GC - 04-Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you

4. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

This, of course, implies that the disciples are to be instructed in all things pertaining to life and godliness. They are now sup-posed to be believers in Christ; to have made the good Confession; and to have been baptized, by the authority of Christ, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But, nevertheless, they still need to be instructed in relation to their duties, honors, privileges, birthrights, and obligations, as the redeemed sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty. The disciples of Christ are all called into His kingdom to work; to assist in every way that they possibly can both to edify the Church and to convert the world. But, before they can do this properly, they must themselves be well instructed in the laws, ordinances, rights, privileges, and obligations of the kingdom of heaven. And hence it seems that it was always an implied purpose of God that the followers of Christ should be thoroughly instructed in the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and have an infallible directory of both faith and practice. This may be inferred from several considerations:

I. From the typical history of the Israelites. When God called His people out of Egypt, He gave them a perfect guide. The symbol of His presence went before them as a pillar of cloud to lead them on their journey by day, and as a pillar of fire to guide them by night. Had they faithfully followed this as their divinely-appointed guide, it would have led them safely throughout all their wanderings to the land of rest that was prepared for them. But this they were unwilling to do. They were not willing to walk by faith, and preferred to walk by sight. And hence they rebelled against Moses, and set at naught the counsel of God. This was at first their misfortune, and it finally proved to be their ruin. After bearing with them for a long time, God at length swore in His wrath that they should never enter into His rest (Hebrews 3:7-19).

Now these things were types; and they were written for our instruction (1 Corinthians 10:1-12). They are but the shadows of the more solemn and impressive events and realities of our Christian pilgrimage. And they teach us as plainly as could a voice from heaven, that it was never God’s purpose to leave His people without a perfect guide-a guide of His own creation and appointment. As the pillar of the cloud was to the Israelites, so is the word of the Lord to the followers of Christ. We have but to keep our eye on it, and follow without reserve wherever it may lead us, and then all will be well. It may conduct us, as the cloud did the Israelites, "through a great and terrible wilderness," full of dangers and full of snares. But no matter. If we follow it faithfully, as did Joshua and Caleb the pillar of the cloud, it will just as certainly bring us to the land of rest that remains for the people of God. There, there is fullness of joy; and there, there are pleasures for evermore. "A hope so great, then, and so divine, may trials well endure."

II. This may also be proved and further illustrated by the prophecies of the Old Testament. Isaiah, for instance, looking down through the vista of future ages, saw by the spirit of inspiration the glorious effects and influences of Christ’s mediatorial reign on the earth. He saw on all hands evidences of light, and life, and salvation. And, among other things, he saw the highway of holiness-a way that was so plain, and so direct, that even the most ignorant travellers on it were in no danger of being lost. True, indeed, they were all in the midst of a thousand philosophical mysteries, which even the most gifted and enlightened of their fellow-travellers were unable to explain. Every star in their firmament was a mystery, and so also was every pebble beneath their feet. But, nevertheless, the man that pressed forward, resolved by the grace of God to reach and enter the pearly gates of the everlasting Zion, had no difficulty in doing so. (See Isaiah 35 :)

Now, just so it is in the kingdom of Christ. The man who will now stop on his way to inquire into all the mysteries of redemption, will never make much progress in the divine life. He will hear the cry of the coming bridegroom, and the door will be forever shut, before he will be able to explain on philosophical principles even the mysteries of man’s creation and his fall, not to speak of the mysteries of the incarnation, the atonement, the new birth, the resurrection from the dead, and the life everlasting. On these and a thousand other matters pertaining to man’s recovery from sin and death, even the archangel may yet be in doubt and uncertainty. Such knowledge is in many points too high for us; too vast and too profound for our poor, weak, and finite capacities. But, nevertheless, the man who receives the Bible as the word of God, and who humbly, confidingly, and prayerfully follows its instructions, will have but little difficulty in understanding his whole duty and persevering to the end in the way of holiness. This is just as certain as that Isaiah spoke by the spirit of inspiration.

III. It is still further evident from the instructions of Christ to His Apostles as given in the Commission. "Go," said He to them, "and 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 to observe all things whatever I have commanded you." That in this saying Christ has reference to all the duties of life, is obvious from the manner in which it was understood by the Apostles. In their instructions to baptized believers, they embrace everything which is really essential to a life of piety and usefulness. The duty of every disciple to his God, to himself, to his family, to the Church, to the state, and to the world, is marked out so frilly and so variously, that it would really be difficult to conceive how any directory of moral and religious duty could be made more perfect and complete than that which is given in the New Testament. To the strictly honest and unprejudiced believer, who trembles at the word of the Lord, and whose only inquiry is, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" there is really no difficulty in the way. The path of duty is as plainly marked out in the New Testament, as the way of holiness was in the vision of Isaiah, or as the line of march was indicated to the Israelites by the pillar of cloud which led them by day, and the pillar of fire by night. The troubles of the way are therefore chiefly objects and obstacles of our own creation; and they are usually quite as great in the way of the learned as they are in the way of the unlearned. One man, through the vanity of his mind, and the pride of philosophy, or the prejudices of a false education, so perverts the Scriptures as to make them correspond with one theory; another, with equal violence, makes them harmonize with something else; and a third, with still something else. And hence it is that when we come together to worship God, and to cooperate with one another for the edification of the Church, and the conversion of the world, there is often a want of harmony among us. One man sees everything through the light and medium of Calvinism; another, through Arminianism; another, through Mysticism; and still another, through Rationalism, or some other conceived system of religious philosophy. Nor is this all. The evil does not stop here. These divisions and dissensions lead to skepticism. In the estimation of many, the word of God is divested in whole or in part of its proper authority; and, just so far, it of course ceases to be the guide of life.

Basic Rules of Authority and Application

It seems to me, therefore, that a practical recognition of a few plain and simple rules, touching the authority, use, and proper application of the word of God as the guide of life, would go far to correct existing evils, and to restore to the Church her primitive faith and practice. And I therefore now, very respectfully, submit the following for the consideration of all who are earnestly laboring to promote the unity, harmony, peace, increase, and prosperity of Zion:

RULE I.-We should carefully observe, both in letter and in spirit, every specific precept which Christ has given to us either directly or through His inspired Apostles. To do otherwise is to rebel against Christ, and to act inconsistently with our Christian profession. God said to the people through Moses, "A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that every soul who will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:22-23). God did raise up that Prophet; and in the presence of Moses and Elijah, on the mount of trans-figuration, He said to Peter, James, and John, and through them to all Christians, and even to every individual under heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: HEAR YE HIM" (Matthew 17:5). To the same effect is also the testimony of Jesus Himself given in the Commission. "All authority," says He, "is given to me in heaven and on the earth. 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; teaching them to observe all things whatever I have commanded you."

We have professed to believe all this. And by our baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, we have solemnly vowed that we will submit to it; that henceforth the will of Christ shall be our will, and that His laws shall be to us the guide of our lives. This much we have all solemnly promised to do, who have put on Christ. But have we done it? Have we in all cases acted consistently with our profession? Have we observed in letter and in spirit every specific "Thus saith the Lord," that is given for our instruction and guidance under the New Covenant? Let us inquire-

1. In Matthew 18:15-17, the following very specific directions are given to all the followers of Christ, respecting the treatment of private offences: "Moreover, if thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone. If he hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: and if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican."

Nothing could be more plain and specific than these instructions; nothing more authoritative. But how many of the disciples of Christ strictly observe and follow them? Reader, what say you? Have you strictly followed these plain and simple directions of the Lord Jesus; or have you, with the multitude, been led by the spirit of Antichrist? "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord," says Christ to His disciples, "and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46.)

2. In Romans 13:8, the Holy Spirit says to every disciple, "Owe no man anything, but to love one another." How many of the professed followers of Christ live in harmony with this precept?

3. In 1 Corinthians 5:11, we have given the following specific instructions concerning the proper treatment of one who had been lawfully excluded from the Church: "But now I (Paul) have written to you not to keep company-if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner-with such a one, no not to eat." How many Christians strictly observe and execute this law of Christ? And how many nullify it by their unlawful intercourse and unhallowed sympathy with such public offenders ? "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

4. In Matthew 5:44, our Lord Himself says to all His followers: "Love your enemies. Bless them that curse you; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you." But how many of them even honestly and earnestly endeavor to do this? How, then, will they reply to our Lord’s interrogatory, "Why call ye me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

I might very greatly multiply such cases. But the examples given are quite sufficient to show that the spirit of Antichrist is still abroad in the Church; and that thousands of those who profess to be the disciples of Christ, are still following their own lusts, and passions, and appetites, with far more regularity and consistency than they are following the specific precepts of the Lord Jesus. "For many walk of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the Cross of Christ; whose end is destruction; whose god is their belly; and whose glory is their shame; who mind earthly things."

RULE II.-We should observe and respect, as of equal authority with a positive precept, every Apostolic precedent illustrative of the laws of Christ. It is generally much easier to teach, especially the young and the uneducated, by example than by precept. And hence it has pleased God to illustrate the laws and principles of the kingdom of heaven by a series of Apostolic acts, which serve to make them all so very plain that even a child may ordinarily understand them. Most generally the law or precept is itself first stated; and then it is historically illustrated. But sometimes the law is indicated as well as illustrated by the practice of the primitive churches, under the instructions and directions of the Apostles and the inspired evangelists. A noted instance of this kind is the law in relation to the sanctification of the Lord’s-day. This is nowhere formally stated like the law of the Sabbath in the Old Testament. But, in Acts 20:7, we read that, "on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and he continued his speech till midnight." From this example we learn that it was the custom of the brethren at Troas, and, of course, of all the other churches of the saints, to come together on the first day of the week to break bread, in commemoration of the Lord’s death. For Paul arrived at Troas on the previous Mon-day, and though he was much pressed for time, being anxious to go up to Jerusalem as soon as possible, he nevertheless saw fit to wait at Troas for nearly one week, in order that he might be present at the regular meeting of the brethren on the following Lord’s-day, having, no doubt, matters of very great importance to lay before them. The same important lesson may also be learned from the practice of the churches of Corinth and Galatia. In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2, Paul says to the brethren of Corinth: "Now concerning the collection which is for the saints, as I ordered the churches of Galatia so also do ye. On the first day of every week, let each of you lay somewhat by itself, according as he may have prospered, putting it into the treasury (of the church); that there may be no collections when I come."

These examples show very clearly and conclusively that it was the practice of the primitive churches, under the guidance and instruction of the Apostles and Prophets, to meet on every first day of the week, for the celebration of the Lord’s death and resurrection, and other religious purposes. And hence it follows, apart from every other consideration, that it is now the solemn duty of all Christians to sanctify wholly to the Lord the first day of every week. No positive precept could possibly add to the sacredness of this day, or serve in any way to make its sanctification a matter of more perpetual and binding obligation.

Great caution is, however, often necessary in applying this rule. The given example may not unfrequently be in some way connected with several laws: some of which may be of binding obligation and some not. Paul, for instance, circumcised Timothy, "on account of the Jews who were in those quarters; for they all knew that his father was a Greek." (Acts 16:3). Now, to some persons it might at first seem as if Paul by this act intended to ratify and indorse, as of still binding obligation, the law of circumcision given in the seventeenth chapter of Genesis. But surely nothing else could be further from his purpose. For, in writing to the Galatians, he says: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but a new creature" (Galatians 6:15). And, in his letter to the Philippians, he says: "We are the circumcision who worship God in the Spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Php 3:3). And to his Roman brethren he says: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Romans 2:28-29). And finally, in his first letter to the church of Corinth, he says: "But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so I ordain in all the churches. Is any man called, being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. s any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" (1 Corinthians 7:17-19).

It was not then to indorse, as of still binding obligation, the Old Covenant of circumcision; but it was "on account of the Jews who were in those parts, that Paul did as he did in this extraordinary case. It was in compliance with that general law of Christian benevolence, which requires us to become all things to all men, so far as the law of Christ will permit, in order that we may gain their hearts, and save the souls of as many of them as we possibly can. "For," says Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians, "while free from all men, I made myself a bond-servant for all, that I might win the more. And to the Jews, I became as a Jew, that I might win the Jews; to those under law, as under law (though not myself under law), that I might win those under law; to those without law, as without law (not being without a law of God, but in the bond of Christ’s law), that I might win those without law; to the weak, I became weak, that I might win the weak. To all men, I have become all things, that I might by all means save some" (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). The circumcision of Timothy must not therefore be referred to the law of circumcision; but to the law of Divine adaptation and Christian benevolence.

RULE III.-We should carefully observe everything that is embraced in the general laws that are given to us by Christ and His Apostles; and also whatever else may follow as a necessary consequence from any and all their instructions, whether specific or generic. The duties of the Christian life are very numerous. And hence, instead of filling many volumes, as He might have done, with specific precepts for our guidance and instruction, God has most wisely and benevolently embraced all our duties and obligations under a few general laws; giving us, at the same time, such motives, practical illustrations, and minute details, as He Himself in His infinite wisdom and benevolence foresaw would be necessary for the instruction, government, and welfare of all. For instance, it is nowhere directly and specifically commanded in the Holy Scriptures, that a disciple of Christ shall not go to the theatre; engage in the merry dance; play at cards; attend the horse-race, the circus, and other such places of vain and licentious amusements. And hence many seem to regard it as their right and privilege to engage, ad libitum, in all such demoralizing and irreligious practices. But let us test this matter a little further. In 1 Corinthians 10:31, Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit, says: "Whether therefore ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God." It is manifest, therefore, that the disciples of Christ are all for-bidden to engage in any thing whatever which has not for its object the, glory of God. But did anyone ever glorify God by playing at cards; participating in the licentious dance; patronizing the theatre; or encouraging the horse-race, the circus, or any other like worldly, profane, or irreligious amusements? I think not. What think you, courteous reader? Or let us test, if you please, all such matters by another law of Christ. In Php 4:8, the same Apostle commands and exhorts his brethren as follows: "Finally, brethren," says he, "whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, what-ever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report-if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Now, will anyone who really loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and who is honestly and prayerfully trying to serve Him-will any such person affirm that dancing, theatre-going, card-playing, horseracing, etc., are things that are pure and honorable? Does anyone maintain that they are of good report? If they are not, then, indeed, they are as positively forbidden as is the sin of drunkenness, murder, theft, or any other vice. They are forbidden by Him to whom has been committed all authority in heaven and on the earth; and who has Himself assured us that even every "idle word" will be brought into the final reckoning on the Day of Judgment (Matthew 12:36).

Take another example. Take, if you please, the duty of family worship. Many parents utterly neglect this; and some of them, at least, profess to do so because, as they allege, it is nowhere positively commanded in the Holy Scriptures. But does not Paul say in Ephesians 6:4, "Fathers, provoke not your children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?" And did any parent ever do this as it should be done, without calling his children together, at least every morning and evening, for the purpose of instructing them in the Holy Scriptures, and praying with them and for them? I presume not. And I presume, moreover, that to fulfill all the duties and obligations of this very broad and comprehensive precept, with-out these daily instructions and devotional exercises, is practically impossible. And, if so, then it follows that the precept, "Bring up your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," embraces family worship just as certainly as that thou-sands embrace hundreds, and that hundreds include tens and units. But the main trouble in all such cases is not owing so much to a want of intellectual as it is to a want of spiritual discernment. It is hard to make a blind man see and comprehend the infinite shades and varieties of color that abound everywhere in the heavens above us and in the earth beneath us. It is hard to make a deaf man perceive and enjoy even the sweetest sounds that ever enchanted the ears of mortals. And just so it is immeasurably difficult to make a spirit that is not largely endowed and enamored with the beauty of holiness, perceive and comprehend the great moral destitution of the prayerless family, and the infinite loathsomeness of the drinking-saloon, the card-table, the ballroom, and the race-field. God never intended to govern His people, like so many slaves, by mere positive and compulsory enactments. He likes a willing service. And hence He has filled the Bible, and especially the New Testament, with motives high as heaven, deep as hell, and en-during as eternity. He draws us "with cords of love as with the bands of a man." The man whose whole heart is full of this divine principle, and who, like Saul of Tarsus, simply inquires, "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?"-such a man does not stand in need of very many direct and positive precepts. For all such humble, honest, and penitent inquiries, the Bible contains within itself a perfect code of laws, embracing all the instructions that are really necessary to a life of godliness.

RULE IV.-We may adopt whatever subordinate rules and regulations are really necessary in order to the full and perfect discharge of all our Christian duties and obligations; provided however, that these shall in no case be inconsistent with the instructions given to us by Christ and His Apostles. A few such rules might be of much service to every Christian in the daily discipline of his own heart, as well as in the practical results of his own life; and they are often absolutely necessary in the more comprehensive and complicated workings of the body of Christ. It is required, for instance, that in all the labors of the Church, for her own edification, as well as for the salvation of the world, "all things shall be done decently and in order" (1 Corinthians 14:40). And, for this purpose, Christ has Himself, through His Apostles, given to us much practical instruction; and, especially, has He ordained that men of rare qualifications shall be chosen and appointed to act as shepherds of the flock. But, in order to do this properly, it is necessary that these men should appoint their own chairman and secretary; that they should hold regular meetings of their own body, for the purpose of hearing reports, and consulting about all matters pertaining to the interests of the Church; that they should, after due conference with the members, determine when and where the Church should meet for public and social worship, and also what should be the order of all such meetings; that they should take into consideration the organization and interests of the Sunday-school; and, in a word, that they should so divide the labors of the Church among themselves and the several members that all may be usefully employed in some way, and that all the interests of the Church may be properly cared for. But in all these matters, and a great many other practical details, we must be guided largely, under the general directions and instructions of the Apostles, by our own sense of duty and propriety. If it be thought best, for instance, that all the male members shall occupy one side of the house, and the females the other, it may be perfectly right, and consistent with the law of Christ, that they should do so. Or if, after due conference, it should be thought best that all the members of the same family should sit together, this also may be right and legitimate. But, if any congregation should, by a vote of her elders, or members, ordain that certain pews shall be occupied only by those who can dress in silk or satin, and who will agree to pay a large stipend for the privilege of occupying an aristocratic position in the assembly of the saints, this would be unlawful. Christ recognizes and authorizes no such rights and privileges among His followers. His law is, In honor prefer others to yourselves. Make the slave feel that, in the Church of Christ, he is the Lord’s freeman; and make the freeman feel that he is the Lord’s bondman. (See Luke 14:7-11; Romans 12:10, and 1 Corinthians 7:21-23.) The same liberty of choice is also given to the Church in reference to her missionary labors. It is made her solemn and imperative duty to make disciples of all the nations; and to baptize them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. But many of the practical details of this work are, of necessity, left to the wisdom and discretion of her own members. If any disciple, who, in the judgment of his brethren, is qualified to preach the Gospel, sees fit to become a missionary at his own expense, and to devote his life to the work of saving the heathen, it is certainly his privilege to do so. "Let him that heareth say, Come," is the second and last great Commission of our blessed Lord to every one of His true and faithful disciples. Or, if any disciple is not himself qualified to preach, but is able and willing, at his own cost, to send out and sustain a faithful missionary in some dark and destitute region, it is also his right and privilege to do so: and he will just as certainly receive his reward as if he had gone in his own proper person. Or, if any one congregation of disciples see fit to cooperate in this work, and to send out one or more missionaries to destitute regions, they have certainly the right to do so, on the same principle that they have a right to cooperate in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, or any other good work; and they can, moreover, plead the example of the Church of Jerusalem, and also of the Church of Antioch. (See Acts 11:22-24; Acts 13:1-3.) Or, if one congregation is not able to do this, then two or three may on the same principle unite and cooperate in sending out as many missionaries as they choose. Or, if the work is too great for a given district, and a more general and systematic effort is deemed necessary, then, also, on the same principle, the churches of a whole State, nation, or continent, may unite for its accomplishment. They may, through their messengers, hold their annual or their semi-annual meetings, appoint all necessary agents, and make any arrangements consistent with the law of Christ that they may deem necessary in order to the accomplishment of their object. But in no case have they a right to make any rules and regulations that are inconsistent with the laws of Christ. Such a society or association of brethren is, in fact, nothing more nor less than the Church herself acting through her own chosen representatives. But the Church is, of course, subject to every law and ordinance of Christ, and so also are her representatives. If she has no right to adopt a money basis of membership, neither have her representatives a right to do so. But they may, like the elders of a church, choose their own officers, adopt their own by-laws, and do anything else, not inconsistent with the laws of Christ, that they may think necessary in order to the speedy and efficient accomplishment of their work.

RULE V.-We should tolerate in one another, as Christian brethren, and as sister congregations, any opinion or practice which is not in itself, or in its tendencies, in conflict with the law of Christ. "Where God speaks we should speak, and where God is silent we should be silent." We cannot be too particular in respecting, teaching, and enforcing whatever Christ has en-joined upon us. The laws of the kingdom of heaven are, during Christ’s mediatorial reign, just as inflexible and immutable as the laws of Nature. While He sits on the, throne of His glory, not one jot or tittle can be innocently added to them or taken from them. Indeed, I cannot conceive of anything that is more daringly presumptuous on the part of any erring mortal, than to presume to change or set aside in any way the decrees of Omnipotence. To do this, is to brand upon ourselves, in plain and unmistakable characters, one of the leading characteristics of the "man of sin." (See Daniel 7:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; 1 Timothy 4:1-3.) And hence we can never countenance or sanction in any way infant baptism, for several reasons:

And the same objections may, in the main, be urged against substituting sprinkling, or pouring, for immersion; against creating and ordaining in the Church an order of bishops, separate and distinct from the elders; and also against sundry other practices and innovations which are wholly at variance with the word of God, and the uniform practice of the primitive churches. But beyond this clearly-defined and consecrated ground, the limits of which must always be held sacred, and of which we cannot and dare not yield even a hair’s breadth, there is a wide field over which the followers of Christ are allowed to range and ramble almost ad libitum. Or, to speak more literally, there is a large chapter of things which are, in themselves, wholly indifferent, and concerning which Christ has ordained as follows: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind;" only, "take heed that this liberty of yours does not be-come a stumbling-block in the way of others." (See Romans 14:1 to Romans 15:13.) This law is well illustrated in the life and teachings of the Apostle Paul. Whenever there was danger of so using even those things which are in themselves wholly indifferent, as to nullify a law of Christ, or to set aside anything pertaining to the Christian religion, then no one could be more decided and uncompromising in his opposition to them. He who circumcised Timothy in order to make him a more acceptable Evangelist to his Jewish brethren, was constrained under different circumstances to say to the Galatians, "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:2). He saw that, in this case, there was danger of a real and most ruinous innovation. He saw that, through the influence of false teachers, the brethren of Galatia were in imminent danger of neglecting the Gospel, and trusting for salvation in the laws and institutions of Moses. And hence he was constrained, as an Apostle of Christ, to "stand like an anvil" between them and error.

But, whenever there was no such danger of comprising in any way a law or an ordinance of Christ, then, indeed, no one could go further than he in yielding to the prejudices of both Jews and Gentiles. He would shave his head at Cenchrea, offer sacrifices at Jerusalem, and keep the Sabbath in all places, rather than in any way retard the progress of the Gospel by offending against the prejudices of his Jewish brethren.

I am aware that good men and able critics entertain different views with regard to Paul’s motives and purposes in observing the rites and ceremonies of the Law; and, especially, in taking upon himself the vow of the Nazarite, involving, as it did, the offering of animal sacrifices. (See Numb. 6:1-21; and Acts 21:17-26.)

These three hypotheses are I think, exhaustive of the whole matter. At all events, they seem to embrace everything relating to this case, which is at all worthy of our consideration. And, as the question before us in one of very great practical importance, it may be well to consider it carefully. Let us then examine, as briefly as we can, each of these hypotheses in order. And-

1. Did Paul act from ignorance in this case, or did he not? Did he know that the ordinances of legal purification, shaving the head, killing and offering animal sacrifices, etc., were all abolished at this time; or did he regard them as of still binding obligation on himself and his Jewish brethren? That he knew soon after this that they were abolished, must, I think, be admitted by all. For, in A.D. 62, he said to the Colossians: "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses; blotting out the hand-writing of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross. And having spoiled principalities and powers, He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath-days, which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ" (Colossians 2:13-17). And, about A.D. 63, he or some one of his colleagues in the work of the ministry, wrote to his Hebrew brethren as follows: "For the Law, having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect. For then would they not have ceased to be offered? Because that the worshippers once purged should have no more consciousness of sins. But in those sacrifices 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. Wherefore, when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me. In burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, to do Thy will, O God. Above, when he saith, sacrifice, and offering, and burnt-offerings, and offerings for sin, thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure there-in, which are offered by the Law; then said he, Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God. He taketh away the first will that He may establish the second. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering often-times the same sacrifice which can never take away sins; but this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right-hand of God, from thenceforth expecting till His enemies be made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever them that are sanctified" (Hebrews 10:1-14).

It is plain, therefore, that when Paul wrote his letters to the Colossians and the Hebrews, in A.D. 62 and 63, he knew that the entire Law of Moses had, as a typical and religious institution, been nailed to the cross of Christ, and that it was hence-forth no longer religiously binding on any one. But did he know this in A.D. 58, when he came up to Jerusalem to attend the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16), and to bring alms to his suffering Hebrew brethren? Compare Acts 21:27; Acts 24:17-18.

I think he did:

(1.) Because a knowledge of this was, from the beginning of the kingdom of heaven, essential to both the right proclamation and obedience of the Gospel. From the opening of the kingdom, on the day of Pentecost, A.D. 34, and onward, Jesus Christ was proclaimed to the people as the only Savior; as the way, the truth, the resurrection, and the life. There was no attempt made by the Apostles and Prophets to compromise between Judaism and Christianity as religious institutions; as means of procuring pardon, justification; sanctification, and redemption. That the Law was still necessary to the Jews as a civil institution, and that it served also in some respects to promote their social and even their religious enjoyment, is, of course, conceded. But that any Christian could ever consistently trust for salvation partly in the blood of bulls and of goats, and partly in the blood of Christ, seems to me to be quite impossible. If this were a fatal error when Paul wrote his letter to the Hebrews, in A.D. 63, was it any less so in A.D. 53, or 43, or at the beginning of the kingdom? And can we therefore doubt that the Epistle to the Hebrews is in perfect harmony with all the instruction given by the Apostles to their Hebrew brethren, even from the commencement of the Christian Church? I freely admit that there was in some respects a gradual development of Gospel truth. But, with respect to the ground of man’s justification before God, there was certainly no room left for doubt or vacillation. It was Christ crucified that was offered to the people as their only Savior in Jerusalem, in Samaria, in Corinth, in Rome, and in the uttermost parts of the earth.

(2.) Because, in his Epistle to the Romans, written, at Corinth, in the beginning of the same year, A.D. 58, and, of course, but a very short time before his interview with James and the elders at Jerusalem, Paul teaches, not only the utter impossibility of any one’s being justified or sanctified by the Law of. Moses, but he goes even further, and declares in the most explicit terms that the Law was abolished, and that the Hebrew Christians had been released from all obligation to it as a religious institution, in order that they might bring forth fruit unto God, and attain to that holiness of heart, and purity of life, through the Gospel, which they had found to be wholly unattainable through the Law. "Know ye not, brethren," says he ("for I speak to them that know the Law), that the Law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman who hath a husband is bound by the Law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of the husband. So, then, if, while her husband liveth she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. But if her husband be dead, she is freed from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the Law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another.. even to Him who is raised from the dead, that ye should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the emotions of sin which were by the Law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter" (Romans 7:1-6).

Here, it seems to me, there is no room left for doubt in relation to the whole matter. Paul in this passage declares by the Spirit, in the most unequivocal terms, that he and his Hebrew brethren had all died to the Law and been married to Christ, in order that they might bring forth fruit unto God.

I know that it is alleged by some, for whose opinions in religious matters I have very great respect, that Paul is here speaking of the Law in general; but that, in making this declaration, he has no reference to bloody sacrifices, or at least that he himself did not so understand his own language, whatever may have been the intention and mind of the Spirit. But why make animal sacrifices an exception in this broad and emphatic declaration of the Apostle? Is there in this epistle, or elsewhere, the shadow of evidence to support such an allegation? Why not except with equal propriety the offering of incense? The diverse washings? the annual festivals? or in fact any other element of the Mosaic economy? The fact is, that the law of sacrifice is so fully blended with all the other rites and ceremonies of the Law, that they must all stand or fall together. And so Paul evidently understood the matter in his Epistle to the Romans, as well as in his Epistle to the Hebrews. The great contrast between the sacrifices of the Law and the sacrifice of Christ, constitutes, in many cases, the main point of his argument in the former as well as in the latter. This will appear from the following example: "For what the Law (with all its bloody rites and sacrifices) could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God (has done by) sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and by an offering for sin has condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit" (Romans 8:3-4). To this evidence we might add also the testimony of Paul given in his letter to the Galatians. This was written certainly not later than his Epistle to the Romans, about the beginning of the year A.D. 58, and perhaps even as early as A.D. 55. In the third and fourth chapters, particularly, he speaks in the most explicit terms of the abolition of the Law, and of the superior advantages and privileges of the New Economy. He says, for instance, that, on account of transgression, the Law was added to the promise made to Abraham concerning Christ, "till the Seed should come;" and that it served as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. But now, since Christ has Himself come, he avers that "we are no longer under the schoolmaster." But it is quite unnecessary to multiply witnesses. The evidence given is, I think, quite sufficient to prove that both Paul and James, in the case referred to, acted with a full knowledge of the fact that the Law of Moses, including the law of the Nazarite, the priesthood, animal sacrifices, etc., had been previously abrogated; and consequently that the first hypothesis is wholly untenable.

2. How is it then with the second hypothesis? Is there any evidence that in this case Paul acted hypocritically or deceptively from the fear of his Jewish brethren? Surely not. For-

(1.) Such a course would be wholly inconsistent with his general character and manner of life, both as a Jew and as a Christian. A man who dared to face even the wild beasts at Ephesus; to encounter the barbarous persecutions of the heath-en; and to stand unmoved and undaunted even in the presence of the bloody Nero and his licentious court-such a man was not likely to be much alarmed by the report that many of his Jewish brethren were dissatisfied with his teachings in reference to the Law of Moses. He had come to Jerusalem to die for the Lord Jesus, if it were necessary for him to do so. (See Acts 20:22-24; Acts 21:10-14.)

(2.) The hypothesis is wholly inconsistent with the known facts of the case. It is evident, from the testimony given by Luke, that in this case Paul acted in compliance with the deliberate advice given by the Apostle James and the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, many of whom were no doubt inspired men, and were of course well qualified to give advice on any and all matters pertaining to the purity and harmony of the Church. These men were well aware that many slanderous reports had been circulated against Paul, not only to his own prejudice as a man and a preacher of the Gospel, but also greatly to the injury of the Church; and, as guardians of the interests of Christ’s kingdom, they were anxious that these false reports should be corrected. They saw at once, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the very best way and means of doing this, so far as it could be effected under existing circumstances. The advice was deliberately given by James and the Elders, and it was just as deliberately accepted by Paul; so that from the whole narrative there is not the slightest evidence that Paul had any fear on the occasion, or that it was his purpose to make a false impression on any one. His object was simply to correct what was false, and to comply with the known customs and prejudices of his countrymen, as far as the law of Christ would permit, but no further.

(3.) This hypothesis is also inconsistent with the promised aid of the Holy Spirit, which was given to the Apostles for the special purpose of enabling them to be faithful witnesses, faithful advisers, faithful lawgivers, and faithful servants of the Church of Christ. If this brief chapter of sacred history was not written for our instruction and guidance, then, I ask, What portion of the New Testament was written for this purpose? If the advice of James and his inspired colleagues is to be set at naught in this case, then what is to become of their advice in any other case? And, if Paul erred in this instance, then who shall say in what other instance he did not err? Concede that Paul, and James, and the Elders of the Church at Jerusalem, erred in this instance through ignorance, fear, prejudice, or any other cause, and there is an end of all Apostolic authority; then the New Testament becomes to us of about as much value as the writings of Plato, Seneca, or Aristotle ! But this is, of course, only a "reductio ad absurdum," or a demonstration of the fact that both the first and second given hypotheses lead to an absurdity. The promises of Christ to His Apostles were all "Yea and amen." It was the Holy Spirit, acting through the Apostles, that suggested every precept, every word of advice, and every practical illustration, that is recorded in the New Testament for our instruction. And hence we are constrained to conclude that the third given hypothesis is the correct one, and that the conduct of Paul in this case is but an illustration of that general law of Christian benevolence and Divine adaptation which requires us to yield, within certain limits, to the customs and prejudices of all men, and to do good to all as we have opportunity.

It seems to me, therefore, that the right understanding and application of this general law of Christian benevolence and propriety would go far to correct many existing evils. It is not true that "we cannot lawfully do anything as Christians which is not specifically commanded and required in the New Testament." Nor is it true, on the other hand, that "we may do anything which is not specifically forbidden." These are the extremes to which the erring spirit of man is ever vibrating; but the Spirit of God teaches us a very different lesson. It teaches us, indeed, that every Christian is subject to the law of Christ in all places and under all circumstances; that he cannot think, or speak, or act, in the closet, in the family, in the Church, in the state, or in any part of the wide world, without being amenable to the laws of his Divine Sovereign. But, then, it further teaches us that many of these laws are generic, and that, in applying them, we should often look to the effects and consequences of our actions. The same principle of gravity that causes the mercury to sink in the jar, makes it rise in the barometer. And just so it often is in Christian ethics. The same principle of right or benevolence which requires of us a certain act under one train of circumstances, not unfrequently forbids our doing the very same thing under different circumstances. Had Paul been among his Gentile brethren in the city of Rome, Corinth, or Ephesus, he would not have done as he did among his Hebrew brethren in Jerusalem.

If a congregation of Christians should think proper, during a protracted meeting, to invite penitent backsliders to come forward to confess their sins and to be prayed for, at what they may see fit to call a mourners’ bench, a backsliders’ bench, or anything else, I do not think that in so doing they would of necessity violate any law of Christ. These delinquents, having once put on Christ by faith, repentance, confession, and baptism, no longer stand to the Church in the exact attitude and relation of aliens. It is right and proper that they should confess their sins, pray for their forgiveness, and ask others also to pray for them. And this may, of course, be done at a back-sliders’ bench, or at any other bench or place that the Elders of the Church may see fit to designate. But the case is very different when aliens are invited to such a bench to obtain pardon, simply through the influence of their own prayers and the prayers of the congregation. This is to set at naught some of the plainest and most direct instruction of the Holy Spirit; for to all who gladly receive its teachings it says, as it did to the inquiring Pentecostal converts: "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38).

Under the Old Economy, instrumental music was, by Divine authority, made an element of public and social worship. "Praise God," says the inspired Psalmist, "with stringed instruments and organs; praise Him on the loud cymbals." And hence it is evident that there is really nothing wrong in the "divine art" of instrumental music. But is it now proper to use the organ, the harp, or the cymbal, in the Church of Christ? If so, under what law of the kingdom may it be introduced? We are commanded to admonish one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in our hearts to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16). And this, of course, implies that it is right and proper to use whatever means may be really necessary, in order that we may thus praise and magnify God in our devotions. It requires, for instance, that we shall all sing vocally as well as spiritually; that we shall all, as far as we can, make melody with our lips as well as in our hearts: for there can be no doubt that the emotions of the heart depend very much on the utterances of the voice. But have the tones of the organ a similar effect? Do they serve to cultivate the heart, and to excite within us emotions of gratitude and love, as do our own vocal utterances? So it is alleged by many. They argue that the organ assists the voice, and that their combined influences serve very greatly to excite in the heart that purely spiritual melody which is in the sight of God of great price. This, I am inclined to think, is, after all that has been said on the subject, the most pointed and plausible argument that has yet been urged in favor of having instrumental music in our Churches. But is it a valid argument? Is it a fact that the use of the organ does so influence the heart and the affections? In some cases it may be so; but that the general tendency of instrumental music is to quench the influence of the Spirit in the heart, and to promote in the Churches a cold, barren, and lifeless formalism, has, I think, been historically demonstrated; for, otherwise, how shall we account for the fact that, wherever the organ is used, there, there is at least manifested a constant tendency to give up congregational singing? The command to sing and make melody in your hearts to the Lord, is addressed to every disciple of the Lord Jesus; and whatever, therefore, interferes with the general participation of the whole congregation in this part of social worship, is manifestly inconsistent with an ordinance of Christ.

This, then, it seems to me, is one valid reason against the use of instrumental music in the Church of Christ; and another is, that many, very many of the most intelligent, pious, and consistent followers of Christ are opposed to it. Its tendency in most cases is certainly to alienate the hearts of God’s people from one another, and to promote strife and division, as well as a spirit of worldliness, among the followers of the Lord Jesus; and hence I do not see how any Christian can consistently favor the use of the organ, or any other instrument, in the congregation of the saints; and if all the disciples of Christ were as well instructed and as pious as they should be, I do not think that instrumental music would ever be used in public worship.

But, just here is the trouble. None of us are yet perfect; and hence it must, of necessity, be that offences will come. The organ has been introduced into some Churches, and the probability is, that it will also be introduced into many others. What, then, shall be done? Should we divide the Church on this account? Should we violently rend into pieces the body of Christ, simply because a majority of its members are in favor of using an organ? I think not. It is no small matter to divide the body of Christ. And we had better take care, lest, in our opposition to organs, we should be found to even out-Herod Herod himself. Let us endeavor to overcome evil with good. And while we humbly and earnestly protest against every evil in the Church, and do what we can consistently to remove it, let us, at the same time, see to it that all things are done in love; and so let us fulfill the law of Christ. For, remember, dear brethren, that "the end of the commandment is love, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned."

We have thus very briefly noticed a few of the many things in which we have been instructed by the Apostles of our Lord and Savior; and also some of the rules by which we should be governed in all our endeavors to make the Word of God the guide of our lives. It would, of course, be both interesting and profitable to go more into detail, if our time and prescribed limits would permit. But I trust that enough has already been said to convince every candid reader-

Let this be done in the spirit of Christian love, and in the exercise of that "wisdom which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy;" and then, soon, all else will be done. For then "the mountain of the Lord’s house will be established in the top of the mountains, and be exalted above the hills; and all nations will flow unto it." This will appear more obvious from the following chapter.