance toward God by 
 complying with the command. The observance of the Lord's 
 Supper also tests man's obedience to the will of God and his 
 walk with God through life. It partakes more or less of the 
 service of obedience to God from a moral standpoint, as all 
 acts do as we become accustomed to their use. The proba- 
 bility is that all service comes in its beginning as a service 
 to God because God commands it. It is as a little child re- 
 ceiving commands from a parent. The practice of the pre- 
 cepts begets a love for the service, and what one time was a 
 positive law partakes more or less of the nature of a moral 
 law. All laws in their beginnings partake more or less of the 
 nature of positive laws and must be obeyed as matters of faith 
 in God. See Sabbath Day, The (2). 
 
 MORMON PRETENSIONS. 
 
 (1) Who sent you to preach and baptize, or did you fashion your- 
 self a minister? (2 Cor. 11: 13-15.) 
 
 The question is not what affects me personally, but what 
 the Scriptures teach. Unless Jesus has sent me to preach, I 
 have no right to preach. Jesus said to the apostles : "As the 
 Father hath sent me, even so send I you." (John 20: 21.) 
 " He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me ; and he 
 that rceiveth me receiveth him that sent me." (John 13: 20.) 
 What Jesus did, the Father did through him ; what the apos- 
 tles did, Jesus did through them. Jesus, in the great commis- 
 sion, commanded the apostles : " Go . . . make disciples 
 of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father 
 and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them [those 
 baptized] to observe [to observe is to do] all things whatso- 
 ever I commanded you." (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) Jesus told the 
 apostles to teach all baptized persons to do what he had com- 
 manded them. He had commanded them to disciple all the 
 nations, to " preach the gospel to the whole creation." So 
 Christ commands every person taught and baptized by the 
 apostles to teach and baptize others. This is the general and 
 universal law, restricted as tO' persons and classes, times and 
 places, by directions given by Jesus and to us through the 
 
Mormon Pretensions. 297 
 
 apostles, through whom he speaks to the world. By this great 
 commission every one taught and baptized by the apostles is 
 under the same obligation to teach and baptize others as the 
 apostles themselves. All disciples, restricted as above by the 
 direction of God, have the same authority and are under the 
 same obligation to preach and teach what Jesus gave that the 
 apostles had. Mormon pretenders, who claim to work mira- 
 cles and to receive direct power from God, fill the following 
 description : " For such men are false apostles, deceitful work- 
 ers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ. And no 
 marvel ; for even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel of 
 light. It is no great thing therefore if his ministers also 
 fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness ; whose end 
 shall be according to their works." (2 Cor. 11 : 13-15.) That 
 scripture has never in the world's history been more com- 
 pletely fulfilled than in the claims and pretensions of Mormons 
 to apostolic and miraculous gifts. 
 
 (2) Jesus appeared unto Paul to make him a minister. Who ap- 
 peared unto you? 
 
 The man since the days of the apostles that claims that Je- 
 sus appeared to him as he did to Paul is a false apostle, a de- 
 ceitful worker, fashioning himself into an apostle of Christ. 
 I gave the authority by which I preach under (1). 
 
 (3) If Timothy was baptized just the same as Paul, give proof that 
 he was made a minister in a different way from Paul. 
 
 The burden rests on you to show that he was sent as Paul, 
 if it be true. But the evidence is so abundant against you that 
 I give it. Paul says : " For I make known to you, brethren, 
 as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is 
 not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor 
 was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Je- 
 sus Christ." (Gal. 1: 11, 12.) Paul, as all apostles, saw Je- 
 sus and received from him directly what he was to teach. 
 An apostle was one sent directly by Christ to bear witness 
 of what he heard and saw of him. Ananias said to Saul : 
 " The God of our fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, 
 and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his 
 mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of 
 what thou hast seen and heard." (Acts 22: 14, 15.) In verse 
 18 God spoke to him directly again ; see also Acts 9 : 15. " For 
 
298 Mormon Pretensions. 
 
 to this end have I appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a min- 
 ister and a witness both of the things wherein thou hast seen 
 me, and of the things wherein I will appear unto thee." (Acts 
 26: 16.) See also 2 Cor. 12, wherein God did appear unto him. 
 " Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all 
 patience, by signs and wonders and mighty works." (Verse 
 12.) No true apostle ever demanded or expected people to 
 believe that he was an apostle unless he gave them the evidence 
 of his apostleship by these signs. Timothy was not so called 
 of God to be an apostle. He had first been taught the Old 
 Testament Scriptures by his mother and grandmother. (2 
 Tim. 1 : 5.) He was Paul's " true child in faith " of the gos- 
 pel (1 Tim. 1:2), which means that Paul taught him the gos- 
 pel of Christ, or brought him to believe in Christ. Paul, after 
 he had converted him, returned to his place and found him 
 " well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and 
 Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and 
 he took and circumcised him," etc. (Acts 16: 1-3.) So he was 
 called by Paul to go with him, and whatever of spiritual gifts 
 he had he received from the laying on of Paul's hands, and not 
 direct from God. " For which cause I put thee in remem- 
 brance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee 
 through the laying on of my hands." (2 Tim. 1 : 6.) Paul 
 received his teaching direct from God, and not of man; Tim- 
 othy received what he knew from Paul and by reading and 
 study of the Scriptures. " Hold the pattern of sound words 
 which thou hast heard from me, in faith and love which is in 
 Christ Jesus." (2 Tim. 1 : 13.) "And the things which thou 
 hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same com- 
 mit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others 
 also." (2 Tim. 2: 2.) Again: "Abide thou in the things 
 which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of 
 whom thou hast learned them ; and that from a babe thou hast 
 known the sacred writings which are able to make thee wise 
 unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 
 Tim. 3: 14, 15.) He admonished Timothy to give attention 
 to reading and study, and recognized that he in all things 
 was dependent upon what he heard and learned of others. 
 Paul says that he was not, nor was any apostle of Jesus Christ. 
 It is true that Timothy had a spiritual gift that was bestowed 
 on him by the hands of the apostles. These gifts were given 
 to remain with and guide the church until the perfect will of 
 
Mormon Pretensions. 299 
 
 God should be made known; then these gifts, partial in their 
 nature, were to give way to the more excellent and perfect 
 way given in 1 Cor. 13. " Love [the better way] never 
 faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done 
 away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether 
 there be knowledge [he is speaking of miraculous knowledge], 
 it shall be done away. . . . When that which is perfect 
 [the perfect will of God] is come, that which is in part shall 
 be done away." He is speaking of the completion of the per- 
 fect will of God and the temporary spiritual gifts, which 
 were partial and to pass away, as the context clearly shows. 
 (See also Eph. 4: 12, 13.) It will be seen, too, that he tells 
 Timothy that the truth is to be perpetuated by his committing 
 it to faithful men able to teach others. This shows that the 
 miraculous gifts were not to be perpetuated, but the word 
 of God was to be taught from one to another. Timothy did 
 not receive the same kind of a call that Paul did, nor was he 
 inspired to the degree that Paul was. Paul declares that he 
 was not a whit behind the chiefest apostle; and the test he 
 gave by which all men's claims to be spiritual were to be true 
 was that they acknowledged the things that he wrote (em- 
 bracing the passing away of the miraculous gifts) were the 
 commandments of God. (1 Cor. 14: 37.) Paul's call and 
 Timothy's call were no more alike than the creation of Adam 
 and that of his descendants. His was miraculous; others', 
 by law. 
 
 (4) If Paul desired to " cut off occasion from them which desire 
 occasion" by preacning "for naught,'' do you do as Paul? 
 
 I have never preached for money, and any man that does it 
 is unworthy of Christ. Paul did receive help, but remained 
 in poverty, so poor that he could not support one wife. The 
 Mormon apostles have grown immensely rich and powerful 
 in worldly affairs and can support many wives to gratify their 
 pampered lusts. They are greatly unlike Paul in this. 
 
 (5) If those who hear the apostles hear Jesus, do you hear James 
 (5: 14, 15) and John (Rev. 1: 3), just as well as Philip with the eunuch, 
 going " down into the water " and " up out of the water? " As you are 
 of those who call for " precept and example," do you anoint the sick 
 when you pray for them? 
 
 I hear these and do them as commanded. I do not, as the 
 Mormons, make a pretense of curing people, when they can- 
 
300 Mormon Pretensions. 
 
 not present a single case of real cure by laying on hands or 
 anointing with oil in their whole existence. If to cure people 
 by this process is a sign of approval by God, the Mormons 
 are of all people most miserable. They have pretended that 
 they had power to do this, and in all their history cannot pre- 
 sent a single case of actual cure. 
 
 When you anoint the sick, do they get well ? I saw a Mor- 
 mon elder not long ago complaining greatly of suffering, and 
 I suggested that he have hands laid on him and be anointed, 
 and he was greatly offended. I pressed another, a few weeks 
 ago, to give one single example, well authenticated, of any 
 of them having worked a miracle of healing in all their his- 
 tory, and proposed that I would go five hundred miles to see 
 one such. After much evasion he said that a blind woman 
 was restored to sight last year in Warren County, Tenn. I 
 pressed him for the name or neighborhood, but never could 
 get either. I showed him that Christ and his apostles healed 
 multitudes. "And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching 
 in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, 
 and healing all manner of disease and all manner of sickness 
 among the people. And the report of him went forth into all 
 Syria: and they brought unto him all that were sick, holden 
 with divers diseases and torments, possessed with demons, 
 and epileptic, and palsied; and he healed them." (Matt. 4: 
 23, 24.) "And Jesus went about all the cities and the villages, 
 teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the 
 kingdom, and healing all manner of disease and all manner of 
 sickness." (Matt. 9: 35.) "And at even, when the sun did 
 set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that 
 were possessed with demons. And all the city was gathered 
 together at the door. And he healed many that were sick 
 with divers diseases, and cast out many demons ; and he suf- 
 fered not the demons to speak, because they knew him." 
 (Mark 1 : 32-34.) Here, as elsewhere, his miracles were nu- 
 merous and in the presence of the whole city. Nothing did 
 he speak or do in secret that he did not do openly. The apos- 
 tles Peter and John healed the impotent man at the Beautiful 
 gate of the temple, and " all the people saw him walking and 
 praising God." (Acts 3:9.) 
 
 Again : "And by the hands of the apostles were many signs 
 and wonders wrought among the people ; . . . insomuch 
 that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid 
 
Mormon Pretensions. 301 
 
 them on beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least 
 his shadow might overshadow some one of them. And there 
 also came together the multitude from the cities round about 
 Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and them that were vexed with 
 unclean spirits: and they were healed every one." (Acts 5: 
 12-16.) Here the numbers seem to have been so great that the 
 apostle could not go to each one of them personally; so they 
 were laid along his pathway that they might be thus treated. 
 A similar condition existed at Ephesus with Paul. "And God 
 wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul : insomuch that 
 unto the sick were carried away from his body handkerchiefs 
 or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil 
 spirits went out." (Acts 19: 11, 12.) These things were done 
 openly before all the people in such numbers that none could 
 be deceived. These are only given as specimens. I feel sure 
 that we may safely say that no one suffering with disease ever 
 applied to Jesus or an apostle for healing and failed to receive 
 it. Had their claims to work miracles or to have the mirac- 
 ulous power of the Spirit been supported by no better or 
 clearer testimony than the claims of the Latter-Day Saints, no 
 sane man ever would have believed them. A more baseless 
 and stupendous lie has never been perpetrated on the credulity 
 of the ignorant than the claims of Mormonism to miraculous 
 power. No miracle, no prophetic power, no ability to heal 
 has ever been manifested among them, nor can be. 
 
 (6) Will you be kind enough to give a precept to pray for the sick 
 without anointing with oil? 
 
 The question asked here meets no point of difference be- 
 tween Mormons and Christians. Many Christians believe 
 that it is right to call for the elders, and that they should 
 anoint with oil and pray for them, with no expectation that 
 a miracle will be wrought to heal or that all will be healed. 
 I am sure that if every one on whom the elders laid hands 
 and anointed with oil had recovered, those Christians of early 
 days would yet be alive; and if the Mormons could cure by 
 laying on of hands and anointing with oil, none of them would 
 die. The fact that Mormons die as much as other people 
 proves the falsity of their claims to heal by laying on of hands 
 and anointing with oil. All candid people recognize a diffi- 
 culty in understanding this passage. Many claim that it re- 
 fers exclusively to the miraculous age of the church ; others, 
 
302 Mormon Pretensions. 
 
 that since the use of oil as a curative agent was common, it 
 was an admonition to connect with the remedies used the 
 prayers of the elders, and all who could be cured would be by 
 this course. The Mormons claim that it was miraculous, and 
 that they can cure by miracle now. This we insist is a blas- 
 phemous claim of divine power without a shadow of ground 
 on which to base the claim. All the sick and diseased in all 
 the country of Judea, Samaria, and Phenicia were brought to 
 Jesus, and they were healed before all the people, before all 
 the city. All that were brought to him were healed ; no* one 
 was left in doubt. If Mormons have such power now, it was 
 given to them, as it was to Christ and the apostles, that they 
 might convince the world that they speak by the authority of 
 God; and if they refuse to show this power, they betray the 
 trust that God committed to them. All talk of unbelief as a 
 reason for not exercising the power until they have given in- 
 fallible proof of possessing it is false pretense. Neither Christ 
 nor his apostles ever refused to 1 exert their power, save after 
 it had been shown, and then people refused to believe. But to 
 the question. I cannot find where men were commanded to 
 pray for the sick without anointing with oil, because this verse 
 is the only command in the Scriptures to pray for the sick; 
 but I can find quite a number of examples in which persons 
 did pray for healing for themselves and others, and they were 
 healed without the anointing. These as fully show God's ap- 
 proval as a command could. In the Old Testament Scriptures 
 is the case of Hezekiah. (2 Kings 20: 1 ; Isa. 38: 1.) He was 
 sick unto death, and he prayed the Lord, and he heard him 
 and extended his life fifteen years. Then Isaiah applied a 
 plaster of figs instead of anointing with oil. In the days of 
 Jesus many besought him to heal them. He did it without 
 the anointing with oil. (See Mark 1: 40; "5: 35; Matt. 8:5; 
 Luke 7: 3; 9: 38; John 4: 47; 11 : 1.) These, with many oth- 
 ers, show that men did pray for healing and receive it with- 
 out anointing with oil. 
 
 (7) As the gospel was preached by the apostles — those who did not 
 " fashion " themselves ministers — to " every creature " in Paul's day 
 (Col. 1: 23), "once for all delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3), how 
 are we to know that you are not of those who have "crept in privily? " 
 
 The true Christian can easily determine that he has not 
 " crept in privily " by his willingness to follow the law of God, 
 without addition, change, or subtraction. " If ye keep my 
 
Mormon Pretensions. 303 
 
 commandments, ye shall abide in my love." (John 15 : 10.) 
 God says that all effort to add to, take from, or change his 
 will is presumptuous sin before him. So the true child of God 
 takes it as it was given by Jesus Christ and his holy apostles, 
 without the Mormon additions. He knows that the Mormons 
 are false apostles, because they do not accept the gospel as 
 having been " once for all delivered unto the saints," and 
 which had, in its fullness and completeness, been preached 
 by Paul himself, and Christians had become complete in Christ 
 as preached. (Col. 2: 10; 4: 12.) These claims of the com- 
 pleteness and perfection in " faith once for all " cut off all 
 later revelations and brand all who claim them as false proph- 
 ets. All true believers know that Mormons are not true apos- 
 tles of Christ or servants of God, because they turn the grace 
 of God into lasciviousness. Mormons fill the bill exactly of 
 those of whom Paul warns : " For of these are they that creep 
 into houses, and take captive silly women laden with sins, 
 led away by divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to 
 come to the knowledge of the truth." (2 Tim. 3 : 6, 7.) That 
 is Paul's picture of Mormonism. Christians know that Mor- 
 mons are not true teachers of God, because they do not fol- 
 low Christ. He came into this world and found polygamy ex- 
 isting, tolerated by God under the law of Moses on account of 
 the hardness of their hearts, the ungovernableness of their lusts. 
 Christ corrected this perverted order: "And he answered and 
 said unto them, Have ye not read, that he who made them 
 from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 
 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and 
 shall cleave to his wife: and the two shall become one flesh? 
 So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore 
 God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matt. 
 19: 4-6.) Mormons found Christians trying to enforce this 
 law of God and pretended to receive a command from God 
 annulling God's law and substituting for it a command to take 
 many wives unto themselves. They set aside that gospel 
 " once for all delivered unto the saints " and preached another 
 gospel which is no gospel, and God says let such be accursed. 
 They show their utter antagonism to Christ and his apostles 
 in another thing. When these were in the world, they found 
 the laws of human government frequently contrary to the law 
 of God. In all such cases they said, " It is better to obey God 
 than man ; " and when punished unto death often for disobey- 
 
304 Mormon Pretensions. 
 
 ing the human law in such cases, they counted it all joy to 
 suffer for the name of Christ. Mormons claim to have re- 
 ceived a revelation from God commanding them to practice 
 polygamy. Mr. Roberts, before the congressional committee, 
 testified that the revelation was mandatory, not permissive; 
 yet when the government of the United States passed a law 
 punishing polygamy, the Mormons, through their highest au- 
 thorities, annulled it and ordered their members to disobey 
 what they claimed to be the law of God. No true prophet 
 or servant of God ever obeyed human law in preference to 
 God's law. Either Mormons do not believe God commanded 
 them to establish polygamy, or else, as a whole body, they 
 have set at defiance the law God gave to them. This of itself 
 brands them with treason against God. 
 
 (8) If the word of the Lord is now all written just as the Lord 
 wanted it, and so plain that " a fool shall not err," how are we to know 
 that he has left any place for your words, oral or written? (Ezek. 13.) 
 
 The words, oral or written, of no human being are to be 
 accepted, save as he speaks according to the words of God. 
 Nothing can be added to, nothing taken from. Hence we 
 know that all added by Mormonism is false and to be con- 
 demned. Any one who adds a thing not commanded by God 
 is guilty of presumptuous sin. No Christian is guilty of this. 
 The whole Mormon establishment is added to the command- 
 ments of God. 
 
 (9) As the apostles baptized Jew and Gentile into one body, family, 
 or fold nineteen hundred years ago, and as there is no wall in this field, 
 world, or age, how do you know that the kingdoms of this age are not 
 Christ's? (Rev. 11: 15.) 
 
 I know the nations are not the kingdoms of God, because 
 they do not obey his laws ; I know that the " nation " of Mor- 
 monism is not a kingdom of God, because they do not submit 
 to his law, but set it aside with their own inventions, violate 
 the spirit of his kingdom, which is one of gentleness, not force, 
 warfare, and bloodshed, as they have shown their kingdom 
 to be. 
 
 (10) If you are a valid teacher, can you " declare the whole counsel 
 of God? " If so, is John's Revelation a part of the " counsel," and can 
 you " declare " it? 
 
 I can, as I study and learn it. The " secret things belong 
 unto Jehovah our God ; but the things that are revealed be- 
 
Mormon Pretensions. 305 
 
 long unto us and to our children forever." (Deut. 29: 29.) 
 There are many truths clearly and plainly revealed in the 
 book of Revelation. These we may understand and teach. 
 There are many things in the book of Revelation, and to a 
 lesser extent in all the books of the Bible, that are not re- 
 vealed. These should be left to God. The things that are 
 revealed I teach. What the different figures — the beasts and 
 the vials, etc. — mean is not revealed. No man can reveal 
 them. Guessing at them is not revealing them ; it is doing 
 as the Mormons do — imposing their guesses on the ignorant 
 as the revelations of God. I try to avoid this. While we do 
 not understand what the different figures refer to, we can 
 easily learn the practical lessons they teach and teach them to 
 others. 
 
 (11) If it is wrong for a Mormon to have two or three women, and 
 to feed, clothe, and educate his children, how about those ministers pf 
 yours and the Methodists who lead women into adultery and then 
 leave them to practice infanticide or to live a life of deception or 
 shame? " 
 
 To ask that question is to be guilty of slander. That there 
 are Methodists and Christians that have been and are guilty 
 of adultery and deception, no one doubts, but that they are in 
 any sense justified or sustained in these sins by their churches 
 is a slander. In all ages of the world men have been led into 
 sin by their lusts. Sometimes good men are so led. Unless 
 they repent of the sin, they will be lost. If they repent of it, 
 confess it, and ask forgiveness, while suffering the penalty 
 to a certain extent, they may be forgiven and saved at last. 
 David is an example of this. He was a good man, but was 
 led by his lust into sin. Trying to conceal his adultery, he 
 committed murder. He repented, confessed his sin ; and al- 
 though the results of that sin clung to him and his family, 
 he was forgiven and accepted of God. He was forgiven be- 
 cause he confessed it was a sin and that he sinned in the 
 matter. But suppose David, when he was reproved by the 
 prophet, had justified the sin, insisted that he would take care 
 of the woman and child, and that God approved the sin. Do 
 you think that he would have found any forgiveness in so do- 
 ing? To cloak his sin with the name of God would have been 
 an infinitely more heinous sin than the one he committed. 
 For this there could have been no forgiveness. " The prophet, 
 that shall speak a word presumptuouslv in my name, which I 
 20 
 
306 Mormon Pretensions. 
 
 have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the 
 name of other gods, that same prophet shall die." (Deut. 
 18 : 20.) To insist that God teaches a thing he does not teach 
 is as great a sin as to speak in the name of or worship an 
 idol. Death without mercy was the penalty under the law of 
 Moses. If any Christian is guilty of lewdness or adultery, he 
 commits a sin. If he claims that God approves his sin and 
 cloaks his sin with the name of God, he so intensifies that sin 
 that there is no forgiveness for it. To claim that God justifies 
 or approves the sin is to refuse to repent of it and encourage 
 others to commit the same sin — thus to make it a deliberate, 
 presumptuous sin, for which there is no forgiveness in this 
 world or in that to come. To cohabit with another woman 
 when you have a wife is adultery. For a Mormon to do this 
 is as vile as for any one else. The Mormon sins, and, instead 
 of acknowledging his sin, justifies it, says that God approves 
 it, encourages others to commit the same sin. He sets aside 
 the teaching of Jesus, which plainly says, " The two shall be 
 one flesh ; " and cohabitation with another breaks, sunders, 
 what God has joined. He then cloaks that sin with the name 
 of religion and claims that God approves it. This is a much 
 more heinous sin than the sin of adultery committed and 
 owned as a sin. Jesus Christ came into the world and found 
 the rulers of this earth practicing and upholding polygamy. 
 He condemned them and it. The Mormons came and found 
 the rulers of the earth practicing and insisting on one man 
 having one wife, and they say that God commands them to 
 take more than one. Either Jesus or the Mormons is wrong. 
 One is an impostor. Which is it? 
 
 I have answered these questions according to the Scriptures. 
 Every passage referred to by Mormons condemns them and 
 their teaching plainly. Especially it was self-destruction for 
 them to quote the passage that commands : " Contend ear- 
 nestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the 
 saints." That means that it was delivered and finished, when 
 the foundation of Mormonism is that it was not once and for 
 all delivered, but that parts of it have been delivered in these 
 latter days through Joseph Smith and others, who falsely 
 claim to be prophets of God. By virtue of these later revela- 
 tions they call themselves " Latter-Day Saints." 
 
 But the interpretation given to one passage or another really 
 has but little to do with the truth or falsity of Mormonism. 
 
Mote Hunters and Hobby Riders. 307 
 
 The foundation stone of their fabric is that they have received 
 revelations from God. If this is true, their interpretations of 
 Scripture and teachings must be infallibly true. If it is not 
 true, if their claims to receive revelations from God are not 
 true, they, in pretending to do it and in presenting their own 
 teachings as from God, are guilty of the highest crime possi- 
 ble for men to commit against God. 
 
 In the following passage we have the sinfulness of setting 
 forth man's inventions as the commands of God : "Jehovah 
 thy God will raise, up unto thee a prophet from the midst 
 of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall 
 hearken. . . . But the prophet, that shall speak a word pre- 
 sumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him 
 to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that 
 same prophet shall die. And if thou say in thy heart, How 
 shall we know the word which Jehovah hath not spoken? 
 when a prophet speaketh in the name of Jehovah, if the thing 
 follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Jehovah 
 hath not spoken : the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously, 
 thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18: 15-22.) Tested 
 by that rule, all the Mormon prophets would die. He always 
 enabled his prophets to give ample evidence to both friend and 
 foe of his presence with them. " But though we, or an angel 
 from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than 
 that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema." 
 (Gal. 1: 8.) That "gospel," in its fullness, had already been 
 preached to them, and could not be added to. If Mormonism 
 is true, the Bible is false ; if the Bible is true, Mormonism is 
 false. 
 
 MOTE HUNTERS AND HOBBY RIDERS. 
 
 In my experience as a preacher I have found two classes who give 
 much trouble and cause much confusion and contention among breth- 
 ren. One is continually seeking and pointing out seeming contradic- 
 tions in the Bible, while the other magnifies some truth unduly and 
 thus overshadows other important truths. How should we treat such? 
 
 When men start to hunt difficulties and pick flaws in mat- 
 ters connected with the Bible, the best way is to let them 
 alone. If you remove one, there are a thousand others for 
 them to object to. God intends that every one who wishes 
 to find motes and flaws and difficulties shall find them. When 
 men wish to obey God, they will find ample ground for their 
 faith in him and in the Bible, despite all the motes and diffi- 
 
308 Mote Hunters and Hobby Riders. 
 
 culties and inability to understand a thousand quibbles that 
 may be raised. There are a number of things that I cannot 
 see how they can be harmonized. What of that? Am I to 
 reject the overwhelming evidence of the truth of the Bible be- 
 cause some mistake has crept into the records or because I 
 am unable to understand some statements? There are a thou- 
 sand things in nature that I do not understand. Some seem 
 to me to interfere with and contradict others. But I do not 
 reject the good and conclude that God is not the author of 
 the natural world because one week the sun shines and brings 
 out the buds and the flowers, the next week the north wind 
 blows and frost and snow come and kill them. God gives evi- 
 dence enough in his word tO' prove to every man willing to 
 serve him that the Bible is his word. God does not wish those 
 to serve him who do not wish to do it. So when a man de- 
 sires to find excuses for not obeying him, God gives him many 
 such. God sends a delusion on those who do not receive the 
 truth in the love of it, that they may believe a lie and be 
 damned. (2 Thess. 2: 11.) Much more depends upon a 
 man's having a good heart as to whether he believes and obeys 
 God than on the amount of testimony he receives. 
 
 I am an old man now. I have been editing the Gospel Ad- 
 vocate since January 1, 1866. I have observed the- workings 
 of things carefully in some lines. A man who is hunting 
 motes, spending his time over hobbies, criticising this ordi- 
 nance of the Bible and that, never does anything in perfecting 
 his own character or in saving his neighbors. When I get 
 queries on this dark and difficult prophecy or another, run- 
 ning this hobby or another, I know without inquiry that that 
 person is doing nothing to build up the church of God, to con- 
 vert sinners or perfect saints. A man cannot serve two mas- 
 ters. He cannot ride two horses going in opposite directions. 
 He cannot run side issues without losing interest in the main 
 end of the religion of Christ — converting men to< Christ and 
 preparing them to live with God in heaven. 
 
 Any duty or secondary truth may be made a hurtful hobby. 
 This is done when it is given undue prominence. When it is 
 dwelled on to the exclusion of other truths equally important, 
 evil comes out of it. Some commands of God are more impor- 
 tant than others, because they define higher and more sacred 
 relations. Jesus taught this when he said " the first and great 
 commandment " is to love God ; the second, to love our fellow- 
 
Mote Hunters and Hobby Riders. 309 
 
 man. That means that the first and highest duty is to obey 
 God, do his will. Love keeps his commandments. The high- 
 est and most sacred motive that can move a man is the desire 
 to do the will of God. When a person makes understanding 
 what good he gets in baptism a higher duty than doing it to 
 obey God, he makes a hobby of this minor truth, disarranges 
 the order of. God, and perverts the gospel. Faith is the great 
 leading and underlying truth of the gospel, without which no 
 service acceptable to God can be rendered ; yet when faith 
 alone, separate from its fruits of obedience, is exalted as the 
 only condition of salvation, it is made a hurtful hobby and 
 perverts the gospel. So any truth may be unduly exalted at 
 the expense of other truths and become a hurtful hobby. 
 
 There is probably more danger in an error taken as a hobby 
 than a truth. To hold error and magnify it, to the exclusion 
 of truths of the Bible, is most hurtful. A person may hold 
 a great error in a way that is not very hurtful to him or oth- 
 ers. He holds that it is an opinion, and regards opinions as 
 private property, not to be taught or imposed on others. But, 
 usually, the more baseless an error, the more earnest its ad- 
 vocates are in proclaiming it and pushing it on others. 
 
 God plainly tells his children that they are to teach his word 
 everywhere, in all the world, to every creature, at all times. 
 He has set the example of doing it by mouth, by writing, by 
 circulating the writings among Christians and those not Chris- 
 tians. Parents are especially charged to bring their children 
 up in the instruction of the Lord. When we seek to provide 
 schools in which, while the children are being educated for 
 the duties of life, they will be taught the Bible, men passing 
 as sane — and Christians, too — say it is wrong to have schools 
 in which the Bible is taught. Others will say that it is right 
 to require children to learn to spell and study books of man ; 
 it is wrong to require them to learn the word of God. Some 
 say that it is right to teach them human learning in classes 
 suited to their capacity, but that it is wrong to teach God's 
 will to them. Some say that it is right to teach them in 
 classes on Monday and Tuesday, but wrong to do it on Sun- 
 day. Some say that it is right to teach them orally on Sun- 
 day, but wrong to teach them through writings. 
 
 There is no end to such hobbies, nor do they ever get too 
 absurd for some to advocate. The more absurd they are, the 
 closer some stick to them. The more deformed the child, the 
 
310 Mote Hunters and Hobby Riders. 
 
 more the parent loves it. To yield to such persons is to sin 
 against them, against God; and to sin against God is to sin 
 against self and the whole world. To argue with the hobby 
 rider infuriates him, as the raising of Lazarus did the priests 
 and elders. The only way to treat them without treason to 
 God and right is to bear patiently with them, but press for- 
 ward in the work with redoubled vigor and put them to shame 
 by good works, the good you do in converting the world, and 
 leave them lonely with their hobby. 
 
 MOURNERS COMFORTED. 
 
 Please explain Mark 10: 47; Matt. 5: 4. The Baptists, Methodists, 
 and others say that these scriptures sustain their mourners'-bench 
 system. 
 
 One who is familiar with the Bible ought to be able to show 
 how mourners were comforted in the days of the Holy Spirit. 
 On Pentecost three thousand heart-pierced mourners sought 
 comfort, and found it by believing in Jesus as the Savior, re- 
 penting of their sins, and being baptized in the name of Jesus 
 Christ unto the remission of sins. Saul was a distressed, be- 
 lieving, fasting, penitent mourner for three days, and the 
 Spirit commanded: "Why tarriest thou? arise, and be bap- 
 tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name." (Acts 
 22: 16.) The Philippian jailer was mourning, ready to kill 
 himself. Paul and Silas stopped him. In his distress he 
 asked: "What must I do to be saved? And they said, Be- 
 lieve on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, thou and 
 thy house. And they spake the word of the Lord unto him, 
 with all that were in his house. And he took them the same 
 hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, 
 he and all his, immediately. And he brought them up into 
 his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with 
 all his house, having believed in God." (Acts 16: 30-34.) 
 That is God's way of comforting those that mourn, and there 
 was no mourner's bench about it; the mourner's bench is 
 man's way of comforting those that mourn. God's comfort 
 is better than man's. The objection to the mourner's bench 
 is that it gives comfort to men without their obedience to God. 
 That is a false and deceptive comfort. The only sure comfort 
 is that which comes through doing what God has required. 
 
 MYSTERY OF INIQUITY. See Man of Sin, The. 
 
Nature, Do by, the Things of the Law. 311 
 
 NATURAL MAN, THE. 
 
 In 1 Cor. 2: 14 we read: "Now the natural man receiveth not the 
 things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he 
 cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged." In the Bible 
 lesson on a recent Sunday it developed that, as to who the natural 
 man is and who the spiritual man is, three theories are held — viz.: 
 (1) The natural man is the unconverted man; the spiritual man is the 
 Christian. (2) Man is a dual being; the natural man and the spirit- 
 ual man are the same individual. (3) The natural man is the unin- 
 spired Christian; the spiritual man is the inspired man. I write these 
 theories that you may understand fully our trouble. 
 
 The context seems to me plainly to teach that man by his 
 natural faculties, without revelation, could not learn the will 
 of God. One man cannot know what is in the mind of an- 
 other man unless the latter tells it. So a man cannot by his 
 natural faculties or reason know the mind or will of God un- 
 less God tells it. Then he shows how God tells or makes 
 known his will or mind to men. The Spirit of God that knows 
 the things of God was transferred to the apostles and made 
 known to them God's will, and the apostles spoke it to the 
 people. The natural man, then, would be the man who has 
 never heard the will of God ; he cannot know it, save by hear- 
 ing it as spoken by the apostles, to whom God revealed it. 
 It means about the same as 1 Cor. 1:21:" For seeing that in 
 the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not 
 God, it was God's good pleasure through the foolishness of 
 the preaching to save them that believe." Man by his natural 
 faculties or reason cannot know God or his will ; he must learn 
 it by hearing the things revealed to the apostles, or by preach- 
 ing. The spiritual man was the man knowing the will of God. 
 The natural man was without this knowledge; he could not 
 know it, save by revelation. When revealed, it is addressed 
 to the spiritual, not the merely animal, man. As in Rom. 7 
 and 8, it is presented that the animal, or fleshly, man of itself 
 cannot be subject to the law of God, but the spiritual part in 
 man must control. 
 
 NATURE, DO BY, THE THINGS OF THE LAW. 
 
 Please explain Rom. 2: 12: "For as many as have sinned without 
 law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the 
 law shall be judged by the law." Does law here mean the law of 
 Moses or the law of Jesus Christ? If the law here means the gospel, 
 does it mean that those who do not have the privilege of hearing the 
 gospel will be lost? 
 
 There can be no doubt, I think, that the law of Moses is 
 
312 Nature, Do by, the Things of the Law. 
 
 meant. The reference to the Gentiles who have not the law 
 shows that it was the law of Moses. The Gentiles who have 
 sinned without law perished outside the law. Those who 
 sinned under the law will be judged and condemned by the 
 law. All who sin, whether within the law or without the law, 
 perish. If any who are not under the law (the Gentiles) come 
 to know the things that are in the law, and of their own choice 
 do the things of the law, they become a law unto themselves, 
 or adopt the law for themselves, and, doing the things con- 
 tained in the law, of their own will show that the works re- 
 quired by the law are written in their hearts. They obey the 
 law not because they are under the law, but because in their 
 hearts they love the things contained in the law ; so they will 
 be saved by that law. All persons out of Christ are in a lost 
 condition, and can be saved only by the redemption that is 
 found in Christ. Those out of Christ were " alienated from the 
 commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants 
 of the promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 
 But now in Christ Jesus ye that once were far off are made 
 nigh in the blood of Christ." (Eph. 2: 12, 13.) All were in 
 a state of sin and condemnation, and Christ Jesus came to save 
 the lost. 
 
 NEGROES, ARE THE, NEGLECTED? 
 
 Do you think the social discrimination made against the negro race 
 in the South is justifiable by the Scriptures? Do you think the 
 churches are doing their duty by these people as much as they are the 
 Japanese and others? 
 
 I do not know what is meant by social relations in the 
 query. A few persons or a small portion of a community can- 
 not control the social rules or relations of the community. A 
 small number of people might choose to associate on terms 
 of equality with the negroes, but they would of necessity cut 
 themselves off from the whites. They cannot associate with 
 both. When they cannot associate with both, with which 
 shall they associate? 
 
 Race distinctions and antipathies are strong. They were 
 recognized and to a goodly extent encouraged by God through 
 the early ages of the world, until they were fixed and seem- 
 ingly ineradicable. They exist among the different tribes and 
 nations of the earth, even those of similar habits, color, and 
 physical make, and intellectual and spiritual culture. The a,ti- 
 
Negroes, Are the, Neglected? 313 
 
 tipathy becomes greater as the physical and intellectual differ- 
 ences increase. The antipathy was strong, in the days of 
 the Savior's sojourn on earth, between the Jew and Gentile. 
 Peter had that prejudice even toward other children of Shem 
 and of Abraham, then the descendants of Jacob. When he 
 went to the house of Cornelius, this feeling showed itself in 
 his speech telling them how it is an unlawful thing for a Jew 
 to eat with a Gentile. The strength of this feeling again man- 
 ifested itself at Antioch when he refused to eat with his Gen- 
 tile brethren ; and Barnabas, who had been reared among Gen- 
 tiles, was*carried away by the same feeling. Paul reproved 
 them for this. The natural antipathy is greater between the 
 white and the negro races. I do not believe that it is possible 
 to overcome it to such extent as to lead to social relations 
 as among those of the same race. I think that an effort to 
 bring this about would result in arousing more bitterness and 
 produce a wider separation. 
 
 While this is true, I do not doubt that it is the duty of Chris- 
 tians to teach and instruct the negroes and in every way en- 
 courage them to lives of godliness and righteousness and 
 purity. They need this instruction and help from the whites. 
 The whites need the discipline and training they would ob- 
 tain in this work to perfect their characters into the likeness 
 of Christ. He went to the lowly and the outcast to instruct 
 them and to lift them up. We must do it, if we would be 
 like him. While Jesus helped the Gentiles who appealed to 
 him, there is no evidence that he so associated with them in 
 such a way as to arouse Jewish prejudices. 
 
 I do not know that the negroes are more neglected than 
 the Japanese or Chinese. The brethren through this country 
 have contributed to the support of negroes to preach to the 
 negroes. They have helped them to build houses, and some 
 of the whites preach to them. When I was younger, I did it, 
 as I know others did, as opportunity offered. Our earnest- 
 ness for saving souls, white, yellow, and black, needs to be 
 quickened and intensified, so that in our everyday life it will 
 be a habit and constant aim to teach and save those with 
 whom we come in contact. 
 
 The Bible never proposes to disrupt and change social and 
 political relations suddenly. It plants truths in the heart, 
 changes character and life, and, as these are modified, fits for 
 changed social conditions; and these come gradually and al- 
 
314 Negroes, Are the, Neglected? 
 
 most imperceptibly. To force them is to destroy them. Let 
 the negroes and the whites cultivate kindly and Christian re- 
 lations toward each other, help each other as they can, and the 
 social conditions will adjust themselves. 
 
 NEW BIRTH, THE. See Born Again ; Water, Born Of. 
 
 OATHS. See Judicial Oaths. 
 
 OBEDIENCE TO PARENTS. See Honor Parents, 
 
 OBEYING GOD, THE GREAT PURPOSE IN. 
 
 A is immersed because of remission; B is sprinkled for remission. 
 One has the right act for a false design; the other has an unscriptural 
 act for the true design. Which is the more acceptable to God? They 
 may both have a desire to obey God; and if one is acceptable, it seems 
 that the other would be. If not, why not? 
 
 The only assumption on which that question can be based 
 is that I maintain that the desire to obey God renders the serv- 
 ice acceptable to him, even if we fail to do the thing com- 
 manded. To insinuate or represent me as in any manner hold- 
 ing this position is to misrepresent me. I have held and fre- 
 quently maintained that when a man sincerely desires to know 
 the will of God, promptly obeying it as he learns it, God will 
 so lead him into the knowledge of the truth as to save him. 
 Christ did not die to save men, and then leave one desirous 
 to know and obey his will in such ignorance of that will as to 
 be lost. " If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know of 
 the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether I speak from 
 myself." (John 7: 17.) 
 
 If a man seeks to know all the reasons and wherefores of 
 the obedience, or what blessings this service or that will bring, 
 before he obeys God, I am not sure that he will receive the 
 guidance into the truth that saves. God loves the soul that 
 trusts and follows him without doubt or without question- 
 ing. "If ye love, me, ye will keep my commandments." 
 (John 14: 15.) " He that hath my commandments, and keep- 
 eth them, he it is that loveth me : and he that loveth me shall 
 be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest 
 myself unto him." (Verse 21.) " If a man love me, he will 
 keep my word : and my Father will love him, and we will come 
 unto him, and make our abode with him." (Verse 23.) He 
 will keep God's words because he loves God; and God will 
 
Ordained to Eternal Life. 315 
 
 accept the obedience that comes from love, and will come unto 
 him and abide with him. If God abides with and in him, he 
 will come to know more fully the truth. 
 
 It is a mistaken conception of God and his character to 
 think that he blesses only those who wait to know the good 
 they will get out of the obedience before they render it. The 
 great purpose is to obey God because he loves us and because 
 we love him. We desire to enter into the Father, the Son, 
 and the Holy Spirit, that we may become members of his fam- 
 ily, children of God, because we love him. An earthly father 
 could not esteem so highly the service a son rendered that 
 would not do his will until he knew what good he would re- 
 ceive for each act of service that he rendered, as he would 
 that which was rendered through love of the father, whether 
 the son received any reward or not. Yet the father might tell 
 the wayward, the rebellious, or the discouraged son of the 
 blessings he would bestow on him or the help he would give 
 him to encourage him to make the effort to return to the 
 bosom of the family and the joys of a son. This would be to 
 increase and strengthen the love, that it might lead him to 
 enter the farnily. But to make this good that he is to receive 
 the chief or highest motive in returning is to dishonor the re- 
 lation and lightly esteem the father. Jesus and the Holy 
 Spirit represent the spiritual relations we bear to our Father ' 
 in heaven by those we bear to our earthly parents. For re- 
 mission of sins, or the good we are to get, is not the highest 
 and holiest motive that leads us to enter Christ. 
 
 OBSERVANCE OF DAYS. See Day, He that Regardeth 
 The. 
 
 OFFENDERS, RULE FOR DEALING WITH. See Diffi- 
 culties, Rules for Settling. 
 
 ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE. 
 
 Please explain the following: "And as many as were ordained to 
 eternal life believed." (Acts 13: 48.) Please explain, also, Rom. 8: 
 29, 30; Eph. 1: 4, 5; 1 Pet. 1: 2. These scriptures seem to teach that 
 God has foreordained some to eternal life, and that only these believe 
 and are saved. 
 
 There is no doubt but there is a certain foreordination 
 taught in the Bible. In the scriptures referred to it is taught, 
 
316 Ordained to Eternal Life. 
 
 as well as in some others. "And other sheep I have, which 
 are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall 
 hear my voice ; and they shall become one flock, one shep- 
 herd." (John 10: 16.) Here he recognizes that he has a flock 
 that were not then following him as the Shepherd. At Cor- 
 inth God told Paul, while they were persecuting him, that he 
 had much people in that city. (Acts 18: 10.) They had not 
 yet believed, but God calls them his people. The meaning of 
 both these is that there were a number of persons of that 
 frame of mind and disposition of heart that when they heard 
 the gospel they would believe and obey it. There were those 
 of this class among the Gentiles, that Jesus speaks of, whom 
 he calls his sheep, but not of this fold, and among the Co- 
 rinthians were those who would receive the gospel when they 
 heard and understood it. He speaks of them prospectively as 
 his people. In Acts 13 : 48 it means those who belonged to 
 the class that would receive the gospel believed when it was 
 preached. Rom. 8 : 29, 30 clearly refers to those who had been 
 called under the former dispensations. Those who had be- 
 lieved under these dispensations he had called and glorified 
 by raising them from the dead when Christ arose, " that he 
 might be the firstborn " from the grave " among many breth- 
 ren." (See Matt. 27: 51-53.) Eph. 1 : 4, 5 is a statement that 
 certain classes described there were chosen to eternal life. 
 This in no way intimates that God by any direct power made 
 them holy and without blemish; but he has chosen that class 
 as his beloved, and left it to man to make himself one of the 
 class. In 1 Pet. 1 : 2 it is said that they were elected accord- 
 ing to the knowledge of God he had hitherto made known. 
 They were elected by complying with his will. The word 
 foreknowledge in the Bible means the knowledge of his will 
 heretofore made known. It will be noted that Peter says that 
 they were first elected to obedience. A man who does not 
 first show his election by obeying God may be sure that he will 
 never be elected to anything beyond obedience. So obedience 
 is the prerequisite to all other and higher election. There is 
 not a word in this to discourage a man from seeking to make 
 his calling and election sure, nor to give him assurance of sal- 
 vation, save through obedience to the word of God. 
 
Order of Worship. 317 
 
 ORDER OF WORSHIP. 
 
 Is it wrong to take the Lord's Supper immediately after singing 
 and prayer, then have our Bible lessons before singing the last song 
 of the service? There is some contention over this matter among the 
 brethren in our congregation. Some think that, on account of moth- 
 ers who have restless babies, it is best to take the Supper immediately 
 after singing and prayer; others think it wrong to have the Bible les- 
 sons between the Supper and singing the last song. 
 
 I do not think that Christ and the apostles have given any 
 specific order to be followed in the worship. I read nothing 
 that sounds like an order to be followed. " They continued 
 steadfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the 
 breaking of bread and the prayers." (Acts 2 : 42.) That does 
 not sound like a specific order, but is a general statement of 
 what was done at the meeting. When God gave a specific 
 order to be followed, he did it so as to leave no doubt in the 
 minds of any as to the order. Take Lev. 1 : 14-17 or Lev. 4: 
 4-12. These are examples of how God gave directions when 
 specific orders were to be followed. Look, also, at the order 
 of healing leprosy. (Lev. 13.) These show how specific God 
 was in giving an order when he intended them to follow a spe- 
 cific order. In Acts 2 : 42 the terms are general. Each service 
 embraces different acts. What is meant by apostolic teach- 
 ing, singing, reading, praying, exhorting? Are all required 
 in the Lord's-day service? Then what is embraced in fellow- 
 ship? Is it confined alone to contributing to the treasury? 
 
 If one in need of counsel, advice, comfort, or encourage- 
 ment is present, is no fellowship to be bestowed in these 
 things? Is praying with and for one another fellowship? 
 Fellowship is encouraging, helping, strengthening one another 
 in every way that is possible. Then is there to be only one 
 prayer offered? It says prayers. If a dozen different prayers 
 were offered, would it not be in harmony with the teaching of 
 the Bible? Must all the prayers come at once or together? 
 Such effort at a formal order will drive all the spirit out of the 
 services of God. Not a word is said about singing in Acts 
 2: 42. In Matt. 26: 30 it is said: "When they had sung a 
 hymn, they went out." (Matt. 26: 30.) Many think they 
 must go out immediately after singing, but John tells that 
 Jesus delivered the discourse beginning in chapter 13: 31, em- 
 bracing chapters 14-16, and taking in the prayer in chapter 17. 
 Then chapter 18: 1 says: "When Jesus had spoken these 
 words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Kid- 
 
318 Order of Worship. 
 
 ron." So this teaching was after the singing before they went 
 out. Matthew tells of the singing, but does not give this 
 teaching and prayer ; John gives the teaching and prayer, says 
 nothing of the singing, neither has he told all that was done ; 
 and in Acts 2: 42 the things to be observed are mentioned 
 only in general terms, some not at all. Certainly no specific 
 order is given in this way. 
 
 The effort to make an order where God has not made one 
 is as sinful as to neglect what he has ordered. I do not know 
 a single commentator of any church that has held that Acts 
 2: 42 was intended to reveal a specific order. This ought to 
 have weight. If among those of all churches who have stud- 
 ied the Bible sufficiently to write a commentary of sufficient 
 merit to be published not one has seen this contained a spe- 
 cific order, it is pretty good evidence that no specific order is 
 there revealed. To establish an order where God has estab- 
 lished none is to assume to legislate for the church of God, and 
 is sinful. The effort will be sure to bring greater divisions 
 over untaught questions. The way to settle these questions 
 is to let the elders, who ought to be discreet and wise men, 
 inquire into the conditions of all who attend, and adopt the 
 method that is best for the whole church, and all conform 
 cheerfully to the order. It would be well to vary this order 
 at times, too, to prevent its acquiring the sanctity of a divine 
 law, as the tradition of the elders had done in the days of 
 Jesus. This would be sin. But I do not think it good to 
 make provisions for any leaving before the services are 
 through. Babies have always been restless, but their mothers 
 remained till service was over when we were babies. 
 
 ORDINANCES. 
 
 Please give name and number of church ordinances. 
 
 The word ordinance of the church is indefinite. Ordinance 
 is defined by the dictionary: "A rule established by authority; 
 an established rite or ceremony." According to this defini- 
 tion, anything commanded by God to be observed in the church 
 would be a church ordinance. Meeting together, reading the 
 Scriptures, exhorting one another, singing, contributing as the 
 Lord prospers, prayer, and the observance of the Lord's Sup- 
 per are all ordinances of God to be observed by the church. 
 A rite or ceremony would indicate a form of service to be 
 
Organizing a Congregation. 319 
 
 gone through. This has a good sense and a bad one. The 
 good sense is that in obeying certain commands of God he be- 
 stows blessings upon those who obey him ; the evil sense is 
 that going through certain forms secures the blessing without 
 reference to the spirit in which it is done. Every command 
 of God is an ordinance in the good sense ; in the other sense 
 there are no ordinances of God. The popular idea is that ordi- 
 nances are certain commands involving forms to be observed 
 — such as baptism and the Lord's Supper; but I see no reason 
 for saying they are ordinances, and that prayer, reading the 
 Scriptures, and contributing are not. The Lord's-day meet- 
 ing, including all the services connected with it, might be 
 called an ordinance. But all commands of God for the obedi- 
 ence of men are ordinances of God in the true sense. 
 
 ORGANIZING A CONGREGATION. 
 
 Should we attempt to organize a congregation unless we have per- 
 sons that fill the qualifications given by the apostles? 
 
 Nothing is said in the Bible about organizing a church. I 
 do not think the common idea of organizing a church is in the 
 Bible. It is true that a church, with all its organs in full and 
 active operation, is recognized in the Bible. It is compared 
 to a body, a plant, a vine, a tree. But we never talk of or- 
 ganizing a human body, a tree, or a vine. The body is a 
 growth. The seed is planted. The seed contains the germs 
 and the embryo of the body, with all its organs and fruits. 
 The seed is brought into favorable conditions ; and it, with all 
 its organs, grows until all becomes a full-grown body with all 
 its organs. Just so it seems to me of the church. It in all its 
 members and organs must grow and attain its growth and 
 maturity. The church is a growth. The church grows by 
 each member growing in its place and work. That is the way 
 the body grows, and the church is the body of Christ. The 
 body grows by taking the food needed for its growth and 
 strength, then by taking the exercise needed to assimilate the 
 food to the needs of the different members of the body. A 
 Christian, a member of the body of Christ, takes food by en- 
 gaging in the worship, by attending to the apostles' doctrine, 
 the fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayers. The work they 
 do in looking after the widows and the fatherless in their af- 
 fliction and in keeping themselves unspotted from the world 
 
320 Organizing a Congregation. 
 
 assimilates this food ; so they grow. How can a Christian 
 grow into fitness for the work of the body of Christ without 
 attending to the worship? How can the members become 
 qualified to lead the congregation in the worship and work of 
 the Lord without engaging in the work and worship of the 
 Lord? It seems to me that God's order is plain. When two 
 or three become Christians, they are to meet together and 
 worship — study and teach one another the apostles' doctrine, 
 remember the Savior's death for us in observing the Lord's 
 Supper, help one another as they can, and pray one for another. 
 Jesus has promised that where two or three meet together in 
 his name, he will be with them. By this worship and service 
 they will grow into active living members of the church of 
 God. Baptize them and start them out to do nothing, and in 
 the way a child is trained it will continue. Without meet- 
 ing together and worshiping, they will become dead and life- 
 less from the beginning and continue so. When they meet 
 together to study the word of God, exhort and strengthen and 
 pray for one another, they will grow in the Lord and develop 
 their fitness for work. Then as they develop fitness for work 
 and the work is neglected, they can be appointed to the work. 
 But no one can grow fitted to do a work by doing nothing. 
 Put them to worshiping God if but two are there. 
 
 ORGANS IN THE HOME. 
 
 Is it right for Christians to have organs in their houses? 
 
 I know of no reason why it is wrong to have an organ in 
 the home any more than any other instrument of music. It 
 is lawful and right to have and to do many things in our 
 houses and family relations that it would be wrong to bring 
 into the church and its services. The organ is more used in 
 connection with the worship than other musical instruments ; 
 but others are used. The piano, the violin, the brass instru- 
 ments are all used ; and if the organ was out of the way, these 
 others would take its place. There is no sin in the organ ; its 
 wrong use constitutes the sin. I think the general cultivation 
 of instrumental music has hindered all learning to sing, and 
 this creates the demand for the instrument in church services. 
 Before instrumental music became common, the boys and 
 girls all learned to sing ; now the girls learn to perform on the 
 instrument, and cannot sing without it, and the boys do not 
 
Peace Obtained on Right Principles. 321 
 
 learn to sing. So there is a demand for the instrument to 
 carry the music in church. While these things are true, I 
 cannot say that instruments at home, properly used, are sinful. 
 The thing needed is that all should cultivate their ability to 
 sing as a duty they owe to God ; then there will be no demand 
 for the instrument to carry the tune. Until the singing is 
 done as a service we owe to God, it is not worship, but enter- 
 tainment. 
 
 OWE NO MAN ANYTHING. 
 
 Please answer the following question: "Owe no man anything, but 
 to love one another." (Rom. 13: 8.) Does this embrace our business 
 affairs or not? 
 
 I think it refers to business affairs and is a command not 
 to go in debt. Owe him nothing, save what the obligations 
 of love require at your hands. He is speaking of business 
 affairs. Verse 7 says: "Render to all their dues: tribute to 
 whom tribute is due ; custom to whom custom ; fear to whom 
 fear ; honor to whom honor." This relates to the dues to the 
 government. He then adds : " Owe no man anything, save 
 to love one another." After telling them to pay what is due 
 the government and rulers, he adds : " Owe no man anything." 
 It can mean nothing else. Under the Jewish dispensation, 
 when a man became indebted to another and could not pay, 
 the creditor could sell the children, the wife, and the man him- 
 self to pay the debts. (Ex. 21:2; Lev. 25 : 39 ; Deut. 15 : 12.) 
 It has been displeasing to God for his children to be in debt 
 and unable to pay, and under Christ he tells them not to go 
 in debt. The creditors are required to be merciful to the 
 debtors. See Debt, Paying. 
 
 PARENTS. See Honor Parents. 
 PAYING DEBTS. See Debt, Paying. 
 
 PEACE OBTAINED ON RIGHT PRINCIPLES. 
 
 Suppose two elders of a congregation disagree in regard to their 
 financial affairs and they are brought to the church about the matter; 
 the house is brought to order, moderators sit and work begins; the 
 plaintiff is allowed his plea; he tells the church in his speech that he 
 does not think it proper to itemize anything of the past, neither ac- 
 cuse the other brother before the church of things concerning their 
 trouble; but that he thinks it proper that they ask pardon of each 
 other, drop the matter at once, and make friends in church; that the 
 21 
 
322 Peace Obtained on Right Principles. 
 
 church had rather know that peace is made between the two than know 
 the cause of the trouble; and many other words on the same line. So 
 the moderators tell the church that the brother has taken the right 
 course to make peace, and has done all that is required at his hand. 
 Then the other brother comes forth and begins to accuse the brother 
 of all things he can think of, and keeps it up until he disturbs the 
 whole church, and will not be reconciled to peace at all. The moder- 
 ators adjourn with a great dissatisfaction all round. Now what course 
 should be pursued under such circumstances? 
 
 The first and highest end of a church and of the Christian 
 religion is to make men honest, truthful, just, and upright by 
 obeying the Lord. Peace is not desirable unless it can be ob- 
 tained on these grounds. Jesus came to make war and stir 
 up strife until peace could be obtained on principles of hon- 
 esty, uprightness, and truthfulness. The church is out of 
 harmony with God or his will that seeks peace among the 
 members at the expense of right doing. 
 
 If the foregoing means that the plaintiff and the elders 
 wanted them to make peace without righting wrongs that had 
 been done, they are wrong altogether. A peace not founded 
 in justice and right is a false peace, and cannot be approved 
 by God. The object of church discipline is to induce persons 
 to do right. If a church member will not do right of him- 
 self, and cannot be brought to do it by him whom he has 
 wronged, then the church disciplines him to induce him to do 
 right; and doing right of itself brings peace. So' peace is to 
 be sought through doing right. The church ought to be the 
 most upright and just tribunal in the world. It would be, if 
 it lived up to its laws ; but it does not. It almost universally 
 tries to patch up compromises and cover up wrongs, and so 
 peace is made, the church is satisfied, even if wrong is done. 
 The greatest wrong a church can do a member is to let him 
 live in peace while he is guilty of wrong. The wrongs a man 
 does will condemn him at the last day. The wrong he suf- 
 fers will never condemn him. It is the duty of the church 
 to save a man. The only way she can do this is to save him 
 from his sins, induce him to repent of his sins that he may be 
 freed from them and be saved. 
 
 What would be thought of a civil court that would com- 
 promise and cover up wrongs instead of deciding controver- 
 sies according to law and justice? Because the church does 
 this, the world and the church members themselves cannot 
 respect church decisions. 
 
 When one brother does a wrong against another, or both 
 do wrong, and the matter comes before the church, the ques- 
 
Perfect, Can a Child of God Become? 323 
 
 tion should be, " What wrong has been done by either or both 
 parties?" and each should be required to right his wrongs. 
 That is the only work of the church, and when the wrongs 
 are righted peace will come of itself. The thing for the church 
 to have done in the beginning was to have discreet and pru- 
 dent brethren examine the charges made by each against the 
 other, approve what is right and show which is wrong in each. 
 This yet seems to me the proper thing to do. 
 
 PERFECT, CAN A CHILD OF GOD BECOME? 
 
 Do the Scriptures teach that the children of God can become per- 
 fect while in the flesh — that is, reach a state of perfect love and a state 
 in which they cease to sin? If so, please explain the following scrip- 
 tures: " In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, 
 that I will pray the Father for you." (John 16: 26.) "Wherefore 
 also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God 
 through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." 
 (Heb. 7: 25.) "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with 
 hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to ap- 
 pear before the face of God for us." (Heb. 9: 24.) " My little children, 
 these things write I unto you that ye may sin not. And if any man 
 sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." 
 (1 John 2: 1.) "And having a great high priest over the house of 
 God; let us draw near with a true heart in fullness of faith, hav- 
 ing our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body 
 washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 21, 22.) If the Scriptures teach 
 that we cannot reach such a state, please explain the following scrip- 
 tures: " Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your Heavenly Father is per- 
 fect." (Matt. 5: 48.) "Whom we proclaim, admonishing every man 
 and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every 
 man perfect in Christ." (Col. 1: 28.) "Now the God of peace, 
 who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep 
 with the blood of an eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus, make 
 you perfect in every good thing to do his will, working in us that 
 which is well pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be 
 the glory forever and ever. Amen." (Heb. 13: 20, 21.) "And the God 
 of all grace, who called you unto his eternal glory in Christ, after 
 that ye have suffered a little while, shall himself perfect, establish, 
 strengthen you." (1 Pet. 5: 10.) "Forasmuch then as Christ suffered 
 in the flesh, arm ye yourselves also with the same mind; for he that 
 hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; that ye no longer should 
 live the rest of your time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the 
 will of God." (1 Pet. 4: 1, 2.) 
 
 Christ was not made perfect until he had suffered. " But 
 we behold him who hath been made a little lower than the 
 angels, even Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned 
 with glory and honor, that by the grace of God he should 
 taste of death for every man. For it became him, for whom 
 are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing 
 many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation 
 
324 Perfect, Can a Child of God Become? 
 
 perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2: 9, 10.) "Though he 
 was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suf- 
 fered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them 
 that obey him the author of eternal salvation." (Heb. 5 : 8, 9.) 
 If it required the sufferings of the cross that Jesus, the Son of 
 God, might learn obedience and be made perfect, that he might 
 become " unto all them that obey him the author of eternal 
 salvation," it seems to me hardly possible that man, frail and 
 sinful, should be made perfect without equal suffering. I do 
 not believe that any human being equals Jesus in this. Pe- 
 ter says: " Forasmuch then as Christ suffered in the flesh, 
 arm ye yourselves also with the same mind ; for he that hath 
 suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin." (1 Pet. 4: 1.) 
 Jesus possessed the sinful emotions within him until they 
 were purged out by suffering. I do not believe that the emo- 
 tion and temptation to sin can be purged out of any without 
 suffering in the flesh unto death. I think that this explains 
 the reason of much of the suffering that good people undergo. 
 It explains why the infant suffers. I might say more along 
 this line, but a person that claims that he is equal to or sur- 
 passes Jesus in the elements of his character that lead to free- 
 dom from sinful desires and impulses is hardly to be reasoned 
 with. Yet there was a perfection that Jesus attained to and 
 cherished during his life — that is, his heart was perfect to- 
 ward God. He desired with a perfect heart to do the will 
 of God. His will to do the will of his Father was sufficiently 
 strong to hold in check the sinful emotions of the flesh, so that 
 he committed no sin. Man may approximate this perfection 
 of the heart. The heart may be brought to sincerely desire 
 to do the will of God. Does it attain the degree of power over 
 the flesh that the man never sins in thought, word, or deed ; 
 by commission or omission? I do not believe it does. To do 
 this would be for man in his human nature to equal Jesus 
 with his divine nature. The thought and claim of sinless per- 
 fection in human beings savors of presumption, the worst of 
 all sins before God. The claim of persons who really know 
 very little of what constitutes true Christianity being sinless 
 is well calculated to bring the religion of Jesus into contempt 
 with thinking men. While this is true, it is right for every 
 Christian to keep before him the example of the sinless life 
 of Jesus, and the perfection of the heart in its sincere and ear- 
 nest desire to do the will of God, and strive to emulate them. 
 
Pharaoh and Judas. 325 
 
 These latter scriptures quoted are exhortations to strive after 
 this, or prayers and hopes that they may finally be made per- 
 fect in Christ Jesus, that they may be accepted of God. Ev- 
 ery passage quoted recognizes man as in an imperfect state, 
 and needing to go on to perfection, that he may strive after 
 and approach that state. Some of the quotations give clear 
 intimation that perfection can be attained only when freed 
 from the fleshly impulses. Any one that will read these pas- 
 sages over with this thought in mind will see that this is true 
 without my going over and applying it to each separately. 
 A perfection of heart — that is, a sincere desire to do the will 
 of God in all things — is to be cultivated and striven for. Its 
 attainment is gradual, and I doubt if it can ever be said to be 
 perfect while in the flesh. As the heart approximates this 
 perfection, it seeks to bring the flesh in subjection, but the sin- 
 ful emotions and desires are purged out only through the suf- 
 fering and weakness that end in death. See Sanctification and 
 Holiness. 
 
 PHARAOH AND JUDAS. 
 
 I write you for a short comment on Judas, the betrayer of our Sav- 
 ior. Some say the case is similar to that of Pharaoh — raised up for 
 that purpose; others say it is not; but it is evident that the scripture 
 was fulfilled by the deed. Hence our trouble over the passage. 
 
 God never raised up nor caused Pharaoh or Judas to do 
 what he did, or any wickedness, in the sense of making him 
 wicked. " But in very deed for this cause have I made thee 
 to stand, to show thee my power, and that my name may be 
 declared throughout all the earth." (Ex. 9: 16.) This does 
 not say that God raised him up that Pharaoh should do any- 
 thing, but that God might show his power in destroying one 
 so wicked as was Pharaoh, and in destroying him he might 
 give clear evidence that he will destroy every one who so sins 
 against himj and in punishing in so clear and unmistakable 
 a manner one so powerful for his sins against God's humble 
 people, he caused his name to be declared throughout the 
 whole earth as the avenger of his own people. God did not 
 raise Pharaoh up for Pharaoh to do anything; but after Pha- 
 raoh, of his own will, had done evil, been wicked, committed 
 high crimes against God and God's people, God made a public 
 example of him, punished him in a public way, and raised him 
 up before the world, so that the whole world could see the 
 
326 Pharaoh and Judas. 
 
 punishment was inflicted by God and for Pharaoh's wicked- 
 ness. Pharaoh made himself wicked; God punished just as he 
 punishes every wicked man. He generally punishes in a quiet, 
 natural way, letting each one eat the fruit of his own evil do- 
 ing. But he lifted Pharaoh up before the world to> make a 
 public example and a public warning of him, and inflicted the 
 punishment before the whole world. This was all the raising 
 up that was ever done to Pharaoh by God. God did not make 
 Judas wicked. He was a money-loving soul, with many good 
 impulses. He followed Christ for a time, and was enabled to 
 work miracles in common with the other apostles of the Lord. 
 But when the Master's prospects grew gloomy, he lost heart; 
 his love of money revived, the temptation was offered, and he 
 betrayed the Master. God used him as an example, brought 
 into contact with Christ, to show how corrupting is the love 
 of money and how fatal its effect, how carefully its tendency 
 and influence should be guarded against. The love of money 
 was neither better nor worse in Judas, nor did it act differ- 
 ently, than in others. Men now for the love of money be- 
 tray the truth and the church. They are just as guilty in the 
 sight of God as was Judas. It happened that he came into 
 contact with the truth in the person of Jesus in the fleshly 
 body, and he betrayed it for money. We come in contact with 
 it in the spiritual body. Men betray it for money; they do 
 just what Judas did, showing that they would have acted just 
 as he did had they been in his place. Their guilt and condem- 
 nation are the same. See Judas Iscariot. 
 
 PHYSICAL CULTURE CLASS. See Decent, What is 
 Healthful And? 
 
 PILATE'S CHARACTER. 
 
 Matthew (27: 24) says: "When Pilate saw that he prevailed noth- 
 ing, but rather that a tumult was arising, he took water, and washed 
 his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of 
 this righteous man; see ye to it." What character does this language 
 indicate? Is Pilate's condemnation just? What was his weakness? 
 
 This is as sad a statement as is found in the record of this 
 shameful transaction. Here Pilate, the governor, whose office 
 was to protect the right and to suppress wrong and injustice, 
 with soldiers at his command to enforce his edicts, testifies 
 that Jesus is a just man, that he finds no fault in him, and 
 
Pilate's Character. 327 
 
 goes through the farce of washing his hands before them all 
 as a declaration that his hands are clean of his blood; yet 
 with those hands he signs the warrant for the scourging of 
 Jesus, then of his cruel, degrading death on the cross. Pilate 
 has been popularly misjudged as to his character. He is usu- 
 ally regarded as cruel, bloodthirsty, and vindictive. The Bible 
 record does not present such a character for him. It shows 
 him kindly disposed, willing to see and approve right, but 
 weak and cowardly, willing to sacrifice right for popularity, 
 and unable to resist a current that he believes to be wrong. 
 After he had signed the death warrant, the soldiers (John 19: 
 1-4) put a crown of thorns on Jesus' head, put on him a purple 
 robe, saluted him, " Hail, King of the Jews ! " and smote him 
 with the palm of their hands. This excited the sympathy of 
 Pilate the more, as he knew that he did wrong. "And Pilate 
 saith unto them, Behold, the man ! When therefore the chief 
 priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify 
 him, crucify him ! Pilate saith unto them, Take him your- 
 selves, and crucify him : for I find no crime in him. The Jews 
 answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to 
 die, because he made himself the Son of God. When Pilate 
 therefore heard this saying, he was the more afraid. . . . 
 Upon this Pilate sought to release him : but the Jews cried 
 out, saying, If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar's 
 friend : every one that maketh himself a king speaketh against 
 Caesar. When Pilate therefore heard these words, he brought 
 Jesus out. . . . And he saith unto the Jews, Behold, your 
 King! They therefore cried out, Away with him, away with 
 him, crucify him ! Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your 
 King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but 
 Caesar. Then therefore he delivered him unto them to be 
 crucified. They took Jesus therefore : and he went out, bear- 
 ing the cross for himself." (John 19: 5-17.) 
 
 These priests were at any time willing to follow a revolt 
 against Caesar that promised success. Now, to effect their 
 end, they profess great loyalty. But we should study Pilate 
 and his course carefully. God and the public sentiment of 
 Christendom have condemned the course and character of Pi- 
 late as surpassed in infamy only by that of Judas Iscariot. 
 That we may profit by this condemnation of God we should 
 understand the elements of character condemned. God judges 
 and condemns according to character. All who have the same 
 
328 Pilate's Character. 
 
 character share the same fate. Pilate gives in all this proceed- 
 ing no sign of a cruel, bloodthirsty, vindictive, or persecuting 
 spirit. He showed a disposition to favor Jesus — to be just, 
 to regard truth and righteousness in him. He spoke and 
 pleaded in his behalf with the Jews. But to please them he 
 trampled under foot right and justice, and signed the death 
 warrant of God's Son, and turned him over to his cruel ene- 
 mies. For this cowardice and treason to right and truth God 
 condemned him to infamy, and Christendom has reechoed the 
 sentence. Now, we should understand this ground of con- 
 demnation, and should study our characters in the light of it, 
 lest we fall under the same condemnation. We have not the 
 fleshly Christ here to deal with. His spiritual body is dearer 
 to him than the fleshly body ever was, for he sacrificed the 
 fleshly body to build up the spiritual body. Then a wrong to 
 the spiritual body — the true church of God — is more keenly 
 felt by him than was a stab to the fleshly body. Treason to 
 the spiritual body, or to the truth embodied in the spiritual 
 body, is more offensive to God than was the treason to the 
 fleshly body. When a man for the sake of money betrays 
 the spiritual body, what does he different from Judas? What 
 differs his character from that of Judas ? When a man for the 
 sake of popularity, worldly honor, and ease, turns from the 
 truth of God and leaves it to be abused by its enemies, what 
 differs his course and character from that of Pontius Pilate? 
 If his course and character are the same, his destiny must 
 be the same. Often now are the same scenes reenacted with 
 reference to the spiritual, more sacred, body than were en- 
 acted with reference to the fleshly body by Judas and Pilate. 
 It is often done unconsciously, because we do not see the ele- 
 ments of character that are condemned in them. We often, 
 while condemning them, do the same things, and condemn 
 ourselves. 
 
 POOR IN SPIRIT. 
 
 Please tell us who are the poor in spirit spoken of in Matt. 5: 3. 
 What is it to be poor in spirit? 
 
 When we say that a man is poor in purse, we mean that he 
 has no money or money resources ; when a man is poor in 
 spirit, it must mean that he is without spiritual strength or 
 power and has within himself no means of spiritual strength 
 
Poor in Spirit. 329 
 
 or development. When one realizes that he is in a lost and 
 helpless condition spiritually, that he is not able to save him- 
 self, that he has no powers within him that can safely- guide 
 him, that he is dependent on God for spiritual guidance and 
 strength, he is poor in spirit. He is willing to listen to God 
 and be guided by him ; in other words, he is willing to accept 
 spiritual help from God, and in his Helpless condition he is 
 willing to accept it on God's terms. A man who feels that he 
 has strength and wisdom of his own cannot feel dependent 
 upon or grateful to God for help. 
 
 In all ages of the world God has been pleased with those 
 who look to him for help and guidance, because he is the 
 source of all light, and no man can come to the light save by 
 coming to him that is light. " In him was life ; and the life 
 was the light of men. . . . There was the true Light, even 
 the light which lighteth every man, coming into the world." 
 (John 1 : 4-9.) All light comes from God. This is not only 
 true of spiritual light, but of all true light and knowledge. 
 Science, by many, is supposed to be the enemy of revelation ; 
 but where has science ever obtained a foothold in the world 
 where the light of the revelation of God had not gone ? Where 
 has truth on any subject gained admission unless the light of 
 God's truth opened the way? Look at the condition of the 
 world in all ages where the light of God's revelation has not 
 gone, and see what practical truth on any subject exists among 
 the heathen nations. 
 
 There is affinity between truths. One truth begets or leads 
 to other truths; truth on one subject opens the door to truth 
 on other subjects. The great foundation truth, that opens 
 the way to all other truths, is that there is one Lord God, 
 the Creator and Ruler of the universe ; that by him all things 
 were made ; and that he gives laws to, and regulates all the 
 forces of, the universe. This is the seed truth, from which all 
 other truth in the universe, spiritual or material, springs. 
 Then it is true that all light comes from God in a sense higher 
 than we are accustomed to consider. 
 
 If God is the fountain and source of all light, only he who 
 looks to God can find true light. Man is prone to look to him- 
 self for light ; but in man is no light, save as he receives it 
 from God. Hence the importance of realizing that man is 
 poor in spirit, has no light in himself, but must look to God, 
 who is light. " God is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 
 
330 Poor in Spirit. 
 
 (1 John 1 : 5.) God is the fountain and source of all light and 
 all truth, and all light and truth come from him. When man 
 feels his poverty of spirit, that he has no truth, he will come 
 to God for light, and light and life and strength all come from 
 God ; they dwell together. Man, without God, is in darkness. 
 In this darkness he is helpless and hopeless. He learns his 
 condition, he looks to God in his helplessness, and God de- 
 lights to give light, and, in giving light, gives life and strength. 
 Hence to know how poor in spirit we are is the beginning 
 of light and life and strength to man. " To this man will I 
 look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and that 
 trembleth at my word." (Isa. 66: 2.) God looks with favor 
 to him who learns his own weakness and looks to God for 
 light and strength. " I dwell in the high and holy place, with 
 him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the 
 spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite 
 ones." (Isa. 57: 15.) High and exalted in his place in 
 heaven, he dwells with the lowly, contrite heart, the heart that 
 has learned its own darkness, weakness, and sinfulness, and 
 feels sore and bruised with sin and seeks help and healing 
 from God, the source of all light and strength. Man, in re- 
 fusing to look to God, refuses the light, turns his eyes from 
 the light, and gropes in darkness; and as he gropes in dark- 
 ness he falls into the ditch of ruin. God gives the life that 
 now is, as well as that which is to come. The true light of this 
 life comes from God; it is found in the Bible. The Bible is 
 the source of all true light and leads to the true light of both 
 this world and of that which is to come. " There is no God 
 else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside 
 me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth : 
 for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, 
 the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall 
 not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue 
 shall swear." Let us learn our weakness and nothingness and 
 look to God for light and life and all help. 
 
 POWERS THAT BE. 
 
 "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is 
 no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. 
 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of 
 God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment." 
 (Rom. 13: 1, 2.) Are we to conclude from this that God appoints the 
 temporal government of the world? If so, in what sense is it to be 
 
Powers That Be. 331 
 
 understood? If he appoints them in the sense often advocated, it 
 appears to me that they would be more in harmony with his revealed 
 word. Is there anything in the establishment and preservation of hu- 
 man governments above and beyond the capacity *of man? But in 
 their ever-changing, unjust course, without stability, always on the 
 qui vive for something more, are they not peculiarly of men? When 
 God appointed a government for the Jews, he did it in such a way as 
 not to leave them in any doubt about it, and in it we see the wisdom 
 of God. But may this passage not refer to the authorities of the 
 church? 
 
 I answered the foregoing questions so frequently and fully 
 a few years ago that I feel indisposed to answer them again, 
 yet new readers make it necessary to repeat the truths on this 
 subject as on every other. I hesitate the more to respond to 
 them because I cannot answer them in as few words as I de- 
 sire without being misunderstood. Many excellent brethren 
 of sound and critical minds have been disposed to refer this 
 scripture to the church authorities. After a full and, I think, 
 thorough investigation of the subject, I am satisfied that it 
 refers to the civil or political governments of the earth. 
 
 My first reason for thus believing is that God never or- 
 dained his own true and faithful children for the performance 
 of such a work, but that he always ordained the wicked to do 
 the work here assigned these ministers of God. 
 
 The object for which this minister is ordained is as an 
 avenger " for wrath upon him that doeth evil." Now God 
 never ordained one of his true, obedient, and spiritual children 
 as an avenger to execute wrath, neither in this world nor in 
 the world to come. In the world to come the devil is ap- 
 pointed to execute wrath on the evildoers. Christ and the 
 holy angels are appointed to bless and render happy the well- 
 doer. In the preceding chapter the apostle tells the Christian 
 that he cannot take vengeance. "Avenge not yourself, be- 
 loved, but give place unto the wrath of God. ... If thine 
 enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him to drink : for 
 in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. Be 
 not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom. 
 12 : 19-21.) Now God tells the Christian that he must not take 
 vengeance, but must do good for evil. I will avenge the 
 wicked ; you cannot. Now the Christian was God's minister, 
 ordained for doing good to men, of returning good for evil, 
 and the minister of God for this work could not take venge- 
 ance. 
 
 But God says :." Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will rec- 
 
332 Powers That Be. 
 
 ompense, saith the Lord." But he acts through ministers. 
 The Christian is his minister to do good and to bless ; he can- 
 not take vengeance. But God has other ministers, the powers 
 that be, that he so overrules in their wickedness and sin as 
 to make them his ministers of wrath, his avengers " for wrath 
 on him that doeth evil." (Rom. 13: 4.) 
 
 The idea is common that all of God's ministers are good. 
 This is an error. His ministers are in character fitted for the 
 work that he appoints for them to do. 
 
 Thus Judas Iscariot was a wicked man — a money-loving 
 traitor at heart. In the providence of God, for the salvation 
 of the world, it was necessary that Jesus the Christ should 
 be betrayed and crucified. God wanted a minister to do this 
 work. He did not chose the gentle and true-hearted John as 
 his minister for this work. John was not in character fitted 
 for it ; John was in character fitted as a minister for another 
 work. His gentle, kind, tender disposition made him a pecu- 
 liarly well-fitted minister to care for an old, decrepit, heart- 
 stricken, and bereaved mother in Israel, and because of this 
 fitness Jesus made him his minister to care for his own be- 
 reaved mother. Peter might, in a moment of weakness and 
 discouragement, deny his Master, but it took a different char- 
 acter to betray him. Hence, Peter was chosen or ordained 
 as a minister, but not as a minister of wrath and treason. Be- 
 cause Judas possessed this money-loving, traitorous heart, God 
 chose him as his minister to betray his Lord, and then damned 
 him with endless infamy for his depraved and wicked char- 
 acter. " For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were 
 that believed not, and who it was that should betray him. 
 . . . Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of you is a 
 devil ? Now he spoke of Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for 
 he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve." 
 (John 7: 64-71.) 
 
 Then Judas Iscariot was not made wicked or corrupt by 
 God, but God, seeing his money-loving disposition and know- 
 ing that when once the love of money gets a firm hold on the 
 heart of an individual that it prepares that heart for treason 
 to every principle of honor and virtue, chose him on account 
 of this character as his minister to betray his Son into the 
 hands of his enemies. 
 
 God in his providential dealings with man used such char- 
 acters as his servants or ministers for effecting works of 
 
Powers That Be. 333 
 
 cruelty that were necessary to be performed as parts of his 
 government over the human family. When a nation or peo- 
 ple is wholly given to wickedness, when it refuses to obey 
 God, his honor requires that that nation should be destroyed. 
 When his servants and followers become disobedient, hard- 
 hearted, and rebellious, his honor and their good require their 
 chastisement, that they may be humbled and brought back to 
 God. In such work God has always chosen the wicked and 
 corrupt as his ministers or servants, and then, in the perform- 
 ance of this work, secured their own punishment. 
 
 The Jews disobeyed God — became fearfully rebellious. God 
 determined to punish them. He chose a wicked nation, with 
 wicked ar.d bloodthirsty rulers, as his servants or ministers to 
 do this work. " Therefore thus saith Jehovah of hosts : Be- 
 cause ye have not heard my words, behold, I will send and 
 take all the families of the north, saith Jehovah, and I will 
 send unto Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, 
 and will bring them against this land, and against the inhab- 
 itants thereof, and against all these nations round about ; and 
 I will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, 
 and a hissing, and perpetual desolations. Moreover I will 
 take from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, 
 the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the 
 sound of the millstones, and the light of the lamp. And this 
 whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment ; and 
 these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 
 And it shall come to pass, when seventy years are accom- 
 plished, that I will punish the king of Babylon, and that na- 
 tion, saith Jehovah, for their iniquity, and the land of the 
 Chaldeans; and I will make it desolate forever. And I will 
 bring upon that land all my words which I have pronounced 
 against it, even all that is written in this book, which Jeremiah 
 hath prophesied against all the nations. For many nations 
 and great kings shall make bondmen of them, even of them ; 
 and I will recompense them according to their deeds, and ac- 
 cording to the work of their hands." (Jer. 25 : 8-14.) 
 
 This shows that the Jews were rebellious. God determined 
 to punish them with desolation and captivity. Other nations 
 around were hopelessly corrupt. He determined to destroy 
 them. He chooses a servant in character and power fitted 
 to the work of slaughter and desolation. The people of Baby- 
 lon are strong, wicked, and depraved, and would glory in such 
 
334 Powers That Be. 
 
 a work. God chooses them as his instruments to accomplish 
 the work, and calls their king, Nebuchadnezzar, " my servant " 
 to do this work. He does it from no love to God, no dis- 
 position to honor God, but from an ambitious and bloodthirsty 
 spirit to gratify his love of power, conquest, and aggrandize- 
 ment. He is unconscious that God is using him ; he is wholly 
 ignorant of the purpose of God. It is a case simply of God 
 overruling human ignorance and human wickedness to accom- 
 plish his own purposes. It is a case in which the wrath of 
 man is made to praise and glorify God. " Surely the wrath of 
 man shall praise thee : the residue of wrath shalt thou gird 
 upon thee." (Ps. 76: 10.) 
 
 But when God's purposes have been accomplished by the 
 destruction of the nations and the captivity of Judah for sev- 
 enty years, when Babylon has completed the service which 
 God accomplished through it, he says : " It shall come to pass, 
 when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the 
 king of Babylon, and that nation, saith Jehovah, for their in- 
 iquity, and the land of the Chaldeans ; and I will make it deso- 
 late forever." It is a plain case of God using one wicked na- 
 tion to punish another, and then destroying the one that is 
 used. God called the wicked king " my servant," and the 
 wicked nation " my battle ax and weapons of war : and with 
 thee will I break in pieces the nations." In Jer. 50, 51 may 
 be found the account of the most fearful destruction of Baby- 
 lon when her seventy years were accomplished. God some- 
 times used men not so wholly corrupt, but worldly, wicked 
 men, and overruled their pride, liberality, ambition, and love 
 of applause to serve him in a way less bloodthirsty and cruel, 
 though still of a nature that his chosen servants could not per- 
 form. Cyrus was one of these. Isaiah says : " Thus saith Je- 
 hovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have 
 holden, to subdue nations before him. . . . For Jacob my 
 servant's sake, and Israel, my chosen, I have called thee by thy 
 name : I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known 
 me." (Isa. 45 : 1-4.) Here God uses Cyrus, an idolatrous 
 prince, who knew not God, who was ambitious of power, place, 
 and renown; makes use of him and overrules this spint of 
 love of renown for magnanimity to cause him to restore his 
 people to their own land and to enable them to rebuild the 
 temple of God — not because he desired to honor God, but be- 
 cause he desired the worldly honor of reestablishing the au- 
 
Powers That Be. 335 
 
 cient and renowned temple of Jerusalem. God controls his 
 ambition in this line to accomplish his purposes, and calls him 
 his " anointed " servant to do this. Yet he wa^s an idolatrous, 
 wicked, pagan prince, ambitious only of fame and glory for 
 himself. 
 
 Servant and minister mean precisely the same in the Bible. 
 God always uses or ordains those to do a work who are in 
 character fitted for its performance, and then always rewards 
 the work performed according to the character suited to its 
 performance. A bloody, cruel work demands a bloody, cruel 
 character to perform it. A bloody, cruel destiny is God's re- 
 ward. "All they that take the sword shall perish with the 
 sword." (Matt. 26: 52.) A work of treason to holiness, to 
 virtue, to purity, demands a treasonable heart, corrupted by 
 the love of money. A work of love, gentleness, mercy, and 
 good will demands a character pure and gentle, full of mercy, 
 love, and affection for the distress of humanity. The rewards 
 are those of joy, peace, and mercy from God. " With what 
 measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you." (Matt. 
 7:2.) 
 
 God, in the unseen world, ordained the wicked one, the en- 
 emy of truth and righteousness to execute wrath and venge- 
 ance on the finally impenitent. As his reward he is to share 
 with them the woes of hell forever and ever. He ordained 
 Jesus as the merciful High Priest of salvation, who was 
 touched with a sense of our infirmities and bore the stripes of 
 us all as his servant to minister salvation to the humble and 
 true in the world to come. As his reward, he is to enjoy the 
 most ineffable glories of the better land forever; he will oc- 
 cupy his throne at the right hand of the Father. 
 
 God ordains in this world his humble and true followers 
 as his ministers to do works of love, mercy, long-suffering, and 
 tender pity, and receive the reward of mercy and love in re- 
 turn here and hereafter. 
 
 The wicked, the corrupt, the rebellious, are his chosen min- 
 isters, " avengers for wrath to him who doeth evil," and in 
 turn receive according to their works. The sharp sword of 
 God's unquenchable wrath will repay. Then if man wishes a 
 merciful reward, he must so act and form for himself a char- 
 acter suited for a minister of mercy and that will secure for 
 him a merciful reward, not a wrathful one. 
 
 These civil powers were then God's ministers for executing 
 
336 Powers That Be. 
 
 wrath ; they were wicked, corrupt, and cruel. Nero, the prince 
 of cruel, bloodthirsty demons, was the great ruler. The 
 cruelty was so great that there was danger of Christians re- 
 sisting, striving by violence to overturn the government. He 
 commands them to submit to these authorities. God is using 
 them as his ministers of vengeance to execute wrath on the 
 evildoers. Of course they will reap the reward of wrath and 
 vengeance from God. As they have done to others, so shall 
 it be done to them. 
 
 But the difficulty is that they are said to be ministers of God 
 to Christians for good, that Christians are told to do well and 
 they shall have the praise of these rulers. This is true in more 
 senses than one. Persecutions to the church have been for 
 good to the Christians ; and yet the gentle spirit of Christian 
 forbearance has extracted praise, respect, and honor from the 
 most cruel agents of persecution. "All things work together 
 for good to them that love God, even to them that are called 
 according to his purpose." God permits persecution to come 
 only so far as is good for the Christian ; the remainder of wrath 
 God restraineth. So these powers work for the good of the 
 Christian, even in their persecution of Christians, as well as 
 in their suppression and destruction of the evildoer. 
 
 As God ordains ministers for wrath as well as for mercy, he 
 ordains institutions of wrath as well as institutions of mercy. 
 He ordains an institution of mercy — his church — and asks the 
 world to enter, do mercy and receive mercy. Those who ac- 
 cept the invitation act and live in it ; it is ordained for them. 
 But for those who refuse to enter and become ministers of 
 mercy he ordains institutions fitted for their rebellious char- 
 acter in which they work, while rejecting God's institution of 
 mercy for his children. These institutions of wrath God or- 
 dains for wrath ; they will be destroyed after serving their pur- 
 pose here. People build them up unconscious that God is or- 
 daining them for the destruction of the builders, of those re- 
 fusing his government of mercy. 
 
 God ordains for people just such institutions as they de- 
 serve. If they are obedient and submissive, his merciful gov- 
 ernment is their heritage. If they refuse to obey God's gov- 
 ernment, he ordains that they shall be governed by the op- 
 pressive rule of man's own governments, of which the devil 
 is the great head. Hence, God ordains these governments of 
 
Pray, Teaching Children to. 337 
 
 wrath for the children of wrath ; they are not ordained for the 
 purpose or the people for which God ordains his church. 
 
 But for the wicked, see how God ordained a kingdom for the 
 Jews. (1 Sam. 8.) He ordains a government, not to bless, 
 but to punish for their rebellion in refusing to submit to 
 God's government that he had established for their good. So 
 God ordains institutions to punish and destroy the wicked and 
 rebellious ; through these he brings persecutions upon his chil- 
 dren to humble and purify them. " Shall the trumpet be 
 blown in a city, and the people be not afraid? Shall evil be- 
 fall a city, and Jehovah hath not done it ? " (Amos 3 : 6.) " I 
 form the light, and create darkness ; I make peace, and create 
 evil. I am Jehovah thatdoeth all these things." (Isa. 45 : 7.) 
 Evils of a physical nature are here spoken of, and it is a decla- 
 ration that God in his providences brings war, famine, and 
 ruin as a consequence of man's sins. 
 
 The idea is, then, that the powers referred to here are civil 
 or political powers. They are ordained of God as instruments 
 of wrath for the children of wrath, to be conducted and oper- 
 ated by the ministers of wrath, and their destiny will be a 
 destruction of fierce wrath ; that God's children must submit 
 to them as such, not strive by violence to destroy them. 
 When, in the providence of God, they are no longer needed, 
 he will destroy them — cause them to destroy and eat up one 
 another. No Christian, then, can become a partaker or par- 
 ticipator or partisan of them, lest he partake of their woes. 
 Quiet, passive submission that involves no violation of the 
 laws of the spiritual kingdom is the measure and limit of their 
 connection with them. God's kingdom of mercy — his church 
 — is his institution in which his children of mercy must oper- 
 ate and in it receive the rewards of mercy. 
 
 PRAY, TEACHING CHILDREN TO. 
 
 A sister says she is teaching- her children to pray, and they are not 
 church members. She wants to know whether she is doing right or 
 not in teaching her children to pray, or if God will hear their prayers. 
 The children are small and innocent. 
 
 A child cannot reverence and honor God without praying 
 to him. Children ought to be taught to reverence, honor, and 
 love God — trust him, look to him for good — and ought to be 
 taught that they are weak and helpless and stand in need of 
 God's help every day. When you teach them this, they will 
 
338 Pray, Teaching Children to. 
 
 pray. God pity the children whose parents do* not teach them 
 this. They are to be taught as older persons are — that is, that 
 God will not hear their prayers unless they do his will. Hence, 
 they should be taught that as they learn their duty they must 
 do it, or God will not hear their prayers. 
 
 It is just as much right to teach them to pray as it is to 
 teach them to tell the truth, to be honest, to give to the needy 
 and relieve distress, because this is pleasing to God. These 
 are all Christian duties; and if children are not to be taught 
 to do things that are Christian duties, they cannot be brought 
 up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 
 PRAYER AND PROVIDENCE. 
 
 Does God do anything for his children because they ask him that 
 he would not do, anyway, through the fixed laws of nature? If he 
 does, how does he do it? If he does not, what benefit is there in 
 prayer? Is prayer procurative or reflexive only? Does prayer, in 
 other words, simply make us better in heart, or do we actually receive 
 some blessing from without in consequence of it? Is God simply 
 pleased with our prayers, or does he actually do something that he 
 would not do if we did not ask him? I have put the question in sev- 
 eral different forms to make it as plain as possible. 
 
 I believe that God answers prayer, that he bestows blessings 
 in answer to prayer. I believe that he answers prayer in ac- 
 cordance with his own laws. I believe that God made provi- 
 sions for saving men from spiritual death, that the means he 
 provided are ample to save all fitted for salvation. And it in- 
 dicates lack of faith in God to distrust the sufficiency of his 
 provisions for saving men and to seek salvation in other than 
 God's appointed ways. To pray to God to save outside of his 
 provisions for saving betrays distrust of God. 
 
 I believe it equally true that God has made provisions for 
 supplying the fleshly needs of his people, and that they are 
 amply sufficient to effect the purpose for which he provided 
 them. To doubt his ability to meet the needs of those he 
 wishes to bless through these provisions and to ask him to 
 go outside of these to relieve our physical wants betrays a 
 lack of confidence in the wisdom and power of God. If God 
 is willing to go outside of his laws to save and bless in answer 
 to prayer, he would more readily do this to save a soul from 
 hell than he would to save one from hunger or cold. 
 
 To turn the querist's question upon him, does he believe 
 that the laws of God are more effective to save if obeyed with- 
 
Prayer and Providence. 339 
 
 out prayer than they would be to save with prayer? When 
 he answers that question, he answers his question to me. He 
 prays for the salvation of the world. He does* not expect God 
 to go outside of the provisions of the gospel to save men ; yet 
 he thinks his prayer will avail to the salvation of the world, 
 but only when the world is brought into harmony with the 
 gospel, which is God's power to save. But how does he an- 
 swer prayer to save, when he will not go out of his provisions 
 or laws to save ? You are in the pit that you digged for me ; 
 but I will try to help you out. 
 
 I do not believe that prayer is accepted by God as a substi- 
 tute for compliance with his laws for obtaining good in either 
 the spiritual or material world. All the prayers in the world 
 will not save a soul, outside of God's established provisions 
 for salvation ; all the prayers in the world will not give a man 
 food or raiment, outside of a compliance with the provisions 
 that God has made to supply his fleshly needs. Prayer will 
 no more be accepted as a substitute for planting and plowing 
 than for believing in God and obeying the gospel. I appre- 
 hend that the trouble arises from two mistakes. The first is 
 that prayer is something apart from the law of God. It en- 
 ters into and is a part of the law of God for securing blessings 
 in both the natural and spiritual world, and always works in 
 harmony with and through these laws. It brings about its 
 results through these laws, and never apart from them. The 
 second mistake is in regarding God's provisions and laws in 
 the material world as imperfect and inadequate to meet the 
 emergencies and exigencies of life ; so that when these provi- 
 sions fail to bring good to his children, he must interfere di- 
 rectly and supplement the failures of his provisions for bring- 
 ing good. This view is unconsciously held by many good 
 Christians. The distinction between special and general prov- 
 idence is not found in the revelation of God, but originates in 
 human reason from this misconception of God and the idea 
 that his provisions and laws are inadequate to bring all good 
 to any creature in every contingency in the whole universe. 
 God is the great Architect and Guide of the universe ; sees the 
 end from the beginning; is everywhere present in the uni- 
 verse ; inhabiteth eternity ; dwells in an eternity past and one 
 yet to come, as an ever-present now, without variableness or 
 shadow of turning. He dwells in the high and holy place, also 
 in the hearts of the lowly and contrite ones. The prayers 
 
340 Prayer and Providence. 
 
 and petitions of these enter into the workings of his laws and 
 secure all spiritual and material blessings that they are capa- 
 ble of receiving. God is not absent that he needs to dodge in 
 and out to supplement the failures and patch up the miscar- 
 riages of his provisions. The sunshine and the rain are God's 
 provisions for bestowing his material blessings on the world. 
 He has promised these alike to the just and the unjust. This 
 means that God will give the benefits of both in this world 
 to the just and unjust alike; and he, whether just or unjust, 
 that most faithfully uses the means for obtaining these bless- 
 ings will most abundantly receive them. 
 
 Where, then, the effect of prayer? The prayer must con- 
 form to the law of God. The prayer, then, must be that rain 
 and sunshine will come alike on the just and unjust. The 
 unjust must share the blessings bestowed on the just in this 
 case. For a man to pray God to send rain or sunshine on the 
 just, and not the unjust, would be to pray God to violate his 
 own law. Such prayers will secure blessing neither to the just 
 nor the unjust. 
 
 God honors his own laws in the material world, and he who 
 most faithfully complies with those laws will obtain the most 
 bountiful harvests. After the harvest is obtained, whether it 
 proves a spiritual and eternal blessing or curse depends upon 
 the spirit of the man who receives it. Other things might be 
 said along these lines, but our knowledge of the operation of 
 God's laws and of the forces that enter into them is so meager 
 that, to us, it is true : 
 
 God moves in a mysterious way, 
 His wonders to perform. 
 
 But he answers prayer, and he does not set aside or go out 
 of his own laws and provisions to do it. In the creative and 
 transition ages of both the material and spiritual world man- 
 ifestations of power, to show that he is God, were given. But 
 when that which is perfect was come, the gifts and manifesta- 
 tions were done away; and God's perfect provisions remain 
 to work out all good to his faithful children, and faithful prayer 
 is one of these provisions. 
 
 PRAYER, DOES GOD HEAR THE ALIEN SINNER'S? 
 
 Will you please explain as to whether Cornelius was an alien sin- 
 ner or not? If not, why not? Now, if he was an alien sinner and God 
 heard his prayer, why will he not hear an alien sinner's prayer to-day? 
 
Prayer, Does God Hear the Alien Sinner's? 341 
 
 I have, time and time again, said that God is just as un- 
 willing to hear an inside sinner as he is to hear an outside 
 sinner, or he is just as willing to hear the outside, or alien, 
 sinner as he is to hear the sinner in the church. When the 
 man born blind said, " God heareth not sinners " (John 9 : 
 31), he was speaking of Jewish sinners, who were not aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel, but members of the family 
 of Abraham. The same is true of Job 27 : 9 ; 35 : 12 ; Ps. 66 : 
 18; Prov. 1: 28; 15: 29; 28: 9; Isa. 1: 15; Jer. 11: 11; 14: 12; 
 Ezek. 8: 18; Mic. 3:4; and Zech. 7: 13. All these passages, 
 with quite a number of others, declare that God will not hear 
 the prayers of persons on account of their sins. In all these 
 passages he refers to sinners in covenant relation with God. 
 They are the class most frequently addressed. God's laws are 
 generally given to those who claim to obey him. To those 
 who do not own him as God, he gives one leading command : 
 " Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt 
 thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10.) Until he complies with this, he 
 gives him no other command ; until the man comes to recog- 
 nize him as the only true and living God, he does not care to 
 call on him. 
 
 There are many seeming contradictions in God's dealings 
 with man. One is that God will not hear a sinner or one that 
 " turneth away his ear from hearing the law." Yet we pray 
 because we are sinners. One that willfully sins, and turns 
 his ear from hearing the law, God will not hear. Yet because 
 we realize that we are sinners, helpless and needy, we come 
 to God in prayer. The more we realize that we are lost and 
 helpless, the more we will pray, and the better God is pleased 
 with the prayer. God does not hear the prayer of the self- 
 righteous. When a man turns his ear from God, and refuses 
 to hear and obey him, his prayer is an abomination to the 
 Lord. God will not hear that kind of a sinner, whether he be 
 an alien or a citizen. But when a man realizes that he is a 
 sinner, that he needs divine mercy and divine help, and comes 
 to God seeking his help to turn from sin, God is pleased with 
 the prayers of that kind of a sinner, whether he be alien or cit- 
 izen. When a man believes in God and. realizes that he is 
 lost, he cannot help praying. God hears such prayers. There 
 is no sin in such prayers. The danger is in the man relying 
 on such prayers and failing to obey God's commands in other 
 things. This is the point to be guarded against. Cornelius 
 
342 Prayer, Does God Hear the Alien Sinner's? 
 
 was an alien, anxious to know and do the will of God. The 
 angel testified to him : " Thy prayers and thine alms are gone 
 up for a memorial before God." (Acts 10: 4.) I do not think 
 that God objects to the prayers of one out of Christ, if he prays 
 in the right spirit and for the right thing. I do not think 
 that a sinner can come to God, realizing that he is a lost sinner, 
 without praying that he may see the way and believe and obey 
 God. He will, in his sense of weakness, pray: "Help thou 
 mine unbelief." (Mark 9: 24.) Jesus heard and granted the 
 prayer of the centurion, whose servant was sick (Luke 7: 
 1-10), and the Syrophenician woman, whose daughter he 
 healed. I think it running to an extreme to say that God will 
 not hear one out of the church who is striving to learn and 
 do the will of God. God will not hear one refusing to learn 
 and do his will, whether in or out of the church. " He that 
 turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer 
 is an abomination" (Prov. 28: 9), was spoken by Solomon 
 as a universal truth applicable alike to those who do and 
 those who do not claim to be servants of God. The same 
 is true of the declaration : " We know that God heareth not 
 sinners ; but if any man be a worshiper of God, and do his will, 
 him he heareth." (John 9: 31.) He must not only be a wor- 
 shiper of God, but must strive to do his will, for God to hear 
 him. 
 
 The objection to the mourner's bench is not that it is always 
 sinful for one out of Christ to pray, but that the prayers and 
 services are contrary to the will of God. When Ananias found 
 Saul, a believing and mourning sinner, praying, he asked him : 
 " Why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
 thy sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22 : 16.) God tells the 
 believing mourner to be baptized, and in the washing of bap- 
 tism God will forgive his sins. At the mourner's bench they 
 are told to pray on until their sins are forgiven, while yet re- 
 fusing to obey God. That is the sin of Baptists, Methodists, 
 and others on this subject. The sin is in teaching them that 
 they can be pardoned while refusing to be baptized. If they 
 connect prayer with obedience, it is all right; but prayer as a 
 substitute for obedience is sin. 
 

 Prayer, Public. 343 
 
 PRAYER, PUBLIC. 
 
 Please give us a lesson on prayer. A brother refused to lead in 
 prayer, saying that we had no authority for public prayer; that the 
 Savior taught his disciples to pray in secret. 
 
 I do not know any law, human or divine, to prevent one dis- 
 playing his ignorance and folly when he desires to ; and most 
 generally when one thinks that he is wiser and smarter than 
 the rest of the world, he desires to do this. While it is true 
 that Jesus teaches his disciples both by precept and example 
 to pray in secret, one is very ignorant of the Bible that does 
 not know that they are also taught to pray in the public as- 
 sembly. The examples and admonitions are too numerous to 
 mention, but a few may be given. Solomon stood upon his 
 knees and prayed before the assembled nation of Israel at the 
 dedication of the temple. (1 Kings 8: 22-54.) Elijah prayed 
 in the presence of the king, people, and four hundred prophets 
 of Baal; and God heard and answered his prayer. This was 
 praying before pretty bad sinners, too. (1 Kings 18: 27-46.) 
 From the beginning of the tabernacle service there were hours 
 when all the people assembled for prayer at the temple. It was 
 continued until the days of the apostles. When Zacharias, 
 the father of John, was offering incense within the temple, 
 " the whole multitude of the people were praying without at 
 the hour of incense." (Luke 1 : 10.) Jesus prayed frequently 
 in the presence of his disciples and in the presence of the un- 
 believing Jews on several occasions, once at the raising of 
 Lazarus (John 11: 41), then on the cross. The apostles and 
 disciples engaged in public prayer when Matthias was chosen. 
 (Acts 1 : 24.) All the baptized on Pentecost continued stead- 
 fastly in prayers. (Acts 2 : 42.) Peter and John went up to 
 the temple at the hour of prayer. This was the hour in which 
 the unbelieving Jews met to pray. They went to participate 
 in this service. They prayed in the assembly, and the place 
 was shaken. (Acts 4: 31.) When the seven were appointed, 
 prayer was made in the whole assembly. Stephen stood on 
 his knees and prayed in the presence of and for the wicked 
 Jews that stoned him to death. (Acts 7: 60.) 
 
 In these and other specific cases of prayer other Christians 
 and persons not Christians are mentioned as present. The 
 frequent mention of the worship, of which prayer is an item, 
 without specifying it, renders it certain that none were ex- 
 
344 Prayer, Public. 
 
 eluded from the worship who desired to be present, nor did 
 any refuse to worship God because of the presence of any one. 
 
 PRAYER, SHOULD THE UNBAPTIZED BE ASKED 
 TO LEAD? 
 
 What right have I to call upon an unbaptized person to lead the 
 prayer for the congregation — in other words, to ask such a one to 
 pray? If it is right, I want to know it; if it is not right, I want to 
 know it. Of all things, I want to be right in the religion of my Savior. 
 
 It is easy to say in general terms that it is wrong to encour- 
 age in any way persons who set aside the word of God ; but 
 when we come to apply this principle to the practical ques- 
 tions as they come up, we find difficulties. Another principle 
 is : We ought not to drive off and excite the bitterness of peo- 
 ple who are striving to know and do the will of God, even 
 though they fall short of understanding the truth. How to so 
 draw the line as to harmonize these two principles is the diffi- 
 cult question. As baptism is the act in which the believer 
 declares his faith in God and God accepts him as his child, it 
 seems reasonable that we would be safe in drawing the line 
 there ; but when persons who have been baptized into Christ 
 turn from the commandments of the Lord, deliberately refuse 
 to be governed by his laws, add to or take from his command- 
 ments, are they better than the unbaptized? Where no spe- 
 cific directions are given, some liberty of judgment must be 
 allowed; and where this is allowed, some difference in action 
 must be tolerated. I do not know whether a Methodist or 
 Presbyterian is less a Christian than a Baptist, or even a dis- 
 ciple, who lets his love for his party, or for one practice or 
 another not required by God, cause him to depart from the 
 things taught in the Scriptures. It is true that baptism is the 
 initial act of entrance into Christ, and, as such, stands as the 
 dividing line between the children of God and those not chil- 
 dren ; but it is better not to have known the truth than, after 
 having known it, to turn from it. I would like to be able 
 to give a clear and definite answer to such questions if I could 
 find it laid down in the Scriptures ; but in the absence of it I 
 can only say that we ought to be careful to do nothing that 
 will encourage those not following the law of God to think 
 they are on safe ground ; and, under this, each will have to use 
 his judgment in applying the rule. These invitations to lead 
 the prayers are given, oftentimes, as mere matters of courtesy, 
 
Prayer, Why, Not Heard? 345 
 
 regardless of the real fitness of the one asked or the desire of 
 the other that he should lead the prayers. This asking to take 
 part in God's service as a courtesy to men, without regard 
 to one's fitness, is all wrong, no matter who is invited, whether 
 in or out of the church. To ask a Methodist or Presbyterian 
 or Baptist to lead the prayers of a congregation, when he is 
 not in perfect sympathy with the work and purposes of the 
 congregation, is to make mockery of prayer. The person who 
 is most in sympathy with the objects of the meeting is the 
 one to give expression to and lead in their prayers. If we 
 look to these things, study the end and purpose of the meet- 
 ing, see the object of prayer, and then lay aside all thought 
 of courtesy and favor of men, we will not get far wrong. 
 
 PRAYER, WHY, NOT HEARD? 
 
 A sister lost her fourteen-months-old babe last spring. In the be- 
 ginning of the child's illness she was very despondent; but finally she 
 resorted to prayer, importunate, constant; and she says she firmly 
 believed the Lord would restore her child; but the child died, with 
 three of our best physicians attending it, and it was pitiful to see the 
 shock which death produced on the praying mother. Now she wants 
 to know what was the matter with her prayers. She cannot be per- 
 suaded to see any kindness in the taking away of her child, and that 
 in the face of the promise that whatsoever we ask, believing, it shall 
 be given. 
 
 The trouble with that sister was that she dictated to the 
 Lord instead of prayed to him. She made up her mind that 
 she wanted a certain thing done, whether it was the will of 
 the Lord or not. All prayer must be made in submission to 
 the will of God. When we determine that we must have a 
 thing, whether the Lord wills or not, we direct or dictate 
 to him, but do not pray to him. The Savior gave us the ex- 
 ample of prayer. He prayed : " My Father, if it be possible, 
 let this cup pass away from me : nevertheless, not as I will, 
 but as thou wilt." (Matt. 26: 39.) As if he feared that this 
 did not sufficiently submit everything to> the Lord, he went 
 away the second time and prayed : " My Father, if this cannot 
 pass away, except I drink it, thy will be done." It is not 
 prayer, but dictation to the Lord, unless it is done with the 
 earnest desire on our part that God's will be done ; and it 
 should be asked in deference to the divine will, and it should 
 be as much a part of the prayer that we be able to submit to 
 his will as that our wishes be granted. 
 
 The things that we ask we receive, if we ask in accordance 
 
346 Prayer, Why, Not Heard? 
 
 with his will. James says that we must not even say that we 
 will do a thing next week or next year ; but if the Lord will, we 
 will do this or that. No Christian ought to desire that any- 
 thing should be done contrary to the divine will. If we wor- 
 ship and honor him as God, if we have more confidence in him 
 than we have in our own wisdom, we will desire that his will 
 — the wiser will, not ours — shall be done. The doing of this 
 will often causes us pain — may tear asunder the tenderest and 
 strongest ties of the flesh, and may bring anguish of soul, as 
 doing God's will brought this to the Savior — yet the full pur- 
 pose and desire of the heart will be, while we suffer and bear 
 this anguish and sorrow, that God's will shall be done. It is 
 only when we come in humble, submissive prayer, asking and 
 deserving that God's will shall be done, that God proposes to 
 answer prayer. 
 
 PREACHERS AND THEIR SUPPORT. 
 
 (1) Does the Bible teach that the only way to support a preacher 
 is by the weekly contribution, and does it teach that it is the preach- 
 er's duty to spend his life preaching the gospel, trusting the Lord for 
 a support, without a promise or an agreement from man? 
 
 The Scriptures say but little about the support of preachers, 
 " Know ye not that they that minister about sacred things eat 
 of the things of the temple, and they that wait upon the altar 
 have their portion with the altar? Even so did the Lord or- 
 dain that they that proclaim the gospel should live of the gos- 
 pel." (1 Cor. 9: 13, 14.) As the priests who ministered about 
 holy things lived of the gifts made at the altar, so those who 
 preach the gospel should live of the things contributed from 
 the preaching of the gospel. The support of the priests is 
 made the example for the support of those who preach the gos- 
 pel. While they were ministering in the temple, they lived 
 exclusively of the offerings of the altar ; but the priests did not 
 live exclusively from the offerings of the altar. Forty-eight 
 cities were set apart for the use of the priests and Levites, 
 in which they lived. " These cities were every one with their 
 suburbs round about them." (Josh. 21 : 42.) "And the cities 
 shall they have to dwell in ; and their suburbs shall be for 
 their cattle, and for their substance, and for all their beasts." 
 (Num. 35 : 3.) They had these cities, pasture lands, cattle, 
 and other beasts, and lived on these. They lived off of the 
 things of the temple exclusively only when they were serving 
 
Preachers and Their Support. 347 
 
 in the temple. The tithes and offerings went to the support 
 of all the service. We have nothing said of arrangements and 
 contracts with others. The churches sent to. Paul, and he 
 sent messengers to them, who told of his affairs and how he 
 did. Paul preached all in his power, worked for the support 
 of himself and his company with his own hands when it was 
 necessary, and did more preaching than any modern preacher. 
 A preacher ought to preach all he can, whether he has to work 
 or not. All Christians in their spheres are preachers. All 
 should preach all they can. The support of preachers is a 
 much larger question now than it was in the days of Paul, 
 Luther, Wesley, Campbell. As a church grows cold and luke- 
 warm, this question grows in importance. When the church 
 is full of zeal and devotion, it settles this question itself. The 
 preacher is so anxious to preach that he goes without waiting 
 to settle the question, and the disciples are anxious to help 
 all they can. 
 
 (2) Do the Scriptures teach that the preacher should wait for the 
 church to call him, or do the Scriptures teach him to go and preach to 
 every person? In other words, is it not a fact that our preachers are 
 getting to be professional preachers — that they preach where they 
 think that they will get the most money, and they will not go where 
 they think that they are not likely to get much pay? My reason for 
 asking this question is that I have written to preachers to try to get 
 them to come and preach to the people in this part of the country, and 
 they would write me to know who would support them in this work; 
 and when I would write them that we were few in number and were 
 not able to support a preacher, but would do all that we could, they 
 would not come. So I have become discouraged, and have lost confi- 
 dence, to a great extent, in our preachers, and have decided that it 
 would be a sin to support any such preachers. 
 
 There are two sides to that question. Preachers ought to 
 be willing to sacrifice to preach the gospel to others, yet they 
 are under no more obligation to sacrifice than other Chris- 
 tians. Most preachers are poor and have families. Many of 
 them have sad experiences on the question of support. Not 
 many weeks ago I heard of a preacher, with a wife and sev- 
 eral children, who was invited to preach for a church that has 
 members owning property reaching from five thousand to a 
 hundred thousand dollars each. He lost two or three days, 
 and they gave him two dollars, over half of which went for 
 railroad fare. I do not think there is any obligation on a 
 preacher to visit such a place, save to teach them how lacking 
 in a sense of justice and honor they are. Our brother lives 
 
348 Preachers and Their Support. 
 
 some distance from a preacher, and there are but two or three 
 other Christians near him. He asks a preacher to visit them. 
 It costs him several dollars to get there, several days in time. 
 The loss of time and money to him is considerable. Now, are 
 the brethren willing to make as much sacrifice as they expect 
 of the preacher? They are under even greater obligations, 
 since it is their neighbors that are to be taught. Then the sac- 
 rifice is made week after week by the preacher, only occasion- 
 ally by the others. Now, until the private members sacrifice 
 as much as they ask the preacher to, they ought not to com- 
 plain at the preacher's making inquiry as to who will aid or 
 what is the prospect of it. When all do their duty and there 
 is perfect freedom of communication as to the needs of the 
 preacher and his family, there will be no need of such in- 
 quiries. While the preacher ought not to preach for money, 
 he is under the same obligation to care for his family that 
 other men are. There is no more wrong in his looking to the 
 prospect of a support than for the farmer to do it. It is a 
 bad state of affairs when a preacher has to make the inquiry, 
 but the preachers are not alone to blame for it. 
 
 (3) Would not a congregation be doing wrong to call a preacher 
 who just waits for this church or that church to call him to hold a 
 meeting? Is not this kind of a preacher as unscriptural as a Baptist 
 preacher or a Methodist preacher? 
 
 A preacher would be regarded as presumptuous that would 
 send an appointment to hold a series of meetings for a church 
 without being invited. The places for a preacher to preach 
 are where there are no churches ; and when he is able to labor 
 without pay, these are the places he should seek. 
 
 PREDESTINATION. 
 
 In reading the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, do 
 you think it teaches that the twelve apostles were chosen or predesti- 
 nated before the foundation of the world? If it teaches that, which it 
 seems to do, do you think, then, that Judas was predestinated to be- 
 tray Christ and to hang himself? 
 
 " The foreknowledge of God," as used in the Bible, means 
 what God has before made known to man. " Elect accord- 
 ing to the foreknowledge of God " (1 Pet. 1 : 2) means elected 
 according to the terms before made known to the world. 
 
 I doubt if there is what we call fore and after with God. All 
 time is present. "A thousand years is as one day, and one 
 

 Prophets and Priests. 349 
 
 day as a thousand years." But what God has made known 
 to man heretofore is called " foreknowledge." Before this he 
 made it known to man. He says of Christ : " Who was fore- 
 known indeed before the foundation of the world, but was 
 manifested at the end of the times for your sake." (1 Pet. 
 1 . 20.) In the beginning God provided that Jesus Christ 
 should come to save men. Then he, as a lamb, was slain from 
 the foundation of the world, but manifested in these last times 
 for you who do believe in Christ. Christ was preordained 
 as the means of salvation to all who should enter him. God 
 did not choose or predestine which persons should enter 
 Christ, but he chose or predestined that those who entered 
 him should be saved. Then at any time when persons have 
 entered Christ, they can say : We were chosen or predestined 
 unto salvation in him before the foundation of the world. God 
 chose or predestined Judas just as he does every man. He 
 never made any man wicked or bad. " God made man up- 
 right ; but they have sought out many inventions." (Eccles. 
 7: 29.) When they make themselves wicked, he appoints 
 them to do evil work, and then to destruction for the evil clone. 
 I have no doubt that Jesus selected Judas because he knew 
 his character and that he was fitted to do the work of treason. 
 God did not make him bad ; he chose him to do a wicked work 
 because he found in him the character fitted to do it. 
 
 PROPHETS AND PRIESTS. 
 
 What was the difference between prophets and priests and their re- 
 lationship to God and the people? 
 
 The priest's special work was to teach the law that God 
 had revealed and to approach the Lord for man. (Lev. 10: 
 9-11 ; Mai. 2: 7.) The priest was the representative of man to 
 approach God. He was consecrated and set apart for the 
 purpose of approaching God for man. He stood as man's rep- 
 resentative to God. The priest was intended to be more sa- 
 cred than the people. He was one of them sanctified, but he 
 partook of their weaknesses and prejudices, and was generally 
 led into their sins. The prophet was the representative of 
 God to man. He was the mouthpiece of God. His mission 
 was to speak for God, to deliver the word of God to the peo- 
 ple to whom God sent him. The prophet represented God to 
 the people as the priest represented the people to God. Moses 
 
350 Prophets and Priests. 
 
 was the typical prophet ; Aaron, the typical priest. God gave 
 the law through Moses to Aaron. He stood as God to Aaron. 
 God said to Moses : "And he shall be thy spokesman unto the 
 people; and it shall come to pass, that he shall be to thee a 
 mouth, and thou shalt be to him as God." (Ex. 4: 16.) 
 Aaron was a prophet of Moses as Moses was a prophet of 
 God. " I have made thee as God to Pharaoh ; and Aaron thy 
 brother shall be thy prophet." (Ex. 7: 1.) Again, God said 
 to Moses : " Be thou for the people to Godward, and bring 
 thou the causes unto God." (Ex. 18: 19.) Moses received 
 the laws from God and gave them to the people. Aaron was 
 the representative of the people to come to God with their 
 offerings and sacrifices. Aaron was led into sin with the peo- 
 ple. Moses in his teaching was always true to God. Through 
 infirmity of the flesh he once failed to honor God as he should 
 have done ; but he was loyal to God, meek and humble before 
 him under manifold temptations. Aaron was made priest to 
 represent the people to God, was the representative of the peo- 
 ple to God, and was often carried into sin and idolatry by the 
 people. The priests generally were so carried away by the 
 people that it became a proverb in Israel : " Like people, like 
 priest." The priests seldom rose above the condition of the 
 masses of the people. Often the two offices were embodied in 
 the same person. Samuel was a prophet, yet he performed 
 priestly functions ; and Jeremiah was prophet and priest. Je- 
 sus was a Prophet to us on earth, and then became our great 
 High Priest in heaven. Jeremiah wrote the two books of 
 Kings. He was a highly favored prophet of God, and was 
 faithful and true to God. He did all that he did with a view 
 of honoring God. In these books he set forward the things 
 that would promote the honor of God, lead to obedience to 
 God, make the people humble and trustful, and that were well 
 pleasing to him. The kingdom in Israel was never pleasing 
 to God — was condemned by him in its beginning, and was de- 
 stroyed when it had fulfilled its mission. God warned the peo- 
 ple of its evil tendency and ruinous end, announced to them 
 that in choosing it they rejected him, yet he told Samuel to 
 grant them the king as they requested, and promised to choose 
 their kings for them, the best and wisest of men, and to give 
 them the counsel of his prophets and let them make a fair 
 trial of the earthly kings. 
 
 Those kings built up the nation and made it strong among 
 

 Prophets and Priests. 351 
 
 the nations of the earth. God's Spirit was with them while 
 they would hearken to God, and it guided them in that which 
 was wisest for their greatness among the nations of the earth. 
 God permitted the experiment to be tried as to man's ability 
 to at once support and uphold human government while serv- 
 ing him. The experiment failed, and ought to be a lesson to 
 all succeeding generations that people cannot serve both the 
 divine and the earthly governments. " Ye cannot serve God 
 and mammon." The earthly kingdom continually led the peo- 
 ple into idolatry, which brought destruction from God upon 
 them. The kingdom prospered for a time — brought earthly 
 greatness among the nations. But in building up the earthly 
 greatness it weaned the people from God, led them to idolatry, 
 sowed the seeds of division and strife, and brought final ruin 
 upon the kingdom and captivity to the people. The destruc- 
 tion of the earthly kingdom removed the causes that led to 
 idolatry, caused them again to trust God, and from that time 
 forward we find no' more charges against them of running into 
 idolatry. When they ceased from idolatry, they were made 
 ready for the coming of the Messiah. Support of an earthly 
 king was found incompatible with a readiness to receive and 
 serve the Lord Jesus. 
 
 There were two ends to the work of the Jewish kingdom. 
 One was to build up the earthly kingdom. God sent his Spirit 
 to guide in this, that it might be done in the best way. The 
 other end was to keep them loyal and faithful to God. The 
 attempt was made to harmonize the two' ends ; it failed. The 
 true prophets sought to hold them true to God. The priests 
 greatly bent their energies to build up the earthly kingdom. 
 The two books of Kings were written from the standpoint 
 of the prophets, and in them the things that encouraged the 
 teachings of God are presented. 
 
 The two books of Chronicles were written from the stand- 
 point of the earthly kings. They were composed by Ezra, as 
 generally supposed, when he was trying to reestablish the 
 earthly kingdom after the return from captivity in Babylon. 
 The matters are set forth in the books of Chronicles that would 
 inspire a love of the earthly kingdom and a desire for its 
 restoration. The same history in time and persons is gone 
 over. Truthfulness is manifested in both accounts, reverence 
 for God in both, yet the two ends in view cause quite a differ- 
 ence in the coloring of the two accounts. 
 
352 Prophets and Priests. 
 
 Jeremiah in the two books of Kings gives no prominence to 
 that which was intended to promote the earthly greatness of 
 the kingdom. He lived at the time when the Jewish people 
 reaped the fruits of their earthly greatness and consequent 
 idolatry in the destruction of Jerusalem and the captivity of 
 their people. He had no taste for the things that, under cover 
 of earthly grandeur, brought about ruin so complete. Noth- 
 ing is said in these books of Kings of the pompous temple 
 worship, with its display and pride-inspiring influences. 
 These books of Kings tell of the sins into which this pride led 
 both rulers and people, God's condemnation, and the evil that 
 comes of the course. 
 
 In Chronicles, chapter after chapter is given of the genealo- 
 gies of the kings and the priests back to Abraham and Adam, 
 of the great and pompous display of the temple, and the serv- 
 ices of the thousands and thousands of priests and Levites 
 in their parade and display in the temple service. This all 
 gave them glory among the nations, but did not humble them 
 before God. This display corrupted the service of God, de- 
 stroyed the humility of the people and service, so that Jere- 
 miah saw the destruction of the temple, the desecration of the 
 altars of God, and he had no heart to mention even that service 
 that had so defiled the altars of God and led to their ruin. 
 
 I would be glad if our readers would read the books of 
 Kings and Chronicles, and note the sameness of the history 
 and the difference in the things narrated in the light of these 
 suggestions. It would correct many false notions and help to 
 draw lessons that would profit. Wrong lessons are drawn 
 from much of these teachings. We interpret examples that 
 God gave for warning as encouragement, and are sadly misled 
 into the same class of errors that brought ruin to< the king- 
 doms of Israel and Judah. 
 
 PROVIDE FOR HIS OWN HOUSE. 
 
 I want your opinion on 1 Tim. 5: 8: " But if any provideth not for 
 his own, and specially his own household, he hath denied the faith, 
 and is worse than an unbeliever." Does this mean food and raiment, 
 or God's word — food for the soul? It is very important to have this 
 point settled here, for our preacher says it is temporal food. 
 
 It means temporal food, raiment, and comforts, and it re- 
 fers to the widows properly dependent upon the persons, not 
 one's wife or children. Read it in its connections. See that 
 
Providence, Special. 353 
 
 he is telling how the widows shall be provided for. Those 
 who have children or nephews (grandchildren) shall care for 
 them. It tells what widows are to be supported by the 
 church, and what not, and then says : " If any [referring back 
 to the child and grandchild] provideth not for his own [wid- 
 ows, mother, or grandmother], . . . he hath denied the 
 faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.' , The next verse says, 
 " Let none be enrolled as a widow [to be supported by the 
 church] under threescore years old," and other qualifications. 
 It is strange how any one could ever make the sentence apply 
 to any save the widows. Of course it is right for a man to 
 supply his wife and children with food and raiment, and spir- 
 itual instruction, too ; but this passage does not refer to that 
 matter. 
 
 PROVIDENCE, SPECIAL. 
 
 I would like to see a pointed article on special providence. Of 
 course there is a general providence God exercises over all his works, 
 and he will at the last day judge the world by Christ Jesus in right- 
 eousness; but do men, as a special act direct from God, receive any 
 punishment? 
 
 The Bible draws no distinction between special and' general 
 providences, as these terms are usually understood. There 
 is no such idea as that God changes or interferes with the 
 operation of the lav^s that he has put in force to punish or bless 
 a man in any special case. The general provision is that all 
 the laws of God work to the end of blessing all that are in 
 harmony with them and destroying those who violate them. 
 The idea of a special providence outside of the general laws 
 of God arises from a failure to see that God's laws are perfect 
 in their operations, and meet all possible contingencies that 
 arise, to punish and to bless, without the intervention of spe- 
 cial laws or interferences. If there are special interferences 
 and manifestations of power to bless or to punish, it must be 
 because the general law fails to reach such cases. If cases 
 arise which the general law fails to reach, it is because the 
 law is imperfect and does not meet all the contingencies of 
 life ; it is because God failed to make his law perfect (as the 
 Psalmist says he did) : " The law of Jehovah is perfect, re- 
 storing the soul." (Ps. 19: 7.) If so, it meets all the con- 
 tingencies possible to arise in life. It meets every special case 
 
 that arises, and in its working reaches every case as fully as 
 23 
 
354 Providence, Special. 
 
 God can reach it by special law or interference. God is al- 
 ways present in his laws. What is done through these laws, 
 God does. Paul said : " God ... is the Savior of all men, 
 specially of them that believe." (1 Tim. 4: 10.) That means 
 that those who believe come more fully into harmony with 
 his laws than those that believe not, and so they receive the 
 blessing of God more fully than others do. The answer to 
 prayer requires no departure from the principle. The bless- 
 ings of God flow through his laws to those that are in the 
 proper state and condition. Tap the channel through which 
 they flow, and receive just such blessings as you are fitted to 
 receive. God is personally present in all his laws, to bless 
 those who comply with them in spirit and in truth, and to 
 curse those who refuse to comply with them. God is all-wise 
 and all-powerful. He sees the end from the beginning. Eter- 
 nity, past and future, is an everlasting present to him, and he 
 provides for all contingencies that arise in the onward march 
 of his forces. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without a 
 father's care, and the hairs of our head are numbered. Be- 
 cause we fail to see and understand how the laws of the spir- 
 itual and material world interlace and harmonize with others, 
 all composing parts of one harmonious whole, we are not to 
 conclude that they are not such. God is in all his works. 
 
 QUALIFICATIONS OF ELDERS. See Elders, Qualifica- 
 tions Of. 
 
 RACE COURSE, CHRISTIANS AT THE. 
 
 Is it right for members of the church to attend races at a race 
 course? Some members of the church attended the races at Cumber- 
 land Park recently. Is that in harmony with the Christian profession? 
 
 I cannot imagine a place more unfit for a Christian than the 
 race course. The attraction at the race course is the running 
 of the horses, enhanced by the excitement of betting and 
 gambling. Under the plea that racing improves the stock of 
 horses, the State government licenses the race course and the 
 betting on the races. It is not claimed that the betting di- 
 rectly improves the efficiency of the horses. But the racing 
 does, it is claimed; and interest in the raising, training, and 
 running of horses cannot be kept up unless gambling is per- 
 mitted to enhance this interest. This all proves that the in- 
 terest of the occasion is in the betting on the racing. It is a 
 
Race Course, Christians at the, 355 
 
 doubtful question whether breeding, training, and running 
 horses really improves them for useful purposes ; but let that 
 go. To keep alive the interest in improving the stock by ra- 
 cing, the betting is licensed by the civil authorities. This 
 shows that the chief interest in the racing is the betting and 
 gambling attending it. Is it necessary to ask and answer the 
 question : Should a Christian encourage, by his presence, 
 places devoted to gambling? Men play cards. The chief in- 
 terest in card playing and the gambling houses is the betting 
 on playing cards. Is it right for a Christian to encourage, by 
 his presence in a gambling saloon, the card playing and the 
 attendant gambling? This is universally regarded one of the 
 greatest evils of our age and country. The horse race is pat- 
 ronized by a wealthier — and, hence, more worldly respectable 
 — class of people, and the temptations to the young to gamble 
 are correspondingly greater and the race track more danger- 
 ous and hurtful to the young and the old. No more degrad- 
 ing and ruinous passion can be aroused in young or old than 
 that for gambling. It brings more persons and families to 
 ruin than any other passion. 
 
 The race course is worse, because more exciting and re- 
 spectable than card gambling. A Christian had better attend 
 and encourage others to attend, the gambling hell than the 
 race course. A Christian had about as well bet on the cards 
 or the race as attend, and encourage by his example others 
 to attend, where the excitable and the young will be tempted 
 to bet and so led to ruin. The guilt of gambling ourselves 
 is no greater than to lead others into influences that tempt 
 them to gamble. I cannot see how a Christian can find any 
 pleasure in attending such places. He must forget all Chris- 
 tian feeling and desire to be able to see the excitement and fas- 
 cinations that draw thousands of the young, the children, the 
 excitable, into the influences that make gamblers and wrecks 
 of so many souls. To enjoy these things, he must forget his 
 responsibility to God, his obligation to his fellow-men, and be 
 willing to encourage the wreck of virtue and honor. How can 
 a Christian close his eyes and harden his heart for the time 
 being to such influences and countenance what brings evil to 
 so many souls, good to none ? 
 
 Many have expressed mortification and sorrow that some of 
 the daily papers that have so earnestly urged closing the gam- 
 bling rooms in the city, as a temptation and injury to the 
 
356 Race Course, Christians at the. 
 
 youth of the city and those attending the schools here, should 
 encourage attendance at the race course, and that the city au- 
 thorities and business men should in any way countenance 
 the temptations to gamble by attendance at the races. It 
 seems to me that every thoughtful citizen that regards the 
 welfare of the young and the future morals of the city must 
 regret the public or private countenance given to influences so 
 pregnant with evil to the character of young and old. 
 
 There is great temptation to Christians to run in popular 
 currents to wrong, but they cannot be too careful that they 
 do not either run into sin themselves or lead others into sin. 
 When we lead our weak brother into sin, we sin against Christ 
 and against God. 
 
 RACE PREJUDICE IN RELIGION. 
 
 Our congregation has been in some trouble since I last wrote to 
 you. The cause of the trouble is, a colored member, who holds mem- 
 bership with the congregation, asked me to preach to the colored peo- 
 ple, which I have been doing. When the other members learned that 
 I was preaching to the colored people, a part of the congregation ob- 
 jected to it and said: "If you do not quit preaching to the colored 
 people and withdraw from that one who holds fellowship with the 
 congregation, we will not meet with the church." The colored brother 
 has always been obedient to the word of God and the elders, and the 
 whole eldership are in favor of fellowship with him, and I am still 
 preaching to them. Please answer whether or not I am doing right. 
 Since the trouble came up, a few of the members have walked disor- 
 derly, for which cause we have withdrawn from them. Have we done 
 right? 
 
 The commission is : " Preach the gospel to the whole crea- 
 tion. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he 
 that disbelieveth shall be condemned. " God says : " Preach 
 to the whole creation." The man that says you shall not 
 preach to some creatures puts himself squarely against God, 
 and fights against God as directly and serves the devil as faith- 
 fully as it is possible for a human being to, so it seems to me. 
 The man who refuses to preach the gospel to any creature 
 refuses to try to save that creature and aids in sending him 
 to perdition. This is the work of the devil, not of a child of 
 God. For a man to be actuated by such a spirit and still claim 
 to be a child of God shows how we can seek " the livery of 
 heaven in which to serve the devil." The spirit that forbids 
 or refuses the gospel and any of its helps and privileges to a 
 single child of mortality is of the earth, and is not of God. He 
 who finds such a spirit in his heart ought to know at once that 
 
Race Prejudice in Religion. 357 
 
 he is not a child of God. God says, " Preach to the whole 
 creation ; " a poor, weak, selfish man says that you shall not. 
 Christ came to break down the middle walls and separating 
 lines and to make all who believe in him one in Christ Jesus. 
 Man says that they shall not be one in Christ. What pre- 
 sumption, sin, and rebellion ! 
 
 A preacher or a church that for one moment would listen 
 to such a plea is no servant or church of God. If a Christian 
 can reach a man with the gospel and refuses to do it, he is 
 guilty of that man's damnation, and God will so hold him ac- 
 countable. It is time that all this nursing the antichristian 
 spirit in our hearts and in the church had ceased once and for- 
 ever. Outside of Christianity, it is an exceedingly narrow 
 and selfish ignorance that would withhold helps of advance- 
 ment and improvement from any human being. Intelligent, 
 fair-minded people seek the advancement of the whole human 
 family ; the advancement of each one promotes the elevation 
 of the whole, and the degradation of one drags down the 
 whole. An intelligent selfishness would seek the good, the 
 elevation, of all. 
 
 I do not know a preacher of any religious body that 
 would refuse to preach to the negro. I hope that such a 
 one does not exist. I have preached to them whenever oc- 
 casion offered, and have regretted constantly that I could not 
 give more time to work with them. A man that would refuse 
 to preach to the negroes or any other race is no true preacher 
 of Christ, and is not fit to preach to any one. I had much 
 rather belong to and meet with a church composed of humble 
 and earnest negro worshipers than to a church that would re- 
 fuse to preach to negroes. 
 
 I doubt if any of us are capable of discharging our duty to 
 the negroes in the true spirit of Christ. But if we will culti- 
 vate the spirit of helping them all we can, we will grow bet- 
 ter qualified for the work of God; but if we foster the spirit 
 that refuses help to them, we grow more and more disquali- 
 fied for any work of God. To the extent that a man in spirit 
 grows disqualified for any work of God, to that extent he 
 grows unfitted for receiving and enjoying the blessings of 
 Christ. Our own good and our own salvation are just as 
 much dependent upon our helping the negro as are the good 
 and salvation of the negro. We cannot kick him down to hell 
 and ourselves rise to heaven. As we treat him, God will treat 
 
358 Race Prejudice in Religion. 
 
 us; what we sow we shall reap. This spirit ought not to be 
 tolerated for a moment. See Negroes, Are the, Neglected? 
 
 RAFFLE, IS IT RIGHT TO? 
 
 Is it right or not, and would it be recognized as gambling, for a 
 brother to raffle off his property or sell tickets and have it shot for? 
 Does it not amount to this: Each man who buys a ticket or tickets 
 bets the price of the ticket or tickets against the other number of 
 tickets that he will win the property, whatever it may be? 
 
 All this raffling is gambling of the most flagrant kind. It 
 amounts to a bet between those who buy the tickets as to who 
 will win, and the man who sells the tickets does it to get more 
 than the property is worth or would bring without the chances 
 that are taken to win it. It is not honest to try to get more 
 for the property than it is worth ; especially it is not honest to 
 get it through exciting the gambling spirit in others. To take 
 chances in which some pay out something and get nothing 
 and the other gets something for nothing is gambling, and all 
 gambling is dishonesty. Making the gain or loss depend on 
 skill in shooting differs nothing in principle to his making it 
 depend on skill in playing cards. 
 
 RECONCILIATION WITH AN ENEMY BEFORE BAP- 
 TISM. 
 
 If a man who is not on speaking terms with one of his acquaint- 
 ance should hear the gospel, and, believing it to be his duty, should 
 obey it without first becoming reconciled to his neighbor, would his 
 repentance before baptism be valid? 
 
 If he went and sought reconciliation afterwards, it indicated 
 that he had repented. A man cannot wait to correct all of 
 his former wrongs before he obeys God. That would be mak- 
 ing God last and frequently postpone obedience because he 
 could not correct the wrongs that he had done his fellow-man. 
 Then he might not be wholly to blame for getting into a child- 
 ish fit of not speaking to some one else. That is a childish 
 fit, no matter who indulges it. Repentance toward God means 
 sorrow for all his sins against God, and a sin against a fellow- 
 man is a sin against God. But it does not mean that he 
 should wait to learn of all his wrongs and correct them before 
 he is baptized. It does mean that he will change his whole 
 life and correct all the wrongs that he is able to correct. 
 When John told the sinners to bring forth " fruits meet for 
 
Repentance and Reformation. 359 
 
 repentance," he did not tell them to wait and do this before 
 they were baptized ; but after they had been baptized they 
 were to live a course that proved that they had repented. 
 Then the brother may not have been to blame wholly or in 
 part for the bad feeling existing. He could only remove the 
 cause so far as he had done wrong, and so encourage the other 
 to do right. But a man's faith and repentance are not genu- 
 ine unless they lead him to confess all of his wrongs to his 
 fellow-man and seek to correct them. More stress should be 
 laid on the practical results of repentance than is done in our 
 teaching. 
 
 REPENTANCE AND REFORMATION. 
 
 I write you to solicit your advice in regard to a sister who is in 
 trouble about her spiritual condition. She had been thinking for sev- 
 eral years of joining the church, but put it off from time to time, hop- 
 ing her husband would go with her; but last year she was attapked 
 with nervous trouble and with forebodings of evil, and, becoming 
 alarmed, she confessed Christ and was baptized. She attended church 
 several times, partaking of the Supper; but her nervousness continued, 
 with doubts as to having acted right. Doubting her pardon and ac- 
 ceptance with God, she ceased to attend. Her health has improved, 
 but she is not entirely well yet. She is still .dissatisfied, and thinks 
 that she should go now and confess and be baptized; and then she says 
 she is certain to have a good, clear conscience. At present she thinks 
 she did not have the faith she ought to have had, and that she did not 
 repent as she ought, and has made herself miserable about it. I find 
 I cannot reconcile her to her action. 
 
 This condition of mind is not uncommon among Christians 
 of a certain temperament. They are liable to fall into a mor- 
 bid state of mind, look on the dark side of things, and, forget- 
 ful to some extent of the earnestness of their faith, become dis- 
 tressed in conscience and feel that the work ought to be done 
 over again from the beginning. While we may see the cause 
 of the trouble in such cases, it is frequently difficult to deal 
 with it. 
 
 As a rule, it arises from a failure to distinguish between re- 
 pentance and reformation of life. Repentance is the determi- 
 nation of the soul to turn away from sin, to cease sin, and, 
 with the help of God, to sin no more. Reformation of life 
 grows out of this repentance, yet is distinct from it. Repent- 
 ance is in the heart, the turning from the love of sin. Refor- 
 mation is the correction of our evil ways. The first has a defi- 
 nite time and is a distinct act of the heart. The latter is a 
 life work as we from day to day or from year to year see the 
 
360 Repentance and Reformation. 
 
 evil practices into which we have fallen and strive to turn 
 from them and correct all wrongs. This explanation under- 
 stood sometimes relieves the conscience of its torments. But 
 sometimes it fails. While I do not believe that God forgives 
 our sins for any work we have done, or as pay' for obedience 
 rendered, but as the mercy of God to penitent and trusting 
 hearts, manifested by submission to his will, the object of bap- 
 tism on the part of the subject is to satisfy the conscience to- 
 ward God. If this cannot be effected on account of the distrust 
 of the condition of the heart in the service rendered, I would 
 always recommend an obedience that would satisfy the con- 
 science. This seems to me the only possible solution of the 
 trouble, if the conscience cannot be satisfied. 
 
 RESTITUTION. See Altar, Leave Thy Gift Before The. 
 RESTORATION, TIMES OF. 
 
 What are the times of restoration and the all things spoken 
 of by the prophets in Acts 3: 20, 21? You can perhaps help me and 
 others to better understand. 
 
 Jesus had been to earth and returned to heaven. Heaven 
 must receive him until" the times of restoration of all things." 
 Then " the times of restoration of all things " must be when 
 Jesus returns again to earth — the restoration of all things to 
 their original relation to God. The relation which the world 
 originally sustained to God was broken and destroyed when 
 man, the ruler, rebelled against God. That destruction of the 
 world's relation to God was more far-reaching and destructive 
 than we realize. The whole material creation shared in the 
 evil. Briers, thistles, thorns grew in the material world, as 
 in the spiritual. Sickness, death, mortality afflicted the ma- 
 terial world. When man rebelled against his Maker, the un- 
 der creation rebelled against man. The laws of the natural 
 world were disordered. The germs of vegetation put forth ; 
 biting frosts or burning heat destroys them. Disorder in the 
 laws of the material world came as the result of man's sin 
 against his Maker. When Jesus comes again, the will of God 
 will be done on earth as it is in heaven, and all things in the 
 world will be restored to harmonious relations with God, the 
 Supreme Ruler of the universe, 
 
Revelation, Is God's, Complete? 361 
 
 RESTORATION TO FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 What is necessary to be done when a wanderer wants to be re- 
 stored? Is it contrary to the Scriptures for a sister to make her own 
 statement? Should special sins be mentioned? 
 
 " Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one 
 for another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a 
 righteous man ayaileth much in its working." (James 5 : 16.) 
 " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive 
 us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 
 John 1 : 9.) These are but general statements of the law of 
 pardon for one who sinned in the Old and New Testaments. 
 He was to confess his sins — not that he is sinful or has gone 
 astray, but the specific sin or sins of which he has been guilty 
 — and then those to whom he confesses it must pray with and 
 for him, that his sins may be forgiven. But in all the state- 
 ments of the case, I do not remember that the person to whom 
 the confession shall be made is mentioned, save that when the 
 wrong is done to a person, the confession is to be made to> the 
 person wronged and the wrong corrected so far as is possible. 
 While a person must be willing to confess the wrong at all 
 times and places proper and tell plainly the specific sin, there 
 is no authority or sense in requiring a woman or man to tell 
 salacious things to an-audience of members or sinners. When 
 both parties wish to do right, there is no trouble. One desires 
 to confess the wrong. The other does not wish to require 
 anything to humiliate or spite the other. When one person 
 or many desire to do anything to spite and mortify the other, 
 they need to repent and get on the confessional to confess their 
 sins. Let the one not be shy about confessing the wrong and 
 the others keep clear of a desire to humiliate or spite them, 
 and all will work well. The Bible is not a book of forms and 
 ceremonies. 
 
 REVELATION, IS GOD'S, COMPLETE? 
 
 There is a congregation of disciples near here that have been greatly 
 disturbed by a preacher who affirms that certain apostolic epistles 
 have been lost, and that we do not now have God's revelation com- 
 plete as given for the instruction of the church, in this way raising 
 the inference that, did we now have the lost epistles, there would be 
 found authority for many things not mentioned in the New Testament 
 of the present time. The wiseacre quotes Col. 4: 16 in support of this 
 theory. Please give what light you can concerning the grounds of 
 such a theory. 
 
362 Revelation, Is God's, Complete? 
 
 I suppose, then, that God failed to do what he intended to 
 do for man. He intended to give full instructions to man as 
 to his duty to God and to his fellow-man, and did send his 
 Holy Spirit to the apostles, and have them to write all things 
 needed ; but then, by some slip in God's arrangement to care 
 for them, they were lost, and now man can never be supplied 
 with this needed but lost instruction. That was a wonderful 
 oversight in God, after he had given his Son Jesus to die, and 
 had sent his Holy Spirit to guide his apostles into all truth, 
 to make no provision for the preservation of that truth. So 
 the death of Jesus and the mission of the Holy Spirit were 
 made vain by God's oversight! God as much preserved all 
 things needful to life and godliness through his providence as 
 he gave them through his Spirit. It is possible that there 
 were epistles written that are not preserved; but, if so, there 
 was nothing in them needful for man that is not found in the 
 writings we have, else God failed to do what he sent his Son 
 and Holy Spirit to do. But there is no evidence that there 
 were other letters written than those we have. No ancient 
 history tells of such. How do we explain Paul's reference to 
 a letter written to the Laodiceans? A number of explana- 
 tions are given. One that seems plausible is that different 
 copies of the same letter were made. He tells these Colos- 
 sians to see that the Laodiceans read the letter written to 
 them. To do this they doubtless made copies of it and sent 
 them to the Laodiceans. They hardly sent the original letter 
 of Paul from Colosse to Laodicea. Biblical scholars think 
 that the letter to the Ephesians was the same as that written 
 to the Laodiceans. Some of the old copies have it marked, 
 " To the saints at Laodicea," instead of " To the saints at 
 Ephesus." Laodicea and Ephesus were neighboring towns. 
 If a letter was written to the church at Laodicea, it was copied 
 and sent to the church at Ephesus. This was much the larger 
 church, and gave to it the name. It will be noted how simi- 
 lar are the letters to Ephesus and Colosse. But suppose we 
 do not have all, who can supply the loss? The meaning of 
 the contention is that God failed to do his duty in preserving 
 the revelation, and that man is to supplement what God's mis- 
 take lost. It is to justify man in taking God's place. 
 
Right Hand of Fellowship. 363 
 
 RICHES, THE DANGER OF. 
 
 What is meant by the last days? Who are the rich here referred 
 to? "The coming of the Lord draweth nigh" — does this refer to 
 what we call Christ's second coming? (James 5: 1-9.) 
 
 The rich were those bent, on riches, who sacrificed right and 
 truth to attain them. Jesus once speaks of them as those who 
 trust in riches. These all sacrificed truth and justice to attain 
 riches. They hoarded their riches ; so the garments became 
 moth-eaten and their gold and silver rusted from disuse, and 
 that rust would be a witness against them and consume their 
 own flesh. This is possibly figurative to some extent, and 
 meant that the riches they hoarded would cause their own 
 ruin. That class of persons oppress and defraud their labor- 
 ers as well as fleece the public, and the cry of the wronged 
 ones will be heard in heaven and avenged by God. It is 
 thought " the coming of the Lord " refers to the destruction 
 of Jerusalem primarily, as this occurred soon after the letter 
 was written; but the destruction of Jerusalem was a type of 
 the final judgment. Then the Scriptures recognize that death 
 to each one is equal to him to the coming of the Lord, when 
 he will be judged according to that he hath done, whether 
 good or evil. The Holy Spirit knew that the tendency of 
 riches and the love of riches is to oppress the laborers, the 
 weak, the helpless. In that age the laborers were much more 
 helpless in the hands of the rich and their employers than they 
 are in our age and country; and wealth has a tendency to 
 make its owners heartless toward the poor. " The love of 
 money is a root of all kinds of evil." (1 Tim. 6; 10.) There 
 is unjust and unfair oppression of labor in our day, when the 
 capitalists grow rich, and the laborers, who make the wealth, 
 remain poor and oppressed. This teaching condemns this 
 in spirit. It is growing fashionable now for our wealthy men 
 to make public gifts to exalt their names. This is better than 
 hoarding it. But this scripture demands that the laborer 
 should be dealt with justly. A library or a school built by 
 money unjustly taken from the laborers is a monument of dis- 
 honor, not of honor. In all the walks of life men should be 
 just and fair to the laborers. 
 
 RIGHT HAND OF FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 Please explain Gal. 2: 9, 10. What was given to Paul and Barna- 
 bas? Was it money, or was it something else? How were they to 
 
364 Right Hand of Fellowship. 
 
 remember the poor? Were they to give them of this world's goods, 
 or were they to preach the gospel to them, or both? One of the best 
 congregations in this county is divided over the right hand of fellow- 
 ship. They have been practicing it. A brother from Alabama, re- 
 cently located here, has called on them for chapter and verse, and 
 they say they are going to practice it. Some of the members, among 
 them an elder, have called for letters, because they cannot afford to 
 practice something sinful. Did they do right, or should they have 
 remained in the congregation? 
 
 The grace of God given to Paul and Barnabas -was: he com- 
 mitted to them the work of preaching to the Gentiles, as he 
 had committed to Peter and the other apostles the work of 
 preaching to the Jews. He had given to them the Holy Spirit 
 to guide them in this work. James, Peter, and John gave to 
 them the hand of fellowship to express their approval of the 
 work in which they were engaged. They were to remember 
 the poor by preaching the gospel to them and by teaching the 
 brethren that it was their duty to> help the poor. They re- 
 membered the poor when they taught the Gentiles to send 
 help to the poor saints in Judea. I do not think that there is 
 any wrong in the hand of fellowship when its proper purpose 
 is taught. The hand of fellowship was given by the apostles 
 to express hearty approval of what those who received it were 
 doing. Paul says : " When they received the grace that was 
 given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were 
 reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands 
 of fellowship, that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they 
 unto the circumcision." (Gal. 1 : 9.) That means that they 
 wished to express an approval of what Paul and Barnabas 
 were doing, and they gave the hand of fellowship to express 
 this approval. If this means anything, it means that we may 
 give the hand of fellowship to any one whose course we de- 
 sire to approve. I think that we ought to give the hand of 
 fellowship much oftener than we do. We fail to encourage 
 and strengthen our brethren in doing right. If we did it more 
 frequently than we do, it would encourage many a weak and 
 fainting brother and help him to continue faithful or to per- 
 severe in a good work. That is what James and Peter and 
 John did. The work of Paul and Barnabas among the Gen- 
 tiles had been called in question, and they had been discour- 
 aged by many. These apostles, to encourage them, gave them 
 the hand of fellowship. We are certainly on safe ground 
 when we give the hand of fellowship to one whose course we 
 wish to approve or to encourage him in any work which he 
 
Sabbath Day, The. 365 
 
 is doing. There is nothing in it establishing a ceremony or 
 ordinance. There is no doubt that evil has grown out of 
 wrong conceptions on the office of the hand of fellowship. It 
 is often done as an act of receiving a man into the fellowship 
 of the congregation. Evil frequently grows out of this. A 
 man lives in and worships with a congregation for years, and 
 does something wrong, then insists that he is not a member 
 of that congregation because he never received the hand of 
 fellowship. Such an idea is wrong and hurtful. A man who 
 is a member of the church of God in one place is such wher- 
 ever he goes, and is entitled to the fellowship of Christians and 
 churches by virtue of his being a child of God. The fellow- 
 ship of the church is shown in administering discipline as well 
 as in bestowing approval and help. The thing, then, is to 
 teach correctly on the subject, and then encourage all the ex- 
 pressions of approval and fellowship possible. Let us not 
 make ordinances w r here God made none. I do not believe that 
 a man ought to withdraw from a congregation so long as he 
 thinks they are willing to hear and trying to obey God, even 
 though they make mistakes. 
 
 SABBATH DAY, THE. 
 
 (1) Very earnest efforts are being made by Seventh-Day Adventists 
 and Seventh-Day Baptists to bring about Sabbath keeping. They claim 
 that the Sabbath law was given at the creation of the world to all 
 men, and that it was to be observed during all time. Their arguments 
 are giving us much trouble, and we would like for you to answer a 
 few questions on this subject. First, when and why did God give the 
 Sabbath law? 
 
 The seven days as a division of time was doubtless adopted 
 by Adam from the work of creation ; but in the Bible there is 
 no evidence that the seventh day was observed as a day of 
 rest until after Moses led the children of Israel out of Egyptian 
 bondage. There are allusions to the week in Genesis, where 
 Laban said to Jacob concerning Leah : " Fulfill the week of 
 this one, and we will give thee the other also." (Gen. 29 : 27.) 
 "And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week." (Verse 28.) 
 From the days of the creation the number seven became a 
 rounded or complete number, as ten is to us. The division of 
 time, we are told by those who investigate these questions, 
 into the seven-day week, is common among all the old na- 
 tions of the East. 
 
 In the law of the Ten Commandments, given through Moses 
 
366 Sabbath Day, The. 
 
 to the Jews, is : " Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 
 Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work ; but the seventh 
 day is the Sabbath unto Jehovah thy God : in it thou shalt not 
 do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man- 
 servant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger 
 that is within thy gates; for in six days Jehovah made heaven 
 and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the sev- 
 enth day : wherefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day, and 
 hallowed it." (Ex. 20: 8-11.) While God blessed and hal- 
 lowed, or made holy, the Sabbath day, because he finished his 
 work and rested from his labor on the seventh day, it has 
 been a matter of doubt and uncertainty whether it was given 
 as a command to be observed by men previous to the exodus. 
 The Bible gives no intimation of either a command being 
 given or of its observance by any of the patriarchs. If it had 
 ever been given, the Jews had lost sight of it. 
 
 The Sabbath was first given as a day of rest from labor for 
 man and beast. In Deut. 5 : 14 the command is repeated very 
 much as in Ex. 20 : 8, save that he adds : " That thy manservant 
 and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou. And thou 
 shalt remember that thou wast a servant in the land of 
 Egypt, and Jehovah thy God brought thee out thence by a 
 mighty hand and by an outstretched arm : therefore Jehovah 
 thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day." This 
 seems to declare that the command to them to keep the Sab- 
 bath grew out of their servitude in Egypt, Which was bitter 
 and relentless, and remembrance of what they suffered is given 
 as a special reason why God required that its benefits of rest 
 should be granted to their servants. They had doubtless suf- 
 fered from unremitted toil, without a day of rest. It was God 
 interposing his authority to secure for their servants and 
 beasts the benefits of a day of rest against the greed and rapac- 
 ity of masters. The Sabbath, then, was hallowed as a day of 
 rest sacred to God ; and in thus ordaining honor to God, bless- 
 ings to man and beast were secured. 
 
 (2) Was the Sabbath commandment a moral or positive law? 
 
 The observance of the Sabbath seems to have been regarded 
 as more sacred than any other of the Ten Commandments. 
 The first and greatest was to honor God. The keeping the 
 Sabbath was a test of fealty to God. The desecration of the 
 Sabbath was more frequently made the ground of condemna- 
 
Sabbath Day, The. 367 
 
 tion, and punishment of the Jewish people than any other sin. 
 Jeremiah (17: 21-27) says: "Thus saith Jehovah, Take heed 
 to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor 
 bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem ; neither carry forth a 
 burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye 
 any work: but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded 
 your fathers. But they hearkened not, neither inclined their 
 ear, but made their neck stiff, that they might not hear, and 
 might not receive instruction. And it shall come to pass, if 
 ye diligently hearken unto me, saith Jehovah, to bring in no 
 burden through the gates of this city on the Sabbath day, but 
 to hallow the Sabbath day, to do no work therein; then shall 
 there enter in by the gates of this city kings and princes sit- 
 ting upon the throne of David, riding in chariots and on 
 horses, they, and their princes, the men of Judah, and the in- 
 habitants of Jerusalem ; and this city shall remain forever. 
 . . . But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the Sab- 
 bath day, and not to bear a burden and enter in at the gates 
 of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day ; then will I kindle a fire in 
 the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, 
 and it shall not be quenched." (See also Isa. 1: 13; 56: 4; 
 Lam. 1: 7; 2: 6; Ezek. 20: 12; 22: 8; Hos. 2: 11; Neh. 13: 
 15-22.) 
 
 Is there any reason why this command concerning the Sab- 
 bath should be more sacred or its violation be a greater sin 
 than other commands? "And Jehovah spake unto Moses, 
 saying, Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying, 
 Verily ye shall keep my Sabbaths : for it is a sign between 
 me and you throughout your generations ; that ye may know 
 that I am Jehovah who sanctifieth you. Ye shall keep the 
 Sabbath therefore ; for it is holy unto you : every one that pro- 
 faneth it shall surely be put to death ; for whosoever doeth any 
 work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his peo- 
 ple. . . . It is a sign between me and the children of Is- 
 rael forever: for in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, 
 and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." (Ex. 
 31: 12-17.) 
 
 The Sabbath is here said to be a sign between God and the 
 Jews — a sign, or test, that they own him as God — a pledge 
 that he would own and bless them as his people. The ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath was made the test of their loyalty to 
 God. God in all dispensations has had special tests of loyalty. 
 
368 Sabbath Day, The. 
 
 Those tests of loyalty are called " positive institutions." A 
 positive institution is one that depends wholly upon the au- 
 thority of the lawmaker for its observance. A moral institu- 
 tion is one the doing of which brings the good, the fitness 
 of which can be perceived by human reason, and which men 
 might be led to perform because they see it brings good. 
 Such institutions can never be a clear test of loyalty to God, 
 inasmuch as the man who performs them may be unable to de- 
 termine in his own mind whether he observes them from the 
 desire to obey God or because his own wisdom approves them. 
 An ordinance which requires self-denial on his part, which 
 runs counter to his fleshly feelings, and in which he can see 
 no good, and which rests solely on the authority of God, makes 
 a- direct appeal to his loyalty, and tests his confidence in and 
 willingness to obey God. The observance of such an institu- 
 tion is a sign that man is loyal to God, and on the manifesta- 
 tion of this loyalty God pledges blessing to man. The Sab- 
 bath day was of this nature ; for, while it worked good to man, 
 as all God's appointments do, it required the denial of his 
 fleshly appetites, renunciation of the worldly desires, and in 
 it man's wisdom could see no good. The Sabbath was the 
 positive ordinance of the law of Moses, the test of man's fidel- 
 ity under that law. Ezekiel (20: 12) says: " Moreover also I 
 gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, 
 that they might know that I am Jehovah that sanctifieth 
 them." The^Sabbath was a test of their loyalty, and in their 
 loyalty were they to know that God was their God and blessed 
 them. Ezekiel proceeds to say (verse 16) : " Because they re- 
 jected mine ordinances, and walked not in my statutes, and 
 profaned my Sabbaths : for their heart went after their idols." 
 The polluting of the Sabbath was disloyalty to God equal to 
 their heart going after their idols. They violated their oath 
 of allegiance, they failed to stand the test of loyalty to God ; 
 so he says their hearts went after idols, followed their natural 
 fleshly desires and served other gods that are no gods. 
 
 (3) Is the Sabbath law still in force, or has it been abolished? 
 
 It will be noted that it was a covenant between God and the 
 children of Israel. " The children of Israel shall keep the Sab- 
 bath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations." 
 " It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever." 
 It was not given to others. That covenant was fulfilled by 
 
Sabbath Day, The. 369 
 
 and in Christ Jesus and then taken out of the way. Paul 
 says : " If the ministration of death, written, and engraven on 
 stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could 
 not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of 
 his face; which glory was, passing away." (2 Cor. 3: 7.) 
 " For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more 
 that which remaineth is in glory." (Verse 11; see also Gal. 
 4: 22-31.) The law written on stones, which was the Ten 
 Commandments given by Moses, with all the laws and ordi- 
 nances, was taken out of the way by Christ, and the new cov- 
 enant in Christ was ordained. Are the Ten Commandments 
 in force? The law of Moses, as a whole, became contrary to 
 the good of man, and was fulfilled by Jesus and taken out of 
 the way. Jesus took the old testament, or covenant, out of 
 the way, and gave them the new testament, or covenant. 
 
 Jeremiah foretold : " Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, 
 that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, 
 and with the house of Judah. . . . This is the covenant that 
 I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith 
 Jehovah : I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their 
 heart will I write it ; and I will be their God, and they shall 
 be my people." (Jer. 31 : 31-33.) This means that the new 
 covenant will take hold of the heart, and excite the love and 
 enlist the feelings as the old did not. Paul says of the old 
 covenant : " For when every commandment had been spoken 
 by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took 
 the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet 
 wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all 
 the people." (Heb. 9 : 19.) " It was necessary therefore that 
 the copies of things in the heavens should be cleansed with 
 these ; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacri- 
 fices than these. ... So Christ also, having been once 
 ofifered to bear the sins of many." (Verses 23-28.) The blood 
 of Christ sealed the new covenant. " Having therefore, breth- 
 ren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, 
 by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, 
 through the veil, that is to say, his flesh." (Heb. 10: 19, 20.) 
 Paul distinguishes the two covenants as the law and the faith 
 of Christ : " We being Jews by nature, and not sinners of the 
 Gentiles, yet knowing that a man is not justified by the works 
 of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed 
 on Christ Tesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ, 
 24 
 
370 Sabbath Day, The. 
 
 and not by the works of the law : because by the works of the 
 law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 2: 15, 16.) Paul keeps 
 up the difference between the two. covenants through chap- 
 ter 3. He says : " So then they that are of faith are blessed 
 with faithful Abraham. [Abraham was justified by faith, not 
 by the law of Moses, which was not given for four hundred 
 and thirty years after Abraham.] For as many as are of the 
 works of the law are under a curse. . . . No man is 
 justified by the law before God. . . . The law is not of 
 faith. . . . Christ redeemed us from the curse of the 
 law. . . . What then is the law? It was added because 
 of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the prom- 
 ise hath been made. . . . But before faith came, we were 
 kept in ward under the law, shut up unto the faith which 
 should afterwards be revealed. So that the law is become our 
 tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by 
 faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a 
 tutor." (Gal. 3: 9-25.) Jesus came to fulfill the law — take it 
 out of the way. " God sent forth his Son ... to redeem 
 them that were under the law, that we might receive the adop- 
 tion of sons." Here it is expressly said that the law written 
 on stones — the Ten Commandments — was done away, and su- 
 perseded by the more glorious ministration of the Spirit. 
 
 The old was done away. All that was good for man in it 
 was adopted into the new ministration. The Sabbath law was 
 not adopted into the new testament. The old and the new 
 testaments stood related to each other as an old constitution 
 of a State after a new one has been adopted stands to the new. 
 All that is of permanent good in the old is brought into the 
 new. Then the new constitution is construed and applied in 
 the light of the old. The Sabbath was never changed from the 
 seventh to the first day of the week. The Sabbath law was 
 repealed when the law written on stones was taken out of the 
 way; and under the new covenant the first day of the week 
 was instituted as the day of worship by the resurrection of 
 Jesus Christ from the dead. There is not a command or ad- 
 monition in the New Testament to observe the Sabbath. 
 
 All the Ten Commandments are reenacted by Christ, save 
 the one to keep the Sabbath. It is not. It was a positive law. 
 It depended wholly upon the authority of God for its observ- 
 ance. When that authority was withdrawn, there was no au- 
 thority for its observance. There is now no law for keeping 
 
Sabbath Day, The. 371 
 
 the Sabbath. The Sabbath was never changed from the sev- 
 enth to the first day of the week. The Sabbath was abolished 
 with the Jewish law. Christ Jesus, by his resurrection from 
 the dead, ordained the first day of the week as the day of wor- 
 ship for his children. Smith's Bible Dictionary says : " The 
 Epistles, it must be admitted, with the exception of one place 
 (Heb. 4:9), and perhaps another (Col. 2: 16, 17), are silent 
 on the subject of the Sabbath. No rules for its observance are 
 ever given by the apostles ; its violation is never denounced by 
 them. Sabbath breakers are never included in any list of of- 
 fenders. Col. 2 : 16, 17 seems a far stronger argument for the 
 abolition of the Sabbath in the Christian dispensation than is 
 furnished by Heb. 4: 9 for its continuance; and while the first 
 day of the week is more than once referred to as one of reli- 
 gious observance, it is never identified with the Sabbath, nor 
 are any prohibitions issued in connection with the former, 
 while the omission of the Sabbath from the list of ' necessary 
 things ' to be observed by the Gentiles (Acts 15 : 29) shows 
 that they were regarded by the apostles as free from obliga- 
 tion in this matter." (Article on " Sabbath," Volume IV., 
 page 2764.) 
 
 Christ observed the Sabbath, met with the people in the 
 synagogues, taught them, healed them, taught that acts of 
 mercy should be performed on this day, but from the begin- 
 ning of his ministry asserted his authority over it, and clearly 
 prepared the mind of his disciples for its being taken out of 
 the way. Matthew says : "At that season Jesus went on the 
 Sabbath day through the grainfields ; and his disciples were 
 hungry and began to pluck ears and to eat. But the Phari- 
 sees, when they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples 
 do that which it is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath. But 
 he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did when he 
 was hungry and they that were with him ; how he entered 
 into the house of God, and ate the showbread, which it was 
 not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, 
 but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, that 
 on the Sabbath day the priests in the temple profane the Sab- 
 bath, and are guiltless? But I say unto you, that one greater 
 than the temple is here. But if ye had known what this mean- 
 eth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have con- 
 demned the guiltless. For the Son of man is lord of the Sab- 
 bath." (Matt. 12: 1-8.) Many contend that Christ only cor- 
 
372 Sabbath Day, The. 
 
 rected the extremes into which the Jews had run in the ob- 
 servance of the Sabbath. An examination of the law as given 
 and executed by Moses will not sustain this view. "And while 
 the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man 
 gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found 
 him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and 
 unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, be- 
 cause it had not been declared what should be done to him. 
 And Jehovah said unto Moses, The man shall surely be put 
 to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones 
 without the camp. And all the congregation brought him 
 without the camp, and stoned him to death with stones ; as 
 Jehovah commanded Moses." (Num. 15: 32-36.) Surely this 
 was a more rigid observance of it than Christ required. The 
 Jews were not allowed to gather on the Sabbath day the 
 manna that God sent from heaven ; now Christ carries his disci- 
 ples through the wheatfields, and they gather the heads, rub 
 out the grains, and eat. He appeals to the fact that David set 
 aside the law, and the priests by authority of God habitually 
 cooked the showbread on the Sabbath. This shows that the 
 Sabbath law could be set aside by divine authority. So he, 
 as the Son of God, asserts that he is Lord of the Sabbath, and 
 has power to set aside the laws concerning it. The Jews met 
 on the Sabbath day in the synagogues. The apostles met with 
 them, as they did at other assemblies, to teach them ; but after 
 the resurrection of Christ the apostles observed no day as the 
 day of worship, save the first day of the week. See Law of 
 Moses and Law of Christ. 
 
 SAMARITANS, WHO WERE THE? 
 
 Were the Samaritans Jews or Gentiles? I understand that the 
 world was divided into two classes — Jew and Gentile. Smith's Bible 
 Dictionary says they were Babylonians. If so, they must have been 
 Gentiles. 
 
 In the days of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, the ten tribes 
 broke off from the house of David. "And Jeroboam said in 
 his heart, Now will the kingdom return to the house of David : 
 if this people go up to offer sacrifices in the house of Jehovah 
 at Jerusalem, then will the heart of this people turn again unto 
 their lord, even unto Rehoboam king of Judah ; and they will 
 kill me, and return to Rehoboam king of Judah. Whereupon 
 the king took counsel, and made two calves of gold ; and he 
 
Samaritans, Who Were the? 373 
 
 said unto them, It is too much for you to go up to Jerusalem ; 
 behold thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the 
 land of Egypt. And he set the one in Bethel, and the other 
 put he in Dan. And this thing became a sin ; for the people 
 went to worship before the one, even unto Dan." (1 Kings 
 12: 26-30.) He rejected the regular priests and made priests 
 of the lowest of the people. These ten tribes were called " Is- 
 rael " in contrast with Judah, the two tribes that remained 
 loyal to the house of David. Israel went into apostasy earlier 
 than Judah. They were carried into captivity. " So Israel 
 was carried away out of their own land to Assyria unto this 
 day. And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, 
 and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and 
 Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead 
 of the children of Israel ; and they possessed Samaria, and 
 dwelt in the cities thereof." (2 Kings 17: 23, 24.) The 
 strangers brought to Samaria were attacked by lions. " Then 
 the king of Assyria commanded, saying, Carry thither one of 
 the priests whom ye brought from thence ; and let them go and 
 dwell there, and let him teach them the law of the god of the 
 land. So one of the priests whom they had carried away from 
 Samaria came and dwelt in Bethel, and taught them how they 
 should fear Jehovah. Howbeit every nation made gods of 
 their own, and put them in the houses of the high places which 
 the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein 
 they dwelt. ... So they feared Jehovah, and made unto 
 them from among themselves priests of the high places, who 
 sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places. They 
 feared Jehovah, and served their own gods, after the manner 
 of the nations from among whom they had been carried away." 
 (2 Kings 17 : 27-33.) No doubt many of the poorer classes 
 of Israel were left in the land. Judah more and more rebelled 
 against God. Some commingled themselves with Israel ; so 
 they became a mongrel race with a mixed worship. Their 
 proximity to and association with the Jews kept alive a knowl- 
 edge of the true God, though his worship was corrupted and 
 his service mingled with the service of the gods of the nations 
 whence they came. 
 
 At the return of the Jews from captivity and the rebuilding 
 of the temple at Jerusalem the Samaritans sought to defeat the 
 works of the Jews. Feelings of bitterness, fostered from the 
 original separation, were intensified by these things. The city 
 
374 Samaritans, Who Were the? 
 
 of Samaria was the capital of the country ruled over by these 
 people; so they were called Samaritans, and the land they 
 inherited was called Samaria. The bounds of Samaria were 
 regulated by the country they held. Originally all the north- 
 ern section held by the ten tribes was embraced in Israel. In 
 the days of the Savior the northern section was known as 
 Galilee, and was largely inhabited by the Jews, while the 
 middle portion (a small section) was held by the Samaritans ; 
 so that in passing from Judea to Galilee they must needs pass 
 through Samaria. Jacob's well was there — a well on the land 
 bought by Jacob of the sons of Hamor (Gen. 33 : 19), on which 
 was a well called Jacob's well because he had it dug. 
 
 SANCTIFICATION AND HOLINESS. 
 
 We have a band of Holiness people here that rely mostly on Paul's 
 letter to the Hebrews (12: 14-18; 6: 4-7) to prove their doctrine. 
 
 Sanctified means set apart to a specific purpose or end. All 
 Christians are sanctified in that they are set apart to the serv- 
 ice of God. All the vessels and implements used in the service 
 of the temple were sanctified, set apart to the service of God, 
 although they had no moral quality. The church at Corinth 
 were all addressed as sanctified or saints, although they had 
 among them quite a number of unworthy saints. Read the 
 first verses of the letters to the Romans, Corinthians, Ephe- 
 sians, Philippians, and Colossians, and many other verses in 
 these different letters, and see the terms saint and sanctified 
 are applied to all who claimed to be Christians, regardless of 
 their degree of consecration or perfection of character. 
 
 There are degrees of sanctification, just as there are degrees 
 in Christian knowledge and fidelity to Christ. The growth in 
 sanctification and holiness is to be attained by a study of, and 
 obedience to, the word of God. An increase in knowledge and 
 fidelity is to be gained by a constant and persistent study of 
 God's will and a daily effort on our part to bring ourselves in 
 obedience to that will. 
 
 The idea that religion in any of its parts, in a first or second 
 blessing, is to be obtained otherwise than through learning 
 the word of God and striving faithfully to do the things com- 
 manded, is a sad mistake that results in the perversion of re- 
 ligion from a faithful, self-denying service to a spasmodic feel- 
 ing or impulse of excitement to be gotten or felt. True re- 
 
Sanctification and Holiness. 375 
 
 ligion is to be felt and appreciated, not as fleshly excitement 
 or emotion, but as the result of right thinking and doing. It 
 is the abiding consciousness of duty performed to the best of 
 our ability. This feeling of joy and happiness that thus comes 
 is permanent and enduring. All excitements of the fleshly 
 emotions are deceptive and ephemeral. 
 
 The idea of holiness or sanctification that places people be- 
 yond the temptation to sin while yet in the flesh is unscriptural 
 and deceptive. Jesus felt all the temptations to sin that men 
 in the flesh feel. The difference is that he resisted the temp- 
 tation and did not sin. No human being does this. He " hath 
 been in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." 
 (Heb. 4: 15.) This temptation to sin continued in him un- 
 til it was purged out through suffering. " For it became him, 
 for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in 
 bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their 
 salvation perfect through sufferings." (Heb. 2: 10.) The 
 emotions of sin that dwelled in the body of Jesus, as in all 
 fleshly bodies, were purged out only' by the sufferings that he 
 endured, that ended in his death. This is the meaning of Je- 
 sus' disavowing that he was good. When called good, he 
 said : " Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, 
 that is, God." Which means that so long as the sinful im- 
 pulses raged within him he refused to be called good. These 
 impulses to sin were purged out through suffering that 
 brought death ; and when he was freed from this temptation 
 to sin, " though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by 
 the things which he suffered ; and having been made perfect, 
 he became unto all them that obey him the author of eternal 
 salvation." (Heb. 5 : 8, 9.) Jesus did not claim that he was 
 free from sinful impulses until he had suffered. For a human 
 being to claim exemption from the disposition and temptation 
 to sin is to claim superiority to Christ. It is to commit a 
 gross sin of assumption, if not of presumption, and is akin to 
 sacrilege in the sight of God. It is arrogant, self-righteous, 
 presumptuous, and cannot be pleasing to God. God was 
 pleased with the publican who stood afar off and cried : " God 
 be merciful to me a sinner." The self-righteous have always 
 been offensive to God ; and Jesus says that he did not come to 
 call such, but sinners, to repentance. The thought and pre- 
 tense of sinlessness is itself a sin and an evidence of gross sin- 
 
376 Sanctification and Holiness. 
 
 fulness. " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
 and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1 : 8.) 
 
 Hebrews, as the contents clearly show, was written to the 
 converted Jews, or Hebrews, to show the great superiority 
 of the law of Christ to that of Moses, and the danger of turn- 
 ing back from the law of Christ to that of Moses. Both the 
 passages mentioned are warnings against this, with the fear- 
 ful dangers told. Instead of going back to the law of Moses, 
 which could never make those who came to it perfect and 
 could not free them from sin. they must go on to perfect them- 
 selves in the law of Christ. The Christian life is a regular 
 and continued growth in Christ from a babe unto the stature 
 of full-grown men and women in Christ. These passages 
 warn that if they gave up Christ and went back to Judaism, 
 there was no hope for salvation. They would receive the 
 penalty of forsaking Christ. It is just as sinful to give up 
 Christ and go back to other ways of sin as to go back to Juda- 
 ism. See Perfect, Can a Child Become? 
 
 SANCTIONING UNSCRIPTURAL THINGS IN SECTA- 
 RIAN REVIVALS. 
 
 Will you do me the kindness to set me right as to my duty in refer- 
 ence to attending Methodist revivals here? When I attend, I am 
 asked to " stand up " and in other ways to assent to and sanction many 
 unscriptural " tests " and practices. Now, if I do not do as the 
 preacher requests, he very angrily refers to certain "stumbling- 
 blocks " that are present, etc. On the other hand, if I do not go to 
 their meetings, they characterize my actions as full of prejudice to- 
 ward them. I would be glad to hear from you as to the proper course 
 to pursue. 
 
 The first thing a man should fix in his mind is that he will 
 partake in no wrong and do nothing that will encourage oth- 
 ers in wrong. If that demands that he should stay away from 
 the Methodist or other revivals, he must do this. A Christian 
 cannot do or encourage in religion what is contrary to the law 
 of God. But I do not think it requires that we should stay 
 away from their services. When I was younger, I attended 
 their services oftener than I find time of late to do. I fre- 
 quently met the difficulties our brother mentions. Once, in 
 Maury County, Tenn., I held a meeting, preaching twice a 
 day for ten days. A Baptist preacher attended every dis- 
 course and indorsed all I preached, he said. On Lord's day, 
 when we attended to the Supper, he left the house. At the 
 
Satan. 377 
 
 close of the meeting he told me that the Baptists would hold 
 a meeting soon, near by, and insisted that I attend. I prom- 
 ised him that I would, and the first time I went he called on 
 every one present who wished a revival of religion to kneel 
 down and unite with them in prayer for it. I declined to 
 kneel, as I did not wish the kind of revival they were seeking 
 to arouse. He reproved me publicly for it. So soon as the 
 services closed, I went to him and said : " You attended 
 our meeting, and we asked you to indorse nothing that you 
 disapproved. When we attended to the Supper, you left, al- 
 though you believe it is right to partake of the Lord's Supper ; 
 but no one complained. You asked me to attend your meet- 
 ing, and you ask me to do something that you know I believe 
 wrong. When I decline doing it, you reprove me." By the 
 time I was through, he said : " I ask your pardon ; I will not 
 so treat you again." He did not, and I think he did not ask 
 others to do it, because of my presence. I tell this to suggest 
 that perfect frankness in letting all know your convictions, 
 and that you cannot violate them, is the best and only way 
 to avoid trouble. To let them know that you cannot approve 
 things that are not required is the only true way out of all 
 difficulties and is the only way to bear true witness for the 
 truth. 
 
 SATAN. 
 
 In Rev. 12: 7-9 we read: "And there was war in heaven: Michael 
 and his angels going forth to war with the dragon; and the dragon 
 warred and his angels; and they prevailed not, neither was their place 
 found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast down, the 
 old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the 
 whole world; he was cast down to the earth, and his angels were cast 
 down with him." Now, there was a question sprung by reading this 
 chapter in our Lord's-day meeting that the devil once was an angel of 
 God in heaven and by transgression was cast out. Is there any scrip- 
 ture to show or prove that he was an angef? 
 
 It is generally accepted that Satan was once an angel ; it is 
 inferential, rather than positive. Peter says : " For if God 
 spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to 
 hell, and committed them to pits of darkness to be reserved 
 unto judgment," etc. (2 Pet. 2: 4.) Jude (6) says: "And 
 angels that kept not their own principality, but left their 
 proper habitation, he hath kept in everlasting bonds under 
 darkness unto the judgment of the great day." John says: 
 "And there was war in heaven : Michael and his angels going 
 
378 Satan. 
 
 forth to war with the dragon ; and the dragon warred and his 
 angels; and they prevailed not, neither was their place found 
 any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast down, the 
 old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver 
 of the whole world ; he was cast down to the earth, and his an- 
 gels were cast down with him." (Rev. 12 : 7-9.) These, as 
 now occur to me, constitute the scriptures which suggest the 
 idea. Other passages would indicate that he was wicked when 
 in heaven. John (8 : 44) says : " Ye are of your father the 
 devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He 
 was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the 
 truth." (See 1 John 3 : 8.) Putting these scriptures together, 
 it seems to me that Satan was in heaven with a number of 
 servants, or angels, who sinned, as it is now on earth, and 
 the heaven underwent the same kind of purifying process that 
 the earth is now undergoing. When sin is cast out of earth, it 
 will be annexed to heaven as part of heaven. See Angels, 
 Fallen. 
 
 SAUL, CONVERSION OF. 
 
 Will you give a scriptural reason why the Lord did not tell Saul, 
 on his way to Damascus, that his sins were forgiven, as he did to 
 many others before his ascension, and before he had said to the apos- 
 tle Peter that he would give to him the keys of the kingdom? 
 
 Jesus had said to his apostles just before his ascension: "All 
 authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. 
 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, . . . 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded 
 you." (Matt. 28: 19.) " Go ye therefore " means, Go by the 
 authority that has been given to me — the authority that has 
 been given to me, or given to you, to go and teach the na- 
 tions the way of life, bring them into the church of Jesus 
 Christ, and teach them t£> do all things as servants of God that 
 I have commanded you that my servants should do. These 
 apostles were the ambassadors of Christ to the world. Hence, 
 Paul says : " But all things are of God, who reconciled us to 
 himself through Christ, and gave unto us the ministry of rec- 
 onciliation ; to-wit, that God was in Christ reconciling the 
 world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses, 
 and having committed unto us the word of reconciliation." 
 (2 Cor. 5 : 18, 19.) Here he tells plainly that " the ministry of 
 reconciliation," " the word of reconciliation," had been com- 
 
Saul, Conversion of. 379 
 
 mitted to the apostles and disciples. If he had committed it 
 to them, he could not administer it himself without discredit- 
 ing them. The outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pente- 
 cost and all the miraculous gifts bestowed on the apostles 
 that enabled them to work miracles were to confirm them as 
 his apostles and to enable them to show to the world that they 
 had the right to proclaim the words of reconciliation to the 
 world. As they were intrusted with the words of reconcilia- 
 tion to the world, all can see that Jesus honored himself and 
 his words by confirming them, and not by discrediting them. 
 Had Jesus himself ministered the words of reconciliation after 
 he had sent the apostles into all the world to " preach the 
 gospel to every creature," he would have discredited them and 
 their mission. He would have said by such an act that he 
 had not committed it to them, or that, although he had given 
 them some power and authority, they were not competent to 
 do the work, so that he must necessarily himself engage in it,. 
 " The gifts and callings of God are without repentance " means 
 that gifts and calling to a work, once bestowed on persons, 
 he does not take them from them. Once having given this 
 work into the hands of the apostles, he would not take it into 
 his own hands, but would confirm them in the work by send- 
 ing persons to them to learn " the word of reconciliation." 
 
 Hence, in the next verse, he says : " We are ambassadors 
 therefore on behalf of Christ, as though God were entreating 
 by us : we-beseech you on behalf of Christ, be ye reconciled 
 to God." (2 Cor. 5 : 20.) Jesus having sent them as his am- 
 bassadors to do this work, he could not do it himself without 
 dishonoring them and his own provisions. 
 
 Inasmuch as he desired to make Saul an apostle, to com- 
 mission him as a coambassador with the other apostles, he 
 must appear unto him for this purpose to enable him to be an 
 apostle. Apostles must have seen the Lord and be sent by 
 him. He had not delegated that power to others ; hence there 
 can be no apostles since the days of Jesus Christ. Paul says : 
 " I thank him that enabled me, even Christ Jesus our Lord, 
 for that he counted me faithful, appointing me to his service." 
 (1 Tim. 1: 12.) " Whereunto I was appointed a preacher 
 and an apostle, ... a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and 
 truth." (1 Tim. 2: 7.) "And last of all, as to the child un- 
 timely born, he appeared to me also. For I am the least of. 
 the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because 
 
380 Saul, Conversion of. 
 
 I persecuted the church of God." (1 Cor. 15: 8, 9.) Which 
 means that the appearance to him after death was as to one 
 " untimely born " to be an apostle. But he appeared to him 
 to qualify him to be an apostle. 
 
 Paul, speaking of the appearance of Jesus to him, says : 
 " But arise, and stand upon thy feet : for to this end have I 
 appeared unto thee, to appoint thee a minister and a witness 
 both of the things wherein thou hast seen me, and of the 
 things wherein I will appear unto thee ; delivering thee from 
 the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom I send thee." 
 (Acts 26: 16, 17.) Jesus appeared to Saul to* make an apostle 
 of him, but did not take upon himself the work that he had 
 committed to the apostles and prophets. So when Saul had 
 seen Jesus in his glory and learned who he was, Jesus sent 
 him to Damascus to learn from the chosen disciple what he 
 should do to be saved. 
 
 Another reason why he did not tell him that he was saved 
 was because he was not then saved. He must enter Christ. 
 To enter Christ, he must be baptized. There was none with 
 him to baptize him. Jesus did not personally baptize while 
 on earth, much less would he do it after he had' left the earth. 
 So when Saul asked him, " What shall I do, Lord ? " the Lord 
 said unto him : "Arise, and go into Damascus ; and there it shall 
 be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do." 
 (Acts 22 : 10.) " They led him by the hand, and brought him 
 into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and 
 did neither eat nor drink." (Acts 9 : 8, 9.) "And he hath seen 
 a man named Ananias coming in, and laying his hand on him, 
 that he might receive his sight. But Ananias answered, Lord, 
 I have heard from many of this man, how much evil he did to 
 thy saints at Jerusalem : and here he hath authority from the 
 chief priests to bind all that call upon thy name. But the Lord 
 said unto him, Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, 
 to bear my name before the Gentiles and kings, and the chil- 
 dren of Israel : for I will shew him how many things he must 
 suffer for my name's sake." (Acts 9: 12-16.) 
 
 Now Jesus, before he committed the ministry of reconcil- 
 iation to the apostles when present, knowing the hearts of all 
 men, could forgive sins as he saw fit. After he had done this, 
 in the commission he gave the test by which men must be 
 tried, and none could promise forgiveness without compliance 
 with the test. That test of faith was baptism, and baptism 
 
Sectarians in the worship. 381 
 
 requires the services of another. So Jesus, honoring his own 
 law and his own ministry, sent Saul to the man of God to learn 
 the way and receive his services in complying with the con- 
 ditions. 
 
 SECRET ORDERS. See Fraternal Orders. 
 SECTARIANS IN THE WORSHIP. 
 
 Is it right or wrong to ask a sectarian to get up and read a chapter 
 in the Bible where they take a part with us in the Sunday school, and 
 should they offer prayer after reading? 
 
 I would say that it is wrong to encourage sectarianism in 
 any way, if we can tell which are sectarians. But my obser- 
 vation is that it takes a sectarian to ferret out a sectarian, just 
 as " it takes a rogue to catch a rogue." Unfortunately, all 
 the sectarians are not in sectarian churches ; and I hope that 
 some in sectarian churches are not sectarians. Things get 
 badly mixed in this world. Sometimes people who wish to 
 obey God are born and reared in sectarian influences. A man 
 who loves party more than he loves God is a sectarian. A 
 man who divides the church of God for a theory or teaching 
 not required by God is a sectarian. A person who pushes an 
 idea or practice not required by God, to the disturbance of the 
 peace of that church, or that exalts a human opinion or prac- 
 tice to an equality with the commands of God, is a sectarian 
 and a heretic. 
 
 There are some in nonsectarian churches who are sectarians, 
 who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sectarians. 
 They are sectarians in their opposition to sectarians. There 
 are some in sectarian churches who will obey God and follow 
 him in spite of the sectarianism of the churches in which they 
 find themselves. As examples, there are persons in the Bap- 
 tist, Methodist, and Presbyterian Churches who were baptized 
 to obey God rather than to please the sects. In this they rise 
 above the sectarian spirit, despite the parties in which they 
 find themselves. They ought to get out of the sectarian 
 churches, but they see so much sectarianism in the nonsecta- 
 rian churches that they think they are all alike. 
 
 Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, all met with the secta- 
 rian Jews at their times and places of worship and participated 
 with them, that they might find an opportunity to speak a 
 word for the truth. I do not think it hurts any man, secta- 
 
382 Security, Going. 
 
 rian or sinner, to read the Bible anywhere or at any time. I 
 do not think it hurts any one to hear the Bible read by secta- 
 rian or sinner at any time or place. The great end is to be 
 true and faithful to the truth and at the same time kind and 
 sympathetic with those in error. The nearer we can do these 
 two things, the more like Jesus we will be and the more sin- 
 ners and sectarians we will save. 
 
 SECURITY, GOING. 
 
 Give us some light on going security. A brother buys a piece of 
 property and gives another brother for security on the note. Is it 
 right for this security to pay this debt when he did not get the benefit 
 of the property? If it is brought before the church, have not I, as 
 elder, the right to ask this brother to release the security on the note? 
 
 It was wrong for the brother to go in debt ; it was wrong 
 for the brother to go his security. Both are clearly con- 
 demned in the Bible. " Owe no man anything, save to love 
 one another." (Rom. 13: 8.) James says that we must not 
 say that we will do this or that at a certain time, for we know 
 not what a day may bring forth. The book of Proverbs is a 
 compend of the wisdom that God gave to Solomon to> guide 
 him, and he gave it to the world for the benefit of the world. 
 It is the wisdom of God applied to the affairs of the world. 
 It is as true now as at any age of the world. He continually 
 warns against suretyship. I sometimes think it a pity that 
 every man who goes security does not have to pay it. They 
 would all quit it then. A more senseless thing never was 
 done. Why should I risk my property and character when I 
 get no good of it? 
 
 But when A has a piece of property that B wishes to buy, 
 but has not the money, and A is unwilling to trust B, C tells 
 A : "If you will let B have that property, I will see it paid." 
 He does this in giving security. C, as an honest man, is bound 
 to see it paid, otherwise he has defrauded A out of his prop- 
 erty. A trusts C, not B. Of course, if B is able to pay it, 
 as an honest man, he is bound to do it to A first ; but if C has 
 paid it to A, then B is bound to pay it to C. But if I under- 
 stand this case, C went security for B, and before it is paid 
 he wants to get off of the note. Of course he could not get 
 off without satisfying A, whom he had induced to sell the 
 property. Is B bound to let him off? That depends on so 
 many contingencies that it is difficult to answer. Possibly he 
 
Seeing God. 383 
 
 is not able to satisfy A and do it. Possibly C's going his se- 
 curity induced him to buy the property, and there is no one 
 else that he could ask to go his security. It takes a goodly 
 degree of cheek to ask a man to go security, to pay my debt 
 if I fail to pay it — at least it would in me. If C was guilty 
 of the folly of encouraging or helping G to go in debt by go- 
 ing his security, he ought to bear the results of his folly like a 
 man and do the best he can with it. 
 
 I cannot see the justice of the elder of a church or any one 
 else asking B to ask another man to involve himself to release 
 C, when C has voluntarily involved himself, and by this helped 
 B to get in debt. Possibly if C had not gone security, the 
 debt would not have been made. Of course, if B misrepre- 
 sented matters or has pursued an unjust course since C went 
 his security, he should be dealt with for it. If he tries to 
 evade the payment of the debt or shows indifference to it, he 
 ought to be dealt with as a dishonest man. Any man that 
 gets the property of another and is indifferent to paying for 
 it, or of paying any just debt, is dishonest, and should be dealt 
 with as such. Every Christian should keep out of debt, and 
 ought to refuse to go security ; but if he does either, he ought, 
 in an honest, manly way, to meet the obligations. Otherwise 
 he is not honest. The church needs to be educated up to a 
 sterling honesty in its dealings ; for God loves honesty, and to 
 fail to be honest brings much reproach on Christ and his cause. 
 See Debt, Paying. 
 
 SEEING GOD. 
 
 Please harmonize John 1: 18 with Gen. 32: 30. Did Moses see God? 
 Did not Adam see God? 
 
 God is Spirit, and no fleshly eye ever beheld a spirit. The 
 fleshly eye can see only material things. God has made mate- 
 rial manifestations of himself, and men have seen these and 
 called this seeing God. Jesus said : " He that hath seen me 
 hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father? " 
 (John 14: 9.) When the Scriptures speak of men seeing God, 
 they mean that they saw some material manifestation of his 
 presence. When they say that no man hath or can see God, 
 they refer to his real spiritual being. 
 
384 Sermon on the Mount. 
 
 SERMON ON THE MOUNT. 
 
 Can you show that it is a Christian's duty to try to obey every- 
 thing taught by Christ in the sermon recorded in Matt. 5-7 and in 
 Luke 6? While the multitudes heard him speaking, can you show 
 that it was expected that any but the twelve chosen disciples should 
 obey everything taught in this sermon? Should not Christians in 
 this age go to the Epistles, rather, for teaching as to their duty? 
 
 Jesus commanded the apostles to teach those who were bap- 
 tized " to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded 
 you." (Matt. 28: 20.) This would include what was taught 
 in the* Sermon on the Mount. The Sermon on the Mount is 
 the summing up, the announcement of the great principles 
 that were to govern in his kingdom. The Epistles and all the 
 teachings of the apostles are a reiteration of his teachings and 
 the application of them to the affairs of life as they arose. 
 
 God gave the Ten Commandments, through Moses, as the 
 constitution of the Mosaic economy; and then the books of 
 Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are the laws 
 enacted under that constitution, and the judgments formed in 
 the application of the laws to the cases as they arose in the 
 administration of these laws. So the Sermon on the Mount 
 is the presentation of the great fundamental principles of the 
 Christian dispensation, and the Epistles are the application of 
 these principles to the conditions of life by the Holy Spirit. 
 Then there is not a single principle taught in the Sermon on 
 the Mount but what is reiterated and applied in the Epistles. 
 Had the apostles failed to teach a single principle that Jesus 
 taught them in the Sermon on the Mount or at other times, 
 they would have violated the command to teach them " all 
 things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Epistles are 
 the application by the Holy Spirit of the truths and principles 
 taught by Jesus in this sermon and at any other time to the 
 apostles. They were to teach others what he taught them. 
 Then these teachings of Christ were to make men like God, 
 that they might be fitted to dwell with him. Do not all Chris- 
 tians need to be trained into a fitness to dwell with God as 
 much as the apostles did? 
 
 One can find the principles and the duties of life presented 
 in the Epistles ; he can find these principles much more con- 
 cisely and connectedly set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. 
 It is like a lawyer taking the laws, and then searching the 
 decisions of the courts construing and applying the laws. 
 
Sheepfold, The. 385 
 
 The Sermon on the Mount is a presentation of the principles 
 that prevail in heaven. They are given that man may practice 
 them here and by this fit himself to live in heaven. 
 
 SHEEPFOLD, THE, 
 
 (1) Please explain John 10: 1-9. What is meant by the sheepfold 
 in verse 1? 
 
 It refers to Jesus as the Shepherd coming to his fold. John 
 the Baptist is the porter, who prepared the people for him, 
 or opened the door and introduced him to the flock. He would 
 not open to another coming in some other way. The basis. 
 of the illustration is said to be that in the Eastern countries 
 flocks are gathered by the shepherds to a common fold at night 
 and locked in, and one porter guards all. In the morning the 
 shepherds come, to whom the porter opens the door, and they 
 enter through the door, and each flock knows the voice of its 
 shepherd and comes at his calling. One not coming in at the 
 door is a thief and a robber. Any one coming who claimed to 
 be Christ, but who did not come in the regular way, and to 
 whom John, the porter, did not open, would be an impostor to 
 be avoided. 
 
 (2) What do they go in and out of, and what is the pasture they 
 find? (Verse 9.) 
 
 The sheep go out of the fold to get food, pasture, and water, 
 and go in to find protection from beasts of prey and robbers. 
 Because pasturage and protection are found by being led out 
 and in, when calling his disciples his sheep, he calls the food 
 and protection given them by the terms by which the sheep 
 get these ; just as he calls those who mislead his sheep for 
 gain, thieves and robbers; just as he says our hearts are 
 sprinkled from an evil conscience, because sprinkling the blood 
 of purification was the method of purifying the Jews from 
 fleshly uncleanness. The means are used to indicate the re- 
 sults. " Going in and out " is used to indicate the results that 
 follow food and protection. So, giving food and protection to 
 the children of God by Jesus is represented as leading them 
 out and in, because that is the way sheep get food and protec- 
 tion. 
 
 25 
 
386 Signs Shall Follow Them. 
 
 SIGNS SHALL FOLLOW THEM. 
 
 What is meant by "these signs shall follow them that believe?" 
 (Mark 16: 17, 18.) Does it apply to all who should believe on him 
 for all time? 
 
 Jesus did not say that all who should believe on him would 
 be able to perform these miracles. He said that these signs 
 should follow those that believe. A good deed or a bad deed 
 follows a man and his children by being told and repeated con- 
 cerning him, and to the credit or shame of his family. That 
 is what we mean by their deeds following them. The apostles, 
 fathers, and founders of the church of God on earth performed 
 these miracles, signs, and wonders, and did all things here 
 enumerated. They follow as the heritage of the church of 
 God through all ages, to strengthen it, vindicate its divine ori- 
 gin, and to show that the truths thus approved are sure and 
 certain. This is all that is meant by signs following them. 
 These miracles follow the church as the good deeds of a fa- 
 ther follow the children, to give them honor or shame. " They 
 shall cast out devils " refers to the apostles and prophets and 
 inspired persons of early times. These do follow the church 
 and give it character to-day. See Spiritual Gifts. 
 
 SIN AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT. 
 
 (1) Will you please explain for me what sinning against the Holy 
 Spirit is? (Matt. 12: 31, 32.) Some of the brethren think it is a par- 
 ticular sin, and, if committed, cannot be forgiven in this world or the 
 world to come. 
 
 There have long been differences on that subject. Many 
 hold that those who charged Jesus with casting out devils by 
 Beelzebub committed the sin against the Holy Spirit ; the con- 
 nection will bear that interpretation. Still, it will bear an- 
 other construction. These persons sinned against Jesus in 
 making this charge. He warns them : " You may sin now 
 against me, and find opportunities to repent; but the Holy 
 Spirit will come, and if you reject him as you now do me, 
 there will be no forgiveness, neither here nor hereafter." The 
 Holy Spirit was not the lawgiving and directing power at this 
 time ; it was not giving the law, so could not be sinned against. 
 After he came as the lawgiver and ruler, then to* reject his 
 teaching would be to sin against him. Until Jesus came as 
 the ruler and representative of God, men could not sin against 
 or blaspheme him. They knew nothing of him ; so' until the 
 
Sin Against the Holy Spirit. 387 
 
 Holy Spirit came as the guide and ruler and gave laws, none 
 could sin against the Holy Spirit. Then, until the Holy Spirit 
 came, none could sin. against him. This is contrary to the 
 generally received idea, but it is the only interpretation that 
 I can harmonize with the other scriptures. Those who ma- 
 ligned, persecuted, and murdered Jesus did find forgiveness 
 when brought by the Holy Spirit to repentance. The facts 
 seem to> be about this : Jesus came and performed his mission ; 
 many rejected him. After he returned to his Father's throne, 
 the Holy Spirit came to confirm the .truth he taught and to 
 add to his testimony ; but when the Holy Spirit had performed 
 his work, borne his testimony, there would be no further testi- 
 mony or witness, and he who rejected his testimony then 
 would be left to his own fate without further efforts to save. 
 In other words, the Spirit would complete the testimony and 
 would exhaust the provision that God had made for saving 
 man. If man rejects these, there is nothing more to reach 
 him. There would be no more sacrifice for sin or provisions 
 for mercy. According to this, the rejection of the teaching of 
 the Holy Spirit and the refusal to be led by these teachings 
 is the sin against the Holy Spirit. It is- true that, after stat- 
 ing it, he said : " Because they said, He hath an unclean spirit." 
 (Mark 3 : 30.) Many conclude that he meant charging him 
 with having an unclean spirit was this sin against the Holy 
 Spirit. I think this is not what is meant. They made this 
 charge of acting by the power of the devil against him, and 
 he warns them that they might do this now to him and find 
 forgiveness ; but if they so rejected and treated the Spirit 
 when he came, there would be no forgiveness. The sin can be 
 committed now, and it seems a persistent refusal to obey the 
 laws of the Spirit constitutes this sin. Any disobedience per- 
 sisted in will be a sin against the Spirit. 
 
 (2) What is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? (Mark 3: 28-30.) 
 Can any one that has never been baptized into the kingdom of Christ 
 commit that sin? 
 
 Blasphemy means to speak evil of, to reject or refuse. I 
 think that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to rail upon, 
 reject, refuse, misrepresent, and pervert the work of the Holy 
 Spirt. To do this in the face of the clear manifestations of 
 spiritual power in the times of the Savior seems to have been 
 to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit. 
 
388 Sin and Evil. 
 
 SIN AND EVIL. 
 
 Please explain whether or not God created all things, both good 
 and evil. If he did not create all things, give us the origin of sin and 
 the devil. Please, also, state the difference between sin and evil. 
 
 The Bible says that God created all things. " I form the 
 light, and create darkness ; I make peace, and create evil ; I 
 am Jehovah, that doeth all these things." (Isa. 45 : 7.) Sin 
 is the violation of God's law; evil is the punishment that 
 comes on the violation of the law. God ordains that evil shall 
 come upon the sinner; it is the penalty for violated law. 
 James (1 : 13-15) says that sin came into the world through 
 lust. God created man with faculties and freedom to desire 
 good and bad. He yielded to the evil desires and he violated 
 the law of God. This is sin. Sin is not an independent entity, 
 but is the quality of an action that sets aside the law of God. 
 See Evil, Does God Create? 
 
 SIN, PRESUMPTUOUS. 
 
 The following statement from your pen is liable to be misunder- 
 stood. I think the sentiment it expresses has done, and is doing, 
 much harm. The statement is as follows: "To substitute man's ways 
 for God's -was first instigated by Satan in Eden, and is a greater sin 
 than neglect of duty. It is willful usurpation of God's place. The 
 other is human weakness." The sin of neglect will be punished as 
 severely as any sin we know anything about. " Depart from me, ye 
 cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his 
 angels." (Matt. 25: 41.) Why? Neglect of duty. Read what fol- 
 lows. (Verses 42-44.) Again: "For if the word spoken through an-, 
 gels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience re- 
 ceived a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neg- 
 lect so great a salvation? " (Heb. 2: 2, 3.) Here the two sins of 
 transgression, or going beyond, substituting man's ways for God's, 
 and the sin of neglect are classed together as deserving the same de- 
 gree of punishment. Note another passage: "Not forsaking our own 
 assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one an- 
 other; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh. For 
 if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the 
 truth, there Temaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fear- 
 ful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall de- 
 vour the adversaries." (Heb. 10: 25-27.) In this passage the sin of 
 neglect seems to be as willful a sin as the sin of presumption, and it 
 would be hard to find severer language than that regarding it. To 
 call such sin only a " human weakness " eases the consciences of many 
 down the road to ruin. Unless they repent and go to work, many 
 will be spewed out of the Lord's mouth, though " loyal " against " in- 
 novations," for the negative sin of doing nothing. 
 
 Notwithstanding all that, God does say : " But the soul that 
 doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a 
 
Sin, Presumptuous. 389 
 
 sojourner, the same blasphemeth Jehovah ; and that soul shall 
 be cut off from among his people. Because he hath despised 
 the word of Jehovah, and hath broken his commandment, that 
 soul shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him." 
 (Num. 15 : 30, 31.) For this presumptuous setting aside God's 
 law there was no forgiveness. "And the man that doeth pre- 
 sumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth 
 to minister there before Jehovah thy God, or unto the judge, 
 even that man shall die : and thou shalt put away the evil from 
 Israel." (Deut. 17: 12.) "But the prophet, that shall speak 
 a word presumptuously in. my name, which I have not com- 
 manded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other 
 gods, that same prophet shall die." (Deut. 18: 20.) Setting 
 aside God's law and substituting something else in its stead 
 is a higher crime before God than a neglect of his will, and 
 for this there is no forgiveness. The person who does this 
 assumes the place of God himself. 
 
 Then, Jesus said : " Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and 
 blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men ; but the blasphemy 
 against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall 
 speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; 
 but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall 
 not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which 
 is to come." (Matt. 12: 31, 32.) A sin against the Holy 
 Spirit is a greater sin than neglect of duty. To set aside 
 the teachings of the Holy Spirit and substitute something else 
 in their stead is sin against the Holy Spirit. For this there 
 is no forgiveness in this world or that to come. This is a 
 greater sin than neglect of duty, even though the punishment 
 in the end may be the same. One may be repented of and 
 forgiven ; the other cannot be. 
 
 A good example of this difference is found in the examples 
 of King Saul and David. David committed, to human eyes, 
 the greater sin in his adultery and murder of Uriah. Saul de- 
 liberately set aside the law of God and substituted a different 
 service, with the view, too, that that would bring the greater 
 honor to God. Both were sins that, unrepented of, would 
 bring death and ruin. But the difference was : David's sin 
 could be and was repented of and David saved. Saul's sin 
 could not be forgiven ; and though he sought forgiveness, he 
 was not forgiven. If David had not repented, he may have 
 incurred the same punishment. But it was not so great a sin 
 
390 Sin, Presumptuous. 
 
 in its commission, and God granted repentance to him, but 
 none to Saul. 
 
 A failure to perform a duty may arise from presumptuously 
 concluding that we can do better, but that is the sin of pre- 
 sumption. There is danger in our judging of things as they 
 affect us for good or evil, not as God commands them. The 
 willful sin finds no forgiveness. This substituting what af- 
 fects us and what seems good to us for the law of God savors 
 of danger. David prayed, " Keep thy servant from presump- 
 tuous sin," because for this there is no forgiveness. All sub- 
 stitution of our ways for God's ways savors of presumption. 
 
 SIN UNTO DEATH. 
 
 Please give your views on the following passage: " If any man see 
 his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will 
 give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto 
 death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All 
 unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death." (1 John 5: 
 16, 17.) " If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death." 
 How are we to know? "He shall ask, and God will give him life for 
 them that sin not unto death." Give who life? If to the one that 
 asks, how can it help the brother who sins? 
 
 We have never been able to reach a conclusion as to the 
 meaning of the scripture. Most commentators refer it to the 
 spiritually gifted ; they connect it with James' direction to the 
 elders to anoint the sick with oil, pray over them, and they 
 shall be healed, and refer both to the age of miracles. It has 
 always seemed to me unnatural and strained to take two or 
 three verses out of scriptures directed to all Christians and for 
 all ages and apply it to a specific class in one age. This gives 
 gieat license for many evils. Macknight thinks that mortal 
 diseases were brought upon people in that age for sin. The 
 spiritually gifted could discern it. He says : " To encourage 
 those to repent who by their sins had brought on themselves 
 mortal diseases, there were in the first age persons who, being 
 endowed with the gift of healing diseases miraculously (1 
 Cor. 12: 9), were moved by the Holy Ghost to heal the sick, 
 who had repented of the sins which had brought on them the 
 diseases under which they were laboring. We may, there- 
 fore, believe that when John directed any one who saw his 
 brother sinning a sin not unto death to ask God to give him 
 life, he did not mean any ordinary Christian, but any spiritual 
 man who was endowed with the gift of healing diseases ; and 
 
Societies and the Gospel Advocate. 391 
 
 that the brother for whom the spiritual man was to ask life 
 was not every brother who had sinned, but the brother only 
 who had been punished for his sin with some mortal disease, 
 but who, having repented of his sin, it was not a sin unto death ; 
 and that the life to be asked for such a brother was not eter- 
 nal life, but a miraculous recovery from the mortal disease 
 under which he was laboring." That explanation is not satis- 
 factory to me, as I see no reason for confining this to the 
 miraculously endowed and applying the remainder to all ages 
 and people. To give men license to thus set aside scripture 
 as inapplicable to us that does not seem clear and possible 
 goes a long way toward setting aside the authority of scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 But I have no clear and definite idea as to the meaning of 
 the scripture, or how we can tell which sin is unto death and 
 which is not. Yet in that age there were clearer distinctions 
 as to sins of this character than we have. Paul states that 
 Christ was of none effect to those who went back to Juda- 
 ism. " Ye are fallen away from grace." (Gal. 5 : 4.) Again, 
 for him that sinned willfully there was no more sacrifice for 
 sin. These sins for which there was no forgiveness were bet- 
 ter defined in the apostolic days than now. Our failure to 
 keep a clear distinction comes somewhat from our altered sur- 
 roundings and somewhat from loose habits of thought into 
 which we have fallen. All sin persisted in, unrepented of, 
 may become sin unto death I think that the life and death 
 referred to are spiritual, and not bodily. When he gives life 
 to the prayer, it is the spiritual life of those who sin. They 
 are forgiven, and are said to be given him who prayed for 
 them, as they were forgiven in answer to his prayer. 
 
 SOCIETIES AND THE GOSPEL ADVOCATE. 
 
 Please point out the difference in principle between sending money 
 for the societies and sending it to the Gospel Advocate for mission- 
 ary purposes. 
 
 The Gospel Advocate acts only as a forwarding or shipping 
 agent; it does not apply the money or direct the preachers. 
 When one wishes to send money to a brother in Japan or else- 
 where, and he does not know the post-office address or how 
 to forward it, we offer to receive it and forward it to the per- 
 son designated by the giver. The Advocate takes no control 
 of the money or of the person to whom it is sent ; it only for- 
 
392 Societies and the Gospel Advocate. 
 
 wards it as the sender wishes it sent. Sometimes when sending 
 to foreign lands, the country postmasters or those in smaller 
 towns do not know how to send it; at the larger offices they 
 can always do this. So the Advocate has offered to take on 
 itself the trouble of forwarding the money to the persons des- 
 ignated by the giver. The Advocate acts as a forwarding 
 agent. It does not seek this work, but is willing to do it to 
 help those who desire to send, but do not know how to send 
 it. We think it better, when it can be done well, for the giver 
 to send directly to the missionary and come into more di- 
 rect communication and sympathy with him. A society col- 
 lects the money from churches and Christians that its own 
 board may employ preachers, direct their labors, their pay, 
 and control them. It concentrates the authority and power 
 and means of all the Christians and all the churches in a few 
 persons, who constitute a board to employ, direct, and pay 
 the preachers. This places all the money and all the preach- 
 ers of all the churches and Christians in the hands and under 
 the control of half a dozen men. Really, one or two men 
 control all such boards, and it virtually puts the whole means 
 and men of the churches in the hands of one or two men. 
 Such men are not, as a rule, chosen for their piety, holiness, 
 and devotion, but for their capacity to raise money. This 
 opens temptations to money-loving men ; it drives out selfr 
 sacrificing and self-devoted men. God's way is the best for 
 conserving piety and devotion in the churches, as well as for 
 spreading the gospel. 
 
 SONG SERVICE. 
 
 Will you give scriptures authorizing the song service? 
 
 When the Lord's Supper was instituted, Mark says : " When 
 they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of 
 Olives." (Mark 14: 26.) Christ and the apostles sung at the 
 first institution and observance of the Supper. They sung, not 
 one of them. Paul and Silas, in the Philippian jail, sung at 
 midnight. This might not be called a public song service, but 
 it was a part of the worship engaged in by these two disci- 
 ples in the prison. Luke says : " But about midnight Paul 
 and Silas were praying and singing hymns unto God, and the 
 prisoners were listening to them." (Acts 16: 25.) They both 
 sung, and the prayer and singing are associated as equally 
 
Soul and Spirit. 393 
 
 acceptable to God, each constituting an act of acceptable wor- 
 ship to God. Paul says : " Speaking one to another in psalms 
 and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody 
 with your heart to the Lord." (Eph. 5 : 19.) They were to 
 speak to each other in the singing. It must have been when 
 they were called together. Again : " Let the word of Christ 
 dwell in you richly; in all wisdom teaching and admonishing 
 one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, sing- 
 ing with grace in your hearts unto God. And whatsoever ye 
 do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, 
 giving thanks to God the Father through him." (Col. 3 : 
 16, 17.) This singing must be done when they were together, 
 that each might be admonished by the singing done. This is 
 clear and distinct authority for the song service. That it 
 should be called in question is an indication as to what ex- 
 tremes people will go in trying to justify practices not re- 
 quired by God. 
 
 SOUL AND SPIRIT. 
 
 I am a babe in Christ, and I want you to answer the following 
 question: Are the soul and the spirit the same thing, or are they two 
 different things? 
 
 You have a pretty tough and gristly piece of meat for a 
 babe to masticate and digest if you undertake to 1 define the 
 difference between soul and spirit. Soul is defined " the in- 
 ternal spirit, but occasionally the animal life." That is its use 
 in the Bible. So soul and spirit are sometimes used inter- 
 changeably in the Bible, sometimes they are used as distinct; 
 which means that the soul and the spirit in part are identical, 
 in some points they differ. The difference between the two 
 is not set forth in the Bible ; so I conclude that, however much 
 it might gratify our curiosity, the knowledge of the difference 
 is not needful or even helpful to our salvation, else the dif- 
 ference would have been plainly set forth in the Bible. It 
 falls under the head of untaught and doubtful questions, which 
 minister strife and create division rather than godly edifying 
 in Christ Jesus. I suggest, then, that we postpone the study 
 of these nonessential, impractical, and hurtful questions until 
 we become skilled in the knowledge and practice of the ques- 
 tions that are taught, that are practical and helpful. If we do 
 this, we will lose interest in the speculation as to the differ- 
 ence between the soul and the spirit and will let them go over 
 
394 Soul and Spirit. 
 
 into the next world, where, it may be, they will be made plain 
 and there will be nothing in them to argue over. I am satis- 
 fied that the best way is not to argue these untaught ques- 
 tions on the one side or the other, not to maintain whether 
 the one position is true or not. They constitute no part of the 
 gospel or the divine teaching, and so have no bearing on the 
 salvation of the soul, save the discussion of them is calcu- 
 lated to turn men's minds from the truth that saves and so 
 endanger their salvation. 
 
 SPIRIT, RECEIVING THE, THROUGH THE WORD. 
 
 You ask the question, " What is meant by receiving the Spirit 
 through the word?" and in a column or more you endeavor to give 
 the answer. You will please pardon me when I say I have looked 
 closely all through your answer, and utterly fail to find the question 
 answered. Is it possible that there is a meaning in the expression, 
 " receiving the Spirit through the word," that common minds like 
 mine cannot grasp? In olden times persons received the Spirit after 
 they received the word and had obeyed it (see Acts 8: 14-17; 19: 2, 
 4-6; Eph. 1: 13), not while hearing and obeying. Neither did they, 
 save in a case of baptism of the Holy Spirit, receive it at all unless an 
 •apostle prayed for them and laid hands on them: "Who, when they 
 were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy 
 Spirit." (Acts 8: 15.) Where are we promised the Holy Spirit — i. e., 
 gift of the Holy Spirit — to be received as an indwelling guest in fact? 
 Is there any record of any one in apostolic times receiving the Holy 
 Spirit other than in the personal presence of an apostle? Can a per- 
 son receive the Holy Spirit and never know it? If you answer, " No," 
 then I ask: At what particular moment of your life did you receive 
 him? I know I received the word of God, and I know I obeyed it 
 on August 12, 1878; but if I have ever yet received the Holy Spirit to 
 personally abide in me, I do not know it- Paul understood that per- 
 sons would know it when they received the Holy Spirit, for he asked: 
 "Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?" And at the 
 same time he thought these twelve persons were Christians; hence 
 Paul supposed persons could be Christians without receiving the Holy 
 Spirit. 
 
 Our brother alone has objected to our article. No doubt 
 the common minds understand it ; his is the uncommon mind. 
 From his article we think that he objected to what he im- 
 agined was implied in it, rather than to what it taught. But 
 I do not believe that a man can live a Christian without the 
 presence and help of the Spirit of God. I do not believe that 
 a man can become a Christian without the guidance of the 
 Spirit. I do not believe that any man can live the Christian 
 one day without the guidance and help of the Spirit of God. 
 
 Jesus said : " If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments. 
 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another 
 
Spirit, Receiving the, Through the Word. 395 
 
 Comforter, that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit 
 of truth : whom the world cannot receive ; for it beholdeth him 
 not, neither knoweth him : ye know him ; for he abideth with 
 you, and shall be in you." (John 14: 15-17.) This is the first 
 direct and clear promise of the Spirit by Jesus. It is made 
 directly to the apostles. But when he says, " whom the world 
 cannot receive," here are two classes. One receives him, the 
 other does not. The world, which does not see or know him, 
 constitutes one class; all who see or know him, who receive 
 him, constitute the other, and it shows the promise extends 
 to all who are not the world, or who receive him. " He that 
 hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth 
 me : and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and 
 I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him. ... If 
 a man love me, he will keep my word : and my Father will love 
 him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with 
 him." (Verses 21-23.) 
 
 While these were addressed to the apostles, a universal 
 proposition is laid down. He, any one, or every man that 
 loves Jesus will keep his words, and him will the Father love, 
 " and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." 
 How will the Father and the Son make their abode with any 
 and every man that loveth him and keepeth his words? Paul 
 says : " In whom [Christ] ye also are builded together for a 
 habitation [dwelling place] of God in the Spirit." (Eph. 2: 
 22.) Since Jesus ascended, God dwells with man only in the 
 person of his Spirit. All who are built into this temple as 
 lively stones upon Jesus as the chief corner stone become re- 
 cipients of the Holy Spirit by which God dwells in his habita- 
 tion, by which Spirit they are enabled to offer up spiritual 
 sacrifices unto the Lord. Peter says : " Unto whom coming, 
 a living stone, rejected indeed of men, but with God elect, 
 precious, ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual 
 house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, 
 acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2: 4, 5.) 
 How can they be a spiritual house unless the Spirit dwells in 
 the house? How can they offer up spiritual sacrifices if they 
 have not the Spirit? How can they be living stones unless 
 the Spirit be in them? The Spirit gives life in nature and 
 grace. 
 
 But going back to the promises and the fulfillment, Peter, 
 on Pentecost, said : " Repent ye, and be baptized every one of 
 
396 Spirit, Receiving the, Through the Word. 
 
 you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your 
 sins ; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to 
 you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are 
 afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto 
 him." (Acts 2: 38, 39.) What promise but the gift of the 
 Holy Spirit, as made in John 14: 16? He then tells that that 
 promise was made "to you [Jews], . . . and to your 
 children, and to all that are afar off [Gentiles], even as many 
 as the Lord our God shall call unto him." That means that 
 every soul, Jew or Gentile, that accepts the call of God shall 
 receive the gift of the Holy Spirit ; and this means the Holy 
 Spirit as a gift, as you may see in Acts 10: 45-47, in which 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit is explained to be the Holy Spirit 
 himself. Acts 2: 39 shows that the gift of the Holy Spirit is 
 to all, Jew and Gentile, who accept that call of God. 
 
 I know that some say that, as the apostles had received a 
 miraculous manifestation of the Spirit, this promise must have 
 meant a miraculous gift of the Spirit. But why should it so 
 mean? Life was given to Adam by miracle. It was trans- 
 mitted to his descendants by fixed means in accordance with 
 law. So spiritual life was given to the apostles in the begin- 
 ning by miracle, and has been transmitted by them to all oth- 
 ers by law. All life is spirit. When the human spirit departs 
 from the body, the body dies and crumbles into inorganic dust. 
 W^hen the divine spirit leaves the man, he dies as a child of 
 God. Paul says : " But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, 
 if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any 
 man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if 
 Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin ; but the spirit 
 is -life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that 
 raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised 
 up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your 
 mortal bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Rom. 
 8: 9-11.) Now this means that there is no spiritual life in us, 
 save as the Spirit of Christ dwells in us. Our work is to 
 make our bodies temples fitted for the Spirit of God to dwell 
 in. Again : " For we are a temple of the living God ; even as 
 God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them ; and I will 
 be their God, and they shall be my people." (2 Cor. 6: 16.) 
 How does God dwell in them as a temple, save through his 
 Spirit? " Know ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that 
 the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man destroyeth the 
 
Spirit, Receiving the, Through the Word. 397 
 
 temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God 
 is holy, and such are ye." (1 Cor. 3: 16, 17.) " Know ye not 
 that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, 
 which ye have from God? and ye are not your own." (1 Cor. 
 6: 19.) 
 
 The church is established, as was the tabernacle and tem- 
 ple, as the dwelling place of God among men. He dwells in 
 them through the Spirit. k ' But the fruit of the Spirit is love, 
 joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 
 meekness, self-control ; against such there is no law. . . . 
 If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk." (Gal. 
 5 : 22-25.) How can the Spirit bear fruit in our heart, feeling, 
 spirit, life, unless he dwell within us? (See also Gal. 5: 9.) 
 
 The word of God is the seed of the kingdom. (Luke 8: 11.) 
 The seed is the material substance in which the germinal prin- 
 cipal of life dwells. Then the word of God is the material 
 seed in which the germinal principle, spiritual life, dwells. If 
 the word of God is received into the heart, the Spirit of God 
 must go with it, because the word of God is an incorruptible 
 seed. It never can be separated from the Spirit dwelling in it. 
 The Spirit becomes a living, working principle in the heart 
 only as the word is believed and obeyed. 
 
 All the teachings, all the allusions, all the figures used in 
 reference to the life of the Christian teach beyond a doubt that 
 the Spirit of God dwells in the heart and works out into the 
 life of men. The Spirit dwelt in all the New Testament Chris- 
 tians. If it does not, man is lost and ruined. Do I know 
 when I received the Spirit? By my fleshly senses I never 
 knew of a spirit, human or divine — my own or another's. The 
 essence of spirit is that it is immaterial, intangible, cannot be 
 cognized by any of the bodily senses. "A spirit hath not flesh 
 and bones, as ye see me have," said Jesus. Spirit is not ma- 
 terial ; it cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled, or felt. 
 
 I never saw, felt, heard, tasted, or smelled my own spirit. 
 How do I know that I have a spirit? By the fruits it bears. 
 "A tree shall be known by its fruits." No one who under- 
 stands the nature of spirit ever claimed to know its presence 
 by his fleshly sense. A man who claims this does not even 
 know the character of spirit. I know that I have a spirit by 
 the Ufe and warmth and vigor it imparts to my body. I know 
 that I have the Spirit of God by the fruits it bears in my life. 
 If niyr life does not bear the fruits of the Spirit, it is because 
 
398 Spirit, Receiving the, Through the Word. 
 
 the Spirit does not dwell in me. It affects my life by molding 
 and directing my spirit; and without the Spirit of God molds 
 and directs the spirit of man, it can never work through or 
 bear spiritual fruit in the life. 
 
 There can be no spiritual fruit without a spiritual tree to 
 bear the fruit; no spiritual tree without the spiritual seed, 
 which is the word of God. The idea of a spiritual life for 
 man, or of a spiritual man without the presence of God's Spirit 
 in the man, would be fruit without a tree. There is one Spirit, 
 but different manifestations ; and because the same manifesta- 
 tion is not now presented as was in the beginning, we con- 
 clude that the Spirit is not present. But life was first im- 
 parted to Adam by miracle ; it has since been transmitted 
 through law without miracle. But it is the same life now re- 
 ceived by the child through law that was given Adam by mir- 
 acle. It is just so in the religious world. The same spiritual 
 life that was given by miracle has since been perpetuated 
 through law. " The law of the Spirit of life in Christ made 
 me free from the law of sin and death." (Rom. 8: 2.) If any 
 man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. It takes 
 a very extraordinary mind to believe the Bible and not be- 
 lieve that the Spirit of God dwells in all the children of God. 
 
 SPIRITS IN PRISON. 
 
 Did Christ go down into the graves and preach to those who were 
 dead; or, otherwise, did Christ preach to the antediluvian world, that 
 they might have the benefit of the death of Christ? Peter says: "For 
 this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be 
 judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to 
 God in the Spirit." (1 Pet. 4: 6.) 
 
 In the understanding of this passage, several things are to 
 be noted. First, Christ preached. Secondly, he did not do it 
 in person, but by or through the Spirit which raised him from 
 the dead. The Spirit which raised him from the dead was not 
 his own personal spirit. " If the Spirit of him that raised up 
 Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ 
 Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal bodies 
 through his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Rom. 8: 11.) It 
 is clear, then, that Christ did not preach in his own person, 
 but through the agency of the Spirit. That Spirit was the 
 Holy Spirit. He controlled or directed that Spirit. He says : 
 " I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Com- 
 
Spirits in Prison. 399 
 
 forter, that he may be with you forever, even the Spirit of 
 truth." (John 14: 16, 17.) "But the Comforter, even the 
 Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall 
 teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that 
 I said unto you." (Verse 26.) " For if I go not away, the 
 Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I go, I will send him 
 unto you." (John 16: 17.) 
 
 Christ could send the Holy Spirit, and work, act, or preach 
 by and through him. Christ did act in the preexistent state 
 previous to his incarnation or birth of Mary. He was present 
 and the active agent in creating the world. " Through whom 
 [Christ] also he made the worlds." (Heb. 1 : 2.) " In him 
 were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, 
 . . . and he is before all things, and in him all things con- 
 sist." (Col. 1: 16, 17; see also John 1: 1-5.) He not only 
 acted, but he acted through the Spirit. He preached or testi- 
 fied by the Spirit in the prophets. " Concerning which salva- 
 tion the prophets sought and searched diligently, who proph- 
 esied of the grace that should come unto you : searching what 
 time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was 
 in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the suf- 
 ferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow them." 
 (1 Pet. 1: 10, 11.) Here is the clear statement that Christ's 
 Spirit was in the prophets before his incarnation to testify and 
 prophesy. The manner of his preaching by the Spirit is 
 plainly told. He sent his Spirit into the prophets, and through 
 their mouths preached or testified to the people. Then Christ, 
 before his birth, by his Spirit preached and testified to the 
 world. He did it on the occasion here referred to through 
 Noah, the preacher of righteousness. The Spirit of Christ 
 was in Noah, the Spirit preached through Noah. Christ did, 
 then, by his Spirit in Noah, preach to the antediluvians. The 
 result of Christ's preaching by the Spirit was the salvation 
 of eight souls in the ark by water, the like figure or antitype 
 of which, baptism, doth now save us. The figure is, as Christ 
 by the Spirit preached through Noah to the disobedient, and 
 eight souls were saved by water in the ark, so now Christ by 
 the Spirit is preached through Peter, and by water, in baptism, 
 we are saved. 
 
 From whatever point we consider it, the preaching was done 
 by the Spirit through Noah. The result of the preaching was 
 the salvation of Noah, the destruction without excuse of the 
 
400 Spirits in Prison. 
 
 disobedient. A fanciful idea sometimes drawn from it is that 
 Christ in person went to the spirits in Hades, and while he was 
 separated from the body his personal spirit preached in the un- 
 seen world to the guilty spirits there. But Christ did not go 
 in person, but preached by the Spirit ; he did this by his Spirit 
 in the prophets. He did it so as to effect their salvation by 
 water or their condemnation by it. 
 
 Had he gone to the unseen world and preached, he doubtless 
 would have preached to other spirits than those disobedient 
 in the days of Noah. The preaching would not have been lim- 
 ited to them. " But the spirits were in prison." Even if the 
 account said that they were in prison when preached to, it 
 would not be conclusive that they were in the unseen world. 
 When the preaching of Noah was done, they were under the 
 sentence of death from the Almighty. They were prisoners, 
 as it were, in the hands of the Almighty awaiting the execu- 
 tion of sentence against them. True to his character, Christ 
 interposes, puts his Spirit in Noah, and sends a message of 
 mercy if they will repent and turn from their wicked ways. 
 
 But the passage does not say that they were in prison when 
 preached to. The spirits, now in the prison house of Hades, 
 were preached to when they were disobedient in the days of 
 Noah — " when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of 
 Noah, while the ark was a preparing." (1 Pet. 3: 20.) The 
 passage is susceptible of either of these explanations, but does 
 not bear the idea that preaching was done in the unseen world. 
 Conclusively on this subject, each of the words went and 
 preached, and the participle indicating the disobedience of the 
 people, all indicate the same time of fulfillment of each action. 
 A literal translation would be : " By which (Spirit) he hav- 
 ing gone and preached to the spirits in bonds, being disobedi- 
 ent at the time, when once the long-suffering of God waited 
 in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, 
 that is, eight souls, were saved by water." The time when 
 God waited in the days of Noah indicates the time of the go- 
 ing, preaching, disobedience, and the salvation of eight souls 
 by water as the result of the preaching. The idea of preach- 
 ing in the unseen world and giving an opportunity of repent- 
 ing there plainly contradicts several passages and the whole 
 tenor of scripture on this subject. 
 
 Solomon says : " If the clouds be full of rain, they empty 
 themselves upon the earth ; and if the tree fall toward 
 
Spiritual and Literal Meanings. 401 
 
 the south, or toward the north, in the place where the tree 
 falleth, there shall it be." (Eccles. 11: 3.) This teaches that 
 there shall be no change in the character or destiny after death. 
 Again : " Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy 
 might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor 
 wisdom, in Sheol whither thou goest." (Eccles. 9: 10.) 
 There can be no preaching or repentance in that state if this 
 be true. Paul says : " For we must all be made manifest be- 
 fore the judgment seat of Christ ; that each one may receive 
 the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, 
 whether it be good or bad." (2 Cor. 5 : 10.) They are to be 
 judged according to that done in the body, not that done out 
 of the body. Peter's statement, " For unto this end was the 
 gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged 
 indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God 
 in the Spirit," means that those now dead, while alive, had the 
 gospel (in type, by the prophets) preached to them, that they 
 might be judged as men living in the flesh are judged and 
 might live as spiritual beings with God. 
 
 I know nothing of any preaching to the lost spirits in the 
 next world. Jesus tells of one poor lost soul in hell, tor- 
 mented in a flame, that begged most piteously for help and 
 relief. He wanted water to cool his tongue. He would have 
 gladly heard a preacher and become an easy convert. But 
 Abraham told him : " Between us and you there is a great 
 gulf fixed, that they that would pass from hence to you may 
 not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us." 
 (Luke 16: 26.) Jesus gives that as the true condition of the 
 lost. How can there be preaching to them in that state? 
 Better teach the people to hear the gospel in this world than 
 delude them with the idea of having a chance to hear preach- 
 ing and to turn in the world to come. 
 
 SPIRITUAL AND LITERAL MEANINGS. 
 
 Are there spiritual and literal meanings to the Bible? 
 
 Words and sentences are to be understood in the Bible just 
 as they are in any other book or writing. The meaning of the 
 words and their context determine the meaning of the sen- 
 tence. The Bible uses them in the commonest and simplest 
 sense of the words as they were understood in the age and 
 
 country in which the Bible words were given. The Bible was 
 26 
 
402 Spiritual and Literal Meanings. 
 
 intended to reveal God and his will to the common people, and 
 used their language in the sense, too, in which it was com- 
 monly understood. As in all speech, sometimes it was used 
 figuratively. A well-known fact was used to illustrate an un- 
 known fact. This was done through parables and figures, 
 as is done in all speaking and writing. The parable of the 
 sower is an illustration. The words here mean exactly what 
 they did in common affairs of life. Then he shows that these 
 truths concerning material and well-known things illustrate 
 and enforce certain truths concerning spiritual things. But 
 there are not two meanings to the words. It is also true that 
 one who enters into the spirit of the work understands the 
 words and the statements much better than one who has not 
 entered into the spirit of it, just as a man familiar with farm- 
 ing understands the terms used and the statements made on 
 agriculture better than one not familiar with the operations of 
 farming. But there is no common or literal meaning and then 
 a distinct spiritual one that only people guided by the direct in- 
 fluence of the Spirit can understand. 
 
 SPIRITUAL GIFTS. 
 
 "And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondly 
 prophets, thirdly teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, 
 governments, divers kinds of tongues." (1 Cor. 12: 28.) Why are 
 not the same in the church to-day? Paul said: "When that which is 
 perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away." (1 
 Cor. 13: 10.) Has that perfection come, or will it come with Christ 
 at his second coming? It seems to me that it has not yet come, for 
 Paul says: "Whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away." 
 (Verse 8.) Now, we are bound by reason to admit that there is 
 knowledge yet in the world. Now, if the word of God is " that which 
 is perfect " which is spoken of, it seems that we have never reached 
 it; or, if we have, it seems like our eminent theologians are all the 
 time trying to make it imperfect by new revisions of the word. If 
 the Holy Spirit was given by the laying on of hands by the apostle 
 Paul (Acts 19: 6), why do we not receive it the same way now? The 
 promise was to all, to as many as the Lord should call. Again, Christ 
 said: "These signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name 
 shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they 
 shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in 
 no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall 
 recover." (Mark 16: 17, 18.) Are these signs following believers 
 now, or did they stop with the apostles? 
 
 Spiritual gifts, faculties, or bestowments were given to the 
 early church to guide and instruct it until the completed or 
 perfected will of God was made known to the world. They 
 were to serve a temporary purpose ; then when their office 
 
Spiritual Gifts. 403 
 
 was fulfilled, they were to pass away and give place to the per- 
 fected will, or law, of God. Their purpose was to make known 
 the will of God ; when that purpose was completed, there was 
 no further need for them. 
 
 That perfection was completed, so far as God's work of the 
 revealing work of the Spirit is concerned, when the full will 
 of God was revealed, or made known, and his provisions for 
 saving man were set in operation. Churches and Christians 
 come to that perfection as they learn and practice the full will 
 of God. God's work in providing the full knowledge was 
 finished when the revelation of God was completed. The 
 work of an apostle was to bear witness of what he saw and 
 heard of the work and teaching of Christ. "And ye are 
 witnesses of these things." (Luke 24: 48.) "And ye also 
 bear witness, because ye have been with me from the begin- 
 ning." (John 15 : 27.) When one was chosen to take the 
 place of Judas, he must be one that had been " with us all 
 the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, 
 beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he 
 was received up from us, of these must one become a witness 
 with us of his resurrection." (Acts 1 : 21, 22.) So, too, Paul 
 had to see Jesus after his resurrection and in his glorified 
 state before he could be an apostle. Ananias said to Saul : 
 " The God of our Fathers hath appointed thee to know his will, 
 and to see the Righteous One, and to hear a voice from his 
 mouth. For thou shalt be a witness for him unto all men of 
 what thou hast seen and heard." (Acts 22: 14, 15.) " I have 
 appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister 
 and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and 
 of those things in the which I will appear unto thee." (Acts 
 26: 16.) No one could be an apostle unless he saw and heard 
 Jesus. The work of an apostle was to bear witness of what 
 he had heard and seen from him. For a man to claim to be 
 an apostle at this day is to show that he either does not know 
 what was the office of an apostle or he is a pretender. 
 
 Slight attention to the connection of 1 Cor. 13 shows that 
 the apostle is speaking of spiritual gifts or miracle-working 
 power, the gift of prophecy, the understanding mysteries and 
 all knowledge, that were miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. 
 These gifts of healing, prophecy, understanding mysteries and 
 miraculously acquired knowledge shall be done away when 
 that which is perfect, the perfect will of God, is come. Then 
 
404 Spiritual Gifts. 
 
 knowledge is not to be sought through miracles, but by learn- 
 ing the perfect will of God. "And he gave some to be apos- 
 tles ; and some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; and some, 
 pastors and teachers ; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the 
 work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of 
 Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of 
 the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto 
 the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 
 4: 11-13.) This means the same thing. The gifts were to 
 serve until the full knowledge was received to make them one 
 in faith and to bring them to the fullness of the stature of 
 men and women in Christ Jesus. That knowledge needed to 
 bring men to the oneness of the faith and the fullness of the 
 stature in Christ Jesus was given in the New Testament. 
 If men do not measure up to this degree, it is because they 
 will not learn this knowledge and live up to it. The knowl- 
 edge revealed is sufficient. God has done his part. If man 
 fails to receive the fullness of the blessing, it is because he 
 will not. God never intended that knowledge should grow 
 less, but it shall increase and spread through a study of the 
 will of God. 
 
 There are two reasons why these gifts of the Spirit are not 
 now imparted by the apostles. These gifts were miraculous 
 powers. First, there are no apostles now to impart gifts. The 
 apostles were inspired men ; so they knew all truth through 
 inspiration, and they had seen and heard Jesus. Secondly, 
 they having revealed all truth needed to make men perfect and 
 thoroughly furnish them to all good works, having put in oper- 
 ation all the provisions of God for instructing and blessing 
 men, there is no further need for miraculous revelations. Man 
 can now learn all truth needed for present and eternal well- 
 being from his will revealed and recorded in the Bible, and it 
 will lead him into all the blessings of God in this world and in 
 that to come, if he will diligently study it to know and do 
 the will of God. What man can learn himself, God will not 
 work miracles to make known to him. Again, to all crea- 
 tions and orders of God there have been creative and procrea- 
 tive ages. The creative age is that in which new creatures 
 and a new order of things are brought into being; the pro- 
 creative age is that in which these beings are multiplied and 
 developed and the order is continued. In the creative age, the 
 age of miracles, things are miraculously formed and created, 
 
Spiritual Gifts. 405 
 
 afterwards they multiply and grow through the workings of 
 law, without miracle. Life was imparted to Adam and Eve 
 by miracle ; life, the same life that was given to them, has 
 been passed on to their children through all the generations 
 from them to us, by law, without miracle. The same life be- 
 stowed on Adam and Eve has been transmitted and multiplied 
 so that every human being to-day receives of the same life 
 given to Adam, and it has been transmitted through law, with- 
 out miracle. No miracle has been needed to impart physical 
 life since Adam and Eve were made alive. A miracle giving 
 physical life would be a violation of the order of God. The 
 same is true in the spiritual world. In the beginning spirit- 
 ual life was imparted miraculously. Men and women were 
 endowed with all spiritual life and knowledge the first day 
 they were created in the spiritual kingdom. The same spirit- 
 ual life bestowed then has been perpetuated and multiplied un- 
 til all Christians now enjoy that life without miracle. It was 
 given by miracle ; it is perpetuated by law. 
 
 The promises that certain miraculous powers should follow 
 those that believe do not carry the idea that all who believe 
 should be so endowed, nor that they should last for all time. 
 These miraculous gifts Avere bestowed to prove that God was 
 in and spoke through those who wrought the miracles and that 
 the words spoken by them were God's words. These signs 
 followed the believers in sufficient power and numbers to con- 
 vince every good and honest heart of this truth, and they 
 come down to us with equal assurance of their being from 
 God. When this was done, then prophecies, tongues, mirac- 
 ulous knowledge — all gave way to that better way that em- 
 braces faith, hope, love — believing in and trusting God, hope 
 for his blessings in time and eternity, and the love that leads 
 to the fulfilling of all the duties we owe to God and man. 
 
 I do not see how' any one can read 1 Cor. 12, 13, and doubt 
 the meaning of the apostle. Chapter 12 is taken up with the 
 account of spiritual gifts — what they are, how they are given, 
 how they stand related one to the other and to the body of 
 Christ, and their several uses. It also tells them that while 
 each ought to desire the best gifts, yet he would show them a 
 more excellent way than these gifts. Chapter 13 tells how 
 useless spiritual gifts are to save, unless associated with and 
 ending in love. Speaking with tongues, without love, is " as 
 sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal " — all sound, without 
 
406 Spiritual Gifts. 
 
 meaning to him who possesses them. Though he has the gift 
 of prophecy that reveals all mysteries and all knowledge and 
 has the miracle-working faith that would enable him to re- 
 move mountains (see Matt. 17: 20; Mark 11: 22; Luke 17: 6), 
 and has not love, they add nothing to his salvation. This 
 shows that power to work miracles or spiritual gifts were not 
 given to save men ; that what is here called " love " alone can 
 save him. 
 
 The knowledge given through prophecy, mentioned in verse 
 2, is the knowledge that shall vanish away when prophecies 
 cease, mentioned in verse 8. In verse 3 he shows that one 
 may give all his goods to help the poor and his own body to 
 be burned, and yet be without the love that saves. Verses 4-7 
 describe the qualities of love that saves. These qualities are 
 such as lead to humble obedience to the will of God. " Love 
 therefore is the fulfillment of the law." (Rom. 13 : 10.) The 
 perfection of love is to fulfill the law of God in all things to- 
 ward God, toward our fellow-men, and toward ourselves. The 
 passage means that to fulfill or come up to the law of God in 
 all things is to love, is the highest possible good to every be- 
 ing in the universe and is eternal in its nature, while these 
 temporary gifts that were to endure until the perfect or com- 
 pleted law of God was given would then pass away. Prophe- 
 cies shall cease, speaking with tongues shall be done away, 
 and the knowledge and mysteries coming through prophecy, 
 as told in verse 2, shall vanish away. 
 
 In verse 11 he compares this time of partial gifts in the 
 church to childhood ; that when the perfect law is completed, 
 to manhood. While the gifts last, he would use and speak 
 by them as he spoke when a child. When the perfect law is 
 come, he will put away these partial gifts bestowed as helps 
 for the childhood of the church and use the perfect law given 
 to guide its manhood. While in the state of a child, with 
 only these partial gifts, he sees, as in a mirror, darkly; but 
 when the perfect law is come, they will all, face to face, look 
 into the perfect law of liberty. While having only the gifts 
 to guide them, they knew only in part; but when the perfect 
 law should come, they would know as they were known. 
 While these miraculous gifts must pass away, faith, hope, and 
 love would remain as the perpetual heritage of the church. 
 Without these no one can be a child of God ; with them and 
 the perfect law of liberty, gifts are no longer needed, The 
 
Sprinkle Clean Water. 407 
 
 greatest of these is love; for it is the end, the aim, and the 
 perfection of the others. The end and aim of faith and hope 
 is to bring man into perfect harmony with the will of God. 
 Complete harmony with the will of God is perfect love to ev- 
 ery being in the universe. This love will only be perfected 
 in the state of glory, when we shall see him as he is and be 
 like him, and it will be eternal. 
 
 Chapter 14 continues the discussion of the relation of love 
 to spiritual gifts, the relative importance of the different gifts, 
 their dependence one upon the other, how and when each may 
 be used, and the rule by which all gifts are to be tested. The 
 passage, in its scope and connection, cannot possibly mean 
 anything else than that the spiritual gifts were bestowed on 
 the infant church to guide it until the perfect will of God is 
 known, and that they revealed only parts of the will of God 
 and must pass away when the whole will of God was given. 
 
 After we have received the better way contained in the per- 
 fect will of God, why should we go back to the partial and 
 imperfect gifts that were bestowed to introduce the better 
 way, the complete and perfect will of God? I do not know 
 how God performs any of his works. I do not know how he 
 causes the seed to germinate, grow, and bear fruit. I know 
 that he does it, and that if we plant and cultivate, prune and 
 water, the seed will bear fruit. I do not know how he an- 
 swers prayer ; but if we pray sincerely, we will work faithfully 
 to attain the end, and in doing these we will receive the bless- 
 ing. 
 
 SPRINKLE CLEAN WATER. 
 
 (1) When, where, and upon whom was the clean water mentioned 
 in Ezek. 36: 25 to be sprinkled? 
 
 In Num. 19: 1-10 we have an account of the preparation of 
 the waters of separation, or purification, or cleansing, as it is 
 called : "And Jehovah spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, say- 
 ing, This is the statute of the law which Jehovah hath com- 
 manded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they 
 bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, 
 and upon which never came yoke. And ye shall give her unto 
 Eleazar the priest, and he shall bring her forth without the 
 camp, and one shall slay her before his face : and Eleazar the 
 priest shall take of her blood with his finger, and sprinkle of 
 
408 Sprinkle Clean Water. 
 
 her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times. 
 And one shall burn the heifer in his sight ; her skin, and her 
 flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn : and the 
 priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast 
 it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. Then the priest 
 shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, 
 and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest 
 shall be unclean until the even. And he that burneth her shall 
 wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and 
 shall be unclean until the even. And a man that is clean shall 
 gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the 
 camp in a clean place ; and it shall be kept for the congrega- 
 tion of the children of Israel for a water for impurity: it is a 
 sin offering. And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer 
 shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even : and it 
 shall be unto the children of Israel, and unto the stranger 
 that sojourneth among them, for a statute forever." These 
 ashes of the heifer and the cedar and hyssop were kept, and 
 whenever a Jew or any vessel from any cause became un- 
 clean, he must take of water from a running stream, mix these 
 ashes with it, and sprinkle himself or the vessel before he 
 could be clean or come into the congregation of Israel. Verses 
 11-20 give an example of how it was used: "He that touch- 
 eth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days : 
 the same shall purify himself therewith on the third day, and 
 on the seventh day he shall be clean : but if he purify not him- 
 self the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. 
 Whosoever toucheth a dead person, the body of a man that 
 hath died, and purineth not himself, defileth the tabernacle 
 of Jehovah ; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel : be- 
 cause the water for impurity was not sprinkled upon him, he 
 shall be unclean ; his uncleanness is yet upon him. This is 
 the law when a man dieth in a tent: every one that cometh 
 into the tent, and every one that is in the tent, shall be un- 
 clean seven days. And every open vessel, which hath no 
 covering bound upon it, is unclean. And whosoever in the 
 open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead 
 body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven 
 days. And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the 
 burning of the sin offering; and running water shall be put 
 thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and 
 dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon 
 
Sprinkle Clean Water. 409 
 
 all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and 
 upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, 
 or the grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the 
 unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day : and on the 
 seventh day he shall purify him ; and he shall wash his clothes, 
 and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even. But 
 the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, 
 that soul shall be cut off from the midst of the assembly, be- 
 cause he hath defiled the sanctuary of Jehovah : the water for 
 impurity hath not been sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." 
 This water was called cleansing, or clean, water; purifying, 
 or pure, water. To speak of sprinkling pure water came to 
 mean that the person or vessel was cleansed and purified, just 
 as to bow before the Lord came to mean to pray to him, since 
 men bowed or knelt to pray. So when it says that they were 
 sprinkled with clean water, it meant that they had repented 
 of their wicked ways and turned to the Lord and he had for- 
 given them. The Jews had gone into idolatry, had been car- 
 ried into captivity, and were in a foreign land when Ezekiel 
 told them : "And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your 
 idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, 
 and a new spirit will I put within you ; and I will take away 
 the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart 
 of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you 
 to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, 
 and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to 
 your fathers ; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your 
 God. And I will save you from all your uncleannesses : and I 
 will call for the grain, and will multiply it, and lay no famine 
 upon you." This means that when they repented he would 
 cleanse them — he calls it sprinkling clean water upon them — 
 so purify them and bring them back to their own land and 
 bless them with abundance. 
 
 (2) Does this have any reference to baptism? 
 
 This all may have typified spiritual blessings to those who 
 would be faithful in Christ, but could have had no reference 
 to the ordinances of the New Testament or the conditions of 
 salvation in Christ. We must come to the New Testament 
 when we wish to learn these arguments. There we are plainly 
 commanded to be baptized, which means to be dipped, im- 
 
410 Sprinkle Clean Water. 
 
 mersed, overwhelmed, and nothing else. Neither raino nor 
 any other word that means to sprinkle or pour is ever men- 
 tioned in connection with this service. God has not left any 
 doubt as to what he commanded. 
 
 SPRINKLE MANY NATIONS. 
 
 What is the meaning of sprinkle many nations in Isa. 52: 15? 
 
 Isaiah, if we accept it as a correct translation, would mean 
 that when Christ came, not only the Jewish nation, but many 
 nations, would repent, turn to the Lord, and be cleansed. In 
 the margin of the American Revised Version it is startle, in- 
 stead of sprinkle. This is in accord with the context : " Like 
 as many were astonished at thee, (his visage was so marred 
 more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men,) 
 so shall be sprinkle [startle] many nations ; kings shall shut 
 their mouths at him : for that which had not been told them 
 shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they 
 understand." The whole context shows that wonderful af- 
 flictions of Jesus would astonish and startle the different na- 
 tions of the earth. The Septuagint, the version in use among 
 the Jews in the days of Jesus, and which he quoted, gives it: 
 " Thus shall many nations wonder at him, and kings shall 
 keep their mouths shut." This is the true meaning as now 
 recognized by scholars. 
 
 SUNDAY, WORKING ON. 
 
 What will become of those who work on Sunday? Can any one 
 please God who does work on Sunday, such as picking cantaloupes 
 or any other daily labor? 
 
 I do not know what will become of them. God will decide 
 that. But I am sure that it is contrary to his will in two 
 points. First, it violates the civil law ; and the Scriptures di- 
 rect Christians to submit to " the powers that be," to obey 
 those that are in authority. No one can disobey a law of the 
 civil government, when that law does not violate the law of 
 God, without disobeying God. In giving the Sabbath law, 
 God said : " In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy 
 son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maid- 
 servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor 
 thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy manservant 
 and thy maidservant may rest as well as thou." (Deut, 5; 
 
Superseding God's Appointments. 411 
 
 14.) God gave as his reasons for the Sabbath that man and 
 beast might have rest. Nothing has changed that need of rest. 
 If the Sabbath is not kept, the rest ought to be secured on 
 another day. Besides, I have never known a person to attend 
 to his regular business on this day that did not come to neg- 
 lect his religious duties. Cantaloupes will not be a blessing 
 if they turn from the service of God. 
 
 SUPERSEDING GOD'S APPOINTMENTS. 
 
 Did God ever accept human substitutes for divine appointments? 
 If so, for what end? In the first place, did God's appointments ever 
 fail? If so, when and what caused them to fail? 
 
 In answer to' this question, it must be answered that God's 
 appointments seem often to have failed of the purpose for 
 which they were appointed. In the garden of Eden the pro- 
 visions for man's life failed through the subtlety of the devil 
 and the lack of faithfulness of Adam and Eve. A substitute 
 order grew out of this failure. It was the result of man's 
 rejection of God's order. This substitute order was the re- 
 jection of God's order for man to know not the distinction 
 between good and evil, but to be immortal in ignorance of this, 
 and the choice of man to know the good and evil, and in this 
 knowledge to become mortal and die. God permitted the sub- 
 stitute of man to supersede the order of God. Did he do it 
 to bless man? Read the curses pronounced against Adam and 
 Eve and their posterity on account of the substitute, and an- 
 swer. The substitute became a curse to those who accepted 
 it and used it. That God provided a greater blessing for those 
 who, out of the worse surroundings and conditions produced 
 by the substitute, would still be guided by his wisdom does 
 not militate against the truth that he permitted man to use 
 his substitute for his own hurt and destruction. 
 
 A portion of the human family would be willing to reject 
 all human substitutes and follow God's order despite the sin- 
 ful surroundings. For these, God, through Christ Jesus, made 
 provisions for richer blessings than could have been enjoyed 
 in the original order in Eden. God permitted the choosing 
 of the human order for the punishment of those who chose it. 
 We can find illustrations of this all along the line of God's 
 dealings with man. Abraham, notwithstanding his general 
 fidelity, sometimes showed lack of faith in God, as when he 
 went down into Egypt without direction of God. The re- 
 
412 Superseding God's Appointments. 
 
 jection of God's direction and following his own substitutes 
 brought sorrow upon himself and opened the pathway to af- 
 fliction and slavery, temptation and sin, to his posterity. 
 
 A notable example of the consequences of the result of man's 
 refusal of God's order is given us in Israel. God had insti- 
 tuted the order of judges to rule over Israel. The sons of 
 Samuel " walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, 
 and took bribes, and perverted justice. Then all the elders of 
 Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto 
 Ramah ; and they said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and 
 thy sons walk not in thy ways : now make us a king to judge 
 us like all the nations." (1 Sam. 8: 3-5.) Here God's order 
 was perverted by those chosen to execute it, and the people 
 desire a change, that a different order may be substituted for 
 this order so perverted. God permits them to make the 
 change, to supersede or swallow up his order with one of 
 man's choosing. But was it done as a means of blessing 
 them ? Read the whole chapter. God testifies in superseding 
 his order even when perverted with man's : " They have re- 
 jected me, that I should not be king over them." (Verse 7.) 
 To supersede an order of God, even when abused and per- 
 verted with an order of man's, God testifies that it is to " re- 
 ject me, that I should not be king over them." God does not 
 bless men for or in rejecting him and turning from his order. 
 He permitted the change as a means of cursing them for su- 
 perseding or swallowing up God's order with mar's. To do 
 this was to reject God as their ruler. 
 
 Every substitution of a human order for a divine one, even 
 when the divine one is perverted and made not only ineffi- 
 cient for good, but an instrument of evil, is a rejection of God, 
 that he shall not rule over them. These substitutions work 
 evil, wean man more and more from God, and become the 
 means of cursing man more and more for his rebellion against 
 God. A prophet said : " It is thy destruction, O Israel, that 
 thou art against me, against thy help. Where now is thy king, 
 that he may save thee in all thy cities? and thy judges, of 
 whom thou saidst, Give me a king and princes? I have given 
 thee a king in mine anger, and have taken him away in my 
 wrath." (Hos. 13: 9-11.) Her king was given in anger to 
 punish them for superseding God's order with that of man's. 
 When the punishment failed to bring them back to God as 
 their only king, he y took away their earthly king and left them 
 
Temptation, Cannot Resist. 413 
 
 without either an earthly or heavenly head. They were as 
 sheep without a shepherd, the prey of the heathen nations 
 around. That God made provisions to bless those who, even 
 in the kingly order and in spite of the more adverse influences, 
 were faithful to him with even higher blessings does not nul- 
 lify the truth that the human order was granted them to pun- 
 ish them for rebellion against God, and it manifests his power 
 and determination to bless those true to him, despite the most 
 perverted surroundings. 
 
 TEMPTATION, CANNOT RESIST. 
 
 We have some weak brethren in our congregation at this place. 
 They claim that they want to live the Christian life, but cannot resist 
 the great temptation to drink. We have admonished them as best we 
 could. One of them returned, confessed his sin, and is holding out 
 faithful; another one of them asks me to write this to you, asking 
 what he must do. 
 
 " Be not deceived : neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor 
 adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with 
 men, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor 
 extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6: 
 9, 10.) A man that will not quit drink may read his eternal 
 doom and destiny in that sentence. He is classed with the 
 vilest of men and will share their destiny in the place prepared 
 for the devil and his angels, " where their worm dieth not, 
 and the fire is not quenched." "And the smoke of their tor- 
 ment ascendeth up forever and ever." There is no use for a 
 man to deceive himself about the destiny he is making for 
 himself by indulging the fleshly appetite for drink ; nor need 
 he deceive himself by saying that he cannot quit. The mean- 
 ing is that he does not want to quit. He may sometimes feel 
 like he would like to quit and be a decent man, but his desire 
 for liquor is stronger than his desire to be a Christian and go 
 to heaven. The strife in man is between the flesh and the 
 spirit. The spirit seeks to lift him up ; the tendency of the 
 flesh is to drag him down. When the flesh gains the mastery, 
 he descends lower than the brute. No brute makes itself so 
 low as the drunkard when he drowns all of his intellectual 
 and spiritual powers, loses all pride and love for his family, 
 and drags himself and family down to poverty, shame, and 
 degradation here, and to everlasting ruin in the world to come. 
 When a man says that he cannot quit drink, he means that he 
 
414 Temptation, Cannot Resist. 
 
 prefers drunkenness and degradation here, and hell, with its 
 horrors, in the world to come, to decency and manhood here 
 and heaven hereafter. It is an awful and a sad thought for 
 a man to make such a choice for himself; it is sadder still 
 that he will drag his family, his children that he has brought 
 into existence, down with him to the same ruin in time and 
 eternity. 
 
 TEMPTATION, LEAD US NOT INTO. 
 
 Was it not the Spirit of the Lord that led Jesus up into the wilder- 
 ness to be tempted of the devil? Is it the Spirit of the Lord or the 
 spirit of the devil that leads Christians into temptation now? Why- 
 were the disciples taught to pray, " Lead us not into temptation," if 
 it is the spirit of Satan that leads into temptation? 
 
 It is the devil that tempts men to evil. " Let no man say 
 when he is tempted, I am tempted of God ; for God cannot be 
 tempted with evil, and he himself tempteth no man : but each 
 man is tempted, when he is drawn away by his own lust, and 
 enticed. " (James 1 : 13, 14.) Man is tempted by his own 
 lusts. It is the devil that tempts him to do evil, not God. 
 Yet it is a part of the providence of God that every one shall 
 be tempted, tried, tested. It is a help to a man to be tempted 
 when he resists it. It gives him strength. Hence, James 
 says : " Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into mani- 
 fold temptations, knowing that the proving of your faith work- 
 eth patience [or perseverance]." (James 1 : 2, 3.) The mean- 
 ing of it is that while God tempts no man to sin, yet it is a 
 part of his dealings with man that he shall be tempted and 
 tried ; if he resists the temptation, he will be strengthened by 
 the temptation and made better. Christians, as quoted above, 
 are told to count it all joy when they fall into many tempta- 
 tions, yet they are required to pray: " Bring us not into temp- 
 tation, but deliver us from the evil one." (Matt. 6: 13.) Then 
 they are to avoid temptation. The meaning of it is that God 
 in his providence intends that we shall be tempted to try and 
 prove and strengthen us ; yet we are not to go in the way of 
 temptation, but to seek to avoid it. Despite our efforts to 
 avoid it, we will fall into enough temptations to try and 
 strengthen us. Because we are strengthened by temptations 
 that we resist, when we find ourselves passing through many 
 temptations we are to count it a joy, knowing that if we re- 
 sist them they will work good to us and for us in teaching us 
 
Tempting Others to Sin. 415 
 
 patience and perseverance and in perfecting our characters. 
 While temptations avoided and resisted work good to us, we 
 are not to run into temptation nor to seek it, t>ut to avoid it. 
 When we seek to avoid it and resist it, God " will not suffer 
 you to be tempted above that ye are able ; but will with the 
 temptation make also the way of escape, that ye may be able 
 to endure it." (1 Cor. 10: 13.) If a man runs in the way 
 of temptation, God will not provide a way of escape, but will 
 let him eat the fruit of his own doings. But if he will strive 
 to avoid temptation and pray God to deliver him from it, and 
 strive to resist it when it does come, it will come, but God 
 will provide a way of escape from it, and the temptation will 
 prove a blessing instead of a curse. "And we know that to 
 them that love God all things work together for good." (Rom. 
 8:28.) 
 
 TEMPTING OTHERS TO SIN. 
 
 I want some scriptural information. I will state the cause of my 
 writing. Last summer two or three of our brethren united and made 
 up a barbecue and bran dance. Now, some of them have confessed 
 that they did wrong and are sorry for it; but one says he cannot see 
 where he did any wrong, but says if any one can give him scripture, 
 chapter and verse, where he has done wrong, he will then confess the 
 wrong. He says he did not dance himself, but he fixed everything 
 for others to dance in order to sell his barbecued meat for the money. 
 
 The man who fixes deliberately for others to dance and 
 drink, or sin, and so encourages them, is more guilty than the 
 young, excitable persons he leads to sin. An old man might 
 dance or take a dram and not have his lusts and lascivious 
 feelings and appetites aroused greatly, when young people can- 
 not. So he had better dance or drink than to lead others to 
 do so. Christ said: "It is impossible but that occasions of 
 stumbling should come ; but woe unto him, through whom 
 they come ! It were well for him if a millstone were hanged 
 about his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, rather than 
 that he should cause one of these little ones to stumble." 
 (Luke 17: 1, 2.) In both the Old and the New Testaments 
 the man who tempts another to drink, to steal, to any wrong, 
 is regarded more guilty than the one who is tempted. The man 
 who made ready for a dance and led others to dance is more 
 wicked than the young people he led into it. He deliberately 
 tempted them to sin for the sake of money. He led others to 
 sin for his own gain. That is just what the chief priests did 
 
416 Tempting Others to Sin. 
 
 to Judas — with money tempted him to sin. They were as 
 guilty as he. Hence, Jesus said to Pilate : " Those who de- 
 livered me to thee hath the greater sin." If those young peo- 
 ple sinned in the dance, had their lascivious feelings aroused, 
 the refinement of their feelings defiled, or their modesty 
 shocked or destroyed, or were led into any sin, as all did, then 
 he who> tempted them to the course is the greater sinner. He 
 did it deliberately and coolly, like the priests and Judas — for 
 money. The man whose moral sense is so dull as to* see no 
 wrong in that needs very careful watching and nursing, that 
 he may grow to appreciate the righteousness of God. 
 
 THANKS, GIVING. 
 
 I would like for you to write something concerning the expression 
 at our tables of our gratitude to God for his providential care. 
 
 Paul tells the Ephesians to give " thanks always for all 
 things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the 
 Father." (Eph. 5: 20.) In harmony with this admonition, 
 we find that Jesus, before he ate, gave thanks. When he fed 
 the thousands on seven loaves, " he took the seven loaves, and 
 having given thanks " (Mark 8: 6), he " gave the loaves to the 
 disciples, and the disciples to the multitude" (Matt. 14: 19; 
 see also Mark 14: 23; John 6: 11, 23). Paul, when ship- 
 wrecked, after the long fast, having " taken bread, he gave 
 thanks to God." (Acts 27: 35.) Then, in Rom. 14: 6, he 
 speaks of those who eat meat giving thanks to God. It clearly 
 was the custom among the early disciples, and probably among 
 all the Jews, when about to partake of food, to give thanks to 
 God for his mercy. We are required to recognize God as the 
 Giver of all blessings and, as such, to thank him. When the 
 disciples came to their regular meals, this was especially done. 
 
 A thankful heart should be cultivated. To> do this, we must 
 give expression to our feeling of thankfulness. Sometimes 
 persons think that they can be just as thankful or prayerful 
 without giving expression to their feelings. This is a mistake. 
 To give expression to the feeling strengthens and fixes it as 
 a part of our being. No thought or feeling enters into the 
 formation of our characters or becomes permanent until it 
 controls the action of our bodies and becomes part of our being. 
 Faith itself is accepted by God only when it has molded the 
 actions of the body and made the body subject to its control. 
 
Theater, Is it Wrong to Worship in a? 417 
 
 A feeling of the heart becomes a part of our being" and enters 
 into our character only when it prompts the body to action. 
 
 It is especially proper that thanks should be given when the 
 family or a number of persons are about to partake together. 
 It directs the feelings of all in the proper channel. It will 
 have a happy effect in the family on children to direct their 
 minds to the Giver of all good. 
 
 i 
 THEATER, IS IT WRONG TO WORSHIP IN A? 
 
 We have sold our meetinghouse to a company which has made a 
 town hall of it and uses it as a theater. In the meantime the church 
 holds its Lord's-day meetings in it until a new house can be built. 
 Some of the members (and good ones, too) will not meet with us be- 
 cause the house is used as a theater. Are we doing wrong to meet 
 in it? 
 
 The trouble with these good brethren is that they are more 
 anxious to follow their prejudices than to> obey God. They 
 are willing to set at naught a command of God and forsake 
 the assembling together, neglect the holding in memory the 
 blood and body of the Son of God, which are plainly com- 
 manded, to gratify a whim and prejudice for which they can 
 find no Bible authority. It is a clear case of making of none 
 effect the commandments of God by their traditions or preju- 
 dices. We are nowhere in the Bible told that we shall not 
 meet where theaters are held, nor that we are to meet in houses 
 held sacred. We have the example that they met in private 
 houses and public halls. We are. told that Paul was willing 
 and did go into the theater to speak in defense of the Christian 
 faith and so preach the gospel in it. I have no doubt that he 
 would equally as readily have worshiped there in any service 
 of God. These brethren forget that Jesus said : " The hour 
 cometh, when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, 
 shall ye worship the Father. . . . The true worshiper? 
 shall worship the Father in spirit and truth." (John 4: 21- 
 23.) Wherever we can worship God in spirit and in truth, 
 with our spirits guided by the truth, we can worship him ac- 
 ceptably. If I could get no other place, I would meet in a 
 saloon to worship God; and I believe that if it was done in 
 spirit and truth, it would be as acceptable as if done in the 
 most sacred temple ever erected by human hands. We have 
 not yet learned the force of the truth that God dwells not in 
 temples made with human hands, but he dwells in the spiritual 
 27 
 
418 Theater, Is it Wrong to Worship in a? 
 
 temple composed of living stones— his people, his church — 
 and wherever his disciples meet, there God is in and with 
 them. 
 
 THIEF, THE, ON THE CROSS. 
 
 In regard to Christ and the two thieves, Matthew (27: 44) says, 
 "And the robbers also that were crucified with him cast upon him the' 
 same reproach;" Mark says about the same thing; but Luke (23: 42) 
 says that one of them said: "Jesus, remember me when thou comest 
 into thy kingdom." Considering the latter statement with the state- 
 ments of Matthew and Mark, does it not apppear to have been said 
 in derision? Jesus said to him: "To-day shalt thou be with me in 
 paradise." Where is. paradise? What is it? Is it the same place 
 spoken of by Luke in Acts 22: 6? How did Christ conquer death, 
 hell, and the grave? Did his soul go to hell and return? When Christ 
 and the thief were together in paradise, were they in a place where 
 the saved go after death? Do the saved and the wicked go to differ- 
 ent places after death, or do both go to the same place, to await the 
 judgment day? If the apostles did not understand the nature of 
 Christ's kingdom at that time, how could the thief understand it? A 
 preacher here said that a sinner (meaning an alien) could be saved in 
 his dying hour, and to prove it he referred to the thief on the cross. 
 
 There are different theories given in explanation of the dif- 
 ferent statements made concerning the thieves. The common 
 one is that both thieves ridiculed Jesus, but one repented and 
 was forgiven. I think the Scriptures give no ground for this 
 idea, since the writers give the same conversation ; there is no 
 reference to any repentance, and nothing at this time occurred 
 to produce repentance. 
 
 The second theory is that Matthew and Mark tell what was 
 done by the thieves, without specifying what one or both did, 
 just as we say sometimes, " The boys did this," meaning that 
 it was done by a company of boys, without specifying whether 
 all engaged in it or not. This would be the reasonable con- 
 clusion had there been more than two. To attribute it to both, 
 when only two were present and only one engaged in what 
 was done, hardly comports with the style of the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 The third theory is that what Luke tells the second thief 
 said was said in derision of Jesus' claim to be a King. One 
 ridiculed his claim to be the Son of God, able to save people ; 
 the other was spoken in derision of his claim to be a King. 
 The reproof the second one administered to the first one seems 
 out of harmony with this idea, but not necessarily SO'. 
 
 Paradise literally means a quiet, pleasant garden, and was 
 
Tithing. 419 
 
 used to refer to the garden of Eden. It then came to refer 
 to the state of the dead — the happy state ; and sometimes to 
 heaven itself, as in 2 Cor. 12 : 4. The meaning attached to 
 this word determines the interpretation we make of the prom- 
 ise to the thief. Those who think that paradise is heaven 
 adopt the first theory — that one thief repented and Christ 
 promised that he should be with him that day in heaven. 
 Against this, it is argued that Christ, after three days, after 
 he had been raised, said, " I am not yet ascended to my Fa- 
 ther," and that David foretold that his soul should not remain 
 in Hades (the.grave), which implies that it was in Hades dur- 
 ing the stay of the body in the grave, but was raised. Those 
 who claim that it was in ridicule of Jesus' claim to be a King 
 give paradise the meaning of being at rest in the grave : " You 
 and I will both be at rest in the grave this day." The first 
 position is untenable. I have held to the third one much of 
 the time, though I sometimes think the second one is the more 
 probable. I would not say that a man cannot repent in his 
 dying hour and be saved, if he had not neglected other oppor- 
 tunities ; but for a man to postpone obedience, trusting to re- 
 pentance in a dying hour, there is no hope. This preaching 
 of salvation from deathbed repentance has the tendency to 
 encourage men to postpone, put off, these things during life, 
 and it is without any warrant in the Scriptures. Man ought 
 to be warned of the danger of hardening the heart and post- 
 poning acceptance of Christ. " To-day if ye will hear his 
 voice, harden not your hearts." The man who hardens his 
 heart against the warnings of God can find no place for re- 
 pentance in a dying hour, even though he should seek it " care- 
 fully with tears." 
 
 TITHING. 
 
 Which is the oldest, the law of tithing or the law of Moses? Was 
 tithing a law? If so, when was it established? If it was a law, and 
 in force before the law of Moses, did the giving of the law of Moses 
 in any way change or affect the law of giving or tithing? Seeing 
 Christ nailed Moses' law to the cross, did he nail the law of giving to 
 the cross? When Christ gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom," say- 
 ing, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: 
 and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," 
 did he condemn the law of tithing? If so, how much should we give 
 now? Should we give less than they did? How are we to determine 
 how much to give, if the law of tithing is ended, seeing that there is 
 no amount stated in the New Testament, only " as we are prospered? " 
 
420 Tithing. 
 
 Abraham paid tithes to Melchisedec long before the law 
 was given, yet tithing in the Jewish age rested on the law of 
 Moses for its authority. When God gave the law of Moses, 
 he repealed all former laws. When he gave " the law of the 
 Spirit of life in Christ Jesus," he repealed all former laws. 
 The different dispensations of God stand to each other as the 
 different constitutions and laws of a State stand to each other. 
 One in some of its features becomes unsuited to the conditions 
 and needs of the people. A new one is adopted. The adop- 
 tion of the new one repeals the old in all of its parts. What 
 of the old is good to be perpetuated is brought into the -new 
 constitution. When the old patriarchal dispensation gave 
 way to the law of Moses, all that was good of the old was 
 brought into the new. When Christ took the law of Moses 
 out of the way, he brought all of the good of it into the new 
 covenant. Nothing is binding on Christians, save what is 
 found in the new covenant. All that was good in former dis- 
 pensations was brought into this. We may use the old dis- 
 pensation and the decisions under it to see how to interpret 
 the laws of the new covenant, just as the courts go back to 
 laws and decisions under the old constitutions as examples 
 to interpret under the new constitution. No specific amounjt 
 is required under the new, because God only desires that which 
 is willingly given from the heart. We may safely reason, as 
 God required one-tenth under Moses, when he did so much 
 more for us in Christ, he would expect more from us ; but if 
 we cannot do it willingly, he does not wish any of it. I know 
 of no way of determining how much we must give, except for 
 every one to study these examples and the gospel of the Son 
 of God, and give what he can do cheerfully and gladly. This 
 does not suit us sometimes, but it seems to have suited God, 
 and we had best conform our views of what is best to his law 
 and order. 
 
 TOBACCO GROWING AND USING. 
 
 You claim that cigarette smoking is ruinous to body and soul. 
 Now, I am a tobacco grower and user; and, of course, by both using 
 and growing, I am guilty of injuring the youth of my country. I am 
 in a strictly tobacco section; it is our money crop; yet you will not 
 allow my boy in your school if he uses tobacco. If it is not right for 
 men to use tobacco; if it is "ruinous to soul and body," I have r* 
 right to raise it. In fact, if the above be true, is it not a sin? 
 
Tobacco Growing and Using. 421 
 
 If the general use of tobacco is evil, it is wrong to raise, sell, 
 or use it in a general way. I say " in a general way," because 
 there may be uses of it that are not hurtful and in which it 
 may serve useful purposes. In such cases the raising, sale, 
 and use of it are not wrong. I believe that the general use 
 of tobacco is hurtful and wrong. It does much harm and no 
 good in a general way. I believe that the school does right to 
 prohibit its use in school, because, if tolerated, it not only 
 fastens an evil habit on those who use it, but the use of it in 
 the school would encourage others to use it and make it a 
 place for spreading evil habits among the young, and the 
 school would be an influence for evil, not for good. Public 
 sentiment recognizes the use of tobacco as an evil, so the leg- 
 islatures prohibit the sale of it in the form most attractive to 
 youth. Many railroads and manufacturers are refusing to em- 
 ploy those who use tobacco. They wish cool brains and 
 steady nerves to direct and operate their machinery. What- 
 ever affects the nerves weakens the brains. Many business 
 houses are coming to refuse employees who use tobacco. The 
 sentiment is growing. The school board of Davidson County, 
 Tenn., has passed a resolution that no teacher or pupil be al- 
 lowed to use tobacco on the school grounds. The next step 
 will be to refuse to employ users of tobacco as teachers. 
 These changes of sentiment grow rapidly. I can recollect 
 when preachers ran distilleries and church members sold and 
 bought whisky, and it was a rare thing to find a Christian 
 man who did not keep his bottle and set it out for a neighbor 
 that called to see him. Church members made, sold, bought, 
 and used whisky as a beverage. The use of tobacco will go 
 through the same experience. The young ought to be warned 
 and guarded against becoming slaves of evil habits. To the 
 extent that it is wrong to use it, it is wrong to raise, handle, 
 or sell tobacco, or to encourage it in any way. These princi- 
 ples, I am sure, are true ; and while the amount of money 
 involved in the tobacco business has much bearing on public 
 sentiment and on the action of legislatures, it should have no 
 influence on the moral and religious principle involved. 
 
 Yet in the application of this principle discretion ought to 
 be used. I mean this : It is a greater sin now to manufacture, 
 sell, and use whisky than it was when I was a boy. The rea- 
 son is that our sense of right has been cultivated along these 
 lines and we see the evil more clearly, and our accountability 
 
422 Tobacco Growing and Using. 
 
 is correspondingly greater. It is true morally and spiritually, 
 as it is in the material world, that as we rise higher our hori- 
 zon is enlarged and our vision is clearer. So, as we see the 
 right, we are under stronger and higher obligations to do it. 
 This principle applies to individuals as well as to different 
 generations. A man eighty years old told me only a few days 
 ago that he had used tobacco for fifty years. He determined 
 its use was wrong and he quit it ; and in a few weeks he was 
 feeling better, with no strong inclination to return to its use. 
 It would be a sin to him to use it. But a good wife of a to- 
 bacco user, who persuaded him to quit, told me that after he 
 had tried faithfully for some months she asked him to return 
 to its use. It made him so cross and ill toward her, the chil- 
 dren, the stock, when he seemed to be doing the best he could 
 to control himself, that she. thought it better for him to use 
 the tobacco. I could not say that she was wrong. A Chris- 
 tian's influence should always be on the right side. He should 
 enforce the abstract principle of right where it is possible. 
 But we should forbear with human weakness and human in- 
 firmities and realize that man grows gradually to the stature 
 of manhood morally and spiritually as well as bodily. If we 
 do our duty to the young, fifty years hence the use, sale, and 
 raising of tobacco will be regarded as an evil to be avoided by 
 Christians. 
 
 TRANSGRESSION, DISOBEDIENCE, AND SIN. 
 
 What is the difference between transgression, disobedience, and sin? 
 
 There is a very simple and plain distinction in the Bible 
 between different sins that Christian men seem to ignore. 
 One sin is transgression. The other is called disobedience in 
 the New Testament; in the Old Testament, simply sin, in its 
 milder form. The distinction is kept up between them all 
 through the Bible. It represents God as " forgiving iniquity 
 and transgression and sin." (Ex. 34 : 7.) " Israel hath sinned ; 
 yea, they have even transgressed my covenant." (Josh. 7: 
 11.) "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose 
 sin is covered." (Ps. 32 : 1 ; see Amos 4:4; Mic. 1 : 5 ; 6 : 7.) 
 
 Sin is a generic term that applies to all failure to please 
 God, to walk in his law. But there is a distinction made in 
 the Bible between the different kinds of sin. " For if the word 
 spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgres- 
 
Transgression, Disobedience, and Sin. 423 
 
 sion and disobedience received a just recompense of reward." 
 (Heb. 2 : 2.) This shows the distinction. That which in the 
 Old Testament is called sin, as distinguished from transgres- 
 sion, is here called disobedience. Webster defines as follows : 
 "Transgress — (1) To pass over or beyond; to surpass. (2) 
 Hence, to overpass, as any rule prescribed as the limit of duty; 
 to break or violate, as a law, civil or moral." "Transgression 
 ■ — The act of transgressing, or of passing over or beyond any 
 law or rule of moral duty." It is derived from two words — 
 trans, across or beyond, and grado, to pass, which would mean 
 '* to pass across or beyond the law." Trans- Atlantic is across 
 or beyond the Atlantic; transparent is to appear beyond the 
 glass or intervening substance. 
 
 " Disobedient — Neglecting or refusing to obey ; " not to 
 obey; to transgress. While the words do not always retain 
 these distinctions in the Bible, they generally do. 
 
 The Greek words carry the same distinction. In Greek,' the 
 words translated disobedience means "an erroneous or im- 
 perfect hearing ; disobedience " — indicating that the disobedi- 
 ence comes from imperfect hearing, misunderstanding, or is 
 not purposely done, or through neglect rather than wicked de- 
 sign. 
 
 Dr. Adam Clarke says, on this passage (Heb. 2 : 2) : " In- 
 flicted punishment on every act of transgression, every case 
 in which the bounds laid down by the law were passed over; 
 and every act of disobedience in respect to duties enjoined." 
 Dr. Macknight says : " Transgression is the leaping over the 
 bounds which the law has set by doing the things it forbids. 
 Disobedience is the refusing to do the things it enjoins." 
 Everything not commanded is forbidden. (Deut. 12: 8-32; 
 Matt. 7 : 21, 22 ; 15 : 3-9 ; Rev. 22 : 18, 19.) 
 
 Jesus gives an example of transgression in Matt. 15 : 3. The 
 elders transgressed, set aside, passed over, the law of God to 
 honor parents by giving a different rule in lieu of it. The 
 same word in Greek is used in Rom. 2 : 23 : " Thou who gloriest 
 in the law, through thy transgression of the law dishonorest 
 thou God?" Jews, while boasting of the law, set it aside by 
 their traditions. (Rom. 4: 15.) , 
 
 To transgress is to pass over or beyond the law given by 
 God, and to do something else in lieu of it, or to add to it as 
 insufficient or so inferior that it may be amended or improved. 
 To transgress is to consciously add to or set aside the ap- 
 
424 Transgression, Disobedience, and Sin. 
 
 pointments of the Lord for other ways. This is always based 
 on the assumption of insufficiency or inferiority in the ap- 
 pointments of God that can be improved. Isaiah (24: 5) says: 
 " The earth also is polluted under the inhabitants thereof ; be- 
 cause they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, 
 broken the everlasting covenant." This shows that the trans- 
 gression was to violate the statutes, and to change or add to 
 this law is to break the everlasting covenant. The everlast- 
 ing covenant is : You shall not add to nor take from the laws 
 of God. Transgression — going beyond the law of God — is 
 condemned in the Bible a hundred times, where the disobe- 
 dience, or sin of neglect, is condemned once. It leads out in 
 the direction of the presumptuous sin, for which there is no 
 forgiveness. To transgress is to set aside, despise, reject, the 
 law of God and to obey something that man regards as better. 
 Paul, in arguing that the Jews were under the law, says, 
 " Where there is no law, neither is there transgression," which 
 is evident that where no law is given, there is no stepping 
 outside of, going beyond, or setting aside the law. This 
 means to say that if God had never given to man a law, then 
 he could not transgress it; but as God had given him law, he 
 did transgress the law, and in the transgression brought wrath 
 upon himself. This passage is often misapplied. It is inter- 
 preted to mean that where God has not given a specific com- 
 mand prohibiting a thing, that thing may be done in religious 
 service ; that man is authorized to do anything or use anything 
 in the service of God not specially prohibited in the Scriptures. 
 This principle directly contradicts the whole teaching of the 
 Bible. Moses says : " Ye shall not do after all the things 
 that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in 
 his own eyes ; for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to 
 the inheritance, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee." (Deut. 
 12: 8, 9.) Again he says: "What thing soever I command 
 you, that shall ye observe to do : thou shalt not add thereto, 
 nor diminish from it." (Verse 32.) This illustrates, " Where 
 there is no law, neither is there transgression." At this time 
 the law was not in force. They were left very much to do 
 whatsoever seemed right in their own eyes. Some general 
 truths had been taught them, and they were left to show their 
 love to God in their own way. But when the law should be 
 given, then they could no longer be left to do what was right 
 in their own eyes, but must conform to the will of God. To 
 
Transgression, Disobedience, and Sin. 425 
 
 go outside of it was to sin and to call down God's wrath upon 
 them. 
 
 Jesus said : " In vain do they worship me, teaching as their 
 doctrines the precepts of men." (Matt. 15: 9.) For men to 
 go beyond the law of God to follow the precepts of men was 
 to render their worship vain. The same truth is emphasized 
 in Matt. 7: 21. Paul says: " If ye died with Christ from the 
 rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, 
 do ye subject yourselves to ordinances, handle not, nor taste, 
 nor touch (all which things are to perish with the using), 
 after the precepts and doctrines of men?" (Col. 2: 20-22.) 
 He warns them to touch not, taste not, handle not, the things 
 which are after the doctrines and commandments of men. He 
 tells them that these are all to perish with the using. They 
 can bring no good to man. Indeed, the truth that man can 
 serve God acceptably only in the appointments of God without 
 human addition or subtraction is written more or less plainly 
 on every page of revelation from God to man. If this be not 
 true, then man is permitted to add in morals, in work, in wor- 
 ship, whatever is not prohibited directly in the Scriptures. 
 He can gamble, for this is not specially prohibited, and the 
 churches that act fully on this principle do gamble. The Ro- 
 man Catholics notably do this. They can add meat to the 
 Lord's Supper; it is not prohibited. According to the argu- 
 ment that to oppose things not specially prohibited is to vio- 
 late the law of God and to add to it, those who add the meat 
 do not add to the law of God, but those who oppose it do 1 . 
 It will be seen at once that this opens the flood gates for all 
 errors and immoral practices, and must lead to the subversion 
 of the whole order of God. 
 
 God now has a law of service, and this passage is not now 
 applicable. Whoever oversteps, sets aside, adds to, or takes 
 from the law of God transgresses that law and incurs the 
 wrath of God. Sin is the transgression — overstepping, or go- 
 ing beyond the law of God. It is the great, the grievous, sin, 
 David prayed : " Save me from the great transgression." Isa- 
 iah said : " The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants there- 
 of, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordi- 
 nance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore hath the 
 curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are des- 
 olate." If this principle be true, that man is at liberty to 
 add whatever is not specifically condemned, then man devises 
 
426 Transgression, Disobedience, and Sin. 
 
 the way of salvation, not God. The principle destroys the 
 authority of the Bible and makes man's own wishes his su- 
 preme law. It dethrones God and enthrones man. Disobe- 
 dience is sin, but to transgress is the sin of rebellion, and leads 
 to danger. Let us not be led into transgression. 
 
 UNCLEAN SPIRIT, THE. 
 
 Please explain Matt. 12: 43-45, especially the following: "But the 
 unclean spirit, when he is gone out of the man, passeth through wa- 
 terless places, seeking .rest, and findeth it not." 
 
 It means that there were evil spirits in those days who took 
 possession of men's hearts. When cast out, they were sup- 
 posed to inhabit dry, desert places. One was cast out, and he 
 " passeth through waterless places, seeking rest, and findeth 
 it not." He said : " I will return into my house " — the heart 
 whence he was cast out. He did so, found it empty, swept, 
 fitted for the abode of a spirit, but none inhabiting it. When 
 the evil spirit had been cast out, he did not take in a good 
 spirit as he should have done. The evil spirit, finding it un- 
 occupied by a good spirit, entered in and took with him seven 
 other spirits more wicked than himself, and the last state of 
 that man is worse than the first — all, too, because he did not 
 fill his heart with good when the evil was cast out. Jesus said 
 that it should be so with that evil generation. He had come 
 and by his teaching checked the evil tendency; but as they 
 failed to take him as their guiding spirit, it would end in evil. 
 They would be the worse for having known and rejected Je- 
 sus. The principle applies to men now. If we know the 
 truth and fail to practice and obey it, the heart is hardened. 
 W r e are the worse for having known it. The gospel is a 
 " savor of life unto life, or of death unto death." 
 
 UNCONDITIONAL SALVATION. 
 
 I would be glad if you would tell us what the following scriptures 
 teach (they were used in a debate by a Primitive Baptist as proof 
 texts that salvation is unconditional): Jer. 13: 23; John 3: 27; 6: 37, 
 65; 8: 43, 47; 10: 26; 12: 39, 40. 
 
 Honesty in construing the writings of any author to deter- 
 mine what he teaches on a subject demands that all he says 
 on that subject should be collated and compared arid deduc- 
 tions be drawn from the whole. It is not fair or honest deal- 
 ing with an author to take one class of his sentences that will 
 
Unconditional Salvation. 427 
 
 bear one construction and ignore another class that will not 
 bear the construction he places on these. Fairness and hon- 
 esty demand an effort to harmonize all scriptures, and the 
 truth is where they harmonize. The ultra Calvinist seeks out 
 passages of scripture that can be construed to favor his the- 
 ory, parades these in proof of it, and ignores quite a number 
 of scriptures that clearly contradict the construction he puts 
 on these. This is not fair nor honest dealing, either with him- 
 self or the Scriptures. 
 
 There can be no doubt that there are many precepts and 
 examples that show that spirits and men were once, in the fa- 
 vor of God by faith in him, that fell from fidelity to him and 
 lost the favor of God. The devil was once an angel in heaven, 
 and fell from his high estate because he did not abide or re- 
 main in the truth of God. (Rev. 12: 7-9.) A number of an- 
 gels sinned and fell from their high estate. " God spared not 
 the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell." (2 Pet. 
 2 : 4.) Adam was the son of God ; was a part of the creation 
 that God saw " was very good " (Gen. 1 : 31) ; was a citizen 
 of the paradise of God, with whom God walked and talked ; 
 yet he fell into sin and forfeited the favor of God. King Saul 
 was chosen king of God's people when he was little in his own 
 eyes. God's Spirit dwelt in and guided him ; but he so sinned 
 that God's Spirit forsook him and Samuel came no more to 
 him, and he died forsaken of God. God loved Solomon in the 
 days of his youth ; but, as he grew older, he married strange 
 women, who led him into idolatry, and he is never classed in 
 his old age with the saints and faithful servants of God. " For 
 as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the 
 heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 
 and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age 
 to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them 
 again unto repentance ; seeing they crucify to themselves the 
 Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame." (Heb. 
 6: 4-6.) Here Paul speaks of those who, after being partakers 
 of the heavenly gift and the powers of the world to come, 
 had fallen away ; and he says that it was impossible to renew 
 them to life again. " For if we sin willfully after that we 
 have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no 
 more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of 
 judgment." (Heb. 10: 26.) " Of how much sorer punishment, 
 think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under 
 
428 Unconditional Salvation. 
 
 foot the Son of- God, and hath counted the blood of the cove- 
 nant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath 
 done despite unto the Spirit of grace?" (Verse 29.) This 
 falling away was of those who had been sanctified and had the 
 Spirit of grace, to which they had done despite. " For if, after 
 they have escaped the defilements of the world through the 
 knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again 
 entangled therein and overcome, the last state is become worse 
 with them than the first. For it were better for them not to 
 have known the way of righteousness, than, after knowing it, 
 to turn back from the holy commandment delivered unto 
 them." (2 Pet. 2: 20, 21.) 
 
 There are many such passages. Christ, in the parable of 
 the sower, shows that the word of God, the seed of the king- 
 dom, is received by many, but from various causes with many 
 it brings forth no fruit. The plant that sprang up was the 
 same, from the same seed ; but owing to its treatment in many 
 hearts it perished and brought forth no fruit. In the parable 
 of the talents the talents were all from God, but the talent 
 was taken from him who failed to use it. Paul had to watch 
 himself, lest after he had preached the gospel to others he 
 should be a castaway. 
 
 Now these are all Scripture truths, as well as those referred 
 to by our brother. What do our Calvinistic friends do with 
 these? As honest students of the Bible, they cannot ignore 
 them. Will they make God contradict himself? All the 
 scriptures of God, taken in their proper connection and rightly 
 interpreted, agree perfectly. When we find this agreement, 
 we come to the truth. These passages referred to do not con- 
 tradict those that I have quoted. John the Baptist said : "A 
 man can receive nothing, except it have been given him from 
 heaven." (John 3 : 27.) This is a general truth. In the ma- 
 terial world all we receive is from God, or heaven, yet we re- 
 ceive it by complying with his laws for obtaining it. So all 
 spiritual good comes from God, but it can be obtained only 
 by complying with God's conditions for bestowing it. John 
 is here especially speaking of his gifts and mission as distinct 
 from that of Christ. He had no calling or gifts, save such as 
 God bestowed on him. The same explanation applies to John 
 6: 65. "All that which the Father giveth me shall come unto 
 me ; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." 
 (John 6: 37.) This clearly means that the Father gave to him 
 
Unconditional Salvation. 429 
 
 those who desired to honor God. These are described : "As 
 many as received him, to them gave he the right to become 
 children of God, even to them that believe on his name." 
 (John 1 : 12.) Those he gives to Jesus are they who believe 
 on his name, and Jesus says that he will not cast them out. 
 The same truth is told : " He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) "Ye are all sons of God, 
 through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as. were 
 baptized into Christ did put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) 
 Jesus says that he will not cast off any of this class which the 
 Father gives him. This does not say that such may not' de- 
 part from him, sin against him, and so cut themselves off from 
 him. Beyond all doubt it is true that Jesus will not cast out 
 those who believe in him. 
 
 "Why do ye not understand my speech? Even because ye 
 cannot hear my word. Ye are of your father the devil, and 
 the lusts of your father it is your will to do." (John 8: 43, 
 44.) The last sentence explains the first. The devil was 
 their father because they desired to do his will ; and while de- 
 siring to do his will, they could not understand the teachings 
 of Jesus. No man can understand or serve God who desires 
 to follow the devil. " He that is of God heareth the words of 
 God : for this cause ye hear them not, because ye are not of 
 God." This states the same truth in a different way. Those 
 who desire to do the lusts of the devil are the children of the 
 devil; those who desire to do God's will are God's people. 
 
 There is a certain election,, or predestination, taught in the 
 Bible. Jesus said : " Other sheep I have, which are not of this 
 fold." (John 10: 16.) This means that there were persons 
 among the Gentiles that would receive Jesus when they 
 learned of him. These he calls his sheep not of the Jewish 
 fold. Then God said to Paul at Corinth, " I have much people 
 in this city " (Acts 18: 10), before they believed. This means 
 that God recognized those as his people who were of such mind 
 as to receive him when they would hear the truth. That class 
 of people God called his people, speaking prospectively. 
 Then he says, " Ye believe not, because ye are not of my 
 sheep " — ye are not of that class who are willing to receive 
 the truth. He had tried them. (See John 12: 39, 40.) Read 
 Matt. 13: 14, 15, where the same passage is quoted: " By hear- 
 ing ye shall hear, and shall in no wise understand ; and seeing 
 ye shall see, and shall in no wise perceive : for this people's 
 
430 Unconditional Salvation. 
 
 heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and 
 their eyes they have closed; lest haply they should perceive 
 with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with 
 their heart, and should turn again, and I should heal them." 
 He states that they had hardened their own hearts and closed 
 their own eyes, did not wish to hear him. They had sinned 
 away their day of grace, and God gave them over to hardness 
 of heart, that they should believe a lie and be damned. That 
 is taught often in the Bible, but is a wholly different thing 
 from saying that God so predestined that they could not be- 
 lieve and turn if they desired. Jeremiah (13: 23) says: " Can 
 the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then 
 may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." The 
 latter clause explains the former. They had been so accus- 
 tomed to do evil, had so given themselves over to do evil, had 
 so sinned against the warnings of God, that their day of grace 
 had ended ; and then they could no more change than the 
 Ethiopian could change his skin. 
 
 Texts taken out of their context can be made to mean al- 
 most anything ; but if we will study them in their connections 
 and take all the scriptures as true and harmonize them, we 
 can reach the truth. One-sided and extreme views lead astray. 
 
 UNITY OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 Is the Savior's prayer (John 17), after nineteen centuries, yet un- 
 answered? What is meant by unity of the Spirit? Do you teach 
 that all Christians in the days of the apostles were in the unity of the 
 Spirit? Were the Corinthians in the unity of the Spirit? They were 
 taught to " be perfected together in the same mind and in the same 
 judgment." (1 Cor. 1: 10.) If not in the unity of the Spirit, in 
 whose mind were they to be joined together? Peter wrote to scat- 
 tered Christians, or sojourners of the dispersion, and taught them to 
 be of one mind, likeminded. How could they, unless in the unity 
 of the Spirit? And if they were, was not the one mind the mind of 
 the Holy Spirit? If so, then the oneness or unity resulted from the 
 expressed mind or teaching of the Holy Spirit. If unity of the Spirit 
 is not possible except through the teaching of the Spirit, will not all 
 who accept this teaching in good faith and in humbleness of mind 
 obey the teaching be in the unity of the Spirit? When a person is 
 brought into the unity of the Spirit, is not such person in the church 
 of God? Can any one be in the church of God, in the body of Christ, 
 and not be in the unity of the Spirit? The saints at Ephesus were 
 taught " to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Eph. 
 4: 3.) They were not taught to seek it, but to keep it — keep the 
 peace; and they were told (verses 4-6) what that unity of the Spirit 
 was: the items as to man, and the wondrous unity of Father, Son, and 
 Holy Spirit — meeting man in the "one body." They were in the 
 
Unity of the Spirit. 431 
 
 unity of the Spirit, in the church, and were taught to so live in the 
 bond of peace that Christ " might present the church to himself a 
 glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but 
 that it should be holy and without blemish." (Eph. 5: 27.) "There 
 is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope 
 of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Fa- 
 ther of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all." (Eph. 4: 4-6.) 
 Is unity of the Spirit possible with any one of these wanting? Are 
 there any persons in the " one body " capable of exercising the " one 
 faith," rejoicing in the " one hope," quickened by the " one Spirit," 
 that have neglected the " one baptism? " I am not asking about final 
 salvation — all things are possible with God. But are there any per- 
 sons in the " one body," or kingdom of God, here upon the earth, 
 that are capable of believing, repenting, and being immersed, and who, 
 though believing and repenting, have not been immersed? Remission 
 of sins and gift of the Holy Spirit are promised after repentance and 
 baptism. (Acts 2: 38.) Can, then, the unity of the Spirit be enjoyed 
 prior to baptism? If unity of the Spirit cannot be realized before bap- 
 tism, and only immersion is baptism, then it is an impossible .thing for 
 the immersed to keep the peace with unimmersed persons of any and 
 every creed. Did the Savior pray for any union or unity except that 
 secured to all through faith, repentance, and baptism? If he did not, 
 then all in the unity of the Spirit should endeavor to keep the peace 
 in that unity and cease trying to bring about a different so-called 
 " Christian union." This determination to keep the peace would lead 
 all immersed persons to withdraw from all ecclesiastical and congre- 
 gational relationship with the unimmersed on the ground that the un- 
 immersed are not in the unity of the Spirit, and hence cannot keep the 
 peace in a relationship into which they have not entered. Do not all 
 persons born from above, born of water and of the Spirit, enter the 
 kingdom of God, and thus enter into the unity of the Spirit? If in 
 the kingdom of God, in the unity of the Spirit, in the " one body," in 
 the church of Christ, can there possibly be any other union? Churches 
 of Christ, then, must be in congregational relationship. But is not 
 the subject of unity always taught with reference to individuals, and 
 not churches? God is no respecter of persons; all born into his fam- 
 ily must of necessity be born in the same way; and in their relation- 
 ship to one another there can be but one question, and that is, how 
 to live in peace and harmony in that family. Men cannot be united 
 in the minds of other men. Unity and peace are possible only in the 
 mind of the Holy Spirit. Where that is expressed, all can walk 
 thereby; and where not revealed, man must be silent. 
 
 The idea presented in the questions is undoubtedly the cor- 
 rect one. Christ in various forms presented the necessity of 
 oneness, or unity, in the body of Christ. He presented the 
 necessity of it in the statement : " Every kingdom divided 
 against itself is brought to desolation ; and every city or house 
 divided against itself shall not stand." (Matt. 12: 25.) In 
 his prayer Jesus said : " Neither for these only do I pray, but 
 for them also that believe on me through their word ; that 
 they may all be one ; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in 
 thee, that they also may be in us: that the world may 
 
432 Unity of the Spirit. 
 
 believe that thou didst send me. And the glory which thou 
 hast given me I have given unto them ; that they may be one 
 even as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may 
 be perfected into one; that the world may know that thou 
 didst send me, and lovedst them, even as thou lovedst me." 
 (John 17 : 20-23.) 
 
 The fatal, direful consequences, plainly told by the Savior 
 as a warning to the disciples, is that his kingdom divided 
 against itself cannot stand. It must fall and come to naught. 
 As the Savior is true, unless his followers can be one, the king- 
 dom cannot stand. Great efforts are now being made to con- 
 vert the heathen nations. The weakness is the divisions and 
 strifes among professed Christians at home. To avoid the 
 baneful influence of the evil, an effort is made to divide the 
 heathen land into sections, each having its own section, so 
 that they will not come in direct contact, and the divisions 
 will not be so apparent and so hurtful in influence. But this 
 is only deceiving the heathen, and will finally result in mak- 
 ing many of them infidels when the full truth is known. To 
 cure the evil is the only help for the condition. To conceal 
 it only postpones the result, and makes it even more hurtful. 
 The only hopeful indication about apportioning the field 
 among the different parties is that it shows that they begin to 
 see and feel the evil and are becoming ashamed of it. 
 
 I remember when the different parties in religion were al- 
 most universally defended as good and right — a condition de- 
 sirable in itself. This position, is now seldom maintained by 
 intelligent men and women. Now the plea is for union, 
 federation, consolidation of different parties into one, regard- 
 less of their faith. The method proposed is for the compro- 
 mise of principles and of scripture truths, ignoring the teach- 
 ing of the Bible, to work together to build upon a founda- 
 tion and along lines not laid down or marked out by God. A 
 man cannot compromise his own convictions and adopt things 
 that he believes to be wrong without loss of moral power and 
 without dishonoring his own true spiritual manhood. A man 
 cannot compromise and set aside what he believes to be a 
 command of God without dishonoring God before the world, 
 without destroying his own reverence for God and usefulness 
 for his service. To set aside a law of God for the sake of 
 union with others is to prefer union with them to union with 
 God — is to hold their teaching above the word of God. If we 
 
Unity of the Spirit. 433 
 
 sacrifice God's word to please others, it is because we wish 
 to please them rather than to please God. When we agree to 
 set aside a command of God, we agree to separate from God. 
 
 Jesus Christ says : " If any man willeth to do his will, he 
 shall know of the teaching, whether it is of God, or whether 
 I speak from myself. He that speaketh from himself seeketh 
 his own glory : but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent 
 him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him." 
 (John 7: 17, 18.) Here the declaration is clear that when a 
 man speaks from himself— that is, his own convictions, ways, 
 thoughts, and purposes — he seeks his own glory. When he 
 seeks to know and do the will of God, he seeks God's honor ; 
 when he speaks from his own will, he seeks his own honor. 
 Christ says, again: " He that hath my' commandments, and 
 keepeth them, he it -is that loveth me: and he that loveth me 
 shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will 
 manifest myself unto him." (John 14: 21.) God regards all 
 willingness to set aside his words as a declaration that he does 
 not love him. To set aside God's words for the words of an- 
 other is to declare that we love and honor the other more than 
 we love and honor God. God is a jealous God, and will not per- 
 mit this. Christ also says : " But that the world may know that 
 I love the Father, and as the Father gave me commandment, 
 even so I do." (Verse 31.) Christ could give no higher evi- 
 dence of his love to God than to do his will. Let us be warned 
 against setting aside the words or will of God to please any 
 beings, few or many, in the universe. Unity in faith and life 
 among the children of God is essential. But that unity among 
 Christians can be maintained only by first obtaining and main- 
 taining unity with God. " If we walk in the light, as he is 
 in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood 
 of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." (1 John 
 1 : 7.) The unity of those cleansed and cemented by the blood 
 of Christ can be obtained only by walking in the light as God 
 gave that light, as Jesus walked in it by keeping the words 
 of God. But Jesus prayed that those who believe in him 
 " may be one, even as we are one." Christ says that he re-, 
 mained in the love of the Father by doing the words of the 
 Father. We can be one with him only by keeping his words, 
 which are the words of the Father. A unity with one another 
 that does not grow out of a unity with God is not a helpful 
 
434 Unity of the Spirit. 
 
 unity. God will not bless it, and it brings no good, but only- 
 evil. 
 
 No union is acceptable to God unless it is effected by and 
 based upon the word of God. Christ, in this prayer for the 
 union of those who believe on him, prayed : " Sanctify them in 
 thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 17: 17.) Sanctify 
 means to set apart. The prayer was : Separate them, and set 
 them apart (from the world) to God through the truth. Lest 
 men should misapprehend what he regards as truth, he adds: 
 " Thy word is truth." No one can be separated from the 
 world, or sanctified to God by the truth, save as he makes 
 that truth the rule of his life and is led away from all other 
 paths into the path marked out by this truth. "And for their 
 sakes I sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be 
 sanctified in truth." (Verse 19.) The only way of sancti- 
 fication is through the truth of God. The only union possi- 
 ble is in the truth as God has delivered it. He who turns 
 from the truth of God — sets aside any of that truth for the 
 sake of union with others — not only sets at naught the au- 
 thority of God, but he places himself on ground upon which 
 union is impossible. Union is not only undesirable, but im- 
 possible, save as men are sanctified by the word of God. A 
 union in any other way, save as we are sanctified by and in 
 the truth, would be a union out of and against God. If this 
 were possible, it would only be the presage of swift and wide- 
 spread destruction from God. 
 
 " I praised and honored him that liveth forever ; for his do- 
 minion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom from gen- 
 eration to generation; and all the inhabitants of the earth are 
 reputed as nothing ; and he doeth according to his will in the 
 army of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth ; and 
 none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" 
 (Dan. 4: 34, 35.) A union or combination of all the inhabit- 
 ants of the earth into one body that did not grow out of and 
 is not guided by faithful adherence to and love for the word 
 of God would be the signal for the Lord's destroying them 
 with a tornado of divine wrath. When the children of men 
 sought a means of maintaining their own unity by building a 
 tower, God wrote on it Babel — that is, confusion. " Come, let 
 us go down, and there confound their language, that they may 
 not understand one another's speech. So Jehovah scattered 
 them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth." 
 
Unity of the Spirit. 435 
 
 (Gen. 11 : 7, 8.) This was typical. The religious world seeks 
 a union of their own, not of God's. God confounds their lan- 
 guage that they do not understand each other, and confusion 
 and strife reign. God will tolerate union among his people 
 only as they are sanctified by and through his truth. Hun- 
 dreds of millions of souls, or all the world save one such, 
 united on any other basis save fidelity to the word of God, are 
 advocates of division, discord, and strife among the people of 
 God. One soul standing alone, firm and true to the word of 
 God, insisting that all should come to it, with the whole world 
 besides against him, is the only advocate and promoter of un- 
 ion in the world. 
 
 The unity of the Spirit for which Christ prayed is illustrated 
 by the union between him and his Father. " That they may 
 all be one ; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, 
 that they also may be in us." (John 17: 21.) "I in them, 
 and thou in me, that they may be perfected into one." (Verse 
 23.) The oneness was a oneness in purpose and work, as it 
 existed between Jesus and his Father. The oneness between 
 Christ and his Father was effected by " the Father being in 
 Christ, and Christ being in the Father." This union was main- 
 tained in this way : " For I am come down from heaven, not to 
 do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." (John 6: 
 38.) " I seek not mine own will, but the will of him that sent 
 me." (John 5 : 30.) " My meat is to do the will of him that 
 sent me, and to accomplish his work." (John 4: 34.) Here 
 is what God being in Christ and Christ being in God pro- 
 duced in Christ. Christ said : " He that sent me is with me ; 
 he hath not left me alone ; for I do always the things that are 
 pleasing to him." (John 8: 29.) The Father was in him, re- 
 mained with him, because he always did the Father's will, not 
 his own. The unity between the two was manifested in this 
 way. He then adds : " If ye abide in my word, then are ye 
 truly my disciples ; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth 
 shall make you free." (Verses 31, 32.) Freedom from sin is 
 obtained only when we are in Christ and he is in us. This is 
 gained by continuing in his word. 
 
 Again, Christ says : "As thou didst send me into the world, 
 even so sent I them into the world. And for their sakes I 
 sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified 
 in truth." (John 17: 18, 19.) He says to them: " If ye keep 
 my commandments, ye shall abide in nr£ love ; even as I have 
 
436 Unity of the Spirit. 
 
 kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." 
 (John 15 : 10.) There can be no doubt as to what the union 
 was between Christ and his Father, and how it was main- 
 tained. I can see no possible doubt as to what was the unity 
 of the Spirit between the children of God or as to how it can 
 be maintained — a perfect unity in purpose, end, and aim among 
 the disciples. It can be gained only by treating Christ as he 
 treated his Father — have no will but his will. Let it be our 
 meat and drink to do his will, as it was his meat and drink to 
 do the will of his Father. Then, in doing his will, Christ will 
 dwell in us, his Spirit will be with us, and we will be in Christ 
 and he in us. But if we refuse to hear his words, if we have 
 ends and ways of our own to accomplish, Christ will not abide 
 with us, nor will his Spirit dwell in us. This union prayed for 
 by Jesus could be attained and maintained only by their being 
 sanctified by the truth. 
 
 The degree of their fidelity to the word of God is the meas- 
 ure of their attaining to the unity of the Spirit. If one man is 
 faithful to God, he has attained to the unity of the Spirit in 
 Christ Jesus. If every man in the universe save this one is 
 united, but not on the words of the Bible, they are heretics 
 and schismatics before God. The unity must first be with 
 and in Christ, that he may be in us and we in him — that we 
 may be one in him. Without him we can do nothing. He 
 who turns from the words of God turns from Christ and God. 
 Since the unity of the Spirit must be in Christ, and must be 
 through the sanctification of the word of God, it can be found 
 and formulated only by receiving the word in all things and 
 by being guided by it. The only way to seek it is to seek a 
 closer walk with God by a more hearty reception of his word 
 and by a closer adherence to that word. " Sanctify them in 
 thy truth; thy word is truth." To the extent that we turn 
 from the plain, simple order of God to anything else, we turn 
 from God and destroy the unity of the Spirit. The Spirit 
 whose unity we must maintain is from God and dwells in the 
 words that God has given. The unity of the Spirit did not 
 exist in its purity and perfection in the days of Christ or the 
 apostles. All who were fully governed by the word of God 
 were in the unity of the Spirit. None others were. The 
 prayer is answered now only in those who keep his word and 
 are faithful to it, rejecting all else save the word of God. The 
 man who accepts the word of God as the only rule and guide, 
 
Unity of the Spirit. 437 
 
 rejecting everything else, if alone (he is never alone; Jesus is 
 with him), maintains the unity of the Spirit in Christ Jesus. 
 The admonition is addressed to individuals composing the 
 church. If the individuals keep the unity of the faith, the 
 church will do it. 
 
 The letters to the churches reproving them for divisions and 
 strife show that the true standard of unity was not attained 
 by all the early Christians. A few may have attained it; the 
 many did not. " Many are called, but few are chosen." Only 
 a small proportion of church members at any time in the 
 world's history have faithfully followed Christ. Divisions and 
 strifes exist, because all are not satisfied to follow Christ and 
 do his will, as he did the will of his Father. The admonition 
 to unity is given in one form or another to all Christians in 
 every congregation. The union is to be in Christ, in main- 
 taining his truth, and the means to maintain it are always the 
 same. "That ye all speak the same thing; . . . that ye 
 be perfected together in the same mind and in the same judg- 
 ment." (1 Cor. 1: 10.) Always following the reproof for 
 division comes the condemnation of human wisdom, called, in 
 these latter days, sanctified common sense. All are warned 
 against depending upon their own wisdom ; all are admonished 
 that God has laid the foundation, and we should take heed 
 how we build thereon. Christ said : " Neither for these only 
 do I pray, but for them also that believe on me through their 
 word; that they may all be one." (John 17: 20, 21.) " Sanc- 
 tify them in thy truth : thy word is truth." 
 
 The word of God is given to guide men in the pathway of 
 God. It seems to me that nothing can be plainer than the 
 way to union. It is by all taking the word of God, and each 
 one being guided by it, adding nothing thereto, taking noth- 
 ing therefrom. Men thus walking cannot avoid walking to- 
 gether. When there is the slightest departure from the 
 word of God, then division must begin ; and were the whole 
 world, save one man, to add a single institution or make the 
 slightest change from the divine order, they would be dividers 
 of the church and people of God. Were one man to stand firm 
 for the divine order, he would be the true promoter of union 
 and harmony. Any union that is not brought about by ad- 
 herence to the word of God is sinful, and is rebellion against 
 God. God stands pledged to curse and destroy such union. 
 There is only one path to union : that is that every one accept 
 
438 Unity of the Spirit. 
 
 the order of God as he gives it. Follow it, and it will bring 
 union among the people of God in Christ Jesus and in his 
 Father. Instead of studying and formulating plans of union, 
 the one thing to do is for all to seek the way that God has 
 marked out, follow it, and union will come of itself. 
 
 " If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fel- 
 lowship one with another." All that we have to do to have 
 fellowship with Jesus Christ, with God, and with every other 
 being in the universe that is in fellowship with God, is to walk 
 in the light as Jesus Christ walked in it and shed it abroad 
 in his teachings and life. The plan is too simple in its divine 
 wisdom for man to walk in it. 
 
 UNJUST, THE, STEWARD. 
 
 Please explain Luke 16: 1-12. What I want to know is: Why did 
 the lord of the unjust steward commend his wrong dealing? How 
 are the children of this world wiser than "the sons of the light? " 
 Why should the disciples make to themselves " friends by means of 
 the mammon [or riches] of unrighteousness?" Where have they an 
 everlasting habitation into which they may receive them? To what 
 do another and your own apply in this verse? 
 
 The lord of the unjust steward did not commend the injus- 
 tice of the steward, but his wisdom, .or shrewdness, in using 
 present opportunities to secure future good. Money, prop- 
 erty, is here called the unrighteous mammon. He condemns 
 Christians because they do not .act with the forethought 
 that this unjust steward did. They do not use their means 
 while opportunities present themselves for securing future 
 good. Not the injustice, but the wise foresight in prepar- 
 ing for the future, is what the servant's master commended 
 and what Jesus commends to his servants. In this the wis- 
 dom of the children of this world is seen to be superior to that 
 of the children of light. He adds, as showing the principles 
 on which God deals with men and the necessity of the faithful 
 use of present opportunities, that we may enjoy higher priv- 
 ileges in the future : " He that is faithful in a very little is 
 faithful also in much : and he that is unrighteous in a very lit- 
 tle is unrighteous also in much. If therefore ye have not been 
 faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your 
 trust the true riches? And if ye have not been faithful in 
 that which is another's, who will give you that which is your 
 own ? " The little and the much here refer to the temporal 
 good and opportunities and the spiritual and eternal. The 
 
Usury and Banking. 439 
 
 same is true of the unrighteous mammon and the true riches. 
 Then the idea is presented that what we here have is not our 
 own. The means and opportunities that we now have are not 
 our own; they are loaned or intrusted to us by God to see 
 whether he can bestow upon us eternal riches. Here we are 
 using God's blessing as a loan intrusted to us, in the use of 
 which our worthiness to use blessings will be proved. The 
 future blessings or curses will be eternal and our own. If we 
 fail to rightly use that loaned to us for a time, how can we ex- 
 pect God to give us higher and greater ones as our own for 
 eternity? 
 
 USURY AND BANKING. 
 
 Is it wrong for a Christian to be a stockholder in a banking insti- 
 tution which charges more than the legal rate of interest? Is it 
 wrong for a Christian to be a bookkeeper or a cashier in a bank of 
 this description? Is it wrong for a Christian to deposit money in a 
 bank of this kind? 
 
 Usury, as we call it, is unlawful interest. As it is used in 
 the Bible, it means any increase or pay for the use of anything. 
 Hire for a horse or rent for land is as much usury as pay for 
 the use of money. The law of Moses forbade the charging 
 of any increase " to any of my people with thee that is 
 poor." (Ex. 22: 25; see Lev. 25: 35.) It says not a word 
 about charging usury to the well to do. They were not a 
 trading, speculative people, and probably borrowed only for 
 necessity. It forbade the taking of any increase from the poor. 
 Nothing is said directly on the subject in the New Testament; 
 but principles are laid down that would forbid taking increase 
 from a poor brother in Christ. Nothing is said about lending 
 to speculate on and make money. There is no more sin in 
 taking increase for money than for the use of other property. 
 The law of the land fixes a rate, and Christians must " be in 
 subjection to the higher powers." The civil authorities are 
 " the higher powers." The laws of Tennessee say that you 
 shall not charge over six per cent per annum. To violate the 
 law of the land is to violate the law of God and is sin, and any 
 participation in or encouragement of this is sin. All business 
 with a man or an institution that does wrong is not wrong. 
 If so, you must go out of this world. In trading with them, 
 it may profit them; but if it is not done to help it on, it is 
 riot necessarily sinful. If a man borrows money and pays 
 
440 Usury and Banking. 
 
 usurious interest to pay a debt he owes, I do not think he sins, 
 although it may profit the usurious lender. So if a man de- 
 posits with a bank for his own good, although it may profit 
 the bank, it is not necessarily a sin on his part. So I would 
 say that it is sinful to violate the laws by charging more than 
 lawful interest. His doing it through a company or corpora- 
 tion does not lessen the sin. It is sinful to any way so par- 
 ticipate in it as to encourage and partake of the wrong. It is 
 not wrong to deal with one who does wrong for our own 
 good, even if it incidentally helps the usurious lender. I think 
 these are correct principles, and each can apply it to himself 
 and his course. 
 
 VINEYARD, PARABLE OF THE. 
 
 In the parable of the vineyard (Matt. 20), what do you understand 
 the Savior to teach by the expressions, early in the morning (verse 
 1); the third hour (verse 3); the sixth and ninth hour (verse 5); and 
 the eleventh hour (verse 6) ? This came up in one of our talks re- 
 cently. One brother thinks the eleventh-hour people means the com- 
 ing in of the Gentiles. 
 
 Early in the morning refers to the time to begin labor — 
 six o'clock, or when they usually began labor; the third 
 hour meant nine o'clock, the sixth hour meant twelve o'clock, 
 the ninth hour meant three o'clock P.M., and the eleventh 
 hour meant five o'clock P.M. They quit work at six o'clock; 
 so these last have worked but one hour, while the first that 
 began had borne the burden and heat of the day. I have 
 heard these scriptures applied to represent the calling of the 
 Gentiles, but the calling of the Gentiles had not come up then. 
 If those who came at the eleventh hour meant the calling of 
 the Gentiles, who was meant by those called at other hours? 
 These referred to similar classes. It seems to me to represent 
 a feature of God's dealings with man that may be applied to 
 any and all conditions of life. A man who promptly responds 
 when he hears the call of God will be blessed, no matter at 
 what period of his life it be. There is no promise to> those 
 called at the third, sixth, or ninth hour that do not respond 
 to the call when it is made. This was to encourage all to 
 heed his call when made and to warn them against refusing 
 the call when it is made. It teaches, too, that men do not earn 
 the rewards bestowed; they are given as a matter of favor. 
 And often those called late become better fitted to enjoy the 
 
Washing of Regeneration. 441 
 
 blessings than those called early. God's blessings are be- 
 stowed according to fitness to enjoy, and that fitness is ac- 
 cording to the heartiness of the service rendered to God. 
 
 WASHING OF REGENERATION. 
 
 Please explain Tit. 3: 5: "He saved us, through the washing of 
 regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit." What is washing of 
 regeneration, and when was (or is) the Holy Spirit renewed? 
 
 The washing of regeneration is almost universally applied 
 to baptism by commentators. Dr. Clarke, the well-known 
 Methodist commentator, says : " Undoubtedly the apostle here 
 means baptism." Macknight, the Presbyterian commentator, 
 and Hovey, the Baptist commentator, so apply it. I do not 
 know a commentator that does not. It is called the wash- 
 ing of regeneration. Regeneration is used but one other time 
 in the New Testament. It means there the new kingdom. 
 Here some think that it means the renewed state — the wash- 
 ing connected with the renewal, or the new kingdom, as we 
 interpret it. The renewing of the spirit is frequently attributed 
 to the begettal by the Spirit; but after one is baptized into 
 Ghrist, if he does his duty as a Christian, times of renewal 
 or refreshing from the presence of God will come to him. 
 These are renewals, strengthening and building him up. He 
 grows through these renewals of the Spirit from one degree of 
 likeness to the Son of God to another. To these I think refer- 
 ence is made as the renewing of the Spirit after one is baptized 
 into Christ. 
 
 This scripture settles two points: (1) Baptism is not a work 
 of self-righteousness, righteousness by our own work. It is 
 placed in contrast with it. It is a work of God's righteousness. 
 The Savior's language to John, " Thus it becometh us to ful- 
 fill all righteousness," settles that. Baptism is not our work ; 
 it is God's work. It is not a work we do ; it is a work done 
 on or to us by God, through the servant of God who baptizes 
 us. (2) Being saved by " the washing of regeneration [or 
 baptism] and renewing of the Holy Spirit," and being justi- 
 fied by the grace of God, are one and the same thing. " By 
 grace have ye been saved, through faith " (Eph. 2: 8), and be- 
 ing saved by " the washing of regeneration and renewing of 
 the Holy Spirit " are just the same. Baptism to the penitent 
 believer for remission of sins and saved by grace through faith 
 are one and the same thing. 
 
442 Water, Born of. 
 
 WATER, BORN OF. 
 
 Please explain John 3: 5. . Explain what the water and Spirit each 
 mean. Please make this as plain as you can. I have heard several 
 different meanings given the above passage. The Methodist preacher 
 at this place says water means the natural birth. What was John 
 Wesley's explanation? 
 
 Some things are so plain that it is difficult to explain them. 
 It is difficult to explain water. We cannot put it in plainer 
 terms. So of Spirit. A rule of interpretation is that words 
 must be taken in their plain and literal meaning unless the 
 context requires a figurative one to be used. There is noth- 
 ing here that requires another than the literal meaning to be 
 used; there is nothing that requires it to refer to* childbirth; 
 there is nothing about the birth of the child that is like this. 
 No child is born of water at its birth. Whatever of water is 
 connected with the birth of the child is itself brought forth 
 from the womb, and is born with the child. The child is not 
 born or brought forth from the water. There never was a 
 more nonsensical, ridiculous, and hypocritical interpretation 
 given to a passage than this ; hypocritical because a mere pre- 
 text to avoid the truth. Jesus said that the fleshly child was 
 born of the flesh. " That which is born of flesh is flesh." 
 This could not be true if the child was born of water in its 
 natural birth. The inspired interpreters and commentators 
 apply this to baptism. Whenever one of them speaks of en- 
 trance into Christ or his kingdom, he requires them to believe 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ with the whole heart and to be bap- 
 tized into his name. The only safe commentators on the 
 teachings of Jesus are the inspired men he sent. They say 
 that we are baptized into Christ. " For ye are all sons of God, 
 through faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were 
 baptized into Christ did put on Christ." (Gal. 3 : 26, 27.) 
 Men who prefer the interpretations of foolish men to those 
 of the inspired writers do not truly believe in Jesus. Wesley 
 says : " Except he experience that great inward .change by the 
 Spirit and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the 
 outward sign and means of it." Wall, in his history, on in- 
 fant baptism, says : " There is not one Christian writer of any 
 antiquity in any language but what understands it of bap- 
 tism ; and, if it is not so understood, it is difficult to give an 
 account how a person is born of water any more than born 
 of wood." Every known commentator applies this to baptism. 
 
Wife's, A, Duty. 443 
 
 Jesus, under the figure of a birth, tells how people enter 
 into the kingdom of heaven: they are born into it. The ele- 
 ments of wnich they are born are water and Spirit. Led and 
 guided by the Spirit, they are brought forth from the water. 
 We certainly may learn what constituted that birth by seeing 
 what Jesus and the Holy Spirit require to be done when they 
 are led into the kingdom. " He that believeth and is baptized 
 shall be saved." (Mark 16: 16.) "Make disciples of all the 
 nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the 
 Son and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28: 19.) " Let all the 
 house of Israel therefore know assuredly, that God hath made 
 him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom ye crucified. 
 . . . Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
 of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." In taking these 
 steps that led them into the kingdom, they were born of water 
 and the Spirit. 
 
 WEAK IN THE FAITH. See Doubtful Disputation. 
 
 WEDDING GARMENT. 
 
 What is the wedding garment spoken of in Matt. 22: 11, and when 
 is it put on? 
 
 The wedding garment, the lack of which caused the servant 
 to be cast out of the wedding chamber, was the character 
 gained by a righteous and holy life. It is put on by a faith- 
 ful continuance in obeying the commands of God unto the end 
 of life. A similar idea is found in Rev. 19: 8: "It was given 
 unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and 
 pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." 
 
 WICKED. See Annihilation ; Future Punishment. 
 
 WIFE'S, A, DUTY. 
 
 How far should a wife be controlled by her husband when she be- 
 lieves it is her duty to do otherwise than as he demands she shall do? 
 For instance, when a wife believes that it is her duty to meet with 
 the saints on Lord's day and her husband will not allow her to do so, 
 what is her duty under the circumstances? Suppose that such a hus- 
 band will not give his wife money to spend in the good cause, but has 
 his life heavily insured, and spends his money freely for worldly things, 
 and thinks it a great hardship to go with his family to Lord's-day 
 worship regularly, thus depriving the children of the benefits of scrip- 
 tural teaching, etc. Do you think a wife should forsake husband and 
 
444 Wife's, A, Duty. 
 
 children if she cannot stay with them and obey the Master or get 
 them to do so? 
 
 I do not think that a Christian woman ought to separate 
 from her husband, so long as it is possible for her to live with 
 him. I know of nothing that exerts a more demoralizing and 
 degrading influence on the country than the loose views of 
 marriage and divorce that prevail among the people. While 
 this is true, a Christian woman ought not to marry an un- 
 christian man to start with. " But unto the married I give 
 charge, yea not I, but the Lord, That the wife depart not from 
 her husband (but should she depart, let her remain unmar- 
 ried, or else be reconciled to her husband) ; and that the hus- 
 band leave not his wife. But to the rest say I, not the Lord : 
 If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content 
 to dwell with him, let him not leave her. And the woman 
 that hath an unbelieving husband, and he is content to dwell 
 with her, let her not leave her husband." (1 Cor. 7: 10-13.) 
 But it is the wife's duty to obey God, and not permit her hus- 
 band to hinder the performance of her duties to God. This 
 can be done in almost all cases by a firm, but prudent and kind, 
 course of life. The wife's object should be to win her hus- 
 band to Christ. She can never do this when she permits him 
 to hinder her obeying God. She can win him only by an ear- 
 nest fidelity in obeying God. Kindly, firmly tell your-husband 
 that you must attend to your religious duties. Be doubly at- 
 tentive to his comfort and wants and your duties as his wife, 
 but do not neglect your duty to God. Be firm in the perform- 
 ance of these, and he will soon learn to respect and honor you 
 for your Christian character, and will respect and honor your 
 religion because you honor it. Very few men are so depraved 
 that they will not respect the wife's religion, if she respects 
 and honors it herself; but when she does not, they cannot. 
 
 The evil usually grows out of a wrong start. The wife be- 
 gins by neglecting her Christian duties until the husband loses 
 his respect for her religion, and things grow from bad to worse 
 until she realizes that she is giving up God and going to per- 
 dition ; then she undertakes to change things, but does not 
 always start right. She ought to be frank and candid with 
 her husband, tell him that she has been doing wrong, let him 
 know her feelings, and show him that she is determined to 
 change her course and for the future do her duty as a Chris- 
 
Will for the Deed, The. 445 
 
 tian. Do it all kindly, but be firm and earnest, and the chances 
 are that he will help her. 
 
 I heard of a case, recently, in which a woman had married 
 a man of a denominational church. They lived close to his 
 church. She began yielding to him and never going to her 
 own church. When she proposed to go, he would tell her 
 that the horses were tired, and that he did not think it right 
 to ride them off three or four miles on Sunday when they had 
 worked hard all the week. It went on so for some years. 
 She did not attend church. At last she felt that she was sin- 
 ning against God and resolved to do her duty. So she told 
 him that she wished to attend a meeting that was coming on, 
 but he paid no attention to it until the time came to start. 
 She prepared dinner for him and for all his comforts, and, 
 with bonnet on, told him that she was going to church. He 
 asked her how she would go. She asked him : " Have you 
 provided a way for me?" He said: "No." She quietly and 
 pleasantly said : " Then I will walk. I have been neglecting 
 my duty too long." So she started off. He looked at her 
 for a moment or two, went and caught a horse, overtook her, 
 and accompanied her to the meeting. She never afterwards 
 lacked opportunity to go. Firmness, a determination to serve 
 God, with a kind, gentle, forbearing spirit toward those who 
 hinder, is needed. With these God will remove the difficulties 
 and provide a way of serving him. 
 
 The relation of husband and wife is sacred. Do not think 
 of breaking it up, save under absolute necessity; but be firm 
 in your obedience to God and kind to the husband. If he 
 does not let you have money to use for God, God will not hold 
 you responsible. Study the Bible, pray earnestly and faith- 
 fully, and the worst husband may be converted to an earnest 
 and devoted Christian. " How knowest thou, O wife, whether 
 thou shalt save thy husband?" (1 Cor. 7: 16.) Set your 
 heart to saving your husband and children. It is right to 
 actually leave them only when they will not live with you 
 on account of your being a Christian. Live the Christian, then 
 leave results with them and with God. 
 
 WILL FOR THE DEED, THE. 
 
 Did God ever -in any age or at any time take the will for the deed? 
 Sectarians often say this, and use the case of Abraham offering up 
 Isaac to prove it. Did God accept the will of Abraham for the deed? 
 
446 Will for the Deed, The. 
 
 God requires both the will and the deed. He requires the 
 will to express itself in the deed or the doing before he ac- 
 cepts it as pleasing to him. The will is first influenced. But 
 God demands the will or the spiritual power in man to control 
 the fleshly feelings and passions. Until it desires and is able 
 to do this it does not effect or mold the character of man ; the 
 spirit is not able to control the flesh, which lusteth against 
 the spirit. Until it shows its power to do this it does not meet 
 the requirements of God. So he does not take the will for 
 the deed as service to him. I do not know an example in the 
 Scriptures of God blessing a person in response to faith until 
 that faith manifested or declared itself in obedience or in out- 
 ward act, showing that the feelings of the heart and the de- 
 cisions of the will must cause the body to act before God ac- 
 cepts it as service. Abraham did exactly what God com- 
 manded him. He went to the appointed place, bound Isaac, 
 laid him on the altar, took the knife to slay him, when God 
 commanded him to stop, and not lay his hand upon the lad. 
 There was no taking of the will for the deed, but he went 
 forward when God commanded and stopped when God com- 
 manded. No case could be farther from taking the will for 
 the deed than this. 
 
 WOMAN'S WORK. 
 
 Can you not tell us just what work you think, according to the 
 Bible, women may be permitted to do for the church as such? Once 
 in a while you admit that there i? work for women to do, but just 
 what it is you never tell us. Of course we understand about home 
 duties and rearing children, and all that, of which I, one of your 
 "strong-minded women," certainly do my share. But what may we 
 do for the church as such, besides? 
 
 The question as asked betrays one of the strongest, yet most 
 common, widespread, and most difficult to be uprooted errors, 
 concerning church work — to wit, that it is all done in public 
 and by public speaking. There was very little set speaking 
 and speeches in the days of Christ or the apostles. They 
 talked to those they met — one or a hundred — concerning the 
 things of the kingdom. A very small part of the work was 
 done by public speaking. Whatever is done by a Christian 
 under divine direction is church work. Christ " is the head 
 of the body, the church." " Now ye are the body of Christ, 
 and members in particular." Christ dwells in the body and 
 works through the members, as the soul dwells in the body 
 
Woman's Work. 447 
 
 and works through the hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. What the 
 hand does, the body does ; so, too, of all the members. 
 
 Paul, after telling the men what they should do, says : " In 
 like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, 
 with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and 
 gold or pearls or costly raiment ; but (which becometh women 
 professing godliness) through good works. Let a woman 
 learn in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a 
 woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be 
 in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve ; and 
 Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath 
 fallen into transgression : but she shall be saved through her 
 childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctifi- 
 cation with sobriety." (1 Tim. 2: 9-15.) Following both 
 these negative and positive requirements is church work, be- 
 cause the work of Christ, and must be observed by women 
 if they be faithful members of the church. 
 
 Paul gives the works a widow must have done to entitle 
 her to the support of the church : " Well reported of for good 
 works; if she hath brought up children, if she hath used hos- 
 pitality to strangers, if she hath washed the saints' feet, if she 
 hath relieved the afflicted, if she hath diligently followed ev- 
 ery good work. ... I desire therefore that the younger 
 widows marry, bear children, rule the household, give no oc- 
 casion to the adversary for reviling." (1 Tim. 2: 10-14.) 
 That is church work. The church has no more important 
 work than bearing children and training them for service to 
 God. Women must do that work. 
 
 Paul tells Titus to teach sound doctrine. That doctrine, as 
 it refers to women, is : " That aged women likewise be rever- 
 ent in demeanor, not slanderers nor enslaved to much wine, 
 teachers of that which is good ; that they may train the young 
 women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be 
 sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjec- 
 tion to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blas- 
 phemed." (Tit. 2: 3-5.) That is church work — the old 
 women to teach the young women good things ; to be sober ; 
 to love their husbands, their children ; to be discreet, chaste, 
 good housekeepers, obedient to their husbands. A Christian 
 woman is doing church work when she keeps house well — 
 when she properly loves her husband, her children. The word 
 of God is blasphemed when a woman does not keep house well, 
 
448 Woman's Work. 
 
 when she fails to love and honor her husband, when she fails 
 to love her children and guide the house. 
 
 Peter says: " In like manner, ye wives, be in subjection to 
 your own husbands ; that, even if any obey not the word, they 
 may without the word be gained by the behavior of their 
 wives ; beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear." 
 (1 Pet. 3: 1, 2.) He gives the adornment that they are to 
 practice. All this is church work performed by women as 
 members of the church, as members of the body of Christ. I 
 am not quoting these passages because they admonish obedi- 
 ence to husbands, but all the passages on woman's work con- 
 tain this caution. In these general admonitions that might 
 be multiplied it is stated that women must guide the house 
 and relieve the afflicted. This imposes on her the necessity 
 of teaching her children the way of the Lord, of visiting the 
 sick, and in these ministrations it is her duty to teach the 
 word of God. Then women are to engage in all the prayers 
 of the church ; she is not to lead in prayer. Paul asks, " Is 
 it seemly that a woman pray unto God unveiled?" showing 
 plainly how she should appear before God when she prays, 
 how she should approach God. It applies as much to her ap- 
 proach to God in the closet as in the public assembly. It has 
 no bearing whatever on the question as to whether she should 
 lead in prayer or not. Every Christian should bear a part in 
 the public prayer, as well as the leader. There is no sense in 
 any one bowing or making a pretense of prayer if only the 
 leader prays. 
 
 In Rom. 16: 1, Paul commends unto them "Phoebe our 
 sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchrea." 
 This shows that she devoted herself to the service of the 
 church. This service was in looking after the needy and sick 
 of their own members, then of the world. The theory now is 
 that the public teachers should do this work. In the apostolic 
 days it was said : " It is not fit that we should forsake the 
 word of God to serve tables." Men who are teaching the word 
 of God should not be hindered in this work to serve tables. 
 Men were appointed to distribute to these families ; but there 
 is always work of looking after the sick and needy men, 
 women, and children that women can do much better than 
 men. Phoebe did this work. In doing this, she taught the 
 word of God to all who came into contact with her. Verse 3 
 adds : " Salute Prisca and Aquila my fellow-workers in Christ 
 
Woman's Work. 449 
 
 Jesus." One way they helped was when they found a young 
 man mighty and eloquent in the Scriptures, knowing only a 
 part of the counsel of God, and " they took him unto them, and 
 expounded unto him the way of God more accurately." (Acts 
 18: 26.) Prisca and Aquila did this in taking him unto them 
 and privately teaching him. They also helped Paul by giving 
 him a home and employment when he needed it. 
 
 Paul says : " Help these women, for they labored with me 
 in the gospel." (Phil. 4: 3.) This shows that women did 
 work with Paul in spreading the gospel, and the record shows, 
 I think, that his missionary company generally embraced a 
 number of godly women who could reach their own sex and 
 teach them the word of truth. At Cesarea, Paul and his com- 
 panions found daughters of Philip, the evangelist, who were 
 inspired and prophesied ; but all was done modestly and in 
 private. (Acts 21 : 8, 9.) At Philippi they went out to where 
 they " supposed there was a place of prayer," " and spake unto 
 the women that were come together." (Acts 16: 13.) 
 
 As I take it, this teaches that women met together by them- 
 selves and instructed each other and worshiped together. Paul 
 teaches that the same order in reference to women was con- 
 tinued under Christ that prevailed under the Mosaic law. 
 Other scriptures and examples might be found, but these suf- 
 fice to show that women must teach their own children ; must 
 visit the sick, the afflicted, the needy, and, in these quiet minis- 
 trations, teach them the word of truth. She may teach men 
 in private ; she may teach her sisters, one by one or together. 
 The Scriptures give full authority to the Christian women to 
 teach those misguided women who refuse to bear children. It 
 can be more effectively done in private, by tender, personal 
 admonition. She can teach her servants, employees, and oth- 
 ers about her house. She can teach her neighbors in private — ■ 
 the most effective teaching ever done. She can gather her 
 neighbors' children together, if they will come, and teach them. 
 It is no violation of these restraints thrown around woman 
 for her to take a class of children or old persons and quietly, 
 in the Bible school, teach them. There is privacy in publicity. 
 When all sing, there is no publicity attached to one singing. 
 When one sings alone, there is publicity. So, for a woman to 
 teach a class in a meetinghouse, when all others are teaching 
 
 around, it is not publicity. It would be wrong for her to 
 29 
 
450 Woman's Work. 
 
 get up as the only teacher of all who attend. This would be 
 inviting publicity. 
 
 There is no trouble in finding labor. The field is wide 
 enough. It is large enough to satisfy all demands, save " a 
 prurient desire to assail Paul's teaching as narrow." I have 
 known men — and women, too — who devoted their whole time 
 to teaching the Bible from house to house that never made 
 public speeches. They are successful laborers for God. There 
 is ample room for the full home talent and energies of all the 
 sisters without once violating Paul's order, and their services 
 are greatly needed. There is not an ungodly home; there is 
 not an ill-kept house, a badly cooked meal ; there is not a dis- 
 cordant home, a family of children untrained in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord ; there is not a wayward girl 
 threatened with ruin, or a boy that looks on the wine ; there 
 is not a negro hut nor a princely mansion, where the people 
 are not religious, that is not an inviting field pleading for mis- 
 sionary labor on the part of the faithful Christian woman, 
 where all of her gentle ministrations, her " tender, tearful, 
 heartfelt talks," may not be freely made to the salvation of 
 men and women and the honor and glory of God. The mag- 
 nitude of the field, the multiplicity of the openings at our own 
 doors that plead for her ministrations are oppressive, and with- 
 out earnest trust in God would be discouraging. The field at 
 your doors, my dear sister, is white for the harvest, but the 
 laborers in this vineyard are few. Why is it? 
 
 WOMEN PREACHERS. 
 
 Is there any scripture authorizing women to preach? Paul says 
 that it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church. (1 Cor. 14: 
 34.) Please give all the light you can on the subject. 
 
 All the teaching of the Bible is against women speaking in 
 public. Paul said: "The spirits of the prophets are subject 
 ./to the prophets ; for God is not a God of confusion, but of 
 peace. As in all the churches of the saints, let the women 
 keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto them 
 to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. 
 And if they would learn anything, let them ask their own hus- 
 bands at home: for it is shameful for women to speak in the 
 church. . . . If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, 
 ©r spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I 
 write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.'* 
 
Women Preachers, 451 
 
 (1 Cor. 14: 31-37.) If that passage of scripture can be rea- 
 soned away so as not to mean that women should not speak 
 in the churches, I do not know what command of God may not 
 be set aside. First, it is spoken of those spiritually endowed. 
 Those possessed of spiritual powers are under discussion. 
 They are told how to behave themselves in church. The 
 spirits of the prophets, the spirits with which the prophets 
 are endowed, are subject to the prophets. This was no doubt 
 said in view of the claim frequently made that, as they were 
 under the guidance of the Spirit, they could not restrain them- 
 selves, but produced a scene of disorder. Paul tells them that 
 they can so restrain the Spirit as to one speak at a time, " for 
 God is not a God of confusion, but of peace," or order, in " all 
 the churches." Then he says : " Let the women keep silence 
 in the churches." He is still speaking of the spiritually en- 
 dowed. Hence he means: Let the women gifted with the 
 Spirit " keep silence in the churches." What churches? u In 
 all the churches of the saints." He is disapproving disorder 
 and confusion, and says that God is the author of peace " in 
 all the churches of the saints." As a means to this, let the 
 women, although spiritually endowed, " keep silence in the 
 churches." Why? " For it is not permitted unto them to 
 speak ; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law." 
 Here he shows that it had been the order of God under the 
 law, and this order is brought over into the gospel reign so as 
 to make it perpetual. "And if they would learn anything, let 
 them ask their own husbands at home : for it is shameful for 
 a woman to speak in the church." 
 
 That is a general proposition. It could not be expressed 
 in terms more general and universal in application. Here Paul 
 speaks of all the churches, the churches, and the church, show- 
 ing the universal application of the principle. It was spoken 
 with reference to spiritually endowed women, too, for he says : 
 " If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, 
 let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, 
 that they are the commandment of the Lord." Then, in verse 
 39: "Wherefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, 
 and forbid not to speak with tongues." The apostle could not 
 have well used language that could make it more universal 
 in application. There were spiritually endowed women ; but 
 their spiritual endowment did not authorize them to overstep 
 the bounds of womanly modesty and publicly speak in the 
 
452 Women Preachers. 
 
 churches. God not only respected womanly modesty wher- 
 ever it existed, as he had inculcated it in the law ; but he was 
 careful to preserve and cultivate it " in all the churches of 
 the saints." 
 
 The command to Timothy was given him to guide him in 
 setting in order the churches of Christ. " Let a woman learn 
 in quietness with all subjection. But I permit not a woman 
 to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quiet- 
 ness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve ; and Adam was 
 not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into 
 transgression." (1 Tim. 2: 11-14.) Here are two reasons 
 given: (1) Adam was first created, and the precedence, the 
 right to rule and lead, was given him ; (2) the woman was 
 deceived and led in the transgression. Both reasons are uni- 
 versal in their bearing, showing clearly that the rule is uni- 
 versal. I do not see how God could have made it clearer and 
 more certain than he has done. The reasons given for this 
 command apply to every woman in the world alike ; the com- 
 mand must reach all alike. There is not the least difficulty 
 in explaining all the passages in harmony with these, if we 
 will recognize what is true — that God intended the great 
 burden of prayer, teaching, exhortation, and admonition to be 
 done in private, not in public. Woman has free access to this 
 great field. We have perverted this order; we do all of our 
 preaching, teaching, exhortation, and, I fear, praying often, in 
 public ; so interpret the Scriptures by our practices, and not by 
 the will of God. 
 
 If these commands can be set aside, I do not see what com- 
 mand of the Bible may not be set aside. The great majority 
 ■of those who set them aside openly adopt the infidel rule ; 
 they are not to be governed by Paul. Sam Jones said, " God 
 has blessed women's preaching; and if God does this, who 
 cares what Paul says?" — that is, he sees that women's speak- 
 ing has stirred up a religious excitement. He takes that to be 
 a sign that God has blessed their speaking, and on that judg- 
 ment of his he denounces Paul as unworthy of credence. Paul, 
 furthermore, in direct connection with this, says : " If any man 
 thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take 
 knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they 
 are the commandment of the Lord." Paul not only insists 
 that these are God's commandments, but for a person to refuse 
 to acknowledge them as such is to show that they were not 
 
Women Preachers. . 453 
 
 spiritual. Many things arouse a temporary excitement in re- 
 ligion that produce evil results in the end. Faith is intended 
 to make us trust God for the future, rather than judge by im- 
 mediate results. That woman's speaking, preaching, and en- 
 gaging in public affairs would degrade society, I have no 
 doubt. It would destroy the domestic life of our people and 
 .lead to anything else than good results. The practice involves 
 a rejection of the word of God. Professor Harper, late presi- 
 dent of Chicago University, used this language : "A great de- 
 nomination of the Christian church is to-day searching to 
 know the mind of an apostle who, in the first century, made 
 some suggestions concerning the women in public worship in 
 one of the little churches of Christ planted at Corinth. Men 
 are not going to perpetuate a foolish custom, even if an apostle 
 himself advised it." On which the Journal and Messenger 
 wisely comments : " The question is not one pertaining to the 
 conduct of women in the churches, but concerning the methods 
 of dealing with the word of God, the writings of men of com- 
 mon sense under the influence of the Holy Spirit." Then the 
 Western Recorder says : " Of course Baptists in Chicago have 
 a right to believe and teach what seems good in their own 
 eyes ; but Southern Baptists, to a man, deny that an apostle in 
 his inspired, infallible writing could advise a foolish custom, 
 and they propose to perpetuate to the least jot and tittle all 
 that Paul advised in his letters." 
 
 The truth of the whole matter is that many of the churches 
 are infected more or less with a spirit of rationalistic infidelity 
 that does not hesitate to set aside any order of God that does 
 not suit their ideas of things. Reason — or, as it is called now, 
 sanctified common sense — is put on equality with the revela- 
 tion of God, and sets aside the Scripture whenever it stands in 
 the way of their fancies. The habit of women preaching orig- 
 inated in the same hotbed with easy divorce, free love, and 
 the repugnance to childbearing. 
 
 The experience of the world shows the wisdom of God's 
 orders. Where women most freely take part in public wor- 
 ship a much smaller portion of the people are religious than 
 where they remain silent. There is a great complaint that 
 the men are forsaking the church. One chief reason is that 
 the church has been given up to the rule of the pastor and the 
 women; and they run it in channels that drive men from it. 
 We will never succeed in the church until we follow God's or- 
 
454 Women Preachers. 
 
 <der. Then " God will work in us to will and to do of his good 
 pleasure." The time to check an evil is in its beginning, be- 
 fore it gathers strength and momentum. Let us be wise. 
 
 WORDS. See Idle Words. 
 
 YOKED WITH UNBELIEVERS. 
 
 Please give a weak brother some light on 2 Cor. 6: 14-18. While 
 -verse 14 is generally understood and construed so as to apply in a mat- 
 rimonial sense, does it not equally — and, in fact, more forcibly — ap- 
 ply to a partnership in any and all business dealings with an unbe- 
 liever-? Please give your views, or what you understand the Scrip- 
 tures to teach, on this chapter. 
 
 I believe the command covers all relations in which the 
 Christian is controlled by the actions of those not Christians. 
 That is what yoked together means — so connected that the 
 actions and course of one not a Christian control the actions 
 of the Christian. This general rule is laid down; then it is 
 pointed out that a neglect of it leads, first, to destroy the dis- 
 tinction between righteousness and unrighteousness, then be- 
 tween light and darkness, then it leads into idolatry. The safe 
 ground is to avoid the association that weans from Christ and 
 leads to idolatry. As a precaution against that, the command 
 is : " Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers." We have no 
 formal idolatry, but a great amount of informal idolatry — real 
 idolatry without the forms of idol worship. Whatever a man 
 esteems above service to God is idolatry. Covetousness is 
 idolatry, because a covetous man is more eager to gain money 
 than he is to honor God or to gain his favor. Whatever man 
 holds above service to God is his idol. This scripture tells 
 Christians to avoid the complications and alliances that lead 
 into idolatry. All that wean man from God are embraced. 
 He tells them to come out from among them, from this idol 
 worship, and to withdraw as far as possible from the associa- 
 tions that lead to them. Some associations, like marriage, 
 cannot be broken without violation of other laws of God ; and 
 1 Cor. 7 gives the rules regulating those so circumstanced. See 
 Associating with Sinners in Business. 
 
INDEX TO SCRIPTURES. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Gen. 1: 2 204 
 
 1: 27, 28 275 
 
 2: 17 6 
 
 3: 22, 23 177 
 
 4: 15-17 71 
 
 6: 2 72 
 
 11: 7, 8 434 
 
 15: 13 64 
 
 22: 18 5 
 
 32: 30 383 
 
 Ex. 4: 16 350 
 
 7: 1 350 
 
 9: 16 325 
 
 12: 40 64 
 
 18: 19 350 
 
 20: 8-11 366 
 
 22: 25 439 
 
 31: 12-17 367 
 
 Lev. 6: 2-5 10 
 
 10: 9-11 349 
 
 25: 35 439 
 
 Num. 15: 32-36 372, 389 
 
 Deut. 5: 14 366 
 
 6: 6, 7 57 
 
 12: 8, 9 424 
 
 12: 32 8 
 
 17: 12 389 
 
 18: 20 306, 389 
 
 21: 18-21 207 
 
 Esth. 3: 7 268 
 
 ISam. 8: 3-5 412 
 
 1 Kings 18: 17, 18 232 
 
 22: 5-8 233 
 
 Job 26: 13 204 
 
 Ps. 19: 7 353 
 
 32: 2 197 
 
 34: 13 197 
 
 51: 11 203 
 
 Ps. 
 
 Prov. 
 
 Eccles 
 
 Isa. 
 
 Jer. 
 
 Ezek. 
 
 Dan. 
 
 Hos. 
 Mai. 
 Matt. 
 
 Page. 
 
 55: 11 197 
 
 76: 10 334 
 
 104: 30 204 
 
 4: 23 77 
 
 13: 24 57 
 
 15: 8 10 
 
 16: 33 268 
 
 21: 3 10 
 
 28: 9 342 
 
 7: 29 —349 
 
 11: 3 — 401 
 
 24: 5 424 
 
 40: 7 - 204 
 
 45: 1-4 334 
 
 45: 7 163, 388 
 
 52: 15 -410 
 
 57: 15 330 
 
 66: 2 330 
 
 13: 23 430 
 
 25: 8-14 333 
 
 31: 31-34 216, 369 
 
 20: 12 368 
 
 36: 25 407 
 
 2: 44 247 
 
 4: 34, 35 434 
 
 7: 21-28 253 
 
 13: 9-11 412 
 
 2: 7 349 
 
 3: 6 30 
 
 3- 11 39, 40, 47 
 
 3: 12 170 
 
 3: 15 52 
 
 3: 16 30 
 
 5: 3 328 
 
 5: 4 310 
 
 5: 23,24 , 8 
 
 5: 32 283 
 
 5: 33-37 240 
 
456 
 
 Index to Scriptures. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Matt. 6: 13 414 
 
 6: 24 131 
 
 7: 1 240 
 
 7: 7 25 
 
 7: 12 194 
 
 7: 21, 22 132, 234 
 
 8: 29 12 
 
 12: 31, 32 386, 389 
 
 12: 36 209 
 
 12: 43 426 
 
 13: 14, 15 430 
 
 13: 24-30 15 
 
 15: 1-20 94, 117, 228, 
 
 231, 234, 425 
 
 T6: 18 189 
 
 16: 19 244 
 
 18: 10 14 
 
 18: 15 133, 256 
 
 19: 4-6 303 
 
 20: 1-6 440 
 
 20: 22, 23 32 
 
 22: 11 443 
 
 23:25,26 94 
 
 24: 24 22 
 
 24: 28 146 
 
 25: 14 14 
 
 25: 41-46 17 
 
 26: 28 54 
 
 26: 52 _ 335 
 
 27: 24 326 
 
 27: 35 268 
 
 27: 44 418 
 
 28: 19, 20 - 24 
 
 Mark 1: 5 30 
 
 3: 30 387 
 
 10: 47 310 
 
 16: 16 33 
 
 16: 17, 18 386 
 
 Luke 3: 11 _ 35 
 
 3: 16 35 
 
 8: 11 205, 397 
 
 10: 16 131 
 
 11: 24-26 208 
 
 11: 32 41, 237 
 
 12: 47, 48 228 
 
 14: 26 138, 229 
 
 Page. 
 
 Luke 14: 28 107 
 
 16: 10 228, 438 
 
 16: 16 250 
 
 16: 26 401 
 
 17: 1, 2 26, 415 
 
 17: 6 165 
 
 17: 20-24 251 
 
 23: 3 238 
 
 23: 42 418 
 
 John 1: 4-9 329 
 
 1: 11 201 
 
 1: 12 429 
 
 1: 18 383 
 
 1: 47 -197 
 
 3: 1-8 64 
 
 3: 5 32, 442 
 
 3: 23 30 
 
 3: 27 42 
 
 5: 28, 29 17 
 
 6: 37 428 
 
 6: 63 - 205 
 
 6: 65 428 
 
 6: 70 238 
 
 7: 17, 18 433 
 
 7: 64-71 332 
 
 8: 29 435 
 
 8: 43, 44 429 
 
 8: 47 426 
 
 9: 31 -341 
 
 TO: 1-9 385 
 
 10: 16 429 
 
 10: 26 426 
 
 10: 28, 29 22 
 
 12: 39, 40 426 
 
 13: 8 176 
 
 13: 14, 15 -175 
 
 14: 9 383 
 
 14: 15-17 395 
 
 14: 21 —433 
 
 14: 26 24 
 
 14: 31 -n 433 
 
 15: 1-6 69 
 
 17: 17 434 
 
 17: 19 434 
 
 17: 20-23 432, 435 
 
 Acts 1: 5 --- 37 
 
Index to Scriptures. 
 
 457 
 
 Page. 
 
 Acts 1: 26 -268 
 
 2: 16-21 37 
 
 2: 38 206, 396 
 
 2: 42 317 
 
 2: 44-46 95 
 
 2: 47 7 
 
 3: 20,21 360 
 
 5: 14 7 
 
 6: 2 126 
 
 7: 38 84 
 
 8: 36-39 31 
 
 10: 48 34 
 
 11: 15 38 
 
 11:24 7 
 
 12: 15 14 
 
 13: 48 315 
 
 15: 9 199 
 
 16: 13-15 31, 449 
 
 16: 33, 34 31 
 
 18: 10 429 
 
 18: 26 - 449 
 
 20: 7 174 
 
 22: 16 31 
 
 26: 16 380 
 
 Rom. 2: 1 240 
 
 2: 12 311 
 
 3: 20-25 179, 242, 259 
 
 4: 15- 200 
 
 5: 1 241 
 
 5: 5 273 
 
 5: 13 200 
 
 6: 4 31 
 
 7: 4 289 
 
 7: 7-25 99 
 
 8: 9-11 396 
 
 8: 29, 30 — 316 
 
 9: 15, 16 291 
 
 9: 18-21 192 
 
 10: 10 96 
 
 13: 1, 2 -331 
 
 13: 4 73, 332 
 
 13: 8 268, 320, 382 
 
 13: 10 406 
 
 14: 1 87, 145 
 
 14: 6 123 
 
 14: 14 100 
 
 Page. 
 
 Rom. 14: 16 l 416 
 
 14: 23 u 199 
 
 16: 1 -. 448 
 
 16: 16 258 
 
 16: 17 227 
 
 ICor. 1: 17 46 
 
 2- 14 311 
 
 4: 15 65 
 
 5: 9-12 27, 181 
 
 6: 1-9 —255 
 
 7: 1 94 
 
 7: 2-5 75 
 
 7: 10, 11 26, 280 
 
 7.: 10-13 444 
 
 7: 16 445 
 
 7: 39 287 
 
 8: 7 -101 
 
 9: 13, 14 _ 346 
 
 9: 21 190 
 
 10: 1, 2 29 
 
 10: 12 44, 68 
 
 10: 13 415 
 
 10: 27 11 
 
 11: 4-15 - 113 
 
 12: 13 48 
 
 12: 28 402 
 
 13: 10 402 
 
 14: 30, 31 94, 450 
 
 14: 32, 33 94 
 
 15: 29 49 
 
 16: 1, 2 86, 88, 174 
 
 16: 20 254 
 
 2 Cor. 3: 3 198 
 
 3: 6-11 260, 369 
 
 5: 10 401 
 
 5: 20 379 
 
 6: 14 287, 396, 454 
 
 10: 3-6 - — 44, 271 
 
 11: 13-15 - 296 
 
 13: 12 254 
 
 Gal. 1: 9 364 
 
 1: 11, 12 297 
 
 2: 9-11 _ 364 
 
 3: 16-29 63, 243, 258 
 
 Eph. 1: 4, 5 316 
 
 2: 8 190 
 
458 
 
 Index to Scriptures. 
 
 Eph. 
 
 Phil. 
 
 Col. 
 
 1 Thess. 
 
 4: 
 4: 
 5: 
 5: 
 6: 
 6: 
 2: 
 4: 
 4: 
 1: 
 1: 
 2: 
 2: 
 3: 
 4: 
 2: 
 4: 
 5: 
 
 2 Thess. 1 : 
 2: 
 
 ITim. 1: 
 1: 
 1: 
 2: 
 2: 
 4: 
 5: 
 1: 
 1: 
 2: 
 3: 
 2: 
 3: 
 1: 
 2: 
 2: 
 4: 
 5: 
 6: 
 6: 
 8: 
 8: 
 9: 
 9: 
 9: 
 
 11-13 
 29 — 
 
 19 — 
 
 20 — 
 1, 2 - 
 4 — . 
 5-9 - 
 3 
 
 18 — 
 
 Page. 
 -404 
 -209 
 -225 
 -416 
 -207 
 - 57 
 -273 
 -449 
 -292 
 
 2 Tim. 
 
 Tit. 
 
 Heb. 
 
 12, 13 7, 63 
 
 23 302 
 
 12 32 
 
 20-22 425 
 
 16 224 
 
 6 210 
 
 3 _ 197 
 
 8 132 
 
 26 254 
 
 9, 10 18, 186 
 
 3-12 „ 277 
 
 2 298 
 
 5 101 
 
 13 282 
 
 9, 10 235, 447 
 
 11-14 452 
 
 10 354 
 
 3-10 175, 352 
 
 6 298 
 
 13 298 
 
 2 298 
 
 14, 15 298 
 
 3-5 447 
 
 5 441 
 
 14 13 
 
 2 423 
 
 9, 10 -324, 375 
 
 15 375 
 
 8, 9 324, 375 
 
 1-6-168, 283, 374, 427 
 
 2 29 
 
 9 108 
 
 10 198 
 
 9, 10 61, 180 
 
 13-15 180 
 
 18-26 61 
 
 Page. 
 
 Heb. 10: 1 60 
 
 10: 16 198 
 
 10: 25 124, 173, 174 
 
 10: 26 264, 427 
 
 10: 28, 29- — 63, 133, 428 
 
 12: 1, 2 _ 55 
 
 12: 14-18 374 
 
 12: 22-24 374 
 
 James 1: 2, 3 414 
 
 1:13, 14 414 
 
 1: 18 65 
 
 2: 10, 11 79 
 
 2: 17 — 199 
 
 5: 1-9 _ 363 
 
 5: 12 241 
 
 5: 13-15 143, 299 
 
 5: 16 —98, 361 
 
 IPet. 1: 2 62, 316,348 
 
 1: 10, 11 222 
 
 1: 20 349 
 
 1: 21 222 
 
 1: 22 199 
 
 1: 23 65 
 
 2: 1 197 
 
 3: 1,2 448 
 
 3: 3, 4 235 
 
 3: 10 197 
 
 4: 1 324 
 
 5: 1-3 - — 153 
 
 5: 14 254 
 
 2 Pet. 2: 4 12, 377, 427 
 
 1 John 1 : 5 330 
 
 1: 7 63, 433 
 
 1: 9 361 
 
 2: 19 22 
 
 3: 9 67 
 
 3: 15 138* 
 
 5: 16, 17 -390 
 
 Jude 3 102, 302 
 
 6 12, 377 
 
 Rev. 11: 15 304 
 
 12: 7-9 377, 427 
 
 14: 5 197 
 
 22: 19 - — 8 
 
MAY 6 1910 
 
:;;••: r ta^ 
 
 One copy del. to Cat. Div.