========================================================================
  WRITINGS OF D R DUNGAN
  by D.R. Dungan
========================================================================

A collection of theological writings, sermons, and essays by D.R. Dungan,
compiled for study and devotional reading.

  Chapters: 47

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01.00. HERMENEUTICS
    2. 01.01.     Introduction
    3. 01.02.     Things Which Help
    4. 01.03.     Things Which Hinder
    5. 01.04.     Concerning Methods (1)
    6. 01.04a.   Concerning Methods (2)
    7. 01.05.     The Several Covenants (1)
    8. 01.05a.   The Several Covenants (2)
    9. 01.06.     Value & Use of History & Biography
   10. 01.07.     ...Words and Sentences
   11. 01.08.     Figurative Language
   12. 01.09.     Various Figures of the Bible (1)
   13. 01.09a.   Various Figures of the Bible (2)
   14. 01.09b.   Various Figures of the Bible (3)
   15. 01.09c.   Various Figures of the Bible (4)
   16. 01.09d.   Various Figures of the Bible (5)
   17. 01.09e.   Various Figures of the Bible (6)
   18. 01.10.     Figures of Thought
   19. 01.11.     Prophecy
   20. 02.00. SABBATH OR LORD’S DAY? WHICH?
   21. 02.00.2.     Changes in this edition
   22. 02.01.     The Sabbath: The Statement of the Question
   23. 02.02.     The Sabbath: The Hypothesis of a Pre-Mosaic Requirement
   24. 02.03.     The Sabbath: To whom was the Law of the Sabbath Given?
   25. 02.04.     The Sabbath: Was the Law of the Sabbath Perpetuated in Christ?
   26. 02.05.     The Sabbath: Is the Decalogue Yet Binding?
   27. 02.06.     The Sabbath: The Law, of which the Sabbath was a Part, was Done away in Christ
   28. 02.07.     The Sabbath: Conclusion of Part One
   29. 02.08.     The Lord's Day: The Source of Knowledge
   30. 02.09.     The Lord's Day: The View Entertained by Christians in General
   31. 02.10.     The Lord's Day: Unfair Methods of Advancing the Cause of the Sabbath and of Opposing ...
   32. 02.11.     The Lord's Day: Regarded as Sacred in All Ages of Church History
   33. 02.12.     The Lord's Day: The Teaching of Scriptures on the Day of Christian Worship
   34. 02.13.     The Lord's Day: How the Apostles Understood the Subject
   35. 03.00.1.  RUM AND RUIN
   36. 03.00.2.     INTRODUCTION.
   37. 03.00.3.     CONTENTS.
   38. 03.00.4.     About This Edition
   39. 03.01.     Alcohol: a Physical and Mental Evil,
   40. 03.02.     The Physical, Mental and Moral Evil
   41. 03.03.     Does the Bible Sanction the Use of Alcohol?
   42. 03.04.     The Cost of Alcohol.
   43. 03.05.     How Shall We Remove the Evil?
   44. 03.06.     The Right to Prohibit.
   45. 03.07.     Local Option
   46. 03.08.     Can the Liquor Traffic Be Restrained By a Prohibitory Law?
   47. 03.09.     How Can We Secure and Enforce the Law We Need?

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01.00. HERMENEUTICS
========================================================================

HERMENEUTICS A TEXT-BOOK BY PROF. D. R. DUNGAN

AUTHOR OF "CHANG FOO," "ON THE ROCK," "RUM, RUIN, AND THE REMEDY," "MODERN
PHASES OF SKEPTICISM," ETC.

SECOND EDITION CINCINNATI, O. THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1888, by STANDARD PUBLISHING
COMPANY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 01.01.     INTRODUCTION
========================================================================

HERMENEUTICS.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTION.

SEC. 1. OUR SUBJECT DEFINED.--Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation. It
is derived from the Greek Hermes, the messenger of the gods and the interpreter
of Jupiter. Every Hermeneus was, therefore, an interpreter, as he was supposed
to inherit some of the mystic qualities of this god of philology, this patron of
eloquence. Sacred hermeneutics is the science of interpreting the Scriptures.
Exegesis (from ex, out, and egeisthas, to guide or lead), means to lead out. It
is the application of the principles of hermeneutics in bringing out the meaning
of any writing which might otherwise be difficult to understand.

SEC. 2. GOD EXPECTS US TO USE HIS BOOK IN BECOMING ACQUAINTED WITH HIS
CHARACTER, AND IN GAINING A KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL.

(1.) The Bible to be used as other books.--An interpreter implies a
misunderstanding, between two parties, or, at least, a liability to such a
misunderstanding. And it is at once objected that if the Bible is of God, it
should be so plain that no one could misunderstand it; that, if God could give
us such a book, and would not, He was certainly to blame. But if He would, but
could not, He is not [1] perfect in wisdom or ability to execute. This logic is
not good. We might as well say that if God is the Author of Nature, its meaning
should be so apparent that all would perfectly understand it, and therefore,
understand it alike. And yet we know that our scientists are quite disagreed
about many things in nature, and that the great masses of men are in ignorance,
almost from first to last, respecting the whole question. God has, therefore,
made it necessary to study nature in order to get its lessons. Geology,
astronomy, physiology, etc., etc., are known only to those who study them. It is
reasonable, therefore, that He should make it necessary to study His word.

(2.) The weakness is with, man.--Man is fallible, and his judgment is very
imperfect. Nothing has ever been written which has been understood by all alike.
(a) Our laws are made by, our wisest and most careful men; they are made with
special reference to the people for whom they are intended, so that no man may
be misguided respecting his duty, and no criminal go unpunished. And yet our
shrewdest lawyers and ablest jurists are in doubt as to the meaning of much of
our law. (b) Not only so, but the creeds that have been wrought out by the
ablest and purest of men, are variously interpreted. Churches wrangle and divide
over them. Leading divines differ widely as to the meaning of many of the
articles, while the common people have not even the most indistinct idea of
their original intent. We can not say that these were not plainly written, in
the first place. And, perhaps for the first quarter of a century after any one
of these was published, all parties were agreed as to the import of its
articles. But age has come, custom has changed, religious sentiment has veered,
words and forms have become obsolete, or have changed their meaning: hence the
many interpretations. Man misunderstands his fellow man, and even himself, and
is competent to misinterpret the Lord also.

(3.) God does not inspire the interpretation.--It is sometimes supposed still
that the Holy Spirit directs men in their inquiries after truth, so that no
hurtful mistake can be made. But we know that the very best of men differ very
widely in their views of the word of the Lord. We know, too, that these men make
their investigations a matter of daily prayer. And knowing that truth is never
contradictory, that error is dangerous and injurious, that very pious men are
permitted to blunder in reference to the meaning of the Scripture, we feel
assured that, whatever helps the Lord may see proper to give His servants in
their efforts to understand the Bible, he does not guide them by inspiration, or
the mistakes which are now made would not occur.

(4.) Divine wisdom has adopted the word-method of revelation.--This being true,
it is implied that all the weaknesses which belong to such a medium of
communication were adopted at the same time. There would be no reason in giving
a revelation which would need inspiration to interpret. If the inspiration has
to be given, there is no need of the word itself. The inspiration would make
known all the truth as well without the word as with it. Indeed, it would be
better to have the inspiration alone than to have a faulty word revelation,
which might mislead those why have not the needed inspiration. While the word
would be of no practical value whatever, it might do a great deal of harm.
Better that God had never given it, since its only power is to deceive. But when
He made choice between a direct revelation to every one, and the selection of a
few who should be the teachers of the many, He chose the latter. Hence to those
whom He has chosen as His revelators, must we look for a knowledge of the divine
will.

It does not change the question to claim that a few men are now chosen to
interpret that word. We must have some means of knowing that they are favored
above the common people in thus being divinely endowed. And since those who have
equal claims to a special call to this work differ widely respecting very
important matters, we are incredulous respecting these exalted assumptions. The
truth is, their claims are not sustained. Besides, there is no reason that God
should give special inspiration to interpreters now. He has no other truth now
to reveal, nor can He make it any plainer than He did when He gave us the Bible.
The words of the men whom He now inspires, if there are any, are as difficult to
understand as the words of the men He inspired eighteen hundred years ago. If we
can not understand those, how shall we understand these? The ancients supposed
that they must look to the law and the testimony for a knowledge of the will of
the Lord, and that the truth was to be had by the same methods of study that
were applied to any other branches of knowledge.

Ezr 7:10 : "For Ezra had set his heart to seek the law of the Lord and to do it,
and to teach in Israel statutes and judgments."

Deu 29:29 : "The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that
are revealed belong unto us and to our children forever, that. we may do all the
words of this law." Neh 8:1-8 shows how they had to learn the law, Ezra reads
the law from morning till noon, and is assisted by chosen men, who go among the
people and explain to them the meaning of any words which they did not
understand. From Psa 1:1-2; Psa 19:7; Psa 119:39-105 we shall get David’s idea
of coming to the knowledge of the will of the Lord. They must read that word,
study it day and night, get all its precepts in the mind in this way, and then
may they assure themselves that they have more knowledge than the ancients--than
all their teachers.

Jesus makes Abraham say to the rich man, respecting his five brothers: "They
have Moses and the prophets; . . . if they hear not Moses and the prophets
neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (Luk 16:29-31).

Paul holds this view of the question. He says to Timothy, that although he has
known the Holy Scriptures from his childhood, which were able to make him wise
unto salvation, he must study to show himself approved unto God, a workman that
needed not to be ashamed, rightly setting forth the word of truth. Hence he must
give attention to reading, to, exhortation, to teaching.

SEC. 3. A CORRECT HERMENEUTICS WOULD GO FAR TOWARD HEALING THE DIVISIONS OF THE
CHURCH.

(1.) A wrong interpretation is not the only cause of divisions.--That the
followers of Christ should be one, does not admit of a doubt. Jesus prayed for
the unity of all those who should believe on him through the word of the
apostles. The apostles condemned divisions on all occasions; even in an
incipient form, they were regarded as being carnal, and proceeding from hearts
not in unison with the will of Christ. Men who were division-makers were
regarded as unworthy of a place in the church, and after the first and second
admonitions were to be avoided. They were spoken of as not serving the Lord
Jesus, but their own passions. But while we regard carnality, in the form of
unsanctified ambition, as the great cause of the divisions that now serve to mar
the beauty of Zion and destroy the peace and power of the kingdom of Christ, it
is not the only cause.

(2.) Selfish ambition can not be removed by rules of interpretation.--Even in
the days of the apostles, in the presence of divine inspiration, in the presence
of the divine authority which had been committed to the chosen twelve, ambitious
men rose up to draw away disciples after them, ready to make merchandise of
them. Even then the mystery of iniquity was secretly at work. The desire for
place and power led men then to adopt the claim of sanctity, that they might
gain a leadership which could come to them in no other way. It would be idle to
undertake to prevent men from being hypocrites, from loving this present world,
or from seeking their own, and not the things of Jesus Christ, by rules of
interpretation. Sound exegesis can have but little effect on such conditions of
the heart. But when we are not able to change the goods, we may do something in
changing the market. A correct hermeneutics may do something toward rendering it
impossible for these men to continue their work of deception. If we could bring
all the followers of Christ to a common interpretation of the word of God, the
power to create divisions would certainly be gone.

(3.) All divisions, however, are not the result of ambition, carnality, or a
sectarian spirit.--Among the purest and best of earth, there are many
differences of faith and practice. They can not be accounted for upon the basis
of dishonesty, nor upon the ground of general ignorance, for these divisions in
the church contain men of equal learning. Of course, many of these learned men
were born in their particular views, and all their study in the Scriptures has
been to sustain these tenets, and in their maintenance there may be the spice of
dishonesty. Still, the unfairness that comes from the prejudice of early
training will not account for the many conflicting faiths among the followers of
Christ.

(4.) The Bible is not at fault.--Skepticism to-day feeds and fattens on the
divided state of the Christian world. It declares that the book which we regard
as God-given is to blame for all this misunderstanding. Skeptics charge that the
Bible either teaches doctrines which are contradictory, or that they are so
obscure that a man is about as liable to make one thing of them as another. This
we can not admit. If the Bible is of God, it does not contradict itself, nor is
it so obscure in its teaching that those who are seeking the way of life can not
understand it. We reason that God gave man such a book as he needed, and that
man needed a book which, with honest effort, he could understand; hence, if the
Bible is God’s book, it can be understood by all those who wish to know the way
of eternal life.

(5.) The method of interpretation is to blame for much of the inharmony which
now exists.--It is evident to every student of the times, that the great body of
Protestant Christians want unity; that they deplore the divisions which now
disfigure the church and retard the progress of the truth; that divisions are
not sufficiently accounted for upon the basis of dishonesty; and we can not
admit that the Bible is at fault in the matter: hence there is nothing else that
we can say but that our manner of interpreting the word of God is wrong. These
facts compel the thought that he who can bring before the world a correct system
of interpretation, will do more to heal the divisions than any other man of this
century.

SEC. 4. A SOUND HERMENEUTICS WOULD BE THE BEST POSSIBLE ANSWER TO INFIDEL
OBJECTIONS TO THE BIBLE.

(1.) A wrong interpretation is not the only cause of unbelief.--Much of the
infidelity of the age is the result of impure hearts and bad lives. Many men
have made themselves opposite to the purity of the gospel of Christ, and so have
gone beyond the limits of the faith-condition of the mind. Men may cultivate
distrust in their fellows till it is impossible for them to trust themselves to
the virtue and honesty of any one. Skepticism is a plant that may be grown, nay,
that is grown. It is suited well to a barren soil, and luxuriates in a foul
heart. Many things are believed because men wish them to be true, while others
are disbelieved for a like reason. In such cases, it would matter but little
what the evidence might be, they would not accept of the gospel.

(2.) But false interpretation is a strong support of unbelief.--Some one has
well said that "the Bible is its own best defense." But in order that it may be
any defense at all, its teachings must be understood; and this can never be
without a correct knowledge of the principles of interpretation. Before we
assume that Geology and Genesis are at variance, we ought to be absolutely
certain that we have accurately interpreted both. For the want of a correct
hermeneutics, men have imagined that they have found discrepancies, and even
palpable contradictions, in the Bible. They would find any other book equally
contradictory if they should treat it in the sauce way. But men know that the
laws of language must be observed in reading any other book. If they would use
the same care and common sense when reading the Bible, infidelity would find no
place to set the sole of its foot. Hence it becomes evident that a correct
exegesis will greatly weaken the power of infidelity, if not utterly destroy it.

SEC. 5. THE LAST GREAT NEED OF A SOUND EXEGESIS, OF WHICH WE NOW SPEAK, IS THAT
WE MAY FIND OUR WAY TO HEAVEN.

(1.) Inquirers discouraged by the different answers given.--The question, "What
shall I do to be saved!" receives so many different and conflicting answers,
that the seekers after eternal life are confused and disheartened, and they do
not know what to do. They are told that there is nothing they can do, that they
must wait for the Lord to come and save them; and that they can not do anything
that will conduce to their salvation. Others tell them that they can and must
give themselves to Christ, that they may be saved; and that unless they do, they
will certainly be lost. Still they do not tell them how to give themselves to
Christ. If they are sent to the word of God to learn the way of life, they are
not told how to read it or where to look for directions on the subject. They
would be as apt to go to the book of Job as to the Gospels or the Acts of the
Apostles, to find the way of salvation in Christ. If men were inquiring into any
question of law or history, they would be told where they could get the desired
information-what book treated on that subject. They would not only be pointed to
the book containing the desired intelligence, but to the chapter and section
where the information might be found. If the Scriptures were studied in this
way, there would be but little difficulty on this most important of all
questions.

(2.) Not only is the question of salvation involved, but the assurance of pardon
also.--Persons who have had the same religious experience, differ widely as to
the import of what they have heard, and desired, and felt. One believes he is a
child of God, and no doubt lingers to chill the ardor of his soul. Another, who
has had the same experience, hopes that he has a hope, but is only certain that
he is not certain of anything respecting his standing with God. It is vain to
say that this must be the direct teaching of the Holy Spirit, or that a
Christian knows by his feelings just what his relations are with God. For if God
taught one of these servants in this direct way, He certainly would not have
left the other to grope his way in darkness, doubt and uncertainty on the same
subject. The truth is, one has had the same joys and sorrows that are known to
the other, and the reason that the one regards himself a favorite of heaven and
the other is in doubt as to his standing with God, is in the creeds of the two
men. They are equally good, equally pure, and have passed through the same
repentance, and have the same trust in Christ as the only Saviour of men; in
fact, there is no perceptible difference between them, except as by their creeds
they have interpreted these sorrows and joys differently. And this difference of
creed has arisen from the difference in their modes of interpretation. To one,
these things have had one meaning; to the other, they have had quite a different
meaning. Now, if it is God’s will that one Christian should know his sins
forgiven, it is certain that it is His will that all His servants should rejoice
because of like intelligence. Right methods of the interpretation of the
Scriptures will certainly remove the trouble, and enable our joyous and doubtful
brethren to see themselves in the same condition before the "one God and Father
of us all."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 01.02.     THINGS WHICH HELP
========================================================================

CHAPTER II. THE THINGS WHICH HELP US TO UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD.

SEC. 6. THE NEED OF UNDERSTANDING THESE THINGS.--If we know not the things that
will help us, we shall not be likely to invoke their aid. No man searches for
that of which he has no knowledge. If there are helps, let us know what they
are, and how they may be obtained; and then we will strive for that ability
which will enable us to what the will of the Lord is.

SEC. 7. GOOD COMMON SENSE IS THE FIRST REQUISITE.--This is so self-evident that
to present it further would be to waste time.

(1.) This is a natural qualification, but it may be greatly increased.--Some one
has said that if a man lack knowledge he can get it of his fellow-man; that if
he lack religion, he can have it by going to God and asking for it; but if he
lack common sense, he has nowhere to go. But this remark has in it more of wit
than of truth. We are not all equally endowed, but almost every one has a
talent, and if that be not hid in a napkin and buried in the earth, but properly
employed, it will increase; if it shall only be put on interest, it will gain
something. Common sense has its root-idea in the ability to discover harmony in
the things which agree; and, conversely, to perceive unlikeness in opposites. To
a man devoid of common sense there would be no difference between Mohammedanism
and the religion of Christ; between the law of Moses and the gospel of Christ;
between Catholicism and any form of Protestantism. Equally hidden from him would
be the truths in all these systems, for he would not be able to distinguish
truth from error.

It does not seem to be known that a man may be ostensibly learned in the
abstract, and know but little of anything in the concrete. And yet it is true
that he may give himself so entirely to the study of attenuated philosophy that
he will almost cease to have any proper understanding of the events of life, and
be quite incompetent to decide between one thing and another.

If it be true that one may injure his mind by employing it only on subjects that
are abstruse, it is just as true that the mind may be strengthened and benefited
by proper use upon themes and duties that concern every-day life.

(2.) The use of this gift in the interpretation of the Scriptures.--If we were
speaking of the interpretation of law or the study of medicine, no one would
call in question our position for a moment. To understand the propositions of
any branch of science, all are agreed as to the absolute necessity of common
sense. But there lurks in the popular heart the suspicion that, after all the
less of real knowledge, and the more of the dreamy speculative qualities of mind
are possessed, the more likely will the interpreter arrive at the meaning of the
Bible. They forget that God gave this book to the common people, that He has
filled it with the experiences of men, and that its writers have spoken to us
not only of the things that constantly surround us, but in the language which a
plain people can the most easily understand. It is a book to accompany us
through all the walks of life-to constantly show us the dangers on the one hand,
and the way of safety on the other. In this book we are constantly dealing with
those things that are in antithesis; in which are the deceptive tricks of the
enemy of the race, put over against the truth of God; in which the way of truth
is made plain by its contrast with the works of darkness. Hence the more the
student will study plain questions, and the more he may know men as they are,
the more likely will he be able to understand the word of God.

SEC. 8. FAITH IN THE INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES, WILL HELP THE STUDENT TO
UNDERSTAND THEM.

(l.) It is not meant to say that unbelievers can not know anything of the claims
of the word of God. They may know many things respecting the Bible. The Jews who
did not believe in the divinity of Christ understood many things respecting the
claims which he made. Indeed, if an infidel could not know such things, he would
not be responsible. The ability which unbelievers possess to investigate these
subjects, is the measure of their responsibility before God.

(2.) And yet the condition of their mind is unfavorable to any thorough
investigation, or any proper estimate of the claims which are made. To receive a
letter from Jay Gould, and yet believe it to be from some one else, who had sent
it out of mere sport, would not likely benefit the receiver. If he should read
it, curiosity would have to incite to the effort; and as soon as the reader
would be sufficiently amused, he would lay the epistle aside, with but little,
if any, further thought. The communication might be one of very great
importance, and yet in a few hours he would know but little, if anything, of its
contents. So it is with the Bible. The unbeliever reads it out of mere
curiosity, or that he may find some fault with it, and the probability is that
all he will be able to find in the volume will be a few things that, to him, are
curious, or unreasonable. He remembers here and there a text from which he can
make an adverse criticism, but as to making any thorough investigation into the
teaching of that book, such an idea does not enter his mind. He is not in
sympathy with its and in no way is he prepared to understand it.

(3.) Faith, in the inspiration of the book will prompt the most patient and
thorough investigation.--Not only so, but the thought that it contains a divine
message for him, will help to a clearer view of its contents than could
otherwise be had.

SEC. 9. MENTAL INDUSTRY IS ESSENTIAL TO ANY PROPER INVESTIGATION.--Mary, who sat
at the feet of the Master, and attended diligently to His teaching, may have
been as industrious as her sister, but her industry was of a different kind. She
employed the head and heart more in the acquisition of truth. The disciples, who
did not always understand the parables of the Saviour, went to him afterwards
and inquired about the meaning. It was their investigating spirit that made it
possible for them to learn the deep things which the Master came to give them.
Without this it would have been impossible for them to have graduated in His
school. The Bereans are praised for this disposition of mind. "Now these were
more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all
readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
Many of them therefore believed; also of the Greek women of honorable estate,
and of men, not a few" (Acts 17:11-12).

There is no essential difference between the study of the Scriptures and the
study of any other subject, respecting the mental outlay necessary to success.
An occasional hour or lesson may accomplish something toward learning, but not
much. With all the advantages given Timothy through the early instruction
received from his mother and grandmother, and the assistance of the apostle
Paul, still it was necessary for him to "study to show himself approved unto
God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed: rightly setting forth the word of
truth." So we find in the efforts essential to a knowledge of the word of God,
that, like obtaining knowledge of other things, the mind must be employed
intently and continuously. There can be no substitute for mental industry. We
must apply the mind and heart, or not know the things of God.

SEC. 10. A DESIRE TO KNOW AND DO THE TRUTH, IS NECESSARY.--It can not be denied
that the most careless and indifferent may learn something about the word of
God. But they are not likely to learn much, nor to learn anything very well.
Being without interest respecting its claims, or, it may be, set opposite to
them, wishing not to find the truth, as almost anything else would comport
better with their lives, the truth will not be found by them. It would be as
difficult for such persons to see the truth, as it was for the priest and the
Levite to see the man who had fallen among thieves. Or, if they should see, they
would immediately look on the other side, and so pass on. For a moment they may
behold their face in the divine mirror, but they go away immediately, and forget
what manner of men they were. The soil must be in keeping with the seed, or
there will be but little accomplished by the sowing. There are men for whom the
gospel of Christ has no more charms than pearls have for swine. There must be
good ground; "such as have an honest and good heart, having heard the word, hold
it fast, and bring forth fruit with patience" (Luk 8:15). The test given by the
Saviour is just to the point: "If any man willeth to do his will, he shall know
of the teaching, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself" (New
Version). It is this willingness to do the will of God that prepares the mind
for that effort which is necessary to understand the law of the Lord. In the
Acts of the Apostles (Acts 13:48), we have a picture. The Gentiles who glorified
the word of the Lord, and were ordained to (determined for) eternal life,
believed; and those who were opposed, remained in unbelief. Men can find what
they look for, but what they do not want to see, it is difficult to make them
understand. Hence if there be not a good and honest heart, there will be but
little fruit from the sowing.

SEC. 11. SPIRITUAL PURITY IS A LARGE FACTOR IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION.

(1.) As just seen in the previous section, the mind must be en rapport with the
teaching to be received. But we now go further, and show that indisposition does
not simply prevent the examination that is necessary to any thorough knowledge,
but it is a condition that fences against the pure word of God. There are those
who are competent to see in every remark that is made something that is
unchaste. They can find double meanings to anything that is said. And they
interpret actions in the same way. To them every word and act seen or heard is
prompted by motives that are sinister. The world is a mirror in which they see
themselves, as they attribute their own motives to the acts of others. To the
evil, all things are evil. Nothing is pure to the eye of lust. "Blessed are the
pure in heart, for they shall see God," does not have to wait till the day of
judgment for its fulfillment. In all the bounties and splendors of earth, they
can see the traces of the hand of a loving Father. But such views are never had
by the impure. They do not like to retain God in their minds, and when they are
compelled to recognize the Almighty, they make Him into the likeness of men, and
of four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Any other thought is too high for
them.

(2.) We do not mean to say that such, men can not learn anything about the word
of God, for this is God’s way of making men better.--There is truth put within
their reach, and which, if they will lay hold of it, will lift them up to that
better condition, in which they can know more of God and of the beauties of his
word. They may learn much of sacred history; they may understand the teachings
of prophecy and the claims of the Messiah; they are competent to examine the
claims made respecting New Testament miracles, but there are great spiritual
truths that will not be recognized by them.

(3.) It is possible for men to become so gross as to be removed even from the
probabilities, if not from the very possibilities, of faith. I can not do better
here than to quote a few passages of Scripture containing this thought:

"For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but,
having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and
will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables" (2Ti
4:3-4).

"Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the
Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets did not your
fathers persecute? and they killed them which showed of the coming of the
Righteous One; of whom ye have now become betrayers and murderers; ye who
received the law as it was ordained by angels, and kept it not" (Acts 7:51-53).

Here is both the teaching and the living picture of the ability to harden the
heart against truth, until the soul of the soul is utterly destroyed.

"And unto them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which saith, By hearing ye
shall hear, and shall in no wise understand; And seeing ye shall see, and shall
in no wise perceive: For this people’s 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" (Mat 13:14-15). The import
of this language can not be mistaken. The reason they were not saved was they
had not turned to God, and the reason they had not turned, was, they did not
understand with the heart; the reason they did not understand with the heart,
was that grossness prevented them from considering the claims of Christ in any
proper way.

"How can ye believe, which receive glory one of another, and the glory that
cometh from the only God, ye seek not?" (John 5:44).

Here, even, the desire for the praise of men is presented as a barrier
sufficient to prevent faith.

"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 stood not in the truth, because
there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he
is a liar, and the father thereof. But because I say the truth, ye believe me
not" (John 8:44-45).

It is plain that this was not the original condition of this people. Once they
might have accepted the truth and been made free by it, but they had turned
their hearts over to the control of the wicked one tilt they had become like
him. With this evil heart in them, it would have been more agreeable for them to
have beard a falsehood than a truth, and it would have been easier for them to
receive the falsehood.

"And then shall be revealed the lawless one, whom the Lord Jesus shall slay with
the breath of his mouth and bring to naught by the manifestation of his coming;
even he, whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders and with all deceit of unrighteousness for them that are
perishing; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. And for this cause God sendeth them a working of error, that they should
believe a lie; that they all might be judged who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness" (2Th 2:8-12).

These persons were perishing because they believed a lie, and not the truth.
This they did because they did not receive the love of the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness. And because they would not have the truth, God
turned them over to the falsehoods which they preferred.

"But and if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that are perishing: in
whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the
light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not
dawn upon them" (2Co 4:3-4). The god of this world, in this text, was the
riches, honors and pleasures of this life. These things become a god to man
through the devotion which he chooses to render. And in turn for all this
service, the worshiper has his mind blinded to all that is good and pure. In
this way the Gentile world fell away from all that was pure and holy. Once they
knew God, but they neglected his worship, and so went astray, step by step, till
they reached the lowest possible spiritual condition (Rom 1:18-32).

Paul thinks it possible for those who have once known the truth, and have been
made partakers of the Holy Spirit, to fall so far away that they can not be
renewed again to repentance (Heb 6:1-6).

(4.) Not only may men fall into evil thoughts and evil lives, and thereby
destroy their disposition to receive the truth, and even go so far that they can
not turn back again, but every degree in depravity renders it that much more
difficult to accept of the pure, thoughts of the word of God.--There are
carnal-minded church members, who are too gross in their hearts to know the
height and breadth, and length and depth, of the riches and beauty and glory of
the revelation which God has made to us. This proposition might be regarded as
having been established already. Still it is proper to refer to a text or
two--first to make the point still clearer; and second, to get the meaning of
these passages clearly before the mind of the reader:

"Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are
foolishness unto him, and he can riot know them, because they are spiritually
judged" (1Co 2:14). This text has been a battle-ground, and as we enter it we
announce our utter want of sympathy for either party. The first and most common
view of the passage is, that until a man is converted and enlightened by the
Holy Spirit, he can not understand the word of God that this natural man is the
unconverted man. The second view is much more reasonable: The natural man, is
the man in a state of nature, and, therefore, without the revelation which God
has given. And the reason that he can not understand the things of God is that
he has not had a teacher, but with a teacher, he could know these things quite
well enough. I do not accept the interpretation of either of these parties, for
the following reasons:

(a) Paul was not speaking to, nor of, men in a state of nature having never
received revelation, or to whom it had never been offered.

(b) He was not speaking to, nor of unconverted men, in antithesis to converted
men.

(c) The spiritual judgment is the antithesis, and the carnal judgment is that
which naturally opposes it. Hence the conclusion is, that the word rendered
"natural" would be better rendered carnal.

(d) The reason that this natural man did not receive them, was not because he
had never heard of them, but because they were foolishness to him. They could
not be foolishness to a man who never heard of them.

(e) The word psuchikos, here rendered natural, is better rendered carnal. It
occurs five times in the New Testament: 1Co 2:14; 1Co 15:44, 1Co 15:46; Jas
3:3-5; Jude 1:19. In the Corinthian letter, it is rendered in the Common Version
by the word natural, but in the other occurrences, by the word sensual. The
latter is its meaning in all of the occurrences, as will be seen by the opposing
thought being that of spiritual purity.

(f) Paul was writing to church members, whom he denominated saints--those who
had been set apart to the service of the Lord. Hence neither of the old
interpretations can possibly be true.

(g) He was condemning them for their carnality. In the third chapter he tells
them that their divisions proved that they were carnal and walked as men. In the
fifth chapter they are condemned because they had an incestuous man among them,
who was living with his father’s wife, and they did not mourn on that account,
but were rather puffed tip. In chapters ten and eleven it appears that they had
turned the Lord’s Supper, on the first day of the week, into a kind of Sunday
club dinner, and thus spoiled the occasion of all its sanctity. But they were
not only impure in their practices; they were erroneous in doctrine. Some of
them, as it will be seen in the fifteenth chapter, denied the resurrection of
the dead. Their condition is well presented in the following chapter to that in
which our text stands:

"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto
carnal, as unto babes in Christ. I fed you with milk, and not with meat; for ye
were not yet able to bear it; nay, not even now are ye able; for ye are yet
carnal; for whereas there is among you jealousy and strife, are ye not carnal
and walk after the manner of men? For when one saith, I am of Paul; and another,
I am of Apollos; are ye not men?" (1Co 3:1-4). [That is, are ye not worldly men,
or men of carnal minds?] The reason that Paul had not given them the higher
spiritual instruction was, because they were not in a condition to receive it;
and even then, when writing this letter to them, they were too low and carnal to
receive the rich truth which otherwise they might have received long before. But
in their then present condition, such lessons would have been wasted an them.

I lay it down, then, as being true beyond any possible doubt, that even
Christians may be of the earth earthy, to that extent that they will be
incompetent to get the grand and spiritual thoughts of the word of God. This
will account, in part, at least, for the fact that the apostle John saw more in
Jesus of Nazareth than any of the other writers of that most wonderful life.
John had become more like the Master than any one else, and was, therefore,
prepared to understand Him better.

There is many a learned criticism that comes not near the truth because of the
icy distance of the writer’s heart from the subject on which be treats. On the
other hand, the true follower of Christ finds the truth almost by intuition. The
glory of heaven’s richest revelation has been withheld from the wise and the
prudent, and has been revealed unto babes. It is first a humble, willing heart,
good and honest, that will be easily instructed in the way of life in Christ
Jesus. Those eyes are best adjusted to the divine light, and therefore the
better understand both the truth and Him who taught it.

SEC. 12. A CORRECT TRANSLATION WOULD CONDUCE TOWARDS A RELIABLE EXEGESIS.-This
is especially true with the ordinary reader. Indeed, it is true of ninety-nine
out of a hundred of the whole number of the real students of the Bible, for they
are almost wholly dependent on the received translation as a means of knowing
what has been said to us by the Lord. There are many contradictions now found in
the Bible, or the language which is tortured into contradictions, which a
correct translation would entirely remove. There are many harsh and seemingly
brutal things in the Bible that would be modified by a clear and just
translation. There are statements, forms and phrases that occur to the refined
ear as vulgar, that would be shorn of all offensiveness by judicious rendition.
There are many things which are exceedingly dark, which an accurate version
would illuminate, and, in their place, give us the clear and beautiful truth of
God.

We do not mean to cast any reflections on the translators of King James. They
did well: for the times and circumstances, they did very well. It should be
remembered, however, that they labored under many difficulties that have been
removed since that time.

(1.) There are words anglicised and transferred into our version which ought to
have been translated. And the failure in that respect has contributed very much
to the misinterpretation that would long ago have given place to better views.

(2.) Incorrect translations were retained for fear of injury to the
long-standing customs and traditions of the church. There is no reason for the
word bishop, the meaning of which never occurs to any one, when the word
episcopos meant an overseer, and should have been so translated. It was wrong to
give us Raster, in Acts 12:4, when it should have been passover. The Accepted
Version thus maintains an error that would have died out, but for the assistance
rendered by a wrong translation.

(3.) Many words have become obsolete since the translation of King James was
made. Wist, and wot, and "we do you to wit," are expressions without meaning to
us.

(4.) Many other words have changed their meaning entirely. The word let, then
meant to, prevent, to hold back, to restrain; now it has the opposite thought.
Paul had desired many times to see the brethren at Rome, but had been let. He
informed the brethren of Thessalonica that there would come a great falling
away, and that man of sin would finally be revealed, but that which then let
would continue to let till taken out of the way. Such language is unintelligible
to us. Prevent (from pre, before, and venio, to come) meant to come before, to
precede, to anticipate. So David said: "My prayer shall prevent the Lord;" "my
prayer shall prevent the dawning of the morning." And Paul gravely tells the
brethren that those who shall be alive and remain to the coming of the Lord,
"shall not prevent those who are asleep." The word conversation once related to
action and its results, rather than the use of words by one person to another.
Hence Paul says, "our conversation is in heaven." The meaning of the passage is
easy, when we have it correctly rendered citizenship.

We are in great need of a translation, not simply a revision. But while the
world would not likely be willing to receive such a work, it would be better
that all students should provide themselves with a copy of the Revision of the
Old and New Testaments. Not that this work is faultless--that would be too much
to expect of any human production--but because it is much better than the Common
Version. The translators are equally learned with those of King James, and they
have had many advantages which the former never possessed. While they have been
too conservative in retaining many things that ought to have been removed, and
while the Revision is marred by much of the bad grammar of the Common Version,
still there are many valuable changes. And I think it is not too much to say,
that in many respects the Revision is the best work of the kind ever furnished
to the reading world.

SEC. 13. A GENERAL AND THOROUGH EDUCATION IS OF GREAT VALUE IN THE
INTERPRETATION OF THE WORD OF GOD.

(1.) No one is at liberty to suppose, from my advocacy of learning, that it can
always be trusted. It can not take the place of good common sense, and certainly
not of a true heart and that spiritual purity which is so greatly needed in
order to understand the things that are freely given to us of God.

(2.) There is an idea that learning is destructive of piety. But I know of no
evidence of the correctness of that view. Of course, there are many men so
engaged in their investigations of science, and even in their literary pursuits,
that but little or no time is left for the cultivation of their hearts by the
soul-stirring truths of heaven. Anything that will take up the mind entirely,
will do that. Farming, merchandise, politics, anything, if it is sufficiently
absorbing. Learning will do this no more than any calling which will elicit the
mind and direct the energy of the man. But instead of learning standing in the
way of faith and piety, it greatly aide it. The man of knowledge may lose his
respect for many of the traditions of the fathers, but his faith in God and His
word will not be injured thereby, but greatly aided.

(3.) There is a mental drill in the attainment of knowledge that will greatly
assist in preparing for that effort necessary to a full and complete
investigation of the Scriptures.

(4.) I would begin my recommendations respecting the necessary features of
education, with the knowledge of one’s own vernacular. With us the English
language is the great medium of knowledge. If our knowledge of that medium is
defective, the benefits derived from its use will be greatly lessened. Most
readers of the Bible, as before stated, are entirely dependent upon the English
Bible, and all are more or less dependent upon it: Not only so, but the
commentaries, lesson helps, and all the valuable suggestions. by way of essays,
sermons, etc., come to us through the English language. Hence it is of great
importance that we should have an accurate knowledge of our own language.

(5.) A knowledge of the original languages in which the Scriptures were written,
would be of great assistance in getting an accurate and intimate acquaintance
with the Bible.

There are many thoughts in the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures that can not be so
clearly presented in any other language than that in which they were indited. In
translating any book, from one language into another, much of the beauty and
strength is lost. The translator may be learned and faithful, but there are not
the words to express those peculiar shades of meaning that belonged to the
original. The peoples using these tongues have differed both in their thoughts
and in their modes of expression, and it is therefore almost impossible to
translate a book from one of these into the other, and retain the beauty and
vigor of the composition. Other things being equal, the scholar in Hebrew and
Greek is the better interpreter.

(6.) A thorough drill in logic would greatly aid investigation in the
Scriptures. This is true in the reading of any work of merit. But it is
especially true of the Bible. I once heard a man of prominence say that the
Bible is not a book of logic, but of assertion. This, however, was a
short-sighted observation. Even if the Bible were a book only of direct
revelation, still the propositions made to men are to be understood by the rules
of logic. There is no more direct assertion found in the Scriptures anywhere
than in the teaching of the Master. He ever spoke as one having authority. And
yet the strictest and closest logic is constantly observed. This was especially
true in his many encounters, with the Pharisees and Sadducees. When he stood in
a synagogue on the Sabbath day, and a man was there who needed healing, he said
to them: "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to, do evil?" They
might have said it is lawful to do neither one. But they could not consistently
do so. Help was needed, and it must be rendered or refused; hence a choice had
to be made. Inactivity in the matter was an impossibility. When Peter had
committed himself and the Master by saying that the Master paid tribute, Jesus
said to him, "Do kings collect revenue from their sons, or of strangers? "Peter
said, of strangers. Very well, then, said the Saviour, the son goes free.
Nevertheless he sent Peter to take the fish. The blunder of this apostle was
thus pointed out by the use of logic. Take all the conversations at Jerusalem;
during the last feast that the Master attended, and his parables are full of
logical acumen. He taught the Sadducees the resurrection, from the account of
the burning bush. He went to the very root of the question, and showed them that
they were fundamentally wrong. Men did not lose their identity by death, as they
supposed, and therefore there would be a resurrection from the dead. But
especially the apostolic speeches and writings are full of logic. Peter, on the
day of Pentecost, argued, from what they then saw and heard, from the language
of the prophet Joel, and from the Psalms, and, having finished his quotations,
he drew logical conclusions so strong and so just that the whole crowd were
carried with him. And wherever the apostles went they argued before the people,
opening the Scriptures and alleging therefrom that Jesus was the Christ, and
that he must needs have died and risen from the dead; and their logic was
faultless. Open to any of the epistles, and you will find them replete with the
finest argument, and presented in the most logical form. Perhaps no more logical
writing can be found anywhere than Paul’s letter to the brethren at Rome. And if
one is in need of the knowledge of logic, in order to comprehend the great
speeches of Webster, Clay and Garfield, he will equally need that drill before
undertaking to analyze the epistle to the Romans.

(7.) A good knowledge of contemporaneous history will greatly aid in the study
of the Scriptures.--For several hundred years before Christ we have history,
more or less reliable, and with all the imperfections that gather about these
productions, they greatly assist us in knowing just what was done, and hence
just what was referred to by the divinely directed writer. Old Testament history
is by no means well studied, without comparing the statements of the Bible with
the best thoughts on Egyptology, and the most reliable records of the Medes,
Persians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Syrians, Phœnicians, Grecians, etc., etc. And
there are many things in the New Testament that will never be clear to the mind
unacquainted with the history of the times. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote
for those who were well acquainted with the facts, and therefore they did not
stop to explain many things which can not be understood by us, except as we
study history and come into possession of the facts before their minds at the
time they wrote these accounts. For the most part they speak of Herod as if
there had been but one. Of course, to those for whom these records were first
intended, there was no need of anything further being said. But without the
knowledge of history, we will not know whether the writer is speaking of Herod
the Great, Archelaus, Aristobulus, Antipas, Philip, Agrippa I., or Agrippa II.,
and everything will be confused.

(8.) A good knowledge of the lands of the Bible will render many things plain
which, without such knowledge, would be dark.--The things that were said and
done would have much more of meaning and interest to us if we knew where they
were and at what they were looking when these things were done and sail. The
allegories of the true vine and the good shepherd; the teaching of the Master on
the great day of the feast; the directions to the blind man, "Go wash in the
pool of Siloam," crossing the sea to the land of the Gadarenes, or coming
through the midst of Decapolis; the teaching of the Master in the borders of the
city of Cæsarea Philippi; the transfiguration that followed, are at least
partially lost to us without a knowledge of the geography of the country. But
while this is true in the study of the Gospels, it is especially true when we
come to read the Acts and the letters of the apostles to the various churches.
Every student of the Scriptures ought, therefore, to become familiar with all
the lands mentioned in the Bible. In the study of Old Testament history, this is
especially true. The forty-two encampments of the children of Israel will never
be understood without a good knowledge of the country through which they passed.
Egypt, Sinai, the wildernesses of Paran and of Zin; the land of Edom; the
mountain ranges; the land of the Amorites, of the Moabites, of the Midianites
east of the Jordan, should all be known. The student will be well paid for all
the time and energy expended in the study of Biblical geography.

(9.) One should become as thoroughly acquainted as possible with the customs of
the people during the times of the Bible.--Many things are perfectly
inexplicable unless we are in possession of this key of knowledge. Words and
ways are full of meaning to us when we know the customs of the people; whereas,
without such knowledge, we would not be able to divine their intent.

SEC. 14. WE SHOULD EXPECT TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE.--The Bible is regarded by
many as a sealed book, and not to be understood, unless by some gift from God
which shall make it possible, either because of some office, or on account of
conversion. The ability to read it as any other book, and understand it by
reading it, is not supposed to belong to unaided mortals. In another place we
will examine the cause of this hurtful superstition, but fog the present we are
content to say that we must expect to understand the word of God or our
investigations will amount pious waste of our time. If we should read any other
book in this way, no one would expect us to know anything about it when we had
finished the reading. The words might be pronounced or heard, but no impression
would be made on the mind. We would not be looking for anything, and, as a
consequence, we would not find anything.

There are those now who regard the Scriptures as a mystery, and therefore not to
be understood by the common mind. Indeed, they suppose that the Scriptures
themselves teach that they are a mystery. On this account it is necessary to
quote a few passages, that we may realize our privileges.

"But 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. Every scripture inspired of God is profitable for
teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in
righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto
every good work" (2Ti 3:14-16). The Scriptures which Timothy had known in his
childhood were those of the Old Testament, which are much more difficult than
the communications found in the New Testament. And these, too, as they were
fulfilled in Christ, were sufficient to perfect the man of God, filling him with
all needed truth.

"How that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I wrote afore in
few words, whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
mystery of Christ; which in other generations was not made known unto the sons
of men" (Eph 3:3-4).

Then again in the eighth and ninth verses:

"Unto me who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to
preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men
see what is the dispensation of the mystery, which from all ages bath been hid
in God, who created all things." (Eph 3:8-9)

Here it is evident that the most difficult things that had to be presented to
the world--those which were more mysterious than any former revelation--were to
be read and understood by the whole church. Not only so, but Paul was
commissioned to make all men see this mystery as he did.

"And when this epistle hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in
the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye also read the epistle from Laodicea"
(Col 4:16). This letter to the brethren of Laodicea has been lost, but it was
probably much like that which was sent to the church at Colossæ. We can not say
that it is unusually difficult, and yet he who can read that letter and
understand it, is able to read any of the letters of the apostle Paul. He
supposed the whole church at Colossæ could hear and understand it, and that the
church at Laodicea could do the same.

"I adjure you by the Lord that this epistle be read unto all the brethren" (1Th
5:27).

Here, again, though the first of the apostolic letters, it is one of the most
difficult. And yet Paul had no such thought as that the members of the church
could not understand it. Indeed, the evident purpose of all the epistles was
that they should be read to the whole church, and that the whole church, in this
way, should be instructed in divine things. And yet there is as much skill
needed in the interpretation of the epistolary communications as any other
portion of the Scriptures, unless it be Revelation, or Ezekiel.

Then let us remove the fog of superstition that has prevented so many from any
proper investigation of the Scriptures, that all may know their rights to search
this volume for themselves, and that they may understand it. Indeed, they should
he made to realize that they are responsible for their ignorance. God has made a
revelation of His will to us, and if we do not avail ourselves of the privilege
of reading it and of knowing its contents, it is our own fault. All should be
made to feel that, under such circumstances, ignorance is a sin against God and
ourselves.

SEC. 15. THE BLESSING OF GOD IS NEEDED, AND MAY BE HAD FOR THE ASKING.--This
does not mean that knowledge is to be had by asking alone, when there are other
conditions of receiving it. But it does mean that God has promised to bless us
in this respect as well as in others.

"But if any of you lacketh wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all
liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him" (Jas 1:5).

While the preacher then had to study to show himself approved unto God, that he
might be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly setting forth the
word of truth, still this blessing is promised. And all we are authorized to say
about it is, that while we use the means which God has provided for our
education in divine things, it is our privilege and duty to ask that God will
bless the effort. And we have God’s promise, through an apostle, that he will do
so. We may not know just how God will choose to assist us in learning his will,
but his promise will certainly be kept. We may, in part, answer our own prayers,
for the very hungering and thirsting for this divine knowledge will prepare us
for a ready reception of the truth.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 01.03.     THINGS WHICH HINDER
========================================================================

CHAPTER III.

THINGS WHICH HINDER A RIGHT INTERPRETATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

It is about as necessary to understand the things that prevent us from the
investigation that would acquaint us with the word of God, as to know the things
that will help, for even while we may be availing ourselves of assistance, we
may be injured by many things that will so modify the favorable forces that we
shall get but little benefit from them. We wish to know, therefore, the things
that will hinder, as well as the things that will assist us to understand the
word of the Lord.

SEC. 16. A DESIRE TO PLEASE THE WORLD.

(1.) It is not meant to say that all desire to please the world is wrong;
indeed, we are required to please our neighbor for his good. No real man of God
can have any interest in offending. For when we have offended the world, we have
lost our power with them to do good, at least to a degree.

(2.) But it is the inordinate desire to please the world that hinders a right
interpretation. Many men have been decoyed from the truth by popular applause.
They have said something that sounded like heresy, and it received the
approbation of persons of means and standing, and, desiring more approval, they
ventured on more and graver utterances of the same kind. If they did not
absolutely run away into heterodox woods, they at least climbed up to the top of
the orthodox gate-post, and gave a longing look in that direction. And for that
look they received a benefit. And then with vanity on the one hand and flattery
on the other, all sorts of doctrines have been preached, to tickle itching ears,
and bring the rounds of applause for which a vain heart palpitates. To such men
the word of God may never have been very precious, but the honor that comes from
men continually lessens their feeling of loyalty to divine authority, until they
are willing to preach anything, true or false, if it will only give them favor
with the people. They become willing to sell their pulpit, and themselves also,
to the highest bidder. And the bid from the ungodly becomes a bribe to blind
them to the truth.

SEC. 17. THE BIBLE MADE THE PROPERTY OF THE PRIESTHOOD.

(1.) This has been one of the great faults of the Catholic Church. In the
decision of their councils, that the laity of the church should not read that
book, lest they should reach wrong views, they have left it entirely to the
control of those whose especial business it has been to furnish the people with
a knowledge of heaven’s will. This enables them to establish a monopoly of
interpretation. So that, to the people, the Bible is not the book itself; but
the meaning of the book, as interpreted by the priesthood, is to them the Bible.
All the restraints are thus removed from these men, and they are at liberty to
interpret the Bible in that way that will best suit their purposes. This kind of
power is always dangerous, as well in this respect, as in any other.

If, in answer to this, it shall be said that only the more ignorant of the
membership of that church are thus prohibited, and that many of them are at
liberty to read the Bible, and that they are encouraged to do so, I am willing
to grant that such is the case in some places, and especially of late. But this
does not remove the correctness of our position nor the justness of our charge.
Much has been done in opposition to the thought that the common people can
understand the word of God; and in this way it has been kept from their hands.

(2.) Our Protestantism is an improvement, perhaps, but not such an improvement
as will give us any particular cause of boasting. The creeds that are in use
have been made a long time, at a time when knowledge was lower and prejudices
were higher than at present. And yet in the light of these catechisms we have
been compelled to conduct our investigations. So it has not been, even to
Protestants, so much, "What does the Bible say on the subject?" as, "What does
the creed or catechism say?"

(3.) There, has descended to us a kind of reverence for authority found in great
names, that is very hurtful. These authorities have been canonized by us, and
are not to be disturbed. This is partly because of superstition from which we
are not yet free, and partly from laziness that makes us willing to accept
statements, rather than look for the truth ourselves. In this way errors are
handed down from one generation to another, for centuries, without having been
suspected of being untrue. Some great man has made a hasty statement, which, at
the time, he intended only to be understood as a kind of guess, and then it has
been copied by one after another, till a dozen or twenty scholars can be quoted
as holding that view; and this will be evidence enough for the faith of all the
rest, for centuries to come.

(4.) It is not intended to encourage disrespect for candor and learning. Authors
may be used as aids in study of the Scriptures, as well as in the study of any
thing else, but it should be remembered that nothing but the word of God will do
as a guide for the faith and practice of His people. We should accept of the
assistance of these great men in getting that knowledge, but nothing more.
Reformations have been checked, and really prevented, by too much reverence for
the reformers. They have had but a single truth which they have urged before the
world. That they saw with great clearness. On many other points they have been
weak, like other men. But their admirers have stereotyped them as the sum of all
intelligence, and refused to have any view of theirs called in question. This
has resulted in making these men the standard of doctrine, and preventing the
world from learning anything else than what they learned under the most
difficult circumstances.

SEC. 18. USING THE BIBLE TO PROVE DOCTRINES, IS A GREAT SOURCE OF
MISUNDERSTANDING.--The Bible is not a book with which to prove doctrines; it is
the doctrine itself. Almost anything can be proven to the man who wants to find
the proof. It leads to a wrong use of the Scriptures, so that, instead of
searching them for whatever they may contain, the doctrines have been first
assumed, and then the Bible is compelled into some sort of recognition of the
position. (See Dogmatical Method [Chapter 04])

SEC. 19. MYSTICISM.--Spiritualizing the word of the Lord.--Instead of regarding
it as a sensible communication from the God of heaven, it is turned into a kind
of Samson’s riddle, and made to say almost anything except that which it meant
to say. (See Mystic Method [Chapter 04])

SEC. 20. MAKING THE BIBLE MERELY A BOOK OF WONDERS.--The disposition manifested
in this does not differ greatly from that which guides in the Mystic Method. And
yet it is so treated by many persons who have not the slightest idea that they
are influenced by like motives and feelings. It is treated as a kind of mental
and spiritual museum--a box of curiosities. Men who search for quaint texts, and
Sunday-school teachers who have their scholars searching for some strange
question, are constantly contributing to that kind of disregard for the word of
the Lord, though they do not intend it. The school is asked to tell how many
times the word girl occurs in the Bible, or what was the name of David’s mother,
or what man had twelve toes; and the energies and time of the scholars are taken
up with such incidentals, to no profit.

SEC. 21. READING WITHOUT INTENDING OR EXPECTING TO UNDERSTAND IT.

(1.) Reading from a sense of duty, or simply to have it to say that they have
read it through. I have known persons who regarded it a duty to read the Bible
through once a year, and having done this for a number of years in succession,
they seemed quite fond of telling about it. This exercise will be something
better than a pilgrimage to Mecca, but as a means of becoming acquainted with
the Scriptures, it is very poor. If we should read any other book in this way,
we would not be expected to know much of its contents. The mind must be fixed
upon the thought and purpose of the work, with the intent of knowing what they
are; and no more should be read than is understood, or at least partially
digested.

(2.) The Bible is read irregularly and without any system.--This is quite common
in family worship. One time it is a Psalm; at another, it is a chapter from the
Gospels, or one from the Prophets. Something, of course, may be learned in this
way, but not very much. Like the reading mentioned before, it leaves nothing
except that which sticks to the mind of its own accord. It comes from the want
of method, which will be more fully discussed in another place. (See Chapter on
Methods [Chapter 04])

(3.) Reading only favorite Scriptures.--This is pardonable, to a degree, in a
hobbyist. A man who has a particular hobby to ride, may be expected to know but
little of the Scriptures outside of the round of texts that can be made to
harmonize with his doctrine. These he has thoroughly committed--at least, he has
the places well marked, and quite well worn. Now and then I find a Bible owned
by one of these men, and it is worn out at his favorite texts, and perfectly new
everywhere else. But there are many others who treat their Bibles much in the
same way. They have their favorite, chapters, which they read-again and again to
the neglect of other and equally weighty Scriptures. If any other study should
be pursued in this way, no one would expect anything to be gained by the effort.
If a student should come into school and study only the chapters and sections in
his book which he preferred, he would know but little more at the conclusion
than at the beginning of his studies.

There are a great many hindrances, which we will not now name, of the same kind.
But let this suffice. Anything that will prevent thorough and continued study,
will prevent knowledge, to the full extent of its influence. Whether we read
hurriedly or slowly is a small matter, for each has some advantages; but the
reading that is not pondered, is nearly worthless.

SEC. 22. INTERPRETING FROM SINISTER MOTIVES.

(1.) This is frequently done to save property.--Being found in the possession of
goods that it is not right for us to have, we begin to excuse ourselves by some
peculiar theory on that subject. Then the mind is drawn out in the defense, not
simply of the theory, but of the property which the theory protects. We did not
first advocate slavery in this country, and then seek the slaves. The property
came into our possession, we could scarcely say how. And rather than to let the
servants go, the Bible was brought into the defense of the institution.
Legislators make laws to shield themselves in the possession of property, and
many interpret law for personal gain, or for protection in the business which
they know to be ruinous to the people. Of course they will quote and apply the
Scriptures in the same way. Many, perhaps, do no intentional wrong in the
matter. They have simply permitted themselves to become blinded by their own
interests. This desire for security in their business and property, colors all
their interpretations and vitiates all their exegesis.

(2.) A wish to do as we please; to continue our customs, or begin new ones which
we prefer.--Many men to-day are in the condition of the prophet Balaam; they are
very anxious to do and say whatever the Lord may direct, provided the Lord will
direct them to do and say the things they prefer. When Judah heard that his
daughter-in-law had played the harlot, he was so indignant that he wished her to
be burned; but when she showed the cane and the bracelets, which he had left
with her, there was a wonderful modulation in the tone. In the days of Christ,
the Pharisees and lawyers were ready to lay grievous burdens on the shoulders of
others, but they were not willing to touch one of them with even a little
finger. The rules they would make for others were strict, but those they would
make for themselves would be quite different. So it has ever been with the
world. I knew a man who had a hobby on marriage. He was of the opinion that no
man could marry twice without being a polygamist--in heaven, if not on the
earth. His wife might die, but that had nothing to do with it; if he married
again he would be guilty of polygamy. You could not talk with him five minutes
without having his hobby brought out and made to canter in your presence. But
his wife died, and in less than a year from that time his theology changed on
that point. Almost anything that men want to do, they can find some text of
Scripture that will sound like giving it support. And it is exceedingly
difficult to make any man see that he has been preaching that which is not true.
He has posed before the people on that subject, and is not willing to incur the
humiliation of saying, "I was wrong, and my opponents were right." The question,
"How religiously dishonest can an honest man be?" is hard to answer. Whether
this is the right way to state it or not, may be doubted; but one thing is
certain--a man’s wishes will blind his mind to the truth, if they happen to be
on the contrary side. During the last war, good men would read the same
dispatches, and reach opposite conclusions from them. During a political
campaign they will do the same. We should be as far above such prejudice as
possible.

(3.) Sectarianism is responsible for much of the wrong interpretation that
prevents the world from knowing the truth.--The desire to be with the successful
party, furnishes a strong temptation to use the Scriptures so that the party
shall be approved. Indeed, the love of party will develop genius in its
maintenance. In political matters, it is not strange that men will bend the
truth for party purposes, and interpret all facts according to the interests
involved. But that good people will i do this in matters of salvation, seems out
of place. If we were listening to such a statement for the first time, we would
not be willing to accept the charge without a wide margin on which to write
exceptions. But facts are stubborn things; the world does very frequently
subordinate the truth to the interests of sectarian preferences. It is possible
for well-meaning people to be blinded by these things. They get into an
argument, and are put to the worse; and, being sure that their position is
correct, and yet not being able to make it appear, they are ready to seize any
passage that can be made to do even temporary service. In their sober moments
they would say that the interpretation of the passage in hand was not the
correct one; but not seeing what else to do at the time, they give that exegesis
to push back the opponent till they can have time to cast about for something
better to say. But for the sectarian prompting, nothing of the kind would have
occurred. Prompted by their love for their party, or, perhaps, what is worse,
their hatred for the opposite one, they become willing that the word of God
shall be misrepresented for the time. They find themselves in the heat of
battle, and, anything then to win-at least, to prevent defeat. This interpreting
the Bible for party ends is one of the greatest hindrances of to-day, to a
correct knowledge of the revelation of God to men. How to avoid this, and yet
retain the parties, is difficult to say. About all that we are now warranted in
saying is, that it is needful to put everything out of the mind but the desire
to know the truth of God when we open His book. Let go, as far as possible,
everything of self and sect, and free the mind and heart from every wish or
interest that may, in any way, prevent the knowledge of the word and will of the
Lord.

(4.) Moral or practical atheism.--This is the disposition to do as we please
about divine things. There is a feeling of indifference as to what God may have
said on the subject. Men are ready to conclude that it matters little whether
they do God’s way or not. In their opinion, it will do well enough to obey the
Lord in His commands, but it is not essential. If they do not prefer to do the
Lord’s way, He will accept them while they do their way. These persons may
believe that there is a God; they may believe that He is the author of the
Bible; but it has not entered their minds that it makes any particular
difference whether they do His will or not. This is practical atheism. Like the
Samaritans of old, they fear the Lord and serve other gods. With such views of
the authority of Jehovah, it is not possible to have any correct understanding
of the Scriptures. Everything is vitiated by such heedlessness.

SEC. 23. THIRST FOR DISTINCTION: DESIRE TO BE KNOWN AS PERSONS OF LEADING
THOUGHT.

Whatever of desire there may be to do good, by bringing out the meaning of the
word of God, is certainly laudable. Or if there be a wish to excel in this
effort to benefit the world, it is to be allowed and encouraged; but when the
ambitious mind has only in view the exaltation of self, the exegete comes to
stand in the way of every other effort than that which he is making, and his
thirst for distinction even prevents the acceptance of the plain and simple
truth of the gospel. Scientists do this, sometimes, and stop all investigation
respecting everything on which they have pronounced. Lest they should not be
regarded as the end of all wisdom, they go to work to destroy every hypothesis
that, in any way, seems to call in question any position which they have taken.
So do these, for the purpose of maintaining a reputation for independence of
thought, adopt anything and everything that promises to bring them to public
view. One man was capable of finding all the ordinances of the church in the
book of Job. And all the quaint or curious things from first to last, have come
from this desire for leadership. Hence they must find in the Scriptures what no
one else has been able to find, or their claim to acuteness will not be well
maintained.

SEC. 24. EFFORTS TO HARMONIZE SCIENCE WITH THE BIBLE ARE DOING MUCH HARM.

We have no objections to any investigation into the subject of science and
revelation. But what we do object to, is the demand that Scripture
interpretation must keep pace with the guesses of scientific speculators. Every
new theory that is advanced demands a new hermeneutics. Words must he bent and
shaded till they will fit the wards and cells of the new science. The old
theologians took advantage of science, and declared that everything that did not
accord with their interpretation of the Bible could not be true, and, therefore,
should not be tolerated. This, of course, was very discouraging to scientific
research. No man was at liberty to push his investigations beyond the creed of
the church. All can now see the injustice and injury of such unrighteous
jurisdiction. But in latter times it has been changed, so that the scientist
comes and sets himself up in a kind of espionage over the interpreter of the
word of God. These are both wrong, and both to be condemned. Before any man is
ready to say that the Bible and science are not agreed, he should know two
things: first, he should know all about the Bible; and second, he should know
all about science. In the meantime, the best thing he can do will be to learn
all he can of either one, or both.

It is not to be denied that we may know some things, at least approximately, and
that so far as facts have been really introduced and tested, we may be governed
by them, just to the extent of our absolute knowledge. But no interpreter should
trouble himself to make exegesis keep up with scientific hypotheses. Science has
no more right to lord it over religion, than religion has to lord it over
science. He who made the universe made the Bible, and when we come to understand
them both, we will be delighted with their beautiful harmony. And it is,
therefore, the privilege and duty of every man to push his investigations as far
and as fast as he can.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 01.04.     CONCERNING METHODS (1)
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV.

CONCERNING METHODS.

SEC. 25. THE VALUE OF METHOD.

(1.) Definition of method.--According to Webster, Method is--

"1. An orderly procedure or process; a rational way of investigating or
exhibiting truth; regular mode or manner of doing anything; characteristic
manner.

"’Though this be madness, yet there is method in it.’--Shakespeare.

"2. Orderly arrangement, elucidation, development, or classification; clear and
lucid exhibition; systematic arrangement peculiar to an individual.

"’However irregular and desultory his talk, there is method in the
fragments.’--Coleridge.

"’All method is rational progress, a progress toward an end.’--Sir W. Hamilton."

We use the word, in the present work, to indicate the arrangement or plan of
investigation. It is the system by which facts are to be introduced and
conclusions reached.

(2.) Method is superior to rule.--Methods are general and rules are special,
hence the method governs all rules, or directs their use. One of the weaknesses
of hermeneutics is the want of system, or of any thought that system is
necessary in the study of the Scriptures. Rules have been furnished in
abundance, but the great need has been that of method. Rules may explain how to
cut stone and lay up the wall, but without method you would be as likely to have
one form as another in the building. The material that went into the temple at
Jerusalem could have all been put into a building ten feet high and ten feet
wide, by extending it far enough. If rules were all that had been needed, the
men of King Hiram would have known just how to erect the temple of Solomon
without any directions from him. But rules were not enough; it took the divine
plan to govern them, to render them of any particular value in erecting the
temple. An army might have all the rules necessary to success--marching,
camping, cooking, fighting--but, without method, they would not unite against
any foe, or conduct a campaign with any profitable results.

SEC. 26. WHY METHOD HAS NOT BEEN EMPLOYED.--Several superstitions seem to have
combined to prevent the world from the exercise of common sense in dealing with
the word of God.

(1.) The idea that it is a supernatural book, and, therefore, must have a
supernatural interpretation, has done much to weaken efforts at close and
profitable study of the Bible.

(2.) It has been regarded as the right of those who have been divinely appointed
to bring out its meaning and that it would be presumption for others to meddle
with their prerogatives.

(3.) Men have looked upon the Bible as not having been given according to any
plan. They have regarded it as a mass of truth irregularly thrown together, and
that we are as apt to find its meaning without system in our investigation as
with it. They suppose its truth to be gold pockets, and not to be mined after
any plan; and if we accidentally happen to hit upon a deposit we are fortunate.
Getting the meaning of the Scriptures is more a question of genius or accident,
than of study or research.

(4.) Others, as we will see, have looked upon the Bible as a blind parable, and
if it mean anything, then it is as likely to mean one thing as another.

They would not think of treating any other book in this way. When they read
books of law and medicine, they suppose that intelligence and a wish to
communicate has made the author present his thought in a way in which be could
be the most easily understood. And why they have imagined that. God has acted
less kindly and sensibly than do men in making their communications, I can not
understand. Against this injustice, thinking men have arrayed themselves for
many centuries. But they have been too few in number, and have been overborne by
the thoughtless masses.

Milton says:

"We count it no gentleness or fair dealing in a man of power to require strict
and punctual obedience, and yet give out his commands ambiguously. We should
think he had a plot upon us. Certainly such commands were no commands, but
snares. The very essence of truth is plainness and brightness; the darkness and
ignorance are our own. The wisdom of God created understanding, fit and
proportionable to truth, the object and end of it, as the eye to the thing
visible. If our understanding have a film of ignorance over it, or be blear with
gazing on other false glisterings, what is that to truth? If we will but purge
with sovereign eyesalve that intellectual ray which God has planted within us,
then we would believe the Scriptures protesting their own plainness and
perspicuity, calling to them to be instructed, not only the wise and the
learned, but the simple, the poor, the babes; foretelling an extraordinary
effusion of God’s Spirit upon every age and sect, attributing to all men and
requiring from them the ability of searching, trying, examining all things, and
by the Spirit discerning that which is good." This presents us no method of
reading the Scriptures, but contains a valuable truth in respect to the divine
purpose in giving the word of God to men. In the mind of Milton, there is no
reason to suppose that God intended any other rules to be employed in the
investigation of His book, than those which are needed in the examination of all
other books.

Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, says:

"Nearly all treatises on hermeneutics, since the days of Ernesti, have laid it
down as a maxim which can not be controverted that the Bible is to be
interpreted in the same manner, that is, by the same principles, as all other
books. Writers are not wanting, previously to the period in which Ernesti lived,
who have maintained the same thing; but we may also find some who have assailed
the position before us, and labored to show that it is nothing less than a
species of profaneness to treat the sacred books as we do the classic authors
with respect to their interpretation. Is this allegation well grounded? Is there
any good reason to object to the principle of interpretation now in question? In
order to answer, let us direct our attention to the nature and source of what
are now called principles or laws of interpretation: Whence did they originate?
Are they the artificial production of high-wrought skill, of labored research,
of profound and extensive learning? Did they spring from the subtleties of nice
distinctions, from the philosophical and metaphysical efforts of the schools?
Are they the product of exalted and dazzling genius, sparks of celestial fire,
which none but a favored few can emit? No; nothing of all this. The principles
of interpretation as to their substantial and essential elements, are no
invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill; nay, they can
scarcely be said with truth to have been discovered by him. They are coeval with
our nature. Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech,
and made a communicative and social being, he has had occasion to practice upon
the principles of interpretation, and has actually done so. From the first
moment that one human being addressed another by the use of language, down to
the present hour, the essential laws of interpretation became, and have
continued to be, a practical matter. The person addressed has always been an
interpreter in every instance where he has heard and understood what was
addressed to him. All the human race, therefore, are, and ever have been,
interpreters. It is a law of their rational, intelligent, communicative nature.
Just as truly as one human being was formed so as to address another in
language, just so truly that other was formed to interpret and understand what
is said."

(5.) More than any other thought or feelings a want of sound faith, has
contributed to a wrong system of hermeneutics, and even to the abolition of all
system. At a very early date, philosophies were introduced as the equal of the
teaching of the apostles. And even up to the time of the Reformation, the study
of Christian philosophers was thought to be more desirable than the study of
Paul. And it made such a lasting impression on the minds of the people that they
have not entirely recovered from it yet. Men studied Augustine, and were
regarded sound, or otherwise, as they agreed with that saint. The schools of
theology were not so much to study the Bible as to become acquainted with the
views of their great men.

Blackburne, in his "History of the Church," pp. 226, 227, gives us a good
statement respecting the condition of things in the ninth century:

"A subtle philosophy was brought into the controversies of the West by John
Scotus Erigena (Irishman), the adviser and confidant of the French king, Charles
the Bald, who had some of the tastes of his grandfather, Charlemagne. John was
the teacher of the court school. He was the enigma and wonder of his time. He
suddenly comes, and all at once disappears; so that we know not whence he came
nor whither he went. He was undoubtedly the most learned man, and the deepest,
boldest and most independent thinker of his age, in which he was neither
understood nor appreciated, and he was scarcely deemed even worthy of being
declared a heretic. The churchmen of Paris rectified the omission in 1209, and
burnt some of his books and pantheistic followers. Though he wished to retain
some of the essential doctrines of Christianity, his system was one great
heterodoxy, based upon Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, and himself. Theology and
philosophy were, in his view, merely forms of the same truth. He said:
’Authority springs from reason, not reason from authority.’ He was the Western
writer who used logic as a means of discovering truths. His philosophy was
rationalistic; his pantheism foreran that of Hegel. The French king directed him
into a new field. It is a startling feature of the times that one, whose
theories were so divergent from the teaching of the Church, was called to speak
as an authority on two of the most awful topics of the faith. These were the
doctrines of predestination and the Eucharist, which, owing to the great
activity of thought engendered in the Carlovingian schools, were now discussed
with unwonted vehemence." This is but the case of an individual philosopher, but
the Christian world in general conducted no investigations in any religious
matter for a thousand years, except as they did it by questions which were
discussed. The opponent of Christianity appealed to philosophy as much as it
friends, but to another class of philosophers. And heterodoxy consisted more in
not agreeing with them respecting the philosophers who were to be guides for
them in this wilderness of speculation than in anything else.

Guided by the thought that the apostles of Christ were only splendid
philosophers, and that truth could be as easily and as safely gained from the
others, it is not strange that there was no system of hermeneutics thought of;
for there was but little attempt at investigation into the word of God. And yet
we may reserve our sympathies for ourselves, as we have nearly the same need of
method in our attempts at investigation that they had. But we are coming to the
light, and, it is sincerely hoped, that in the near future we shall have the
common sense and common honesty to treat the Bible as we do other books: let it
speak for itself.

Now and then, we find a man in the dark ages contending for something like a
correct method of interpretation. But his voice is soon hushed, and a century
goes by before the world is favored with another reformer of sufficient force to
be known and felt.

SEC. 27. WRONG METHODS OF INTERPRETATION ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MUCH OF THE
MISUNDERSTANDING RESPECTING THE MEANING AND INSPIRATION OF THE SCRIPTURES.

(1.) By their use many things are sustained that we know to be false.--The
unbeliever says, "There, that is what your Christianity teaches;" and we do not
dare to deny it, for by the use of false methods of interpretation the church
has adopted it. And we are in the condition of the Egyptians when Cambyses came
against them. In front of his own men he drove a large number of their calves,
and dogs, and cats. The Egyptians did not dare to injure them. They were their
gods. As they could not reach the Persian army save through their own
divinities, all that was left for them to do was to flee before the approaching
enemy. So when the enemies of our religion can defend themselves by our creeds,
we are helpless. When the Bible is made to teach that there are no good impulses
in our nature, and that we can no more believe than we can make a world, except
by a power that must come to us from above, the logical mind concludes at once
that if he fails to believe, the fault is not his. And hence, if he is to be
damned, it will be for that unbelief which he could not help. We argue in vain
against his atheistic fatalism, for he can show that our Christian fatalism is
no better. When we make the Bible teach that a man can not even think a good
thought, of himself, the thinking world says your Bible teaches what every man
knows to be false. Supposing that the Scriptures have been fairly dealt with,
the thinking man turns away from them in utter disgust.

(2.) Not only is the Bible made to teach what we know to be untrue, but also to
contradict itself.--It is said that to come to God in any acceptable devotion,
we must not only believe that God is, but that He is a rewarder of those who
diligently seek Him. Then we are told that faith is a direct gift of God, and
that the only thing that one can do in order to become a believer, is to ask God
for that faith by which he can be saved. The logical mind balks at the sight of
such confusion. He says: I can not be heard and have my prayer answered, unless
I have faith when I go to Him. But I have not that faith, and am told that I
must pray for it. That is, I must have the faith before the prayer can be heard,
and I must pray before I can have faith. He says that such doctrine is nonsense.
And, supposing that the exegetes have done their work all right, he declares the
Bible to be self-contradictory, and, from that hour sneers at the claims of
inspiration made in its favor.

(3.) False methods have turned over the Bible to the clergy, as a kind of
convenient toy.--We wonder that Christianity has outlived the treatment it has
received at the hands of its friends. From the beginning of the fifth century to
the close of the fifteenth, real scriptural examination was almost entirely
dispensed with. The most ingenious travesty on the word of God was accepted as
evidence of the fitness for the ministry of the man who could arrange it.
Theology related to the forms of church government, or some question about
Transubstantiation, Trinity, Predestination, Indulgences, Penance, or whether
tonsure should be made by shaving the head from the forehead, backward over the
crown, or to begin at one ear and shave over the crown to the other ear. This
was a grave question, on which the English Church and the Church of the Pope
could not agree, until it was settled by King Oswy, before whom the question had
been argued by the ablest theologians of the time.

There were reformers, here and there, who wished to give to the people the word
of the living God, and to urge them to follow it as their guide to heaven; but,
as said before, they were few in number, and their power for good was scarcely
felt. Religious people were controlled by scientific theology, and not by the
word of God. As the philosophical puzzles of the day had little or nothing to do
with the Scriptures, everything was left to those who had the time and were paid
to attend to such things.

We think that it was a great misfortune to have lived in that day, and yet how
much have we improved? Orthodoxy and heterodoxy are determined now, more by the
canonized authorities than by the word of God. If a missionary now be questioned
as to the soundness of his faith, it is to be decided more by the custom of the
church, than by the word of Scripture. The sensational sermons of to-day are
excused on the ground of dullness of the people and the need of something to
appetize them. But whatever the cause, it is lamentably true that the masses are
getting but little help in understanding the Bible from the pulpit at the
present time. Upon the weaknesses of the pulpit, not of ancient, but of modern
time, in matters of exegesis, I have nowhere seen a clearer or more manly
statement than is to be found in a work of Homiletics, "The Theory of
Preaching," by "Austin Phelps, D. D., late Professor of Theology in Andover. He
says:

"(3.) It should be further observed, that the past and present usages of the
pulpit respecting truthfulness of interpretation is not entirely trustworthy.
Explanations which exegesis has exploded are sometimes retained by the pulpit
for their homiletic usefulness. Preachers often employ in the pulpit
explanations of texts which they would not defend in an association of scholars.
The pulpit suffers in its exegetical practice by retaining for polemic uses
explanations which originated in an abuse of philosophy. I do not say in the use
of philosophy. We have seen that there is a legitimate use of philosophy, within
certain limits, in aiding the discoveries and application of sound philology.
But philosophy has often tyrannized over philology. In the defence of the creeds
of the Church, the exigencies of philosophy have overborne the philological
instinct of the popular mind, as well as the philological learning of the
schools. A modern exegete affirms that the interpretation of the seventh chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, which makes it a description of Christian
experience, was never heard of in the Church till the time of Augustine. He
originated it to support his theory of original sin. He held the opposite
interpretation, as now held by many German exegetes, till he was pressed in the
argument with Pelagius. The authority of Augustine, and the force of his
theology; have sent down to our own day the interpretation he then adopted."

Again the same author says:

"Still further: the pulpit suffers, in its exegetical authority, from the habit
of spiritualizing all parts of the Scripture indiscriminately. Ancient usage
justified any use of a text, which, by any eccentric laws of association, could
be made serviceable to any practical religious impression. Popular commentaries
have largely contributed ’to this abuse. Some of them no preacher can read
respectfully without insensibly surrendering somewhat of his integrity of
exegetical taste.

"Such are the more important reasons for the caution which I have advanced, that
the past and present usage of the pulpit respecting truthfulness of
interpretation is not entirely trustworthy. You can not safely accept that usage
as authority. It is improving, but it is no model for a youthful ministry. Do
not be misled by it. Form your own model, and let it be one which scholarship
and good taste and good sense can approve."--See pp. 160, 161, 162. The
foregoing are brave, true words, and voice the sentiment of the present time.
The fact is, we are just entering upon more thoughtful and conscientious times.
A new and more reliable hermeneutics will have to be accepted. The people are
beginning to demand it. The time-servers among the clergy may as well get ready
to faithfully interpret the word of God for the people, as that will soon be the
means by which they shall be able to hold their places. The time has come when
men will demand that the meaning of the Scriptures shall be presented, instead
of human vagaries. When that voice shall be heard from the pew, the pulpit will
address itself to the task. Then the question will be, not, What can I make out
of the text? but, What has the text in it for me and the people? not, How can I
display my genius, in discovering some new way of filling the text with a
meaning it never had? but, What did the Lord mean when he directed its use? To
present all that ought to be said on this subject in the most direct way
possible, we shall consider the several methods that have been proposed. We
shall not then have to charge the many failures in the interpretations of the
word of the Lord to some unknown evil, but to definite mistakes.

SEC. 28. THE MYSTICAL METHOD.

(1.) This originated in heathenism.--Because of its origin it is called
"mythical." It was maintained that no man could interpret the communications
from the deities unless be was en rapport with said divinities. This gave
position and prominence to those men of holy calling. The church adopted as much
of heathenism as was thought best to render Christianity popular with the
people; hence the same, or similar claims, had to be, made for her priests. This
was not done all at once but came, like other thing, which have no authority in,
the New Testament, little at a time, until the whole distance was overcome.

(2.) The several reformations that have taken place have removed somewhat this
veneration for the priesthood, but have not entirely removed the mistake; for
while we have ceased to regard ourselves as the subjects of priest-craft, we
continue a superstition quite akin to it. A common error remaining is that God’s
book is to be miraculously interpreted--that no one is competent to understand
these things unless he has been called and divinely qualified for the task. This
about as effectually removes the Bible from the masses, as the old theory of its
interpretation belonging only to the priesthood. It leaves us dependent upon
those highly fortunate ones who have been thus especially endowed for the work.
They may be priests, or not. But in either case they must have been called of
God to this work. If this theory were true, the Bible would be of no value
whatever. The inspiration in these interpreters would be sufficient, without any
Bible. Hence the effect of this theory has been to prevent the people from
looking to the Bible for instruction. Regarding themselves as dependent upon
inspiration, they have waited for it to accomplish its work, and break to them
the will of God.

(3.) The evil results of this theory might be called legion, for they are many.
All kinds of ambitious pretenders have found security under such claims. If we
deny their rights to such espionage over the great family of God, they are able
to beat us back, by their assumptions that it had been given to them only to
understand their prerogatives. Sects and parties have grown from this seed in
great abundance. Men who have wanted a following, have been thus enabled to lead
away multitudes of disciples after them. As these leaders have differed as to
the things of God, many of their followers have been led into doubt and
skepticism. If these inspired men can not agree concerning the things which
their God wishes them to do, the common people can not be expected to know
anything about it. They know, too, that where there is contradiction there is
falsehood, for it is not possible that truth should disagree with itself.

(4.) If the Bible does not mean what it says, there is no way by which we can
know what it does mean. Indeed, if it is a revelation at all, then it must
signify just what such words would mean if found in another book. If they have
any other meaning than that in which they would be understood by the people to
whom they were employed, then they were absolutely misleading. In that case the
Bible is not only not a revelation, but a false light, doing a vast amount of
injury by leading simple-hearted people into the wrong way.

SEC. 29. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD.

Definition.--This method treats the word of God as if it had only been intended
to be a kind of combination of metaphors--a splendid riddle. Interpreting by
this method is not exegesis but eisegesis--they do not obtain the meaning of the
text, but thrust something into it. Its statements of history are mere figures
of speech, and mean one thing or another, or nothing, as the interpreter may
choose. What the Bible may mean to any man will depend upon what the man would
like to have it mean. The genius that would be able to make one thing out of it
would be able to make it have the opposite meaning if he preferred. Clement of
Alexandria maintained that the law of Moses had a fourfold
significance--natural, mystical, moral and prophetical. Origen held that the
Scriptures had a threefold meaning, answering to the body, soul and spirit of
man; hence that the meanings were physical, moral, and spiritual. Philo of
Alexandria gives a fair specimen of allegorizing in his remarks on Gen 2:10-14 :

"In these words Moses intends to sketch out the particular virtues. And they,
also, are four in number--prudence, temperance, courage, and justice. Now, the
greatest river, from which the four branches flow off, is generic virtue, which
we have already called goodness; and the four branches are the same number of
virtues. Generic virtue, therefore, derives its beginning from Eden, which is
the wisdom of God: which rejoices, and exults, and triumphs, being delighted and
honored on account of nothing else, except its Father, God. And the four
particular virtues or branches from the generic virtue, which, like a river,
waters all the good actions of each, with an abundant stream of benefit."

Clement of Alexandria had definitions for the interpretation of the Scriptures
not unlike the rules found, in a dream-book. He said the sow is the emblem of
voluptuous and unclean lust for food. The eagle meant robbery; the hawk,
injustice; and the raven, greed.

Emanuel Swedenborg is a fair illustration of the workings of this theory. He is
commonly written down as a mystic, but he is properly denominated an allegorical
interpreter. Every statement of the Bible, according to his view, has a meaning
such as no sane person would gather from the use of these words if they occurred
anywhere else. He is able to find four distinct thoughts in almost everything
that has been said, anywhere in the Scriptures. He is mystical in his claims to
the means of knowledge. He is lifted above other mortals into the realm of
clearer light, and therefore he is able to say that the Bible does not mean what
it says, but means that which has been revealed to him. His position, as stated
by himself, is:

"The word in the letter is like a casket, where lie in order precious stones,
pearls and diadems; and when a man esteems the word holy, and reads it for the
sake of the uses of life, the thoughts of his mind are, comparatively, like one
who holds such a cabinet in his hand, and sends it heavenward; and it is opened
in its ascent and the precious things therein come to the angels, are deeply
delighted with seeing and examining them. This delight of the angels is
communicated to the man, and makes consociation, and also a communication of
preceptions" (The True Christian Religion, iv. 6).

This, however, only accounts for the power of knowing the higher import of the
Scriptures, through his science of correspondences. But his interpretations are
allegorical, and should be classed as such.

SEC. 30. SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION.--This method differs only in liberality from
the Mystical. Instead of supposing that a few persons are favored above the rest
of mortals, it regards such power to be within the reach of every one. Piety and
a possession of the light of God in the soul, will enable every one to
understand the Scriptures in this spiritual way. Of course, many plain passages
of the word of God will, to them, have the meaning of something very different
from what has been said. For, with them, it is not so much what the Lord has
said, as what He revealed to them as the meaning of that language. The Friends
have held this idea most firmly, though there are many in other churches now who
hold similar views. It is strange that those who are thus enlightened of the
Lord do not interpret the Bible in the same way. Even the Allegorists are better
agreed. They follow some law of language, and hence, necessarily, reach
conclusions a little similar. But the Spiritualizers are not bound by any law.
Whatever may be the pious whim of the exegete, he will be able to find it in the
Bible. Every one becomes a law of interpretation unto himself. Of course like
all other people, those who live together or read the same books will
spiritualize the word of God in the same way, and reach nearly the same
conclusions. The reason is that they have formed ideas and convictions just like
other people, and then in their ecstasy, suppose they receive these impressions
from above. The Bible is, of course, worth but little to them, for the inward
light in the soul of each one would be quite sufficient. When a man’s practice
is found to be contrary to some direct statement of the word of God, the easiest
way to reconcile his conduct with Christian faith, is to say that such a passage
is "spiritual." By that he ordinarily means that the text agrees with his
practice, whatever may be its statement to the contrary; at any rate, it is
above and beyond the comprehension of the reprover. No one would think of
dealing thus with any other book. Law, or medicine, science, history, mechanics,
anything else except religion, must be submitted to the rules of common sense.
Everywhere else words are supposed to have a meaning, to be interpreted by the
laws of language, but this superstition relieves its disciples from any bondage
to law respecting exegesis.

Jesus said, "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are
life." This metaphor is not difficult of interpretation. He is the bread from
heaven, the vine, the door of the sheep; and the bread and wine of the supper
were His body and His blood. Christians should be filled with wisdom and
spiritual understanding; should speak of spiritual things by spiritual words,
for they receive spiritual blessings, and are built up into a spiritual house,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices to God. The city in which the witnesses lay for
three days and a half was denominated spiritually Sodom and Egypt. In spirit it
would be like these places. But this says nothing about spiritual
interpretation, but uses the figures most common in the presentation of such
thought.

SEC. 31. THE HIERARCHICAL METHOD.

(1.) This method differs from the Mystical, or Mythical, not so much in the
manner of receiving the knowledge from heaven, as in the assumption of authority
in presenting it. It affirms that the church is the true exponent of the
Scriptures. As the church was built before the New Testament Scriptures were
finished, and was appointed as their guardian, it has, therefore, the right to
interpret them.

(2.) This interpretation, is to be given, by the priesthood.--When we ask what
is meant by interpretation being given by the church, we are told that the word
church does not mean all the members of the body, but simply that portion of its
membership appointed to speak for it. Hence not the members of the church are
intended in any general way, but its priests only.

(3.) But when priests are not agreed, then there must be provision for a higher
tribunal than the parish priest. If his opinion shall be doubted, the bishop of
that Holy See may settle the question. But even then there may be trouble.
Bishops differ like other men, and then we will have to go to the archbishop, or
the matter may be carried to the Pope, if it should merit the attention of the
Holy Father. In the past there have been some who have even doubted his
infallibility, and carried the question up to a Council. Of course that will end
its consideration. However, the Pope now commits no more mistakes!

(4). After, all, their decisions have been reached something like those of other
people.--Some have maintained that whatever has always been believed, must
necessarily be right. This has been a conservatism to retain the opinions of the
past, and prevent any further search for truth.

(5.) Pinning our faith to the sleeves of the fathers is one of the features of
this method that remains, to some extent, even among Protestants at the present
time. Just now, however, the world is waking up to the fact that error may live
and thrive for a thousand years, and never be disturbed during that time. While
that which has been held to be true by good and competent men should not be
hastily thrown aside, yet it may be utterly false. There are many traditions
which have scarcely been doubted during the whole Christian era, that never had
any foundation in truth. To begin with, they were only the unstudied guesses of
popular men. Others suppose that they have duly considered them, and therefore
adopt them without any further investigation. Still others, seeing their names
to the theory, adopt it the more readily; and so on to the end. And yet when we
come to look for evidence of truth in the matter, we find it wholly wanting. In
this way we have had a traditional Mount Calvary, and have told and sung about
the Saviour’s transfiguration on Mount Tabor. In the same way, many errors have
lived long, simply for the want of any examination. But this method prevents any
falsehood from being disturbed. As it has long been the faith of the church, it
must be correct!

(6.) This method is followed, not so much to find what the Scriptures mean, as
to know what the Lord would have them believe and do as revealed through the
church. Hence, in the use of this method, the Scriptures are not the guide of
the faith and lives of the people, but rather, the priest, the bishop, the
archbishop, the Pope, the Council. The question is not, What say the Scriptures?
but, What saith the church? While, then, we would retain a proper respect for
the opinions of good and great men, we can not assent to this method of
interpretation, as it sets the word of God at naught to make room for the
traditions of men. In the seventh chapter of Mark and the twenty-third chapter
of Matthew, we discover this to have been the trouble with the ancient
Pharisees, and for it they received the condemnation of the Master.

(7.) In the plan of revelation according to this method, God has chosen strange
ways of causing His people to understand the good and the right way. The
correctness of a doctrine has been ascertained by the ordeal. In confirmation of
this truth, its advocate partook of the Host, and that publicly. And as the
emblem of the Saviour’s body did not kill him, he was supposed to be right. Of
course, this was looking to the supposed miracle for divine direction, and not
to the word of the Lord. It is quite common for Protestants to smile at
Catholics for superstitions so groundless, and yet to practice others as
unreasonable. Even now there lingers the suspicion that the Lord directs His
people in the line of duty, and shows them that they are right while they do not
follow the Scriptures. We ought not to speak of the superstition of Catholics
when we are doing the same things. Now, if we are to learn the will of the Lord
in this way, what use have we for the Bible? It is better that we seek its
meaning and follow its direction, or confess that God could not or would not
give us the kind of book we need.

(8.) This method stands in the way of Christian liberty. It prevents all
investigation, and so hinders the people from knowing more of the word of God
than they did during the dark ages. Luther began the Reformation in direct
opposition to this idea. And yet we are ready to stop all search after truth,
and bind the world to the opinions of the last reformer. This was the tyranny
against which he rebelled, and yet we are trying to fasten upon the rest of the
world this usurpation. If the right does not now exist to differ from the views
of canonized authority and hoary tradition, then it did not exist in the days of
Luther; and, if it did not then exist, we ought all to be in the bosom of Rome.
Of all methods of interpretation yet considered, if we shall call this one, it
is the most unreasonable, and attended with the greatest amount of evil.

SEC. 32. THE RATIONALISTIC METHOD.

(l.) It is very nearly the rule of unbelief. Though many of these exegetes have
professed to strive only to know the exact meaning of Scripture, yet they have
done more to compel the Bible to harmonize with the latest philosophies than
anything else. They have differed only from the dogmatists in the standard by
which all Scripture statements are to be compared. With them, "Nature is the
standard, and Reason the guide." If the Bible can be made to harmonize with the
notions of the reasoner, then it is to be understood as meaning what it says;
but if not, it is to be regarded as mythical, or used by way of accommodation,
or the writer has been mistaken respecting his inspiration, or we have been
imposed upon by apocryphal books. After all has been said respecting the efforts
at exegesis in the use of this method, we regard it not so much exegesis as
exit-Jesus! The interpreters are the guide and rule of life, and the Bible is
merely called upon to sanction their conclusions, not that they feel themselves
at all in need of its light and instruction, or that it would be any proof to a
sensible world of the correctness of their positions, but to patronize believers
a little, they quote their sacred books to show that, after all, they are not
bad friends. I speak of the German critics especially, not because they are
alone in the use of this method, but because they are leading. Some of these
claim to believe in the inspiration of the Bible, and others do not. But no man
holding their views of the right to compare the Bible with the thoughts and
feelings of men, and to compel the sacred text to agree with erring men, can
have any particular conviction respecting its inspiration. It would be better if
they were all avowed infidels, for then the world would not be deceived by them.

(2.) The theory of Strauss. In his Life of Jesus, he lays down the following
rules to guide in the investigation:

"A narrative is not historical (1) when its statements are irreconcilable with
the known and universal laws which govern the course of events; (2) when it is
inconsistent with itself or with other accounts of the same thing; (3) when the
actors converse in poetry or elevated discourse unsuitable to their training or
station; (4) when the essential substance and ground-work of a reported
occurrence is either inconceivable in itself, or is in striking harmony with
some Messianic idea of the Jews of that age." This theory has been exposed so
many times, and this has been so well done, that no more is now necessary than
to call attention to its unreasonable demands. (1.) That all miracles must be
rejected. That is, no man can pretend to be an interpreter of the Bible till he
is prepared to deny its claims to inspiration and to its record of miracles.
(2.) If any accounts differ, they must both be false. (3.) If the actors were
inspired, and, therefore, spoke in a manner above those of their time and
station, the account is to be regarded as untrue. (4.) If the interpreter can
not conceive of the correctness of the statement, or if any affirmation is made
that harmonizes with ideas common to the Jews respecting their coming Messiah,
then it must be untrue. Now, for unreasonableness and dogmatic unfairness, this
has no parallel. According to David Friedrich Strauss, no one can interpret the
life of Jesus, or any other portion of the sacred volume, till he is a confirmed
infidel.

(3.) Other theories of the same kind.--Those of Kant, Baur, Renan, Schenkel and
Eichhorn, while they may differ from each other in many things, have the same
general plan of investigation. Human reason is held to be superior to anything
that can be revealed in the Bible. Hence they do not interpret the Scriptures,
but simply interview the interpreter, and then demand that the Bible shall say
the same things, or be set aside as a work of fiction; and, having been the
child of a dark age, it must hold an inferior position. We shall not deny that
good Christian men have held this view as the right method of investigation,
that is, that everything must be made to harmonize with something they call
reason but we do say that the rule is of no value whatever, as it determines
beforehand what must be found, and thereby limits all investigation.

(4.) Further objections to the Rationalistic Method.

(a) No new truth or fact could be received; hence all investigation would be
stopped. Every discovery is at variance with some preconceived idea, and
therefore adverse to what some interpreter will regard as the eternal and
universal law. This new truth being opposed to his previous ignorance, it would
be rejected at sight. The king of Siam is said to have reasoned in this way; and
when the missionary told him that in his country, in the winter, water would
turn to ice, and on the lakes and rivers there would be a crust strong enough to
bear up wagons and horses, the king decided that he was trying to practice upon
his credulity, and told him plainly that he had no further interest in anything
he might tell him. All his knowledge of nature’s laws were set at naught by this
daring man, and he felt outraged by him, and drove him from his presence. He was
using this method consistently.

(b) It is a wrong use of reason.--The critical ability of every investigator
should be employed (1) to determine whether the Bible is from God, or only from
man; and (2) all the mental resources should be brought into requisition to
ascertain what it teaches. If the Bible is not of God, then interpret it
according to its contents; or if it is of God, do the same. But no man who shall
first decide that the message is from God, can retain any right to contradict
its statements, or differ from its conclusions.

(c) For a man to make his reason the guide and standard of all truth, is to say
that the reason of others is worthless--that he alone is the standard of appeal.
This is indelicate.

(d) A man’s reason can decide nothing of itself.--All that belongs to that
faculty of the mind is to properly argue, and dispose of all facts reported by
perception. Perception only gathers depositions from one or more of the five
senses. Hence, when a man decides that nothing at variance with his reason can
be admitted as true, he asserted that he has had all possible facts reported to
his mind that can have any bearing on the subject, and that he has properly
considered them, so that in their use no mistake could have occurred. This is
too assumptive for any modest man, and, we might say, for any man of common
sense.

SEC. 33. THE APOLOGETIC METHOD.

(1.) It maintains the absolute perfection of all statements in the Bible.--It
was brought into being by the Rationalistic Method, as the mind swings from one
extreme to another. As the former denied everything but what agreed with the
views of the exegete, this view finds its adherents to everything, and anything
that can be found in the Bible, and regards it all as from God. Whether the
witch of Endor, Cain, Ahimelech, Laban, Esau, Judas Iscariot, or the devil
himself, everything is filled with inspired truth, and made to serve as a
perfect guide to the world. This is unreasonable. Very much of the Bible was
spoken by the enemies of God’s people, and for the correctness of what they say,
the Bible is in no way responsible. It has reported them correctly, and that is
all it had to do in the matter. Suppose, then, that Abraham and Isaac did
equivocate respecting their relation to their wives, or that Rachel did deceive
her father concerning his teraphim, the Bible is not to blame for her falsehood
in the matter. David did many things that were wrong, and the Bible tells all
about it. Suppose that David was a favored man--that does not demand that he
should have been perfect in all that he did. If it could be shown that Jephthah
did really offer up his own daughter, it does not make the word of God endorse
the deed. When Paul speaks of him as an example of faith, he does not affirm
that he was without fault, nor does he indicate that God did not hold him guilty
for the act.

(2.) This method opposes one of the very first rules necessary to any fair and
thorough investigation--TO KNOW WHO SPEAKS.--With the question of authorship,
our inquiries have first to do in all matters for investigation. Was it the
language of Balak, or Moses; of one of the three comforters, or Job? Was the man
inspired? Did he claim to be? Was he truthful, even? Was he competent to speak
on such a subject? Job’s wife offered very poor advice, and yet it is a part of
the Bible. To regard it as authoritative is to do more than Job did, for he said
she talked like a foolish woman.

(3.) This method takes it for granted that if a man was ever inspired, then he
always was.--But when we come to examine the Scriptures on the subject, this is
not found to be. true. A man might have been inspired for one message only, and
all his life before and afterward may have been without such divine guidance.
Caiaphas once spoke by inspiration, as well as Balaam; but it does not follow
that they always did so. The beast on which Balaam rode had an inspiration, but
it was for one occasion only.

SEC. 34. THE DOGMATIC METHOD.

(1.) This method is noteworthy for two things: first it assumes the doctrine to
be true; and, second, it regards it as certainly true by being proven. It
proceeds by assumption and proof. We have found more or less of this in all the
methods yet considered. It has, indeed, been the rule that that which was
desired to be found, was looked for, and, the conclusions reached were those
that were desired at the beginning. Men have been able to find what they have
looked for.

(2.) It came into existence during the dark ages, when speculators and Christian
philosophers were the only guides of the people. These were soon found to differ
from each other; hence there must be found some way to test the correctness of
the positions taken. This correctness was determined by argument, tradition and
Scripture.

(3.) It has been kept alive by the same power that brought it into
existence.--The desire to rule in spiritual matters made it necessary for
leaders and parties; and the desire now, on the part of men and sects, continues
the use of a method which, without such potencies, would soon die out. But men
and parties hold and teach doctrines nowhere found in the Bible, and they must
do something to support their theories. To go to a plain reading of the word of
the living God, for support, would be ruinous; hence, resort must be had to what
is known as proof. The assertion is made, and then something is found that
sounds like the position already announced. This is satisfactory to those who
want the theory sustained.

(4.) This method was begun in Catholicism, and is continued in
Protestantism.--We are now in the same condition, largely, as those to whom this
plan was a necessity. Many of the practices of Mother Church are continued
to-day. For them, there never was any Scripture warrant. Once they might have
been upheld by the direct voice of the church, as it spoke in its councils. But
now having denied that these councils have had any right to change divine
regulations, and finding no directions for our practices, we have to resort to
methods of proof that would not be recognized in any other search for knowledge.

(5.) Truth has been found in this way, and yet the manner of investigation has
been a great hindrance. It should be said that men have found truth in
opposition to the method, rather than by it. A very honest mind will sometimes
see that the proposition, though made by himself, is not sustained by the facts,
and turn to that which is true; but it is the exception, and not the rule. He
who has taken a position and made it public, is in a poor condition to see that
his affirmation is not correct. He may see it, but he is not likely to do so.

Wishes and previous conclusions change all objects like colored glasses, and
convert all sounds into the assertions which the mind prefers to have made. The
horse hears no sound in the morning that indicates it to be his duty to stop,
but in the evening, when he has traveled all day, almost anything would convey
to him that thought. In the morning there were many frightful objects that
suggested the propriety of running away, but in the evening he is not troubled
with any such evil apprehensions. The reason of this difference is very obvious:
in the morning he wanted to run, and in the evening he wanted to stop, and he
understands everything in the light of his desires. When Moses and Joshua went
down the hill together, and heard the children of Israel in their frolic around
the golden calf, Joshua thought he could recognize the sound of battle in it,
for he was a warrior. Moses had a different thought about it. They reached
different conclusions, not because they heard differently, but because their
minds were on different topics. So it is with most of us. If we start out to
find some particular doctrine or dogma in the Scriptures, we shall probably find
it. It may not be there; there may not be anything on the subject; but we can
find a hundred things that comport with that thought, and hence conclude that it
must be true.

(6.) This does not indicate that the Scriptures speak in riddles, or that they
are not clear.--Such misuse may be made of any book. A man may not only prove
anything he wishes by the Bible, but he may do so by any other book, if he will
treat it in the same way.

(7.) It exalts traditions and speculations of men to an equality with the word
of God.--In the heat of argument, with a determination to find a theory in the
Scriptures, anything is accepted as proof. If the desired proof can not be found
in the Bible, it will be found somewhere else. The fathers, the canonized
authorities, the practice of the church--anything, to save the doctrine, from
which we are determined not to part.

(8.) This method now very greatly hinders the unity of the people of the
Lord.--Much as we dislike to own it, we maintain our creeds by its use. It
serves us, not as a means of ascertaining the meaning of the Bible, but as a
means of supporting our theories. In our very best books of discipline, we say
that "The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments furnish the only and
sufficient rule of faith and practice, so that whatsoever is not read therein,
nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any one to be believed, or
thought requisite or necessary to salvation." It may not be "read therein" but
if it can be "proved thereby," then it is to be continued in the church. Hence
it will be continued, beyond any possible doubt. If proof is desired, proof will
be found, and the doctrine will continue to be taught, and those who prepare
themselves for the ministry will have to run the gauntlet of this doctrinal
test. The Bible may know nothing about the doctrine, but it is kept alive by
this method of assumption and proof.

(9.) The Bible is not a book of proof for doctrines, but is the doctrine of God
itself to men.--We are to go to God’s book, not in search of our views, with the
intent to find them in some way or other, but to go to it for what it has in it
for us. Many of the interpreters of prophecy are prophets first, and then they
go to the Bible to see if they can get the old prophets to agree with the new
ones. Of course they always succeed. The man who fails to make out his
interpretation, should be regarded as wanting in common genius. I am hopeful of
overcoming this method, notwithstanding its strong hold on the people. All works
on Hermeneutics of recent date condemn it. I give a short quotation, by way of
example. Immer’s Hermeneutics, pp. 144, 145:

"One of the most frightful causes of false explanations is dogmatic
presupposition. See Mat 7:16-20. This passage has been thus understood by Luther
and by other old Protestant exegetes in an anti-Catholic interest: The tree must
first be good before it can bring forth good fruit--i. e., man must, through
faith, be regenerated, before he can perform good works. But this contradicts
the connection and the clear intention of the passage. Immediately before, Jesus
has warned his disciples against false prophets, who appear outwardly like
innocent and pious sheep, but inwardly are ravening wolves. He now gives them
the criterion by which they may distinguish the false and the good teachers from
each other, viz.: their fruits--i. e., good works, conduct corresponding to the
words of Jesus." The writer continues to show, at considerable length, the many
blunders that have been maintained in this way. The doctrine is assumed, or
presupposed, and then everything is bent, to give it support.

(10.) The manner in which it is done.--Conclusions are reached without the facts
necessary to warrant them. Sometimes it is by a mere jingle of words, something
like the theory. The author may have no reference to anything relative to the
subject that the interpreter is considering, but the application is made. The
exegete supposes that the author has his subject under contemplation, for what
else could he be thinking about? It is of such importance to him, that of course
the writer or speaker must have been discoursing on that topic. Again,
misinterpretation is very innocently reached by associating one of the premises
of the speaker with one of his own, and then drawing a conclusion. In this way
one man frequently misrepresents another-he hears a statement made, which, if
associated with a position of his, a certain doctrine would be advocated. Then
it is common to clothe that thought in one’s own speech, and say that a certain
man taught it. And yet he may never have thought of such a thing in his life. He
did not hold the premise that we did, and therefore did not teach as we said he
did. But the position was in our mind, and we assumed that it was in his,
without inquiring about it. When Jesus was dining at the house of a Pharisee,
somewhere in Galilee, there came behind Him a woman whose character was not
good. Simon said in himself: "If he were a prophet, he would know what sort of
woman this is." Now, he assumed that if Jesus did know, He would send her away;
and because He did not send her away, therefore He (lid not know what sort of
woman she was. This was his mistake. Jesus did know what kind of woman she was,
but He was not like the Pharisee in the disposition to order her away.

(11.) Dogmatism first determines what it is willing shall be found in the
Scriptures, and then goes to work at once to find nothing else there, and even
to refuse that anything else shall be found. The infidel has this dogmatism as
largely developed as any one. In all the reading that he may do, his
determination never wavers for a single moment. From first to last he is
determined to find that the Bible is only the work of man. Hence the evidences
which he has no way of meeting, or turning to a bad account, he regards as
unintelligible, or he deliberately shuts eyes and ears to all that has been said
therein. It is just as difficult for a man to be made to believe what he does
not want to believe, as it is to cause him to throw away long cherished
opinions. And no investigation will ever be worthy of the name while conducted
under this controlling power of prejudice.

(12.) Liberalism is just as dogmatic as the most orthodox creed.--They who boast
of their liberality are, many times, the most narrow and unreasonable bigots.
They are liberal while they differ from the old church authorities, and are
perfectly willing that you should join them in their new views of inspiration,
or of obedience to Christ, but they are unwilling that you should differ from
them. Hence it is plain that they have reached their views without the tedium of
the introduction of facts and the uncompromising use of logic, but have simply
jump=ed to their conclusions without any such examination, and are determined
that the rest of the world shall adopt their views of liberality. And those who
are not able to do so are denominated by them "legalists." They may adopt as
many forms as any others, and those, too, that are not known to the Scriptures,
but. when others fail to adopt their liberal ideas and still cling to the word
of the Lord and the ordinances as they were first commanded, they are
denominated bigots by those who are continually advertising their extreme
liberality. This is the way dogmatists deceive themselves quite commonly. With
them, the world is perfectly illiberal, because it will not adopt their dogmatic
opinions. Dogmatism here is just what it is everywhere else, only the points
assumed at the beginning, differ from those which have generally been regarded
as orthodox; but the manner of maintaining them is just the same.

SEC. 35. LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

(1.) This is most commonly employed by dogmatists, in order to maintain a view
that can not be supported in any other way.

(2.) It makes all the language of the Bible literal.--It treats the word of God
as if it were au essay on chemistry or mechanics. Hence, almost anything can be
proved by its use. Something can be found, by taking a jingle of words, that
will establish any theory. They do not stop to consider that God spoke to men in
their own language, and by such methods of speech as would render the thoughts
of God most easily understood. If they would read Oriental writings, on any
other subject, they would be convinced that much of it is highly figurative;
but, coming to the Bible, it must be made to bow down to a gross materialism,
and take a yoke upon its neck that will make it the merest slave of the
merciless task-master, who allots the tale of bricks, and will be satisfied with
nothing less. These exegetes do not pretend that David’s heart melted within him
like wax, that all his bones were out of joint, and were staring at him in the
face; that he was a worm, and no man; for they have no theory dependent upon the
literal use of these figures. But let their theory be involved for a moment, and
then, if the literal meaning will avail them anything, they will use it, and
deny that any other is possible. If the word in question has a low meaning, then
it has been used only in that sense. Many of our spiritual conceptions are
expressed in the Scriptures by the use of words once employed in material
affairs; hence they are enabled to shut out everything but the grossest meaning
the word had in its first use. The materialists of the present time insist on
making the soul of man as material as his body, or, at any rate, dependent upon
it for its existence. The disposition, however, manifested by materialists, does
not differ much from the spirit of dogmatists generally. Everywhere the aim is
to carry the point and maintain the doctrine, whatever may come of Scripture
truth. Others, from the same determination respecting the doctrine to be proved,
will compel a word into any peculiar meaning which is only possible to it under
peculiar circumstances. But, the word having been used in that sense somewhere,
it must have that unusual import in the passage under consideration, for two
reasons: first, the word could be used in that sense; and, second, the doctrine
in question is in need of that being regarded as the meaning in this place. This
trifling with the word of God does not come from that dishonesty to which we are
ready to attribute it. This dogmatism has fostered the idea that whatever may be
proved by the Bible, no matter in what way the proof may be found, or extorted,
must be right, Hence there is a kind of undefined feeling of right to
manufacture teaching in that way. And the work seems to be undertaken and
accomplished without any compunctions whatever. Not one of these persons would
think for a moment of interpreting the words of a friend in that way. A letter
having been received from father or brother, they would feel insulted if any one
should insist on such a mode of interpretation. With such a communication before
them, the question would be, What does the writer mean? not, What can we make
him mean? The latter forms of materialism go even farther, in one respect, than
any former effort, to maintain the desired doctrine. It is not uncommon to
assume a meaning for a word which it never has, and then make a play on the
sound of the word, using it so repeatedly in that sense that many persons will
come to the conclusion that such must be its import. In this way very much is
being done at the present time to establish religions speculations nowhere
mentioned in the Bible. We have before seen the evils resulting from the
Allegoric method, and yet it is but little, if any, more likely to prevent the
right interpretation than the Material or Literal. Either one is a foolish and
hurtful extreme. Much of the Bible is written in language highly figurative. And
not to recognize the fact, and treat the language according to the figures
employed, is to fail entirely in the exegesis. This, of course, does not imply
that God has said one thing while He means another, but simply that He has
spoken in the language of men, and in the style of those to whom the revelations
were made. No one reading the Prophecies or the Psalms without recognizing this
fact, will be able to arrive at any reliable conclusions whatever as to their
meaning.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 01.04A.   CONCERNING METHODS (2)
========================================================================

SEC. 36. THE INDUCTIVE METHOD.

(1.) What is it? A leading or drawing off a general fact from a number of
instances, or summing up the result of observations and experiments. Roger
Bacon, to whom we are largely, if not wholly, indebted for this method of
philosophy, was less clear in the definition of terms than in the use of the
method itself. Still, we can arrive at his meaning fairly well. This is what he
had to say of it:

"In forming axioms, we must invent a different form of introduction from that
hitherto in use; not only for the proof and discovery of principles (as they are
called), but also of minor, intermediate, and, in short, every kind of axioms.
The induction which proceeds by simple enumeration (enumerationem simplicem) is
puerile, leads to uncertain conclusions, and is exposed to danger from one
contradictory instance, deciding generally from too small a number of facts, and
those only the most obvious. But a really useful induction for the discovery and
demonstration of the arts and sciences, should separate nature by proper
rejections and exclusions, and then conclude for the affirmative, after
collecting a sufficient number of negatives." The thirteenth century was a
little too early for such a philosopher to be well understood, and far too early
for him to be appreciated. Still his views gained some support even then, and
have been gaining ever since, and now they are quite extensively adopted. In the
uses of this method of interpretation, all the facts are reported, and from them
the conclusion is to be reached. Of course during the time of the collection of
these facts, there will be incertitude as to whether some of them are facts or
not. Still, judgment is to be formed as best it can, for the time. But when the
whole number of facts are reported, it is probable that all the facts will stand
approved as such, and the guesses that were incorrect will be found to be
wanting in the necessary evidences, and will be easily thrown aside. After the
pyramid shall have been built, it can be put into line, and whatever of material
there gathered which will not harmonize with the whole amount will be readily
refused as not being according to truth. Hence we may say that in the inductive
method, we have necessarily the deductive. We will not only induce, or bring in
all the facts, but we will reach conclusions as to truth from these.

(2.) The law of analogy.--Everything must be found to agree. Harmony is one of
the first demands of truth. Two truths are never contradictory. It is impossible
for contradiction to be found where there is truth in all concerned. Hence, when
any fact has come to be known, and about it there can be no longer any doubt,
whatever may be reported after this, which is contradictory thereof, is rejected
at once as being certainly untrue. And yet this rule must not be employed so as
to prevent investigation, for it is possible that we may be perfectly satisfied
with an error. We have long regarded it as truth, and may make it the reason fir
the rejection of facts that would be of great value. But if the new fact is
admitted, then that which has been accepted must be displaced, for it is
impossible for both to be correct. Hence no interpretation can be true which
does not harmonize with all known facts.

(3.) This method demands that all facts shall be reported.--It assures all
concerned that if all facts are reported, and they are permitted to speak for
themselves, error will not be possible. But it is not always possible to obtain
all facts that have bearing on any given subject. Indeed, it is very probable
that complete success in this respect has never yet been attained. All the
mighty works of Jesus were not reported; but enough were presented for the faith
of all who were willing to believe. John said that He did many other signs
beside those which he recorded, but that the record he made was sufficient. This
method demands that when all the facts can not be had, as many shall be reported
as possible. The falling of one apple would not be enough to prove the law of
gravity, for there might have been something peculiar (1) in the then present
condition of things; or (2) in the form of the falling body; or (3) in its
contents; or (4) something present which had attraction for it and not for other
bodies. On the other hand, it is not necessary that all bodies shall have been
observed in their relation to each other; a large number will do, if they
embrace the several kinds of material, and are tried in many
circumstances--provided there is no opposing fact. One opposing fact will be
enough to introduce an exception, at least, to the rule. Hence it would not be a
universal law. Before reaching a conclusion, then, all facts attainable should
be gathered.

(4.) To always heed this command is difficult.--Men have ever been ready to
deduce without having properly induced. Sometimes a number of exceptions are
reported as the rule. One man is an enemy to the Christian religion, and
therefore he proves that it is of no value to the race, by finding a number of
cases in which it has done no good, or, at least, it has not made the right kind
of persons out of those who have professed it. The argument is augmented by
finding a large number of men who are out of the church who are better persons.
Now, this examination is very imperfect. It should be known (1) what they were
before conversion, so that the life afterward might compared with what it was
before. It ought to be known (2) what they probably would have been without this
religion (3) On the other hand, too, it should be known if, the men who have
been presented from the outside of the church are fair representatives of those
who, have never made any profession of Christianity. (4) And again, it should be
known what have been the effects of Christianity on them. It might be that
although they had never been church members, the morality which made them so
respectable was all obtained from that very religion. (5) Then again, on the
other hand, it should be borne in mind that other influences than those of the
religion under consideration may have controlled those church members, and that
the religion is not so much to blame as the other forces that have controlled
them. (6) Finally, it should be known whether the persons compared are fair
representatives. If they have been the exceptionally bad on one side and the
exceptionally good on the other, then there has not been an induction of facts,
but an induction of falsehoods. Neither the inside nor the outside of the church
has been properly reported. He who would pursue such a method would be about as
truthful in his investigations as the man who undertook to prove that his
neighbor’s ground was not as good as his. To do this, he went into his
neighbor’s field and plucked ten ears of corn, of the smallest and smuttiest
that he could find. He then went into his own field, and took the same number of
the largest and best filled ears that he could find. Then he made a comparison.
The same unfairness is exhibited sometimes in the examination of the results of
temperance laws. A large number of exceptions are reported as the rule; hence
the conclusion is reached that such laws are accomplishing no good. In order
that all facts shall be considered, we should ask, (1) Are the statements made
correct? or are they only part of the truth? or are they wholly false? (2) Has
the law itself been what it ought to have been? or has it been full of flaws and
weaknesses? (3) Is it a new law, and therefore not understood, or loyally
accepted; as it contravenes longstanding customs? (4) Is the party in power in
favor of the law, or is it opposed to it, and therefore will not enforce it? or
(5) while the party in power wishes well to the law, is there a large number of
its members on the other side, so that the leaders of the party are afraid to do
anything in the way of enforcement, for fear of dividing the party? (6) Are
other laws, under similar circumstances, disobeyed as much as those? I refer to
these things because they are within easy reach of every one nowadays, and to
show what I mean by the inductive method. But men have been no more rash in
these matters than in many other things. In medicine, a cure is reported by a
certain remedy, but the condition of the patient is not known; indeed, it may
not have been properly diagnosed, and hence the report may have contained
falsehoods instead of facts. Or, if the Condition has been made known, it may be
that other assistance may have been received from other sources to which the
recovery was in part due, and may be wholly due.

Experiments in science are conducted hastily, sometimes, and deductions made
before the facts have been induced. If a deformed creature is found in some part
of the earth, forthwith some one is ready to reach the conclusion that it is the
representative of a race, and hence that the connecting link has been found. We
might find a large number of hunchbacks and unfortunate creatures in this
country, and we are at liberty to suppose that abnormal conditions have existed
in other places; and hence, from such a partial introduction of facts we have
really no report at all.

(5.) The inductive method has long been used in almost all departments of
investigation except that of theology.

(a) I could quote many passages from the great jurists of the world, showing
that in the interpretation of law they follow this method. One quotation, from
Blackstone’s Commentaries, Vol. I. pp. 59-61, must suffice for the many we would
like to give:

"To interpret law, we must inquire after the will of the maker, which may be
collected either from the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects
and consequences, or spirit and reason of the law. (1) Words are generally to
be, understood in their usual and most known significance; not so much regarding
the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use. . . . (2) If words
happen still to be dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context,
etc,; of the same nature and use is the comparison of a law with laws that are
made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that
expressly relate to the same point." This shows that in the mind of this jurist
the great aim of all research in legal investigation was to arrive at all the
facts in the case. Whether constitution, or code of legislative enactment was to
be interpreted, the absolute intent of the maker was to be sought after, and any
failure to get a right understanding of such purpose would result in a
misapprehension of the enactment to be interpreted. And to know this aim of the
law-making power, all facts that bear upon the subject should be employed. I
know of no jurist or constitutional lawyer that differs from this opinion.

(b) When witnesses give in testimony in our common courts, they are sworn to
tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." This demand is
made upon the presumption that the only way of meting out justice to all
concerned, is to render a decision according to all the facts. And as these must
be gained by the testimony of witnesses they must make known to the court the
whole of their knowledge relating to the question in hand. In the pleadings too,
before the court, decision is to be according to the facts revealed in the
trial. Indeed, the jurymen are sworn to render the decision according to the law
and evidence. And all the arguments allowed in the case are to prevent the
misunderstanding of either law or evidence. At least, such is the ostensible
purpose of the pleading in the civil courts. Speculation as to the possible
meaning of law is not tolerated, when the facts can be had by which the purpose
of the law-makers can be known.

(c) The great teachers in the science of medicine have long held to this method
of investigation. Medical associations have for their main object the increase
of knowledge by the induction of facts. Hence, any one in the regular practice
who knows of any special remedy, for any ailment of the human body, is in duty
bound to give others the benefit of his discovery. The thought of all this is,
that, in order to deal successfully with the enemies of human life and health,
they are in great need of all the facts that can be had; that, when all these
facts are revealed, the healing art will be perfected. It is not to be denied
that there are theorizers in medicine as well as in theology, but it remains
true that Medical Science presumes, at least, on the induction of facts, and by
their light the men of healing are guided. Of course, every year they are
discovering that some of the former decisions were not correct; but this is the
method by which facts are finally reached.

(d) The things already said of law and medicine may be truly said of political
economy, history, or any other science or study that engages the attention of
man. Facts alone are supposed to guide men in forming their conclusions.
Speculators there may be, but the science of investigation in any of these
departments of thought, is supposed to be conducted in the light of the
inductive method. When our historians gathered up the accounts of the last war,
they did it that the whole truth might appear. In doing so, they found that many
things which had been reported and had been believed by very intelligent men,
were not true. During the war it would almost have been impossible for any
historian to have written correctly of any battle. All the facts could not at
that time be ascertained. Hence they had to wait patiently till they could be
gathered and compiled, and a history, true to the facts, given to the people.

(e) The Bible recognizes the correctness of this method.--When Jesus appeared to
the two disciples as they went into the country, he expounded to them all things
found in the law and the prophets concerning himself, (Luk 24:1-53). He thus
introduced all the facts from that divine source that would bear upon their
minds, that they might understand the truth. When the apostles met with the
elders and the whole church at Jerusalem, to consider the question of admitting
the Gentiles into the church without circumcision or keeping the law, they first
heard the testimony of Peter respecting the work of the Lord by him among the
Gentiles, at the house of Cornelius. Afterwards they gave attention to Paul and
Barnabas, while they recounted the things which the Lord had done by their hands
during the missionary journey which had just closed. After this, James makes a
speech to them reminding them of another witness which they had overlooked--the
testimony of one of their prophets (Amo 9:11-12). Now, when all these facts were
introduced, there was but one conclusion possible for them, which was that the
Gentiles were under no such obligations as those Judaizing teachers had
affirmed. When Moses wished to prepare Israel to go over into the land of
Canaan, and inherit it according to the promise of the Lord, he made them three
speeches, which constitute nearly the whole book of Deuteronomy. In these
speeches he brings before their minds nearly all their history, with all the
obligations that rested upon them to keep the commandments of the Lord. He does
this, that they may have all the facts in the case before them, that they may be
guided thereby. When Philip would convince the Ethiopian nobleman that Jesus was
the Christ, and the only way of salvation, he began at the same Scripture which
the man was then reading, and preached to him Jesus. Now, what he did was to
make him understand the testimony of the Lord respecting His Son. Fact after
fact was in that way presented to his mind, till he became convinced, and asked
for admission into the service of the Son of God. Nothing more respecting the
Scripture method need be said, for it is everywhere apparent that when the Lord
would conduct an investigation on any subject, He did it by the inductive
method. When the devil wished to gain a point, he did it by quoting a text for
its sound. When the Jewish rulers condemned the Saviour, they affirmed well but
proved nothing.

(6.) Inference may be used legitimately in the ascertainment of facts, and also
in the conclusions reached from them.--Many do not seem to know what an
inference is; they speak of it as if it were a kind of guess, and therefore
never to be used either in induction or deduction. The truth is, it is the
logical effort to know the facts in the case, and to ascertain the facts from
phenomena. Certain things seem to have been done; were they done or not? may
require the best effort of the mind to determine. This is done by associating
the whole number of things which are known, and reaching conclusions, in a
logical way, as to what else was done or said at the time, or in connection
therewith. A few illustrations will help us to know the place of legitimate
inference.

(a) Abraham went down from Canaan into Egypt; when he came out from that country
Lot returned with him. Though it is not said that Lot went into Egypt with him,
we infer it. They had journeyed from Haran together; the same wants were common
to them both; they remained together for some time afterwards; hence, though we
did not see them going together into that country, the mind naturally infers
that they did. And we are about as certain of this fact as we are that Abraham
went there.

(b) There were four kings who came from the east and fell upon the kings of the
plain of the Jordan, and overcame them, and took away much goods. Abraham took
his trained men, and, joining with his friends, followed the returning victors
and overcame them, and returned, not only with the spoil, but with the family of
Lot and the women. Here are persons said to be brought back, that have had no
mention as being among the captured, but we infer that they were captured. And
we are just as certain of that fact as we are of the facts that have been
recorded.

(c) If we read in the book of Joshua that the conquering army of Israel did to
certain kings just what they did to the king of Jericho, and we learn that they
hanged those kings, though nothing be said about what they did to the king of
Jericho at the time they took that city, yet we infer that they banged him. We
have the necessary premises, and can not reach any other conclusion.

(7.) Things assumed in the Bible are to be regarded the same as those which have
been stated. In the first verse of the Bible it is said that "in the beginning
God created the heaven and the earth." It is not stated in this verse that God
existed; that he had the wisdom and power to accomplish this work; but it is
assumed, and, being assumed, no interpreter has the right to call it in
question. Of course great caution should be had in the use of this rule, that we
may not at any time be mistaken as to what has been assumed. Anything that God
takes for granted is true; hence, anything which He has assumed or taken for
granted, we are bound to regard as true. Illustrations:

(a) God has everywhere treated man as if he could repent.--(1) He has nowhere
said that man could not repent. (2) He has commanded all men everywhere to
repent. Here our ideas of divine knowledge and justice come in to help us in the
solution of the case in hand. We say that God knew whether man could repent or
not; that He would not have required man to repent if it had not been possible
for him to do so. With all this in the mind when we hear an apostle: saying that
He has commanded all men everywhere to repent, it is assumed that all men can
repent, and that if they do not, the fault is their own; and if they are damned,
they will have no one to blame but themselves.

(b) An honest heart is necessary to the reception of the truth.--It is never
stated in so many words. And yet every attentive reader of the Scriptures
recognizes the correctness of the statement at once. When the "sower went forth
to sow," the seed must have found soil congenial, or there would have been no
results whatever. And that which brought forth the thirty, sixty and a
hundredfold, referred to those who received the word in a good and honest heart.
The result of this condition of mind is seen in the difference between the
people of Thessalonica and they of Berea, who "received the word with all
readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, to see if these things
were so." Therefore, many of them believed. On the day of Pentecost, those who
"heard the word gladly," obeyed the requirement of the Holy Spirit made known by
the apostle Peter. The honest-hearted Cornelius was in the right condition to
receive the pure gospel of the grace of God. His good and honest heart was the
right kind of soil in which to sow the divine seed, and from which there was an
immediate and very large yield.

(c) Man’s general wants are assumed.--When God provides for man a teacher,
sending the revelator before him to mate known to hire his duty, it is not
thought to be necessary to announce that man is ignorant and needs an
instructor. God’s treatment of His creatures is sufficient for that. When a
sacrifice was required it was not preannounced that man was a sinner, and that
for the sin he had committed his right to live had been forfeited, and that God
would accept of a substitute. His treatment of men carried that thought, and the
lesson was taught in that way as effectively as it could have been done by the
use of words. God does not stop to inform man that he is weak and wayward, that
he is in need of a government to control and protect him. It would be a waste of
time. He simply gives him that government and protection, and furnishes the
necessary instruction respecting man’s condition by the things He does for him.
And yet the wants of the world are known just as well in this way as if Jehovah
had written a systematic theology on the subject. It does not seem to be known
that God can teach in any other way than that which men have employed to get
their theologies before the minds of their fellows. The truth which God acts is
just as valuable as that which He has revealed in any other way.

(8.) When a result is spoken of which is commonly attributed to several causes,
though, in mentioning the result, at a given time, no cause should be assigned:
they are understood. to be present.--It has first been determined that these
causes are necessary to the result, hence if they had not been present the
result would not have been reached. Since, then, their presence is necessary to
the result, and the result has been reached, it follows beyond question that the
causes were present. So with a part of these causes. If we find the result, and
yet one or two of the causes are not mentioned, it is taken for granted that.
they were present. They have been associated with the result as causes, and,
though not mentioned in a given case, we assume that these unmentioned causes
were present.

(9.) Religious truth may be gathered from approved precedent.--We learn from the
authorized conduct of the children of God. If we can first be assured that what
is done is approved, we can know certainly what we are at liberty to do under
similar circumstances. Indeed, if the conduct. has been directed by men under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we learn from the example what we ought to do.
If the Scriptures are to be our guide from earth to heaven, then to be
religiously right we must be scripturally right. Or the statement may be made
stronger in this way: no one can be religiously right and scripturally wrong at
the same time. Or, again: no one can be religiously wrong while lie is
scripturally right. Now, if the will of God has undergone no change since the
New Covenant was completed, what was His will then is His will yet. And if those
men did that will, and we do the same now, we will be accomplishing His
pleasure. But there is need of caution.--(1.) Because a man has been inspired
for a given work or a single message, it does not follow that he is always under
the direction of such wisdom. When Elijah directed the contest on the top of
Carmel, and when he saw the plentiful rain in the little cloud, hanging over the
Mediterranean, he was inspired. But when he was frightened at the threat of
Jezebel, and fled to the Mount of God in the wilderness of Sinai, he acted on
his own motion, for God does not approve of his course. When Peter spoke on the
day of Pentecost, he did so as he was moved upon by the Holy Spirit, and when he
went to the house of Cornelius and gave to them the way of salvation, his way
and his speech were directed by the Lord. But when he went down from Jerusalem
to Antioch, and ate with Gentiles till "certain came from James," and then
withdrew from Gentile associations, he was doing things Peter’s way. Paul
afterwards, writing by the inspiration of the Lord, says that he withstood Peter
to the face, for he was to be blamed (Gal 2:11-14). (2.) We must also he careful
not to confound mere incidents or accidents with the approved precedents. The
disciples met together in an upper room in Jerusalem, and so they did at Troas,
but that does not make it binding on the disciples of to-day to meet in upper
rooms. These were accidents or conveniences. And to elevate them into divinely
appointed rules for the service of the Lord, would be to miss the purpose of the
record altogether. The Master took all his journeys on foot, but it does not
follow that we are only at liberty to travel in that way. (3.) There are things
which they did not do, yet which it would be perfectly right for us to do. But
they belong to the same class. There are matters of propriety that would, under
some circumstances, render some things improper, and, though there would be no
harm in the act itself, yet, owing to the surroundings, it would not be well to
do them. Customs being entirely different in another place or at another time,
these very things may be well enough. The apostles built no church-houses or
colleges, but this is not proof that the existence of these things is offensive
to God. These things, too, they could have done, but they did not choose to do
them. They were busily engaged in other work, which, for the time, was of more
importance. But the question recurs, How shall we determine what is an approved
precedent? How shall we be able to separate the many things done in the times of
the apostles which are merely incidental, from those that were meant for our
benefit, that we may know what to do? (1.) Those actions performed by the
apostles or other disciples in their day, which have a divine approval, or, if
done by an apostle, nothing has been said by inspiration in opposition thereto.
(2.) Customs of the Church under the eye and sanction of apostles. For if, in an
unguarded moment, an apostle should turn aside, he would not continue in that
condition. And if it could be possible for one apostle to continue to err in his
public character, it would not be so with all of them. A general custom is
established in harmony with that which is allowed, taught, approved by the many.
If we shall find the whole church engaged in a common custom in religious
service, no matter how we may come to that intelligence, if we can certainly
know that such was the custom everywhere among the disciples in the days of the
apostles, such practice will show certainly what was the will of God.

(10.) To know the meaning of any statement, we should know what the author was
trying to say.--The purpose before his mind will be a safe guide before the mind
of the investigator in gathering the facts to put to record. We know intuitively
that no man should be made to say what he does not intend to say.

(11.) In searching for causes, that upon which all facts agree is the cause, or
one of the causes.--If any known fact denies that it was one of the causes, then
it must be dismissed from such a responsible position. On the other hand, if any
fact claims it as a cause, then it must be so enrolled. As there can be no
opposing facts, we may experience a little difficulty in deciding between two
supposed facts, one claiming it as a cause and the other denying it such an
honorable place. In that case, we must continue to search till the mistake is
discovered, then introduce the triumphant fact and listen to its decision. If it
shall enroll any thing or act as a cause, it must be so regarded till there
shall be some dispute, there being found some other fact, or supposed fact,
which denies the conclusions already reached. When such questions arise, we are
required to pass through the investigation again, and satisfy our minds as
before.

(12.) We are not to reject a cause for the want of philosophical probability,
when miracle is declared or assumed to be present.--When Israel was called out
of Egypt, many things were commanded which philosophy would never have
suggested. No one could have seen why they should sprinkle the blood of the lamb
on the lintel of the door and the two door posts. Philosophy would have said:
The angel now knows whether the inmates are Hebrews or not; and, knowing that,
they are as safe without the blood as with it. When they came to cross the sea,
Moses was told to stretch out the rod over the sea, and that its waters would
divide. Philosophy would have said: There is nothing in such an act to bring the
desired result. When they thirsted for fresh water in the wilderness, and Moses
was told to go and smite the rock, or, as afterwards, to speak to the rock,
philosophy would have seen no connection between the act commanded and the water
that was promised. Afterwards, when they were in the land of Canaan, they were
told how to take Jericho; to march around it once every day for six days, and
then on the seventh day to march around it seven times; and as they marched they
were to blow on trumpets made of ram’s horns, and, on completing the last round,
they were to give a long, loud blast and a great shout. And the promise was that
the wall of the city should fall, and they were to go up into the city, each
from the point where he might happen to be. But if philosophy or military skill
had directed the matter, the plan would have been different. We find a man from
Syria, Captain Naaman, who was told by the prophet of the Lord to go and wash
himself seven times in the river Jordan, in order that he might be cleansed from
leprosy. At first he was insulted at the thought; but, when his servant reasoned
with him, lie did what Elisha told him, and was healed.

We must remember, when we come to religious truth, that God is its author, and
that it is His place to say what are to be the conditions of the reception of
any grace or blessing. Our philosophies may be good in some things, but in the
religion of the Bible they amount to but little. "The secret things belong unto
the Lord our God: the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our
children forever, that we may do all the words of this law." This is the manner
of God’s legislation. He has not asked the counsel of the wisest of His people,
but held all authority in His own hands, and has, at all times, said what should
and what should not be law. One single fact of divine statement must settle any
controversy on which it speaks.

(13.) Contrary or negative facts may be used in the establishment of truth.--"He
that believeth not shall be damned," is sufficient to show that faith is at
least one of the conditions of pardon. Like this is the statement of the Master:
"If ye believe not, ye shall die in your sins, and where I am ye can not come."
This would have the same bearing. "Ye believe not, because ye can not hear my
words," would be just like saying that hearing His word was one of the
conditions of becoming a believer. "Ye believe not because ye are not of my
sheep, as I said unto you." His sheep heard His voice and followed Him. Hence,
if they had listened to His teachings, and been in the company of those who
followed Him, they too would have been believers. "For except ye repent ye shall
all likewise perish." This is equal to saying "those who repent not shall
perish." This is the negative form of saying that repentance is one of the
conditions of salvation. We read of some who "rejected the counsel of God
against themselves, being not baptized of John." This is saying in substance
that if they had been baptized of John they would not have rejected the counsel
of God against themselves. Hence we have it stated in this negative way that
John’s baptism was the counsel of God, or, at least, a part of it. "No man can
come to me except the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at
the last day." This is a plain declaration that those who were drawn of the
Father could come to Him. This is carried out by the Saviour as He continues:
"It is written in the prophets, and they shall be all taught of God; every man
therefore that hath beard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me." So in
this negative way we have opened to us the manner in which sinners could come to
Christ, being drawn to Him by the truth of God, by having heard and having
learned of the Father. When Jesus was approached by Nicodemus, who seemed to
want to be admitted as a disciple without endangering his standing among his
people, the Master told him that except a man be born again he could not see the
kingdom of God. No teaching could be plainer to this Senator, that, though there
might be other conditions of seeing the kingdom of God, beyond all question
being born again was one of the conditions. And though he tried to break the
force of the statement by his question, "How can a man be born when he is old?"
he finds no way of escape, as the Lord turns upon him with the "Verily, verily,
I say unto you except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter
into the kingdom of God." This is as emphatic as language could make it, and
leaves no doubt respecting the requirement that men shall be born of water and
the Spirit, in order to enter the kingdom of God. We might continue this form of
affirmation till we should find every duty marked out in this way, both as to
the manner of becoming Christians and also as to how to live the Christian life.
Indeed, the negative form of the statement is frequently used as a means of
emphasis. A wrong use of this principle is sometimes made by finding a negative,
and arguing therefrom that no other quality or deed is demanded for a given
purpose except the one implied in the one statement. To illustrate: it is said
that "without faith it is impossible to please God:" from this it is contended
that if faith is present, the possessor will please God. Nothing else is
regarded as a necessity in order to please Him, simply because it is not
referred to in the passage. This is the same blunder that takes it for granted,
from an affirmative statement, that only the one thing there mentioned can be
requisite to the desired blessing; that if it were any part of the cause, it
would have been mentioned in that one text. This is not a weakness of this
feature of the inductive method, but a mistake in its use. When a truth is
taught by the use of the negative, it is the same as if that truth were taught
by the use of a direct statement. All that can be found in it is that the cause
named is necessary to the result; but it does not follow that it is the only
cause. We are at liberty to pray, "give us this day our daily bread;" but if we
shall depend upon prayer alone for bread, we shall go hungry. While we should
pray for food, there are other conditions by which it shall be acquired-finding,
then, that any act is for a certain end, is not finding that it is the only
thing necessary to that purpose.

(14.) Causes will frequently become obvious by arranging the facts in the order
of intensity. a. Illustrations of this rule.--Physicians sometimes are enabled
to diagnose the case by the use of medicine. A small dose of medicine has a
given result. The same remedy is increased, and the effect is increased; this is
repeated several times, and the conclusion is fairly reached that a certain
medicine has a certain result. And, as a certain condition of the system would
be necessary in order that that medicine should have that result, the condition
is determined upon, and the patient treated accordingly.

Any physician or scientist, finding that the increase of any chemical increased
a certain result, would decide at once that such result was produced, at least
in part, by that act, chemical, or medicine, as the case might be. b. If we find
in the Scriptures that with the increase of testimony faith becomes stronger, we
at once reach the conclusion that faith comes by the medium of testimony. If we
find in Christian experience that just as the members of the Church increase
their faithfulness in the worship, on the Lord’s day, their uprightness and
integrity is made to grow, every one reasons from cause to effect, and from the
effect back to the cause. c. On the other hand, if we find that as people have
been deprived of the word of God, their faith becomes weak, we leer n by a
negative rule that faith comes by the word of God. If, among the heathen, who
have never heard of our Saviour, there are none who believe in Him, we conclude
that, without this word, it is impossible to constitute people believers in
Christ. d. A caution is needed.--We may increase the testimony and not increase
the faith, for there may be modifying causes that will remove all disposition to
believe, or that will turn away the people from hearing the word of the Lord.
Hence, when we are looking fog causes by arranging the facts in the order of
intensity, we must be sure that there are no modifying forces; at least, that
there are no more of them than there were before increasing the supposed power.

(15.) A particular fact can not be learned from a general statement, when other
than the cause mentioned might have produced the result.--If it is ascertained
that a gentleman went to the city on a certain day, the fact that he went does
not establish the manner of his going, for there are more ways than one by which
he might have gone. A murder having been committed, no one man is to be hanged
merely from that fact. Indeed, if it should be known that it must have been
committed by one of two men, neither one is convicted by the general fact of
murder, for it might have been done by the other. In the case of the conversion
of Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), it is said that "the Lord opened her heart, that she
attended to the things spoken of Paul." It is easy to jump to the conclusion
that this opening of the heart of that woman was by a miracle, for it might have
been done in that way. But we are not at liberty to reason so hastily. We must
ask, Could her heart have been opened in any other way? And if it shall be
determined that her heart could be opened by natural means, and that such force
was present, it is not reasonable to conclude that the result was reached by a
cause that was not necessary and that was not known to have been present. If the
preaching of the word had been found to be sufficient to open the hearts of
other men and women, so that they would accept the gospel of Christ and obey its
requirements, and that power was present, then there is no reason for the
supposition that the abstract power was present, or that it bad anything to do
with the opening of the heart of that pious Jewish woman. Again, should it be
argued that the word attend means to consider, give attention to, it will be in
order to ask, Is that is necessary import? And if it is found to mean to do the
things spoken of, then no more will be found in the passage than that, hearing
the gospel of Christ from this messenger of the Lord, her heart was so enlarged
that she was ready at once to accept of Christ in all His demands. This rule,
however, does not interfere with the effort to find the meaning the word may
have in any particular occurrence. This is a lawful and just procedure. All we
notice in this place is the error of reasoning from a general statement to a
particular conclusion.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 01.05.     THE SEVERAL COVENANTS (1)
========================================================================

CHAPTER V. THE SEVERAL COVENANTS.

SEC. 37. THE NEED OF DISCRIMINATING BETWEEN THEM.

(1.) No one can understand his duty without knowing to what law he is amenable.
God makes a covenant with Noah, and binds him to build an ark of certain
dimensions and out of certain timber, and to put into it all kinds of beasts
that could not pass the flood without such help. But I am not to learn my duty
as a sinner, nor yet as a saint, by reading this covenant. It is not my duty to
make an ark of any size. There are neither duties, threats, nor promises to me
respecting anything of the kind. So it is with all the covenants that God has
ever made with man--each covenant is for the man or the men, to whom it was
given, and for whom it was intended. It belongs to no other man, or men, except
extended to them by its Author. In all the individual contracts that God made
with the Patriarchs, the demands, duties and blessings were peculiarly the
property of the men to whom the covenants belonged. Abel offered a sacrifice by
faith (Heb 11:4); hence God had required the sacrifice; but it does not follow
that I am to go to my flock and prepare an offering, and then come and burn it
with fire. He has not required that of me, and therefore I would not be
rendering him any service by such a worship. So fathers were high priests, and
the rulers of the tribes that grew up about them. They not only offered for
themselves, but for their children and their children’s children. To these men
God gave many primary lessons, containing principles that should remain and have
a place in the highest worship that would ever be given to the world. But there
were also many things that were peculiar to the times and the people to whom
these covenants belonged. Abraham was to go into the country of Moriah, and
offer up his son, Isaac, on an altar; but the man who regards that as being
direction given to him, is in a fair way to commit murder. That demand was made
of Abraham alone. In like manner, the blessings that came to that man from such
acts of obedience, were in consequence of the obedience which he rendered. But
if any other man should have done that, it would have been a high crime.

It is known in all matters of law among men, that a man is amenable to the law
under which he is living. The law of the United Colonies was good, in many
respects, but a man would be regarded as bordering on insanity if he should go
to it to learn all his duties as a citizen of one of the New England States. No
matter if the present law now contains many things that are to be found in the
old law, he obeys these demands not because they were found in the law of the
Colonies, but because they are found in the law under which he lives. In the
Northern States it was once our duty to catch a colored man, and return him to
his former owner; but if one should start out now to catch men and return them
to the South, there would be some trouble in the matter. Common sense has
everywhere been sufficient for this question, except in religion. Only when we
come to ask the way to heaven, do we seem to lose our interest in the ordinary
forms of intelligence, and gather up and appropriate language, and commands, and
promises that do not belong to us. I open the Bible, and read that it is the
duty of the parent to circumcise his boy of eight days; and I go about the task
at once, but every one knowing me is shocked. Why? Is it not in the Bible? You
say that it belongs to another people, and these rites and ceremonies are not
Christian. That is the difference of covenant. That institution belonged to one
age and one people, and I belong to another. Not being under that covenant, I am
not to observe that commandment, unless I can find it in the covenant to which I
do belong.

(2.) Each covenant that God has made with men may have many things in common
with all the others, and yet be distinct. There is nothing more common than to
mistake similarity for identity. Several things are the same in both, and
therefore it is concluded that they are identical, except that the one is more
complete in some particulars than the other. Every covenant that God has ever
made with man has contained the thought that God is the supreme and rightful
Ruler of the universe, and that it is the highest privilege of mortals to be in
harmony with His wish. Hence, the idea of worship and obedience; can be found in
every covenant between God and man. It may be said, too, that these things are
the great essentials of God’s dealings with men. And yet these covenants are not
the same; they do not require the same acts of obedience, nor do they promise
the same things; nor do they belong to the same people. Paul says (Rom 9:4-5):

"Who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants,
and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are
the fathers, and of whom is Christ as concerning the flesh, who is over all, God
blessed forever."

Here is a law and several covenants and promises that were peculiar to the
people of Israel. Hence the duties required in these several contracts were not
obligatory upon other nations and peoples, unless God had made similar covenants
with them. But certainly the promises were peculiar to the descendants of
Abraham, It was to be through him and his posterity that the Christ; should
appear. The land of Canaan belonged to them of divine right; the rite of
circumcision was peculiar to them; and the law that was given by Moses was for
them during the time of their minority, and was only intended to serve as a
school-master, or a leader of children, till the Christ should come and
establish the faith by which men should be saved (Gal 3:23-25).

"And what great nation is there, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous
as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deu 4:8). In the mind of
Moses, this law belonged especially to them, and was not the property of any
other people.

(3.) Language under one covenant may explain duties under another, in those
features in which the two are alike.--Under all forms of divine law men have
been required to worship God with a whole heart. Hence we know that the
intention has been the same in that respect. Whatever, therefore, may be found
in any one of these, on that topic may be used to enforce the thought and stir
up the soul to that. devotion which the Lord requires. The devotional Psalms may
be used by the Christian, that we may understand the frame of mind that should
characterize all who serve the God of heaven and earth. Idolatry is a great sin
and has been in all ages; hence any condemnation of that iniquity found in the
law of Moses, may be used as an assistance in Christian study. "Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve," has been endorsed by
the Master, and is for us. The two systems are alike in this respect, and
therefore the teachings may be used interchangeably, belonging to one as well as
to the other. So it is with the fact that the Lord wishes men to do His
will--that He has more delight in obedience than in sacrifice. This being true,
it follows that we are at liberty to get illustrations of obedience and
disobedience during any dispensation, that will enable us the better to
understand our duty as the disciples of Christ; not in the thing commanded, but
in the fact that strict obedience to the word and will of the Lord is required
of us as His servants. We are now not to go to the slaughter of the Amalekites,
as was commanded to Saul, or to march around Jericho with Joshua; but we are to
do the things which are now required of us, as they were those things required
of them; the demands have changed, but the absoluteness of obedience remains the
same now as then. The Saviour brings a teaching to the disciples respecting the
settlement of all difficulties before worship by referring to the altar service;
and though this manner of service has been discontinued, yet before we bring our
devotions before God we should first go and be reconciled to our brother, and
then come and bring our gift.

(4.) The laws of each covenant are supposed to be complete in themselves.--This
does not indicate that a man would understand Judaism as well if he had not
studied the dealings of God with the Patriarchs as if he had familiarized
himself with this feature of divine history. Nor does it mean that a man can
ever be perfectly taught respecting the New Institution, without having had a
knowledge of the Law and the Prophets. But it does affirm that if a man had
never seen the law given by Moses, he could know all his duty toward God, by a
careful and thorough study of the New Testament. There were many Gentile
congregations which had no knowledge of the law of Moses, and who were entirely
dependent upon the teaching of inspired men as they revealed Christ to them. We
learn from Christ and the men He ordained, every precept which we are expected
to observe--to hear His sayings and do them, is to do the will of His Father in
heaven, and therefore to build on the solid rock. It is not now what "thou hast
heard, that it hath been said," but the "I say unto thee," that is to control us
in the service of God as Christians. If we are to be Jews, then we must study,
that we may know the law and keep it. Christ has brought forward every grand
feature of truth and right, and every act of piety and benevolence that can be
of any assistance to us in the Christian life. Paul could afford to be
indifferent about everything else but the law of Christ. He says:

"And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews; to them that are
under law, as under the law, not being myself under the law, that i might gain
them that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without law, not
being without law to God, but under law to Christ, that I might gain them that
are without law" (1Co 9:20-21). The forms of the law he might or might not
observe; it was to him a matter of indifference, a question of expediency; and
as for morals and the principles of truth and piety, they were all to be found
in the law of Christ.

SEC. 38. THE SEVERAL COVENANTS.

(1.) The covenant made with Adam, will be found in Gen 1:28-29 :

"And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the
earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in which is the fruit of the tree
yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" (Compare Psa 8:3-9; Heb 2:8-10)

Here we have a part of the covenant. The other part of it consists of man’s
obedience to God. Hence, by a fall, man lost his divine right to be the ruler of
the earth, and has to be re-instated in that position by the redemption in
Christ. Just what would have been the result of that covenant having been kept,
we do not know, but all the glories of the primitive state would certainly have
been secured.

(2.) Covenant with Adam and Eve after the fall (Gen 3:15-21).--This contains a
long struggle between the serpent and the seed of the woman, and the final
victory in behalf of humanity. In the meantime the race will have to be purified
by toil, and saved by sorrow, from those iniquities which would drown them in
their abominations. They had failed to keep the first covenant, but this one
they would keep, for they could not help it. This is the first promise of a
coming Saviour, and is found to consist in toils and duties wrung from the
inhabitants of the earth on the one side, and the blessed promise of God on the
other, that some day there should come a deliverer to the world who would be
able to destroy the works of the devil.

(3.) The covenant with Noah before the flood (Gen 6:13-22):

"And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth
is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the
earth. Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and
shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. And this is how thou shalt make
it: the length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty
cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. A light shalt thou make to the ark,
and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou
set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make
it. And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all
flesh, wherein is a breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the
earth shall die. But I will establish my covenant with thee; and thou shalt come
into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into
the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. And take
thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be
for food for thee, and for them. Thus did Noah; according to all that God
commanded him, so did he."

Here we have all the features of a covenant revealed. God makes a contract with
this man to save him and his family, and requires of them certain conditions to
be kept. The ark was to be built, of the timber prescribed, and according to the
manner indicated in the contract; the animals were to be gathered as God had
ordained. Still more than this is implied. Noah had been selected from the world
as the only man who was righteous in his generation, and whose sons were also
free from polygamy, which was then the curse of the earth. The sons of God had
gone and taken them wives of the daughters of men, thus mingling with the
wicked, and becoming as corrupt as the rest of the world. This is the reason
that Noah was chosen: he was free from the corruption of the times. Hence it is
to be understood that he should remain free from the abominations of the age. So
we understand that this man is to keep himself pure, continue to be a worshiper
of God, and to do, in building the ark, just what God had commanded him. The
salvation of this man is not reckoned as a matter of debt, but the obedience
which he rendered was a necessity on his part to accept of that mercy that
provided for his life and for the lives of the members of his family.

(4.) Covenant with Noah after the flood (Gen 9:8-17):

"And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I
establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every
living creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast of the
earth with you; of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth.
And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off
any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to
destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make
between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual
generations; I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a
covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a
cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will
remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of
all flesh; the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. And the
bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the
everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is
upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which
I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth."

We have the Divine side of this covenant thus presented to us, and the human
side of it will appear by turning to the eighth chapter and twentieth verse, and
reading to the close of the seventh verse of the ninth chapter. This is seen in
the offering of Noah, and the pure worship which the Lord had required, and in
keeping the commandments which the Lord put upon the race, in showing justice
and kindness toward man and beast.

Though duties are exacted only of men, still this covenant is made with all
flesh, or it concerns all flesh. Thus again we see that the idea of a covenant
implies obligations and a contract between two parties. And, as it will be seen
hereafter, God’s promises will not fail, except by the failure of man, in
violating the terms. In that case God will cease to regard them, and the
covenant will fail by virtue of the failure of the contracting or covenanting
party.

(5.) The covenant made with Abram respecting Christ (Gen 12:1-3):

"Now the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy
kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto the land that I will show thee: and I
will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name
great; and be thou a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and him
that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth
be blessed." In one form or another, this covenant was renewed many times. It
contained two thoughts, seemingly distinct at the first, and yet they are bound
together, as one is the medium through which the other is fulfilled. Making of
Abram a great nation, was necessary in order to the coming of the Christ and the
preaching of that truth by which the world should be saved. God is preparing a
receptacle of His truth--a nation that will guard it, and keep it, and give it
to the world. They must be kept separate from the rest of the world, that God’s
promises may be fulfilled, that prophecies may be given and kept, and that the
Christ may be given to the world, through whom the world may be saved. The
following Scriptures contain references to this covenant: Gen 18:18; Gen 22:18;
Gen 26:4; Gal 3:8, Gal 3:16; Acts 3:25; Heb 11:8, Heb 11:17-18.

(6.) A covenant made with Abram concerning land (Gen 13:14-17):

"And the Lord said to Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now
thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and
eastward and westward for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of; the earth so
that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of
it; for unto thee will I give it." This covenant was referred to when Abram
first came into the land of Canaan (Gen 12:7), but it was some time after this
that it was confirmed, as seen in the account above. It was afterward referred
to as having been already made (Gen 17:8; Gen 24:7). Isaac was assured that it
was because of Abraham’s faithfulness that he should inherit the land (Gen
26:4-5). And when Moses was taken up to the top of the mountain and shown the
good land, he was reminded that the contract which the Lord had made with
Abraham was about to be fulfilled (Deu 34:4).

Although this covenant is distinct, yet it is based upon the thought contained
in the promise made concerning his descendants--that they should become a great
nation. Indeed, the land never belonged to Abraham in person; hence the only way
in which it could be fulfilled was by the means of establishing his seed in that
land. To belong, then, to that covenant, was to have a right in that land, as an
owner--as one who has a deed in fee simple. The human part of it seems more
implied than stated. Yet when Isaac is reminded of his inheritance, it is
announced to be on account of the righteousness of Abraham. And all the way
through the history of the children of Israel, it was understood that the
inheritance was dependent on the continued obedience of the people to the will
of God. And it was because of a failure in this respect that they were sold into
captivity to the Babylonians, till they should learn to keep the commandments of
the Lord.

(7.) The covenant concerning circumcision (Gen 17:9-14):

"And God said unto Abram, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou,
and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. 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 among you, every male throughout your generations,
he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not
of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money,
must needs be circumcised; and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an
everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the
flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken my covenant." The ordinance was so distinctively Jewish that the apostles
used the word circumcision many times to denote the Jews, and the uncircumcision
to denote the Gentiles (Gal 2:7-8).

It has been said by a few, that nearly all ancient nations had this institution.
But of this there is no evidence. On the other hand, there is every reason to
believe the statement to be untrue. And again, while we call this a distinct
covenant, yet it remains a fact that it attaches more or less to the covenant by
which Israel became a great nation, and were made the owners of the land of
Palestine. And again, it may be said that these have some relation to the one
great covenant which God made with Abram that in his seed all the nations of the
earth should be blessed. We find this relation between all of them. In order
that in the seed of this man the world should have a Saviour, his posterity must
be separated from the rest of mankind; hence the organization of a nation. And
to fence them away from the nations that were round about them, this institution
was given. The land of Canaan was donated to the same end. But while these
covenants have just this much relation to each other, it is entirely improper to
speak of them as but one covenant. All the contracts which God has made with the
different portions of the race have had some reference to this great salvation
in Christ; but that fact does not make them one and the same covenant.

[NOTE.--There are many other smaller contracts made with men; but they have
nothing to do with the principles of interpretation, nor yet do they throw any
particular light on any portion of the Scriptures. God promises to prosper Jacob
and bring him back to his father’s house in peace, and Jacob agrees, on his
part, to tithe himself, in order that God’s worship shall be carried forward on
the earth. But whether the covenant is between God and any man, or between two
or more men, the thought of it is much the same: there are obligations on both
sides, understood and agreed to. It is furthermore indicated in all these that
if one party shall fail to keep his part of the contract, the other party is
freed from all obligation. God has plainly said that He will act in that way.]

"As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked;
but that the wicked turn from his way and live turn ye from your evil ways; for
why will ye die, O house of Israel? And thou, son of man, say unto the children
of thy people, the righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the
day of his transgression; and as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not
fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness: neither shall he
that is righteous be able to live thereby in the day that he sinneth. When I say
to the righteous that be shall surely live: if he trust to his righteousness,
and commit iniquity, none of his righteous deeds shall be remembered; but in his
iniquity that he hath committed, therein shall he die. Again, when I say unto
the wicked, thou shalt surely die, if he turn from his sin, and do that which is
lawful and right; if the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had taken
by robbery, walk in the statutes of life, commit no iniquity; he shall surely
live, he shall not die. None of his sins that he hath committed shall be
remembered against him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall
surely live" (Eze 33:11-16).

Now, though this was said under the law, which based a man’s salvation on doing
the things it required, still this principle is clearly stated, that whatever
may have been the agreement between God and any man or men, if they shall
forsake that covenant and turn away from Him, the covenant is broken, and He
will not regard them. It is a thought that is by no means confined to the Old
Testament. In the Covenant of Christ, it is required that those having accepted
of the salvation thus provided, shall continue steadfast to the end, in order to
receive the crown.

(8.) The covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai (Exo 20:1-24):

[NOTE.--It is sometimes denied that this was a covenant. But this comes from not
having any clear view of the meaning of the word. It is not now a covenant made
with an individual, but with a nation. And it contains the substance of the
covenants of flesh, land and circumcision. Its purpose was to serve as a
school-master during the time of the minority of that people, to prepare them
for the Great Teacher that should come from heaven. The purpose of this covenant
is indicated to Moses when he was in Egypt, trying to bring the people out from
that cruel bondage.]

"I am Jehovah: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God
Almighty, but by my name Jehovah I was not known to them. And I have also
established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of
their sojournings, wherein they sojourned. And moreover I have heard the
groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I
have remembered my covenant. Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am
Jehovah, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I
will rid you out of their bondage; and I will redeem yon with a stretched out
arm, and with great judgments" (Exo 6:3-8). In this we have the anticipation of
the covenant that God intended to make with this people at Mount Sinai, over His
own name, Jehovah. No former covenant had been completed in this name, but after
this He was to be known to them by this name. In Exo 34:27-28 we read:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words, for after the tenor of
these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there
with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink
water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments." By referring to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai, it will be
seen that it has the form of a covenant--it is given to that people for a guide
and a test of obedience, and it is sealed with blood, and enjoined upon them. It
was not wholly religious, for the purpose of God in preparing a people ready to
receive the Lord when He should come to the world, made it necessary that a
government should exist, and that, by the means of a religious nation, He would
be able to give a revelation of His will to the world. Hence the law combines
the purpose of those covenants of land and flesh, in order that the world may be
prepared for Christ (Gal 3:8, Gal 3:16-25).

(9.) The covenant of Christ, made by Him and sealed with His own blood (Jer
31:31-34; Heb 8:6-13; Heb 9:15; Mat 28:2-6).--This covenant was in view during
the former dispensations. Every offering and service foretold of the coming
redemption, and every prophet, priest and king typified the coming Saviour who
should be the Anointed of the Lord, representing the Father in His love for the
race, in the mercy and justice by which salvation could be possible to those who
have sinned, and in the unlimited authority and power and wisdom by which the
world could be lifted up and made ready for the heavens. As he is to provide
salvation for the race, and extend it to us as a free gift, it belongs to Him,
and to Him alone, to say on what terms the blessings of His sacrifice may be
enjoyed: hence He is the one Mediator between God and men (1Ti 2:5) SEC. 39. THE
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COVENANT MADE WITH ISRAEL AND THE COVENANT
MADE BY THE CHRIST.

(1.) The change in the priesthood.--It has been thought that Christ was a priest
under the law, and that He was introduced into that priesthood by John the
Baptist. But of this there is no evidence. Christ did not claim to be a priest
while on the earth; and if He had been, there would have been a violation of the
law, which provided for but one high priest at a time, for no one can think that
He would have been a priest in any inferior sense. There were many opportunities
for Him to have affirmed His priesthood, and His failure to do so is sufficient
evidence that He did not occupy that position on the earth. It should be
noticed, too, that no apostle ever insinuated, in any way, that the Master was
high priest while he was here on the earth. Indeed, Paul takes just the opposite
view of the matter (Heb 8:4). He was not of the tribe that had been designated
for such honors under the law, nor were any of the services observed by which he
should have been initiated into that office. The theory has grown out of a felt
need. Men have wanted to conglomerate the law and the gospel in order that they
might find some support for various doctrines which could not be sustained in
any other way.

(a) The high priesthood under that institution belonged to the tribe of Levi,
the family of Kohath, and the particular family of Aaron, but in this, it is in
the line of Judah, of which tribe Moses said nothing concerning priesthood (Heb
7:14).

(b) In that, men were made priests who had infirmity, who needed an offering for
themselves first before they officiated for the people; but in this, we have a
priest who is holy, harmless, undefiled, and made higher than the heavens (Heb
7:26-28; Heb 5:1-4).

(c) Those priests discontinued by reason of death, but Christ remains a priest
forever (Heb 7:23-24).

(d) Under that system one could become a priest without an oath, but Christ was
made a priest with an oath (Heb 7:21).

(e) They were made priests by the law of a carnal commandment, but Christ by the
power of an endless life (Heb 7:16).

(f) That priesthood belonged to the law of Moses, this to another covenant (Heb
7:11-13).

(g) The high priest under the law was not a ruler, and could have no connection
with the government in any matter not connected with religious service, or the
cleansing of the people from some disease or legal defilement; but Christ is
king as well as priest. He was priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was
king and priest at the same time. In Himself, He answers all human want--He is
the prophet to teach the way of God, the priest to remove all sin, and the king
to govern and protect all His disciples. So then we have a faithful and merciful
high priest in things pertaining to God.

Paul says:

"Having then a great high priest, who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus the
Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we have not a high priest that
can not be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but one that hath been
in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw
near with boldness unto the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may
find grace to help us in time of need" (Heb 4:14-16).

Thus Paul connects the priesthood of Christ with the throne of Christ. Thrones
did not belong to the high priest under the law, but in this covenant our high
priest is also a king. In Zec 6:12-13, Christ is foretold as a righteous Branch,
who should sit and rule on His throne, and be a priest on His throne, and that
the government, or counsel of peace, should be between them both.

(2.) There was a change in the atonement.--The covering by the blood of animals
could only serve to carry sins forward to the blood of the everlasting Covenant.
"It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins"
(Heb 10:4). From Lev 23:26-32, we learn that there was an atonement made once a
year. It was on the tenth day of the seventh month. At this time there was a
remembrance of the sins committed during the year, and those that had been
carried forward (Heb 10:1-4). Take some of the forms of atonement under the law
and the difference between the two institutions will appear as distinct as it
would be possible for type to differ from antitype. Exo 30:15-16, gives the
atonement by the use of the half shekel. Lev 8:18-34, in the consecration of
Aaron and his sons to the service of the Lord; as they must be pure themselves,
there had to be an atonement for them. The whole of the sixteenth chapter of
Leviticus is taken up in giving an account of the annual atonement made for the
people. In all this we can find abundant features of typology, but the atonement
differs-- (a) In the time of offering.

(b) The priest making the sacrifice.

(c) The blood that was offered.

(d) The place where the offering was made.

(e) And the results of the sacrifice.

(3.) Change respecting limitation.--The intent of universality of application
was never thought of during the times of the law of Moses. In Deu 4:7-8, Moses
says:

"For what great nation is there, that hath a god so nigh unto them, as the Lord
our God is whensoever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that
hath statutes and judgements so righteous as all this law, which I set before
you this day?" The interrogative form in which this matter is presented here is
the strongest form in which Moses could put an affirmative statement. It was the
equal of saying, "we all know that no nation has a god so near to them as our
God is to us, and no nation has this law, nor anything that approximates it."

There are many evidences that the law of Moses was never intended to reach
beyond the nation to whom it was given. The Pharisees in later times did make
efforts at proselyting, but it was the zeal of sectarianism rather than
obedience to any command of God. The stranger that should dwell within their
gates should be circumcised, and adhere to the commandments as they were found
in that law, but the thought of bringing the world to the acceptance of Judaism
was no part of the institution itself. Its forms and ceremonies were to avoid
the idolatry of the times--to maintain that people intact, that it might be
known in after times that the promise made to Abraham, to bring the Messiah into
the world through his posterity, had been kept. But if that seed had been
permitted to lose itself in the ocean of human beings, no proof of such
faithfulness on the part of God would have been possible. By paying attention to
the sanitary provisions of the law, it will be seen that there are commands
respecting the clean and the unclean, for which there can be found no reasons
except in the fact that food which is proper enough in other lands, is not good
for them in that country. Hence, when the gospel of Christ was given, all these
appointments were removed. The New Covenant was intended from the very inception
of it, to be universal. The first feature of the commission is, "Go into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature." All its ordinances are arranged
with reference to the universality of its principles. It is intended not for a
given period, but for all time; not for a portion of the race, but for the whole
human family. It was not to know any difference between Jew or Greek, barbarian,
Scythian, bond, or free, for all should be one in Christ Jesus, the Lord of all,
who would be alike rich unto all that would call upon Him.

(4.) They differ in the promises (Heb 8:6):

"But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also He is
the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better
promises." When Israel came over the Jordan, and temporary peace came, after
conquering Jericho and Ai, the hosts were brought to the place appointed between
Ebal and Gerizim, and heard the substance of the law, as it related to the
promises. Their righteousness must consist in perfect obedience to all the
demands of that law; and if such obedience should be rendered, they would be
blessed in the basket and store, and in their flocks and herds, and in all the
good things that pertained to this life. And, on the other hand, if they failed,
they were to be cursed in all these respects. (See Deu 28:1; Deu 29:1; Jos
8:30-35).

Even long before they came into this goodly land, they were made to know that
the land which flowed with milk and honey was to be their inheritance, upon the
condition that they would perfectly follow out the directions of the Lord. This
was the good news that was preached to them in the wilderness, which did not
profit (in many cases), not being mixed with faith in them that heard it (Heb
3:4).

It is not to be denied that those who were devout looked forward to the coming
of the Messiah, and to the glorious redemption which He should accomplish for
the whole race. But they saw through a glass darkly. Moses endured as seeing Him
who is invisible; and Abraham beheld these things from afar, and by faith
brought them nigh, so that he could embrace them; and yet it is too much to say
that they were a part of the covenant made with them at Sinai, and that belonged
to them as a nation. But the promises in Christ are far better. They are
complete pardon, sufficient help, every needed grace and providence,
resurrection from the dead, inheritance in the mansions in the heavens prepared
by the hands of the Master Himself. No wonder, then, that Paul says that this
has been established upon better promises than that.

(5.) The law was written on stones, but the new institution, is put into the
minds and the hearts of all who belong to it.

"Are we beginning again to commend ourselves? or need we, as do some, epistles
of commendation to you or from you? Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts,
known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ,
ministered by us, written, not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God;
not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh. And such
confidence have we through Christ to Godward: not that we are sufficient of
ourselves, to account any thing as from ourselves; but our sufficiency is of
God; who also made us sufficient 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 be 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 surpasseth. For if that
which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory"
(2Co 3:1-11). When Jeremiah saw the coming of this glorious institution, he
announced that it would be unlike the covenant that God had made with the
children of Israel in the day that He took them by the hand to lead them out of
the land of Egypt; but in this new institution He would write His law in their
mind and put it into their inward parts. That covenant was outward and formal,
but this is inward and spiritual. Those who belonged to that, depended on the
figures, types and symbols, for their knowledge of the Lord; but in this, the
Lord from heaven has spoken to us in words that are spirit and life.

(6.) All that are to have a place in the new covenant, shall first know the
Lord.--This is the statement that is made by Jeremiah, when he foretold of the
coming of the Christian institution: "They shall all know me, from the least of
them even to the greatest of them, saith the Lord." Paul quotes this in the
eighth chapter of the Hebrew letter, and applies it to the New Covenant. In the
service of God under the law of Moses, this never could have been said to be
true. Into that institution they were brought when they were born, and therefore
there would always be many of them who did not know the Lord; hence, if they
ever should know the Lord, they would have to be taught to know the Lord after
they were members of the covenant; but in the new institution it should not be
so, for the first thing in it was to teach; and when they should be discipled,
or become learners of the Christ, then they were to be brought into the kingdom.

(7.) Sin shall be remembered no more: when once pardoned, in the New Covenant
they can not be remembered against the man again.--God said: "Their sins and
iniquities will I remember no more." But this was not so under the law of Moses.
Sins not having been perfectly blotted out (Heb 10:4), there was a remembrance
of sin once every year. It is on this account that David asks God not to
remember against him the sins of his youth. Had he lived under the reign of
Christ, he could have been assured that his sins, having been pardoned once,
could never appear against him any more. In that, they were rolled forward a
year at a time, and on the day of atonement, the tenth day of the seventh month,
they were called up, and azazel sent into the wilderness, that the sins of the
people might go into oblivion again for another year. But sins pardoned in
Christ once, can never come up again--they are blotted out, and gone forever.

(8.) Into the Old Covenant they were born by a birth of their parents, but into
the New, they come by a New birth--of water and the Spirit.--This was the
mistake of Nicodemus. He supposed that as he had been in the service of the Lord
all his life, and was even a teacher of that religion, there could be no such
demand made of him. He ought to have known better, and is therefore to be blamed
for not knowing what he ought to have understood, without a teacher. Had he read
the law and the prophecies closely, he would have seen that there was coming a
spiritual kingdom, in which the law of the Lord should be written in the hearts
of all who should constitute its citizenship, hence a new term of membership
would be required. But he was disposed to make the same blunder that thousands
have made since, in supposing that there is no difference between the two
institutions.

(9.) They differ in respect to form and place of worship.--Sacrifices were once
to be brought to the door of the tabernacle, and there offered to the Lord. When
the temple was built in Jerusalem, that was the place where offerings were to be
made. The Samaritan woman was anxious to know of Jesus which were right, the
Jews or the Samaritans, respecting the place where men ought to worship the
Father. One said at Jerusalem, the other on Mt. Gerizim. But Jesus told her that
the worship of God did not belong to either locality, but that any place would
do, if the worship was in spirit and truth. This was the only essential. This
again shows that the old covenant was a national affair, and was never in tended
to go beyond the precincts of Palestine. The types and shadows then looked
forward to the coming Saviour; and while they taught that man was a sinner, and
had lost his right to life, there would be a sacrifice offered by which his sins
and iniquities might be washed away. But the ordinances of the church of Christ
get their significance, not from the idea of a coming Saviour, but from a
Saviour having come, and having died and risen from the dead.

(10.) The law has been abolished and the gospel remains.--This proposition is
not readily accepted. During the dark ages Christianity was greatly corrupted.
But in no respect did it receive greater injury than in being mixed with other
religions. After four centuries of this doctoring, Christianity was little more
than baptized heathenism, with lines of Judaism interwoven.

It is well to have the Scriptures clearly before us when we make a statement
like this. The world will ask is why we make it, and we must be able to tell. In
Acts 15:5, we have the demand made of the Pharisees, who had accepted the faith
of Christians, that unless the Gentiles would be circumcised and keep the law of
Moses, they could not be saved. On this question the convention was held, not
that they might vote on the subject and determine what it would be politic for
them to require, but to ascertain what God had revealed on the subject. They
heard from Paul and Barnabas and Simon Peter as to what God had done by them,
and then from James, as to his view of the evidence so far adduced, and that it
agreed with the word of the Lord already revealed. And the conclusion of the
whole matter was that they were not under that law, and therefore they should
not require them to observe any such regulations, but only to observe a few
necessary things. (See Acts 15:20-29) Does some one say that this did not free
them from the observance of the law, except in the matter of circumcision? That
is a mistake. The whole question was before them at the time--being circumcised
after the manner of Moses, and keeping the law of Moses. Now, if there was any
part of that law that would remain binding on them by virtue of its having a
place in that law, surely some one in that audience would have been aware of the
fact, and would have made the statement. But nothing of the kind is mentioned.
Certain features of the law were all they required them to observe. Hence, if
they were then under the law, it is not too much to say that they did not know
it. Hence, the man who says they were yet under the law assumes a wisdom which
the inspired apostles did not possess.

Paul argues this question all the way through several of his epistles. I must
quote from him several statements in their connection, that no mistake may be
made:

"Wherefore remember, that aforetime ye, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are
called uncircumcision by that which is called circumcision, in the flesh, made
by hands; that ye were at that time separate from Christ, 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. For he is our peace who made both
one, and brake down the middle wall of partition, having abolished in his flesh
the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might
create in himself of the twain one new man, so making peace; and might reconcile
them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity
thereby: and he came and preached peace to you that were far off, and peace to
them that were nigh: for through him we both have our access in one Spirit unto
the Father" (Eph 2:11-18).

It would seem impossible to make a statement plainer than this. The Gentiles and
Jews have lost all distinction; they are all on the same footing; the law which
had served as a partition wall between them had been removed. They were not
under the law, but had been brought together in Christ, all differences having
been removed. In Paul’s letter to the Galatians, this question is argued at
length; in fact, the whole letter is largely occupied with it. In some way, some
teacher had bewitched them with the idea that they must keep the law (Gal 3:1).
To this Paul objects, assuring them that all their religious blessings had come
to them through the hearing of faith, and not through the commandments of the
law. He urges that the covenant by which they should be saved was by promise,
and not by the law, and that all that was valuable in the law had been
transferred to the scheme of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: though it be but a man’s covenant,
yet when it hath been confirmed, no one maketh it void, or addeth thereto. 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 inheritance 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 ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a
mediator 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 righteousness would have been of the law. Howbeit the Scripture
hath 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 inward
under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. So
that the law hath been 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,
and heirs according to the promise" (Gal 3:15-29). This argument can not be met.
Paul has shown it to have been the purpose of God, in giving the law, to furnish
the people of Israel with such primary lessons and such government as would,
under the circumstances, do them the most good. But that institution was
temporal in its purpose. It was intended to lead them during the days of their
minority, and prepare them for the great Teacher that should come from God,
under whom they were to graduate for the heavens. During the days, of their
minority they were under this pedagogue, but when the great Teacher is come,
they are no longer under the tutor--this law and authority extended no further.
In Gal 4:1-31, Gal 4:21-31 inclusive, we have full and complete instruction
respecting this matter. Here the apostle brings up the question under the form
of an allegory, and shows, beyond any doubt, that the law was to be cast out, as
well as the bond maid. And in the third chapter of his second letter to the
brethren at Corinth, he treats the subject in the form of antithesis, putting
the gospel on one side and the law on the other. During this presentation he
repeats it three times that the law is done away, and makes especial reference
to that part of the law which was written on the two tables of stone.

Then when we go to search for the duty of Christians, for the want of an
understanding respecting this matter, many theologians have felt unsafe in
adopting the plain truth as a rule of Christian life, lest the necessary
authority by which proper conduct shall be secured shall be wanting. Some way
they feel that they must come before the people with a "thou shalt," or they
will not be able to secure the obedience which the Lord requires. It has been
this feeling that has attached the law to the gospel. On this account they have
called the first day of the week "the Sabbath." Yet every one knows that it is
never so denominated in the New Testament; and any one acquainted in the early
history of the church is aware that it was far advanced in the sixth century
before such phraseology was employed by any one. Both the Ante-Nicene Fathers
and the Post-Nicene Fathers speak of the day on which Christians met for worship
as the first day of the week, the eighth day, which would be the next day after
the seventh; resurrection day; but most generally they use the very words of the
apostle John (Rev 1:10), "The Lord’s day." All have ever admitted that the
ceremonial, judicial--the formal and ritual--features of the law were done away
in the crucifixion of Christ, but many claim that something they call the moral
law was retained. But for this division of the law there is no authority. There
is no such division made by any inspired man, for the reason that no one
directed by the Spirit of the Living God ever had any such an idea as that. Many
parts of the Old Testament are called by the common term law; sometimes it is
divided into the Law and the Prophets; But the largest division that is found
anywhere is in the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel by Luke--the Law, and the
Prophets, and the Psalms. Already we have seen that the apostle Paul makes no
such difference as that insisted upon by modern theologians, but sums up the
whole of the Old Testament institution, and says that it has been abolished. In
Col 2:13-17, Paul settles that question of the continuance of the Law as a rule
by which Christians should live. He says:

"And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your
flesh, you, I say, did he quicken together 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 put off from himself the principalities and the 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 feast day or a new moon or a
sabbath day which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s."

Let us realize, then, that the institution of Christ is distinct, and that if we
would know our duty to God in this dispensation, we must learn it from this, not
from that.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 01.05A.   THE SEVERAL COVENANTS (2)
========================================================================

SEC. 40. HOW CAN WE KNOW WHEN THE COVENANT OF CHRIST BEGAN?--This is a question
of no little importance. Even those who agree as to the difference between that
made with Israel at Mt. Sinai and that made by the Saviour, are not sure
respecting the exact time when the one was removed and the other began. We have
learned, in many ways, that this covenant. was not that which was made with
Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or the nation of Israel; but just when it did begin
and just when all men ought to have yielded obedience to its requirements, is
not so easily determined. We have a few facts, however, that may be of
importance in determining this matter.

(1.) Christ lived and died a Jew: he walked in obedience to that law; he even
went so far as to say:

"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets; I came not to
destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass
away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all
things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least
commandments, 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" (Mat 5:17-19).

It is impossible to think that Jesus at that time had an independent kingdom, or
to suppose that He lived in any way indifferent to the demands of the Law that
had been given by Moses. Whatever there was in that Law, He proposed to keep
it--God was its Author, and men should observe it.

(2.) During His life, His kingdom, was spoken of as being present, at hand, as
if it had not yet been established, but would be in the near future.--When John
came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, he said, "Repent, for the kingdom of
heaven is at hand" (Mat 3:2). And when Jesus went forth into Galilee, he
preached "the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled,
and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel" (Mark
1:14-15).

Again, when the Saviour was about to begin the third tour throughout all
Galilee, He called to Him His apostles, and appointed them to go into other
places in this country, and said to them: "As ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom
of heaven is at hand."

Then again, just before His transfiguration, he said:

"Verily I say unto you, There be some of them that stand here, which shall in no
wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Mat
16:28).

Once more, when he was nearing Jerusalem, for the last time; He is at Jericho;
is at the house of Zacchæus; and teaching them that the Son of man had come to
seek and save that which was lost.

"And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was
nigh to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was
immediately to appear. He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far
country, to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return" (Luk 19:11-13). And
when the parable is spoken, there remains no question in the mind of any reader
that it relates to himself--that he was going into a far country to receive for
himself a kingdom, and to return again, that He might reckon with His servants.

Hence he did not begin by establishing his kingdom; it was not established for
him; it was not in existence at the time of His going up to Jerusalem to be put
to death. And supposing that his disciples were even tolerably well informed,
the kingdom was not yet established when He ascended into the heavens.

"They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying, Lord, dost
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). The answer that
follows shows that if the kingdom was then in being, the Saviour did not care to
inform them on that point. Indeed, He indicates that it was yet future, and that
they should be His agents in the presentation of His claims; but that the time
had not yet arrived for the work to begin. They must tarry at Jerusalem for the
heavenly enduement; and when that should be received, the work might begin.

(3.) The kingdom was presented by the-Saviour, as having so come that men could
press into it.

"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" (Luk
16:16).

There is a difficulty in the minds of many, in these statements. In a number of
texts we are taught that, the kingdom of heaven was not established while the
Saviour was on the earth; and now we come to an affirmation that men were
pressing into it during even the lifetime of John. And as it would be absurd to
maintain that men could enter that which had no existence, it is demanded that
the kingdom be understood to have been in existence after the preaching of John
the Baptist. This difficulty is rather apparent than real. The word kingdom in
itself does not always have the same meaning. It implies: (1) a king; (2) laws;
(3) subjects; (4) penalties for disobedience, and rewards for faithfulness; (5)
a throne and power for the king. Any one of these may be put for the word
itself, according to a figure yet to be considered. Also, like the word gospel,
or good news, it may refer to the time of its coming or to a time when it shall
assemble the world for judgment, or any time between these. But what is the
meaning in this place? One thing must be conceded at the beginning of the
investigation-the Scriptures must not be made to contradict. It will be
impossible to make more or less of the texts that we have cited. This fact
prepares us to understand the use of the word in question in an unusual sense.
But what sense? This question will be best answered by determining after what
plan John performed his work. Did he come to establish the kingdom or church of
the Christ?

Gabriel tells Zacharias that John was to "Go before his face in the spirit and
power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the
disobedient to walk in the wisdom of the just; to make ready for the Lord a
people prepared for him" (Luk 1:17). In Luk 1:76-77, of the same chapter, we
have Zacharias saying, when the Lord had opened his mouth:

"Yea and thou, child, shaft be called the prophet of the Most High: for thou
shalt go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways; to give knowledge
of salvation unto his people in the remission of their sins."

It is evident from all this that John did not come to set up a kingdom, but to
introduce the King, and prepare a people for His reception. In harmony with this
thought, he preached the approach of the kingdom; and that, in view of that
fact, men ought to repent, to turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.
Then, when the kingdom was preached in the days of John, it was preached not as
having come, but coming--near at hand. Hence, when men pressed into it as if by
violence, they pressed into that prepared condition which it was John’s work to
direct.

While this is the evident meaning of the language, it makes complete harmony
with every other statement on the subject.

(4.) While there was a gospel in the sense of good news respecting coming
events, there could be no gospel in the complete sense till Christ had come and
been put to death, and had risen from the dead (1Co 15:1-4). Whatever else there
may be in the word gospel, the record of the death and the resurrection of the
Saviour was certainly a part of it. We can not think of the kingdom or church of
Christ as having come, and the gospel not yet preached in its fullness. And yet
it would have been impossible for any man to have preached it before His
resurrection. The apostles did not know that He was to rise from the dead. And
if they had, they could not have preached that He had so risen till He had been
redeemed from death. Hence we conclude that it would have been impossible for
the church to have been instituted before the crucifixion of the Saviour.

(5.) The limits of Judaism were upon the disciples during the days of the
Saviour.--In Mat 10:1-42 we have the Master sending out the twelve into the
towns and villages of Galilee, but straitly charging them not to go into any
road that would lead to the Gentiles, nor into any village of the Samaritans,
but to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But when he gave them
the great commission, after He had risen from the dead, all restriction is
removed. It no longer contains promises for the Jew which are not also to the
Gentiles. Then they were to be witnesses to Him in Judea, in Samaria, and to the
uttermost parts of the earth. Then they were to go into all the world and preach
the gospel to every creature; they were to go and make disciples of all the
nations. This could not be done while the bonds of Judaism were upon them. Hence
the kingdom of Messiah could not have been in existence till the limitations of
the Jews’ religion were taken out of the way.

(6.) The law and the priesthood were changed at the same time.--This we have
already seen, and only refer to it here by way of remembrance (Heb 7:11-12; Heb
8:4). We have also seen that Christ was not a priest upon the earth; hence that
the law was not changed till He came into that everlasting priesthood after the
order of Melchizedek; and this He did not do till He ascended into the heavens,
to make an atonement for the sins of the whole world.

(7.) The new law of the kingdom of the Christ should go forth from Zion, and the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

"The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it
shall come to pass in the latter days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house
shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many peoples shall go and say,
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God
of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for
out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa
2:1-3).

Mic 4:1-2, contains the substance of the foregoing. This precludes the
possibility of the law of Christ going forth from Jordan. But it has been
objected that this does not refer to anything that could have taken place in the
days of the apostles, as it relates to the last or latter days. But the last
days of what? If Isaiah was prophesying about the world, then it would refer to
the latter times of its history or being. But he starts to tell what awaits
Judah and Jerusalem in the latter times. Hence this prophecy relates to the
latter times of that city and people; before the Jews should be finally
dispersed, and their city destroyed, the law should go forth. Those changes came
in the year 70 A. D., and hence the law went forth before that time.

(8.) The apostles had the keys of the kingdom (Mat 16:13-19), but they were not
at liberty to use them till after the first Pentecost succeeding the
resurrection of the Saviour.

"And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was
yet with you, how that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in
the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened
he their mind, that they might understand the Scriptures; and he said unto them,
Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead
the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of
these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father upon you: but
tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luk
24:44-49). In the appeal of the Saviour to the "thus it is written," reference
is made to the language of Isaiah and Micah, for these alone tell of this new
law of salvation going forth from Jerusalem. Just after the Saviour had risen
from the dead, the fulfillment of that prediction was near, but it must wait
till the heavenly enduement should first come. Thus again we see the
impossibility of this law of salvation going forth from any other place, or at
any other time than that indicated in the interpretation of the prophecies given
by the Saviour himself.

(9.) No covenant could be, in force till it was ratified by the death of the
sacrifice appointed to that end.

"For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made
it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever
avail while he that made it liveth?" (Heb 9:16-17).

It would be impossible, then, for the new covenant, or testament, to be of force
while Christ, who had been appointed as the covenant sacrifice, was living. A
mistake is sometimes indulged here in maintaining that nothing can be regarded
as a part of this testament except that which had already been given by the
Saviour. This, of course, would render all the writings of the apostles
worthless, and rule them out, as being no part of the New Testament. This is to
push the meaning of the language entirely beyond its import. All that is bound
in a covenant may not have been mentioned at the time of sealing it with the
people. At the time that Moses took the book and sprinkled it with blood, and
enjoined it unto the people, but little more than the ten commandments had been
stated. The whole of the priesthood and the law of sacrifices had to come
afterward. They covenanted not simply with items of law, but with Him who had
made the law, and, therefore, bound themselves to all that necessarily adhered
in this law. So with the covenant of Christ. He gave them the great principles
of the New Institution. But at the time He left them there were lessons which
they could not learn. He had these things to say to them, but they could not
bear them then. Hence the Holy Spirit had to be given to these men to lead them
into all truth, to teach them all things, to bring all things to their
remembrance that He had taught them before, to receive the things that belonged
to Him and deliver to them. But it would be idle to say that these things that
came to the apostles after the ascension of the Saviour were no part of that
Institution, or that they were not confirmed unto them when the Lord made the
atonement for the sins of the people. The one article of the Christian’s creed
being accepted, everything belonging to it is accepted with it. When men confess
that they believe with all their heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the
Living God, they have accepted everything of which He is the author. The order,
then, of making a covenant, is to present the matter clearly before those who
are to be parties to the contract, and then seal it with a proper sacrifice. So
the great feature of the New Testament was clearly stated, and when sealed with
the blood of the appropriate sacrifice, there is bound upon all who accept the
Christ, all of which He is clearly the author. But Paul’s reasoning on the
subject remains intact-that it could not have been of force till after the death
of Him who made it.

(10.) Christ was the corner stone.--In Acts 4:11-12, Peter says:

"He is the atone which was set at nought of you the builders, which was made the
head of the corner. 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."
In 1Co 3:11, Paul says:

"For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ." And again in Eph 2:19-21, he says:

"So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in
whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in
the Lord; in whom ye also are budded together for a habitation of God in the
Spirit." In every figure in which the Church of Christ is contemplated as a
building, Christ is regarded as the chief corner stone. It is not necessary to
say that those who have constructed this figure did not have it in their minds
that the building could be erected first and the corner-stone afterwards. It is
received without the statement that they supposed the building was erected after
the corner-stone was laid, and could not be built before that.

(11.) In all mentions of the kingdom, after the day of Pentecost, it is spoken
of as if it were in existence.--A single exception is found in those passages in
which the kingdom is spoken of in its triumphant state, in the period of the
judgment and everlasting reward. In those the saints are waiting for the kingdom
of God; not for its establishment upon the earth, but for the rewards for
services rendered. A few of the affirmations of the inspired apostles upon this
point will not be out of place. But before giving them, we wish to remind the
reader of the statements that were made while the Saviour was living. Then
everywhere it was said that the kingdom was at hand. If now it is said to have
come, to be in existence, the impression will be unavoidable that it was
established in the meantime.

"To the end that ye should walk worthily of God, who calleth you into his own
kingdom and glory" (1Th 2:12).

"Giving thanks unto the Father, who made us meet to be partakers of the
inheritance of the saints in light; who delivered us out of the power of
darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Col 1:12).

There is found nothing in the connection in which these texts occur to lessen
the full force that should ordinarily be given to the words that are used. Hence
we feel in duty bound to receive them in their full import.

"Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the kingdom of God is not eating
and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom
14:16-17).

While Paul is not aiming to define the word in this text, be certainly does
indicate that the kingdom with which they had to do was in existence. In Rev
1:5, John says that Christ was the ruler of the princes of this world, and in
the ninth verse he says:

"I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and
patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word
of God and the testimony of Jesus."

Sometimes the Church of God, of Christ, is employed to express the same thought;
for instance, in Mat 16:1-28, the words church and kingdom are used
interchangeably--"On this rock I will build my church;" "unto thee do I deliver
the keys of the kingdom." In the use of these terms He is expressing the same
thought. No one denies that the Church of Christ came and was fully established
on the Pentecost next after the ascension of the Saviour. Hence whatever was the
law by which His people should be governed till His return to us again, was sent
forth at that time. This was the law of the Lord that should go forth from Zion,
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. It is that divine law by which all the
people of God shall live, and contains the terms upon which sinners may be
accepted in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Before this time the Master said,
"I will build my church;" after that time, they all speak of the church and the
kingdom as being in existence.

(12.) The kingdom of Christ was set up on the day of Pentecost next succeeding
His ascension.--This statement is the result of the investigation already given.
And while on this we might rest the case, it is still in order to give it
further consideration, for there are other Scriptures which will throw light on
the subject. We wish now to examine the subject as if we were hunting the
beginning of a section corner. We have certain field notes, and so many chains
and links in one direction will give us a hidden stone which will serve as a
witness. And a certain number of chains and links in another direction will give
us a tree with a certain mark, which shall be another witness. So in this case,
there are prophetic utterances and teachings of the Saviour which will serve as
witnesses in the matter.

We have already heard from Jer 31:31-34, with Paul’s assurance that it referred
to the New Covenant. (Heb 8:6-13). Hence it marks the time when the law ceased
to be the power that controlled the people, and when they became free in Christ.

We have also heard from Isa 2:1-3, and Mic 4:1-2, and have been informed by them
that the New Law should go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem. And upon these texts we have had the comment of the Saviour, in Luk
24:1-53. After his resurrection, these passages had not been fulfilled, but.
would be in the near future, when repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Also, it is well
to be reminded that the Saviour promised the fulfillment of all this when His
apostles should be endued from on high. The enduement, too, is pointed out as
the promise of the Father which they had heard. And now it is left for us to see
what this promise of the Father was, and then find its fulfillment. In doing
this we will, beyond all question, find the going forth of that new law spoken
by the prophets and the Saviour himself.

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon
the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit" (Joe 2:28-29). The
Saviour announces the fulfillment of this prophecy in John 14:15-17, when he
promises another comforter, who should abide with them forever. But in the
following chapters (John 15:1-27, John 16:1-33), the promise is made still
clearer, and the duty that will then follow:

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even
the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of
me: and ye also bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning."

Notice, that when the Spirit of truth should come and bear witness, the apostles
should also bear witness. In chap. John 16:12-14, this promise is made still
clearer:

"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye can not bear them now. Howbeit
when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth:
for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall bear, these
shall he speak and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come."

Before the apostles would be qualified for the testimony which they should bear
concerning Jesus, they would need this heavenly Comforter and Director, that
they might be freed from any weakness in the discharge of the duties that would
then devolve upon them. The Master had been more than three years in giving them
this new law, by which men should have the remission of their sins and be
admitted into that grace in which they would be regarded as the sons of the
Living God. Still there were truths that they did not understand while the Lord
was with them, and they could not, for their views concerning the Messiah were
so erroneous that their minds were blinded. But when the Master had suffered
death and had risen again, they were in a better condition to learn. So the
Spirit is sent to complete their education, and fully qualify them for their
work as the ministers of the gospel of Christ, to give the law of the kingdom to
all the nations.

According to Luke, in his gospel (Luk 24:47-48) and Acts 1:4, the Lord
re-announced the commission just before leaving them for the heavens, but
forbade them going out till they should receive the promise of the Father, that
is-the heavenly Comforter, the Holy Spirit. When he should come to guide them
into all truth, then should their work, as indicated in the great commission,
begin at Jerusalem; they should then tell to the world the way of life through
the Lord Jesus Christ, who is clothed with all authority in heaven and in earth.
To find this beginning of the way of life in Christ, we have only to find when
the Spirit came into the world according to all these promises. We have not long
to wait for the fulfillment. Within ten days after the Saviour ascended, the
Spirit came. And with His coming all that had been promised was fulfilled, in
their enduement and the witness that was borne by the Spirit and by the
apostles.

"And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one
place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared
unto them tongues;parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of
them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:1-4). This has all the
appearance of the fulfillment of the prediction of the prophet Joel, and the
promise of the Saviour. When Joel wrote, it was a long way off; but when the
Saviour spoke, it was near. But Isaiah and Micah had also their minds fixed on
the attendance at that time. They said that all nations should flow unto it;
from which we understand that all nations should be represented at Jerusalem at
that time. And so it is stated by the historian (Acts 2:5). "Now there were
dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven."

We are ready to decide in our own minds that the time has come for the work to
be done which had been entrusted to the hands of the apostles--to give to the
world the new Law of the kingdom. But it is better for us to have the opinion of
an inspired man on the subject.

"But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spake forth
unto them, saying, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this
known unto you, and give ear unto my words. For these are not drunken, as ye
suppose; seeing it is but the third hour of the day; but this is that which hath
been spoken by the prophet Joel; "And it shall be in the last days, with God, "I
will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: "And your sons and your daughters
shall prophesy, "And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall
dream dreams "Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days "Will I
pour forth of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy" (Acts 2:14-18).

So, then, we have not been mistaken in the appearance of things. Inspired
authority declares that this is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. But
this is not all-they understood now that the promise of the Father had come, and
that at that time they were to declare all the words of this life in the name of
the new King. And Peter therefore continues to announce that Christ has been
raised from the dead, and made to be both the Lord and the anointed One. And
when the people ask what they are to do, he tells them to submit to that same
Jesus whom they had crucified, that they might be saved. This they did. After
this, when Peter had been to the house of Cornelius and preached the gospel of
the Christ to them, he was taken to account for it by the brethren who were at
Jerusalem. He recounted the whole matter in order, telling them all things that
had occurred in his call to that place and the work be did.

"And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, even as on us at the
beginning" (Acts 11:15).

Now there are a number of things that it will be well for us to note:

1. This new covenant should be unlike the old one (Jer 31:1-40; Heb 8:1-13).

2. It should go forth from Jerusalem (Isa 2:1-22; Mic 4:1-13; Luk 24:1-53).

3. All nations should be represented there at that time (Isaiah, Micah, Luke, in
Acts 2:5).

4. The Holy Spirit should be present at that time, and give them supernatural
power (Joel, John, Luke, Acts).

5. The Holy Spirit and the apostles should bear witness at that time (John and
The Acts).

6. The demonstration should be at the beginning of the gospel plan of saving men
(Luk 24:44-49; Acts 2:4; Acts 11:15).

Surely this is enough. One who will not be able to see from this induction of
facts that the kingdom of the Christ was set up on the day of Pentecost, is
either unable or unwilling to see the plainest truth. But against this there is
an objection; it is this: If this is so, then there was fifty days that the
world was without any authorized law. If the law was taken out of the way and
nailed to the cross of Christ, and yet His law did not go forth till the
Pentecost, which was fifty days later, then there was no law during the
interregnum. Yet all men believe that the law did end with the crucifixion of
the Saviour; that from that time there was no more offering for sin or other
service in the temple according to divine appointment. And the simple truth is,
that all men were amenable to God according to the light which they had. Those
who had been the disciples of Christ and knew His requirements, were under
obligations to obey them; and those who did not have these advantages, were
amenable to God for such light as they did possess. In any age of the world,
when any man has done the best that be knows and could know, he has been free
from iniquity in the sight of God. And it was then the same that it has ever
been in that respect. From that time the world was not under law to Moses, nor
according to Moses, but under law to Christ (1Co 9:21). It is not now the law
that was given to the patriarchs, nor to the people of the Jews at Mt. Sinai;
but we are to be the servants of God by accepting Christ and doing His will, as
found in the New Testament. Every truth that will malice for our spiritual good
is to he found in it. Every sin is there condemned; hence it is to us the
perfect rule of life.

Some one again objects that the early Christians did not have the’ New
Testament, and therefore were without the law necessary to perfect Christian
character. But they had the apostles and direct inspiration, and this was all
that they could have needed. The Lord’s will was the same then that it is now,
and it was revealed to them then as they needed the knowledge.

SEC. 41. THE TRIAL AS TO THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE KINGDOM.--We have
already seen that any theory which is opposed by any known fact, can not be
true. Hence we desire to have our theories tried by the facts that have been
induced.

(1.) If the kingdom of the Christ was in existence, during the time of John the
Baptist, then there were two Laws in force at the same time.--As it is
impossible for God to be the author of such a state of things as that, it seems
unreasonable to contend that John introduced it.

(2.) Those texts which place the establishment of the kingdom later than the
time of John upon the earth, can not be true, if the church began during his
life. It was after he was dead that the Saviour sent out men to preach that the
kingdom was at hand.

(3.) The Jewish limits or restrictions that were upon the apostles would be
incomprehensible upon the hypothesis that kingdom of the Messiah was then in
existence. There could be no such limitation to the institution of which Christ
was the author, for His was intended to go to the ends of the earth.

(4.) If Christ had been king while on earth, then he would have been priest as
well for he became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was king and
priest at the same time. And if he had been priest on the earth, he would
certainly have been high priest, for no one can think of the Saviour taking an
inferior rank. And if he had been high priest on the earth, then they would have
had two high priests at the same time, and that, too, by divine authority. Paul
says, "If he were on earth, he would not be a priest."

(5.) If John instituted, the kingdom by the baptism of Jesus then it was not set
up at Jerusalem, according to the prophetic promise, and according to the clear
teaching of the Saviour Himself.

(6.) If the kingdom had been established at a time prior to the resurrection of
the Saviour, then it could not have been unlocked by the keys held by Peter, for
neither he nor any other apostle was at liberty to use such authority till the
coming of the heavenly enduement.

(7.) If the church came into being prior to the death of the Saviour, then it
was built before the laying of the corner-stone. We have already seen that
Christ was, and is, the chief corner-stone; and the idea of building the church
before the laying of the corner-stone is preposterous.

(8.) If the Covenant of Christ was in force while the Saviour was yet alive then
Paul’s illustration must pass for nothing. He thought that a covenant was of
force after the death of him that made it, not before.

(9.) We have also seen that if the kingdom was established before the ascension
of the Lord, then it was established without the apostles knowing it. If they
had committed such a blunder as that, it is unaccountable that the Master did
not correct them.

(10.) We have already seen, that, the gospel in its fullness was not and could
not be preached till Christ had died and risen again from the dead. Hence, if
the church was established before that time, it was in existence before the
gospel was, or could be, preached.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 9: 01.06.     VALUE & USE OF HISTORY & BIOGRAPHY
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI. THE VALUE AND USE OF HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF
THE SCRIPTURES.

SEC. 42. WHO WAS THE WRITER?--That is about the first question on opening any
book. If we know not its author, we shall be quite in the dark, much of the
time, while trying to interpret its pages. Large and small, there are a great
many questions we may ask about the writer or the speaker that will assist in
the interpretation of what has been said. We have not the space to devote to
their discussion, and will leave it to the genius of the exegete. But there are
a few questions that we must ask.

(1.) Was he an inspired man?--Is God the author of the communication? Did He
direct the wording of the letter, or the speech? or did He give the writer or
speaker the ideas and then leave him to his own selection of words and manner of
speech, in presenting these ideas to the people? It is evident to every careful
student of the Bible, that both of these plans have been followed. Generally God
gives the inspiration, and leaves the man to present the thought in the words he
chooses. But at other times it was impossible for men to hold the thoughts that
God had to communicate. Under such circumstances He gave the words, for man
could not be trusted with any part of it. At such times they spoke as the Spirit
of God gave them utterance. But it is fair to say that the most of the Bible has
been given by men who were inspired, but who were left to do the work according
to their own methods of expression. This will account for the difference that
may be found between almost any two of the writers of the Old and New
Testaments. Matthew is not like John, nor is James like Paul, nor is the style
of Isaiah the same as that of Jeremiah.

(2.) Was the author an educated man?--If we could know that the writer has been
left to himself in the selection and use of terms, we should deal with him as we
do with any other writer in the use of grammar. If the writer was scholarly, we
may be assured that the laws of the language in which he wrote are not violated,
and the strictest rules of its grammar should be applied in the interpretation.
But a less scholarly person may be held less firmly by such rules of
interpretation. Most of the prophets seem to have been speaking men, and their
sayings and predictions were gathered up by others, and recorded. But Isaiah was
a writing prophet, and his language may be regarded, for the time, as strictly
classical. He differs from Jeremiah, in that his figures are completed according
to rule, while those of the latter are frequently broken off at their height,
and the communication concluded in literal language.

Knowing first that Luke was a physician, prepares us to anticipate the marks of
his profession on his writings. All through his account of the teachings and
doings of Jesus he has left the shades of his culture. The orderliness of his
record is that of a student. This is true, not only of his gospel, but of the
Acts of the Apostles. When the other writers say that a man having the leprosy
said to the Master, "If thou wilt, thou canst make me whole"; and He said, "I
will, be thou whole." Luke reports the man as "full of leprosy." By that
expression he indicates that the man was in the third stage of that disease, and
therefore incurable. The others say that "Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a
fever," but Luke says that she was "holden of a great fever." Thus he gives the
extent of the trouble--she was bedfast, holden, or bound down. When a man in the
synagogue whose hand was withered, was healed by the Saviour, Luke is
particular, and says it was his right hand. And so it is all the way through the
narrative--he enters into all the details, both in describing the diseases and
the manner in which they were healed. To a physician, these would seem to be
matters of importance; but they would not impress others in that way. His
profession appears clearly in his statement of the prayer of Jesus in the garden
(Luk 22:44-45): "And being in agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat
became as it were great drops of blood falling down upon the ground. And when he
rose up from his prayer, he came unto the disciples, and found them sleeping for
sorrow."

It would not have been apparent to another man that they were asleep because of
sorrow. Even most of the theologians of the present time have charged upon these
men an indifference to the occurrence of the hour. But Luke has redeemed them
from that imputation. He could understand how the undefined sadness of that
awful night could so entirely overcome these strong men that, as an infant cries
itself to sleep, so they were exhausted by sorrow, and slept. It would be his
place, too, to describe the bloody sweat, which would, to him, indicate the near
approach of death. But for the angel that appeared to strengthen the Saviour,
the sorrow of the night would have been too much for him, and He would have been
dead before the morning.

Knowing this man’s culture beforehand, we are ready to enter with him into all
the details, and understand him.

(3.) What religious bias or prejudice?--We have before seen that God has not
always directed the very words of the men through whom He has made a revelation
of His will. And it is not too much to say that they had feelings like other
men; and that their speech partakes more or less of these feelings, is evident
to every careful reader. Sometimes these men write history, and were in need of
no guidance from the Lord, being competent to tell very clearly the facts in the
case. When we find that Isaiah would not speak to Pekah in a respectful way;
that he does not call him king, nor even speak of him by his own name but as
"that son of Remalia," we would think it strange to find that he has embellished
the qualities of the man. When Elisha speaks of the king of Israel as "that son
of a murderer," we expect him to be fairly explicit in stating the faults of the
man. But while we feel compelled to say this much, even respecting men who were
divinely employed to reveal the will of the Lord, we must remember that many of
the characters of the Bible were not inspired, and did not claim to be. Hence
their words are to be understood in the light of their prejudices, and
allowances to be made on that score, just as if we were reading an account of
their sayings in any other book. The Bible is responsible for nothing but a
faithful record of what was said and, done. The language of the worst men that
have ever lived is to be found in the Bible. The sons of Belial have had their
say, and even Satan himself has given his falsehood in his most attractive
manner. Hence we should know who speaks, and especially his heart condition. It
is unreasonable to quote the language of Job’s comforters as containing the will
of God perfectly, for God condemns their views, and the men themselves. It is
just a little more in order to quote Job himself. And yet he undertook to speak
of things of which he had no knowledge. The Lord reduces the sage somewhat, and
Job confesses that he had presumed on intelligence that he did not possess.

(4.) What of the style?--That speakers and writers greatly differ in their
manner of composition, no one calls in question. Two men may have the same thing
to say, but the manner of saying it will show all the difference of mental
temperament and drill. One presents his thought by the use of florid rhetoric,
while another proceeds by the shortest lines known to the art of communication.
Some are closely logical, while others pay but little attention to any relation
between premise and conclusion. The logical mind will follow one, topic, with
another having direct relation with the preceding and succeeding statements.
Others are haphazard, and put many strange things in juxtaposition. Nor are
these peculiarities removed by inspiration. The eight writers of the New
Testament exhibit so many styles of composition. Some of these writings are in
short sections, so that no particular violence will be done if the usual method
of verse interpretation should be followed. But most of them have a subject that
must be considered as a whole, or the meaning will never be gathered. Paul is
peculiar for his logical acumen. It never forsakes him. Commonly, when a writer
or speaker reaches the lofty heights of exultation, all signs of logic drop out
of sight. But not so with Paul. From first to last he is severely logical. It
was his mental nature, and any inspired thought that will come to us through him
must assume that form. Even his rhapsodies are finely inwrought with syllogism.
Not only so, but he starts out with the purpose which can not be accomplished
with a single verse or chapter. He ordinarily presents his topic, directly or
indirectly, and divides and subdivides, and brings out all the truth that
relates to the matter in hand, and reaches his conclusions by a careful
induction of the facts. Not only so, but he anticipates the objections that may
arise in the minds of his readers, and shows that they are not well founded, or,
in the nature of the case, the conclusions they have reached are untrue.

Now, what I insist upon is that each writer shall be studied as to his manner of
composition, for not until we shall understand the writer will we comprehend the
writing.

Paul is not only a logical writer but a very versatile writer. He seems to have
a large vocabulary from which to make his selections of terms. Hence, even when
he is presenting an antithesis he will likely change the terms on both sides
every time he makes the comparison. The best illustration that now occurs to the
mind is in 2Co 3:6-12. There the Law and the Gospel are referred to by so many
different terms, that one who has not paid attention to the style of the writer,
in this respect, is very liable to miss the meaning altogether.

(5.) A writer usually, condemns the evils, which,, appear the most dangerous to
him.--Hence, if he has been converted from any particular doctrine, he is likely
to regard that as the prince of evils, and give his time largely to opposing it.
The fact just mentioned will account, in part, for the great space that Paul
gives in efforts to show that Christianity and Judaism were distinct, and that
we are not now under the Law, but under the Gospel of Christ. To know the
history of the man, therefore, will greatly assist in understanding him.

SEC. 43. WE SHOULD KNOW TO WHOM THE WRITING IS ADDRESSED.

(1.) What is their history?--Where have they been? What have they done? From
whom have they descended? A reference being made to such matters would be quite
unintelligible to one who knew nothing of their antecedents. If they had been
Gentiles, carried away unto dumb idols, we should know it, and all about the
character of that worship in which they had been engaged. If they had been Jews,
raised and trained in the Law and the traditions of the times, we need to know
that also, for these things may be referred to, and leave us in doubt as to
their import without such previous intelligence.

(2.) We need to know their education.--It is presumed, at least, that every wise
author will speak in the language of the people. Hence the words he uses, if
they have any unusual signification, it will be because of the people to whom
the words are employed. When Jesus said to the thief on the cross: "To-day thou
be with me in paradise," He certainly employed the word paradise in the sense in
which the thief and the people of that day would understand the term. Hence, the
best dictionary that can be had respecting that word will be found by referring
to the use of the word made by the people. The Sadducees did not employ the term
at all, but the Pharisees did, and meant by it, a place of abode for righteous
spirits between death and the resurrection. Hence, unless He deceived the man,
and that intentionally (for He knew in what sense he would understand it), He
employed the word in its common or accepted sense. This rule is usually, if not
universally, agreed to, that, in finding the meaning of the word, we must know
the import given the word by those to whom it was used.

(3.) It is very necessary to know their customs.--Many references to such things
may be made which we can not comprehend, unless we have been first informed in
these things. Not only so: there may be prudential measures adopted, concerning
which there is no divine command, and yet an apostle may recommend a certain
course. And without attention to this matter, these prudential recommendations
have been elevated into divinely directed rules of life. It might be a shame for
a woman in the city of Corinth to be unveiled. And under such circumstances Paul
would have her wear a veil; but it would not follow that every woman in the
world must wear a veil, or be regarded as unchristian. So he would advise
respecting meats that had been offered to idols. If there is any danger of
leading any one into idolatry by eating such meats, then he should refrain. It
would be better to do without the needed food than to endanger the salvation of
one for whom Christ died. So it would be better for the gospel to be preached
only by a portion of the church than to give such offense to the community that
the people could not be had to hear the claims of Christ.

(4.) We should also know what are the sins to which they have been addicted.--In
the city of Corinth, a member of the church had taken his father’s wife, and was
living with her as if she were his own. Now we ought to know why it was that
they were not humbled, but rather puffed up, on that account.

(5.) To what temptations were they subject?--Were they exposed to Grecian
philosophy, or to the arguments of Jews, or half-converted Christians, who were
more Jews than disciples, and who were trying to bring them again into the
bondage of the Law? Were they exposed to that subtle philosophy that claims to
have received the good of all systems of religion and philosophy, and to have
thrown away the evil and retained all that was valuable, and would therefore
lead them into a conglomerate system made up of Judaism and heathenism, baptized
in the name of Christ? Were they surrounded with the deceitful claims of the
Nicolaitans, and urged to believe that a Christian can not sin in doing his own
pleasure--having been begotten of the Father, and His seed remaining in him, it
would be proper to follow his promptings, as they would be the result of the
divine seed, or regeneration? Were there men among them who claimed to be
apostles, and who would readily make merchandise of them? Were there false
teachers among them, as there had been false prophets before them? The prophets
had many a tilt with false teachers who claimed that God was the Author of what
they said. And the disciples were troubled with those grievous wolves who rose
up to head parties in their own interests. There were foolish and vain talkers
whose mouths had to be stopped. They withstood the teaching of the apostles, as
Jannes and Jambres had withstood Moses, when before the court of Pharaoh. For
such contention, men had to be prepared, and many a lesson was given for that
purpose. But false doctrine was not the only temptation that was in the pathway
of the early Christians. Persecutions were before them, and for these they must
be prepared. When the Saviour sent out the twelve and the seventy, He felt that
they should be prepared to stand up against the persecutions that awaited them.
And Paul, knowing the trials of the Hebrew brethren, tried to arm them for the
conflict, so that they might endure to the end. To know these trials through
which they were passing, will greatly assist in the interpretation of those
Scriptures.

SEC. 44. WHO ARE SPOKEN OF?--Knowledge of these is not as essential as in the
other cases, and yet many references will be much more easily understood by
having the same question asked and answered, as in the previous inquiry. Though
less absolutely demanded, the same questions ought to be answered respecting
them, to enable the reader to know the strength and point of the remark. We read
many times in the New Testament of Herod, of Herod the king, of Herod the
tetrarch. But who these Herods are, or if they are all just one Herod, many
readers do not know. Their characters and power should be in the mind of the
reader, for without such knowledge the pith and point of many things said will
not be apparent. One will be greatly assisted in reading the Gospels and the
acts, by knowing the characters that figure in government. So it will be in
order to inquire about Pontius Pilate, Felix, Festus, Ananias, Agrippa. When the
Master was in Perea, they came and told him that it would be better to depart
out of the coast, as Herod would try to put him to death. He answered: "Go and
tell that fox," etc. The point of that remark is not seen without a knowledge of
the character of this ruler. So it is all the way through the Scriptures--their
meaning will be much more apparent after a careful study of the persons spoken
of.

SEC. 45. THE CHARACTER OF THE WRITINGS, OR THE KIND OF COMPOSITION.--In the
Scriptures we have history, biography, law, prophecy, praise, poetry, the words
of anger and of exultation. If we were reading any other book, we would not
think of using the same rules for the interpretation of those several kinds of
composition. While the historian or the biographer may deal in splendid rhetoric
and occasionally embellish with a highly wrought figure of speech, yet we know
that it is his aim to present us with a number of facts. And we interpret in the
light of the work he was trying to accomplish. Generally, however, such writers
deal in the plainest words and easiest sentences.

If law is being interpreted, we do not expect to find a single figurative
expression. The author has evidently tried to be severely plain and definite.
The very purpose of law precludes the thought of anything in the composition but
the plainest and most direct form of speech. It has been the intent of him who
gave the law to have his will carried out by the people. Hence we expect him to
use every precaution to prevent any misunderstanding. But when we come to
condemnation, or exhortation, or any words prompted by mental ecstasy, we
naturally look for the overflowing of all the lower grounds of thought and
communication.

Poetry, whether found in the Bible or elsewhere, is granted a license of
extravagance. It is supposed to have a right to play upon words for their sound.
It is the style suited to strong imagination. It will tell the story of the
dreamer or of the pathetic lover in language suitable to the mentality that
employs it. No one thinks of interpreting the language of the poet as he does
that of the essayist. And yet a very large portion of the Bible is in poetry.
The simile, the metaphor, the allegory, the hyperbole, furnish gorgeous chariots
for the conveyance of the rhythmic mind. All of the Psalms, most of the book of
Job, and a very large portion of the prophecies, are in poetry. It is, then, of
as much importance to regard the different kinds of composition, while reading
the Bible, as in reading any other book. The Oriental trope should have as much
latitude as the modern rhyme. For instance, in Job 29:1-25, Job 30:1-31, when
the good man of Uz compared his former, with his present condition, his words
are very strong. He shows his honor, as compared with the very low condition of
those who then mocked him, in true poetic style. The very occasion seemed to be
poetic, and the atmosphere was burdened with hyperbole. There is no danger of
being deceived by this, if we are aware of the kind of composition.

SEC. 46. WHEN WRITTEN?--At first thought, this is a question of no importance.
But when we think again, that by it we will determine under what law or
dispensation the writing or speaking was done, it becomes of great moment. If a
man should ask what he should do to be saved, during the existence of that law
of Moses, every one would expect an answer that would harmonize with the demands
of that law. Its righteousness consisted in doing, perfectly, the things which
it required. And if the inquiry was, What will it profit a man if he shall do
the things which the law demands? he would be answered by any one informed in
the matter, that he should be blessed in the basket, and in the store, and in
his cattle, etc., etc. But no one at all acquainted with the teaching of the New
Testament would think of giving these answers to these questions. It is seen,
then, that it makes a great difference as to the time that the writing or the
speaking was done. No one should, then, go to the Old Institution to learn how a
sinner can become a Christian, for the two covenants are radically different in
that respect. In that, they were saved by the deeds of the law; in this, by
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. When the rich young ruler came to the Saviour
and said, "Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal
life?" the Master directed him to the practical features of the Law. But when He
sent out His disciples to go to the end of the earth and preach the gospel to
every creature, He said that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,
and he that believeth not shall be damned." The difference in these answers is
because of the difference in time and the change in covenants that has taken
place.

"My Spirit shall not always strive with man," is quoted again and again as if it
related to the present hour. Many would no doubt look for it in the New
Testament. And yet it was spoken before the flood, of the wicked antediluvians,
and concerning the one hundred and twenty years that yet remained before the
world should be carried away with a flood. About as apt as this is the quotation
generally indulged, "Yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau." It seems to be
supposed that God did actually hate Esau before he was born, and love Jacob at
the same time, for no other reason than that He could. But those who stop and
ask when this was said, are enabled to see that the language was employed by
Malachi, the last of the Old Testament writers, when, in person, both Jacob and
Esau had been dead for twelve hundred years. Hence the language was not spoken
concerning these men when they were infants, nor when they were come to
maturity, but concerning their descendants; and hence it was selected by the
apostle Paul to prove that God was no respecter of persons--that He had selected
Jacob, because He knew that his people would be superior to the descendants of
the older brother. Their violence to Jacob, as Israel came out of Egypt, and
God’s hatred of them for it, proved that they were an unworthy stock, and that
God did well in selecting Jacob, whose descendants were a much better people.
The language of the thief is not understood by many persons, on account of not
noticing under what covenant they were yet living.

It should be borne in mind, too, that time brings a change of circumstances, and
that with such a change customs, thoughts and feelings change also. Hence, with
such difference, all prudential matters will correspondingly differ. While faith
and obedience will ever remain the same, there are things which are neither
right nor wrong in themselves, and are of no interest, except as they are wise
or unwise methods of carrying forward the will and work of the Lord. They are
merely the circumstantial or local details, and would not be proposed beyond the
conditions that made them valuable.

SEC. 47. THE PLACE OF WRITING OR SPEAKING.--If we could always know the
surroundings, we would know very much of the intention of the speaker. An
illustration will be clearer to the mind of the reader when he can be made to
see the things referred to by the writer or speaker; and to have that knowledge,
sometimes, it is necessary to know where the author was at the time of speaking.
When Jeremiah stands in the gate of Jerusalem and preaches to that people, there
is peculiar significance in the place in which he was at the time of the
address. If King Uzziah or Azariah was ordered out of the temple, one must know
why he was not at liberty to remain, and where he was, that he was profaning the
house of God. Much of the life of the Saviour is not understood because the
reader does not know where He and His disciples were at the time. There is a
careless way of reading the Scriptures that marks nothing, and knows nothing of
the passing events. If the reader of the Gospels would read each of the
evangelists, so as to get the order of the events of the Saviour’s life, he
would then know the things which preceded and the language which he is
investigating. One of these writers has not told all the occurrences, but the
others have filled out the account, and, from the whole story, the truth of any
particular part of it can be the better understood. Perhaps the meaning of Mat
16:13-19, would not have been in doubt if the people knew where they were at the
time that Jesus said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." If we could see
the disciples with their Lord in the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, and, therefore,
looking into that city, we could easily see the illustration of the Master.
There was a city built upon the rock, and Jesus intended to build His church on
a foundation just as solid as that. And when He proposed to give the keys into
the hands of Peter, He intended to make him a gatekeeper--give to him a post of
honor, such as was probably held by some one plainly in sight. With this in
mind, no one would think of Peter being the rock on which the city was to be
built. How a gate-keeper might serve in the capacity of a rock foundation on
which the city itself should rest, would never be seen by any one. When Jesus
gave His, disciples the figure of the vine (John 15:1-27), it should be borne in
mind that they had been in Jerusalem, and that they had just gone out into the
Mount of Olives; and hence, at the time of giving this figure, they were on the
hillside east of the city, and were looking down at those who were raking
together the withered and dismembered branches, and burning them in the night
when they would not be liable to set fire to anything else; or that they were
then passing through the midst of such scenes on their way out of the city. In
either case the illustration becomes very forcible. There was the vine, the
keeper, the pruner, the withered branches beings raked into heaps and burned,
and there were also the living vines which would likely bear much fruit, being
purged for their good. So when the Lord gave His disciples the allegory of the
good shepherd. It was at the "feast of dedication, and it was winter." During
the winter season the shepherd put the flock into the fold at night, and took it
out in the morning. Hence He presents Himself in the light of a true shepherd,
and also the door of the sheep. These have a common thought, and were offered to
make them understand their relation to Him, and His care for them. If they would
accept of Him as their teacher and guide, they should find food and protection
at all times, for He so loved them that He would even lay down his life for
them.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 10: 01.07.     ...WORDS AND SENTENCES
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII.

RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND SENTENCES.

SEC. 48. RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SENTENCES.--It seems out of place that
we should consider the question of sentences before that of words, for it is
certain that if we know not the meaning of the words used in the construction of
the sentence it will be impossible for us to know what the sentence means. And
yet, it is supposed that enough of the import of the words will be in the mind
to assist very greatly in the outline knowledge, at least, of the purpose and
thought of the sentence. And then, from that knowledge, it will be comparatively
easy to return and examine each word in detail as to its particular place and
purport in that sentence.

Rule 1. Always interpret according to the known purpose of the author.--But
this, of course, pre-supposes that the reader can know, at the time of the
investigation, what that purpose was. This may not be perfectly understood.
Indeed, the sentence under consideration may be an essential feature of the
investigation. Still, it is sometimes the case that an author’s purpose has been
stated, either directly or indirectly. If this knowledge is in the possession of
the exegete at the time of such investigation, in the light of that purpose,
then, the sentence under consideration must be interpreted. This is one of the
weaknesses of many commentaries. The critic has commented on single verses. He
has known nothing of the general purpose of the author, and, therefore many
times applies the language to topics not at all in the mind of the writer. This
is a wrong that we would not tolerate in the use of any other book. It would be
as well to take a description of some part of Asia and apply it to the United
States, as to employ the language of any of the writers of the Scriptures to a
subject other than that which was in his mind at the time when the words and
sentences under consideration were employed. We would, in that way, compel the
writer to say just the things which he did not intend to say. The work of the
exegete is to bring out the meaning of the writing, which must be the meaning
the author intended to put into it. In the interpretation of law, this rule is
of very great value. If there are sections or passages in the law, the meaning
of which are doubtful, then recourse may be had to the intent of the legislators
who made it. Sometimes it happens that in the framing of the platform of a
political party a doubt arises as to the meaning that ought to be given to a
particular resolution. If the men can be found who framed the resolution, and
any reasonable means furnished by which to know in what sense the convention
understood it, then their understanding of the resolution must interpret the
passage in doubt.

We ought to treat the Bible with as much respect as we do the words of men.
Hence the greatest possible care should be taken that every writer in the book
divine should he made to mean just what he wished to be understood to say. It is
not what we can compel the Bible to say, that we are to seek, but what it was
employed to say, what the writer meant when he said what he did.

It is a kind of common rule to make out of the temptation or the transfiguration
of the Saviour whatever the genius of the interpreter is competent to invent,
and not what the writers themselves meant by what they said. No man can read the
account of the temptation of the Saviour without reaching the conclusion that
the writers were trying to tell just what, in their opinion, really occurred;
and so it is with the transfiguration. Now, if any one wants to dissent from the
opinions of these men, that is another question; but as an exegete, his work is
done when he has found that meaning which the author intended to convey. Hence
this general purpose of the writer having been first obtained, no interpretation
should follow that is not in perfect accord with it.

There is an apparent exception to the rule which we have just considered. An
author frequently makes an incidental remark. It may or it may not be essential
to his argument or the record which he is making. When such statement or remark
has been made, it has all the force that any other affirmation could have,
coming from that writer. A fact may be referred to by way of illustration, and
this might be our only means of knowing of the existence of that fact, and yet
that reference will be sufficient to establish the existence of it. We might not
know that the salt of Palestine could lose its savor but for the remark made by
the Saviour, "If the salt have lost its savor." His purpose in employing the
illustration was to show that the disciples should be the means of purifying and
saving the world, but the illustration brings out a fact incidentally. Paul
says, "As Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses," and we learn that these were the
names of two of the magicians with whom he and Aaron had to contend. Paul was
called Mercurius, because he was the chief speaker. From this we would learn
that Mercurius was a god of eloquence, at least as compared with Jupiter, who
was supposed to be represented by the less talkative Barnabas. The chief captain
or chiliarch at Jerusalem asked Paul if he were a Roman citizen, and when he
said he was, remarked that with a great sum of money he had purchased that
honor, to which Paul replied that he was born free. While this is merely
incidental, still it tells its own story respecting Roman citizenship at that
time. It is in this way that many of the ancient customs have come to be known
at the present time. We may not know just what their beds were like, but, when
Jesus commands a man, "Take up thy bed and walk," we learn something about it.
When the Master healed the blind man at Bethsaida, and by the first application
he was made to see a little, and said, "I see men as trees walking," it reveals
the fact that the man had seen trees before, and hence had not been born blind.
The question of Nathaniel, "Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" assures us
that the place was not held in very high esteem. That Jesus came to a fig tree,
"if haply he might find figs," shows that figs might be found at that season of
the year, for He knew the country and the time of the ripening of the fruits, of
the country. It was not the purpose of the writer to enlighten us on the subject
of figs, and yet we do gain just that much in an incidental way. Paul writes to
the brethren at Rome and also at Colossæ, and to show that they were so
completely separated from sin that they could not think of returning again to
its practice, says that they had been buried with Christ in baptism (Rom 6:3-4;
Col 2:12). He was not writing on the manner and action of baptism; but, from the
illustration, we learn that when they were baptized they were buried. But in all
this there is nothing that causes the mind to part company with the author or to
cause the interpreter to fail in any way to follow the author into all the
purposes of writing, or to interpret anything contrary to that intent.

SEC. 49. HOW MAY WE KNOW THE PURPOSE OF THE AUTHOR?

Rule 1. The speaker or writer sometimes states just what he wanted to accomplish
by speaking.--If we were in doubt as to the purpose of the two parables
beginning the eighteenth chapter of Luke, we would only have to turn and read
again the first verse, which declares that the Lord spoke these for the purpose
of teaching "that men ought always to pray and not to faint." If we did not know
the purpose of the three parables of the fifteenth chapter of Luke, the first
and second verses would suffice, for we are there informed that it was to answer
those who objected to Him because He received sinners and ate with them. He gave
a parable respecting the distribution of pounds when he was at Jericho, not
simply for the lesson of responsibility and judgment, but because they were nigh
to Jerusalem, and many of them were thinking that when He should arrive there
the kingdom would be established. The parable was, then, first that they might
not be deceived in that very important matter. It is clear that Isaiah writes
concerning Judah and Jerusalem. Hence, while he utters words of warning and
takes up burdens for the kingdoms of the earth, he does so because of their
connection with the main subject in hand. This we learn from the direct
statement of the prophet himself (Luk 1:1-2). Luke states to the most excellent
Theophilus the exact purpose had in mind when he began to write (Luk 1:1-4). The
apostle John tells us his purpose in writing the book known by his name (John
20:30-31). And Paul is quite as explicit in the announcement of his topic when
he begins his letter to the saints that be in Rome" (Rom 1:16-17). But the
intention of the writer is not always so easily known. Many times we are left to
examine the contents of all the sections in the book in order that we may know
certainly just what the writer meant to accomplish by the writing.

If the language under consideration was spoken, not written, then we may have to
ask those who heard the speech what they understood by it. If there was any
particular meaning in the manner of pronunciation in the intonation of the
voice, those who heard the speech may be interrogated with propriety. When
Micaiah was called forth to tell Ahab if he should go up against Ramoth in
Gilead, the prophet said, "Go, and prosper"--(1Ki 22:15-16). And for all we
could tell, from this distance, he meant for him to go, and to feel assured that
his campaign would be successful. But Ahab, who heard him, knew from the manner
in which he spoke that he did not mean it, and asked him to tell him nothing but
the truth. Then the prophet told him just what would come of the campaign. So on
the day of Pentecost, when the multitude asked what they should do, we might be
in doubt as to the meaning of the question. "Do" about what? might be queried.
But Peter, standing by, understood the meaning of the language, and in the
answer to their inquiry gives us to know the meaning contained in their words.
No one doubts that he answered the question which he understood them to ask.
Hence, in his answer, we get the purport of their inquiry (Acts 2:37-38).

Rule 2. Carefully consider the immediate context. The purpose of this is to
ascertain the immediate purpose of the author. It is not enough to know the main
object in view, for there are a great variety of ways by which this end might be
attained. We might know, therefore, what particular argument was offered, or
what fact was being stated that might bear on the main subject. When we have the
statement on each side of the doubtful sentence, we could almost supply the
sentence if it were blotted out. We fill ellipses with words, and we could fill
them with sentences, with only a little more difficulty. Certainly, then, a
knowledge of the context will greatly assist in the exegesis of any doubtful
passage. But it does not seem to be known that there is a context of conduct.
What was done and said at the time, may throw much light on the meaning of the
words in question. Pilate said to Jesus, "What is truth?" and then arose and
went out. He gives the Master no time to answer the question; and his actions
show that he did not expect any answer to what he had said. The conduct of this
ruler precludes us from considering him an inquirer after truth, but he appears
a mere caviller, and his query has no more in it than "Humph! what do you know
about truth? The wisest philosophers of the earth are not agreed as to a
standard by which it is to be measured; therefore you have presented a subject
that you know nothing about." This, too, will show in what estimation Pilate, at
that time, regarded the Saviour. He thought him to be a harmless crank--a man of
no glaring faults that would render him worthy of death, but quite out of place
when trying to lead the people into new truth which the world at that time did
not know.

Many times, in the study of the gospels, we would be greatly assisted in the
interpretation of difficult passages if we knew what was done at the time that
the sentence in question was employed. Jesus said to Peter and Andrew, and to
James and John, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." This has
peculiar significance to us when we know of the miracle which had been wrought.
So in the twenty-first chapter of John, when the Master said, "Lovest thou me
more than these?" we should know what had been done. To get the meaning, we must
keep in view the toil of the night, and their failure to catch anything. Christ
gave them abundance of fish, and then asks to know where their affections are:
for the fishing of the former days, or the following of Jesus, which they
claimed to have left all to do. Sometimes the writer in the New Testament has
not recorded the occurrences at the time; and, in that case, it is wise to
inquire of the others for the needed facts in the case.

Rule 3. The Bible, being the truth of God, must harmonize with
itself.--Sometimes the doctrine is proposed, and then the proofs and
counter-proofs are sought for; and if the proofs are more numerous than the
counterproofs, the doctrine is regarded as being sustained. But in that case
there are some counter-proofs that must be thrown aside as uninspired
statements. If they had been inspired, they would have been on the other side of
the question. Being,, uninspired, they are false, for they claim inspiration as
their source. Infidelity feeds and fattens on this kind of interpretation. Let
it be remembered that no doctrine can be true if it is opposed to any clear
statement of the word of God. Perhaps these differences of proof and
counter-proof have been extorted from the Bible, by applying its statements to
subjects that were not before the minds of the writers; and therefore the whole
war has been conducted in the absence of any teaching of the Scriptures
whatever. But if the exegetes had been taught that the word of God harmonizes
with itself, and must never be so interpreted as to bring its statements into
collision, this work of fighting Scripture with Scripture would have been
discontinued long ago. But the unbeliever says, "You are not qualified to
interpret the Bible, for you start out with an assumption that it is of God,
whereas it may not be from that source." In answer to this, we say that we do
not start out as exegetes of this kind till the primary question of authorship
has been fixed. That should, indeed, be the first purpose of investigation--is
this the book which God has given? But if that question be answered in the
affirmative, after a fair examination, then our rule applies.

We might turn aside, however, long enough to say that the unbeliever is the last
man that ought to complain, for all his examinations are for the purpose of
finding, or creating, some flaw in this divine communication. He starts, too,
generally, without any previous consideration of its contents. We say, then,
examine first the claims of the Bible in respect to authorship. When the mind is
at rest on that question, then proceed with the rules we have arranged, as they
are adopted for consideration of the contents of all other books.

Rule 4. Light may, be thrown upon, a doubtful or difficult passage by comparing
it with other statements of the author on the same subject.--In several epistles
of Paul, he dwells more or less on the same subject in several of these
communications. In some of these he has treated the subject fully; in some of
them he has merely referred to it. Now, from a slight reference, the reader may
not be able to gather the meaning of the writer; but by turning to where he has
treated the same subject more at length, the difficult passage will be fully
explained. In the Ephesian and Galatian letters he shows that the law given by
Moses was no longer a rule for them; that it had been taken out of the way and
nailed to the cross; that it had served as a partition wall to separate Jew and
Gentile, but that when Christ was put to death on the cross, that partition wall
was broken down, so that they might be united in one body. And while that
language could not be misunderstood by those for whom it was directly intended,
at that time, it may be doubted whether Paul has in his mind some particular
portion of the law, or all of it. But in the Colossian letter (Col 2:14-18), and
in the second letter to the Corinthians (2Co 3:6-14), where he has written more
fully on that particular point, he leaves no doubt as to his views on that
subject. If we would understand him perfectly concerning our duty toward those
who are not fully instructed in the gospel, it would be well to compare, 1Co
8:1-13 with Rom 14:1-23. So it is with the officers in the Church by the
appointment of the apostles. If we expect a complete and perfect statement in
any one passage on that subject, we shall be disappointed; but if we will gather
up all that we find from the same writer, we can understand his view on the
subject.

Rule 5. Help may be had in the interpretation of sentences by examining the
statements of other writers on the same subject, who are of equal authority.--If
we say that all the apostles were inspired, then all that they have all said
concerning any one thing must be true. If we will know certainly all that the
Saviour said in the great Commission, it will be well for us to read all that
all the writers have said about it. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have spoken, at any
rate, purposely in the matter. They have not used the same terms in making their
several records. But we may be sure that they mean the same thing. At the time
when they wrote, their brief statements on that subject were ample; and now, if
we will admit all that all have said, we shall evidently get the entire
commission of the Master to the twelve. So when we ask Paul as to his views
concerning salvation in Christ without the deeds of the law, it is in order for
us to ask James as to the need of the obedience of faith. For the parties for
whom they wrote, there was no need of a more complete statement; and to us there
will be perfect instruction when we have the two compared. 1Pe 2:13-15 will he
better understood if read in conjunction with Rom 8:1-7. They both treat of our
duty towards civil government; and by the comparison we get the sum of wisdom on
that subject.

Rule 6. The use of common sense respecting the things which we know, of
ourselves.--This takes for granted that there is knowledge in men--that, after
all, it may be said, we do know some things. We have consciousness of being, of
thinking and willing, and of being able to act according to our wills. Any
theology that denies the power to do either of these things, is rejected at
once, and will recommit the matter to the exegete, assuring him that, as it is
impossible for God to lie, he has made a mistake in the interpretation of His
book. The theory that no man can, of himself, think a good thought or perform a
good deed, has made all thinking men either to doubt the Bible or, the
interpretation that sustains that theology. Common sense says: I know the theory
is not true hence I know if the Bible supports it, that God is the Author of
it."

Caution in the use of this rule.--While there are many things which we can know,
whether we have ever seen a Bible or not, we must be careful that we do not
array our whims against the word of God. There are things that we know, and
there are things which we do not know. We are not at liberty to assert an
opinion as a standard. It must amount to absolute knowledge. Then, so far as it
exists, we can use it as facts gained in any other way.

Rule 7. That which, is figurative, must be interpreted according to the law that
govern figurative speech.--Literal language is not to be interpreted by figures,
but figures are to be interpreted by that which is literal. Almost any theory
can be supported by the Scriptures, if the exegete shall be at liberty to assume
his positions and catch the sound of words from highly wrought figures, and
compel them to do service as didactic agents. In this way men have sustained all
the doctrines that genius could originate. David declares that he is a worm, and
no man; Job declares that man lieth down, and riseth not till the heavens be no
more. In this way the Jews made the Saviour say that the temple which had been
so long in construction, if it were destroyed, He would rebuild it in three
days. They knew better, but they could make the play on His words, and that
answered their purpose. It would seem now that men feel that they are at liberty
to turn the Scriptures into a curiosity shop, where men of cunning may show
their skill in the maintenance of strange doctrines, in disregard of all the
rules by which other books are interpreted.

SEC. 50. RULES BY WHICH THE MEANING OF WORDS SHALL BE ASCERTAINED.

Rule 1. All words are to be understood in their literal sense, unless the
evident meaning of the context forbids.--Figures are the exception, literal
language the rule; hence we are not to regard anything as figurative until we
feel compelled to do so by the evident import of the passage. And even here
great caution should be observed. We are very apt to regard contexts as teaching
some theory which we have in our minds. And having so determined, anything to
the contrary will be regarded as a mistaken interpretation; hence, if the
literal meaning of the words shall be found to oppose our speculations, we are
ready to give to the words in question some figurative import that will better
agree with our preconceived opinions. Let us be sure that the meaning of the
author has demanded that the language be regarded in a figurative sense, and
that it is not our theory which has made the necessity.

Rule 2. Commands generally, and ordinances always, are to be understood in a
literal sense.--Commands are rarely issued in figurative language. The general
who would issue orders in figurative language would certainly be misunderstood
many times. This would defeat his aim. Hence, if he ever delivers an order in
language that is not plainly literal, he will do so with the greatest
precaution, assuring himself, first, that it will be impossible for his words to
be misinterpreted. The Saviour does say, "Let your light so shine," etc., which
is an order in a figurative use of words. But in that case there is no
probability of any one failing to catch the exact thought. He also said to
Nicodemus, that a man "must be born again;" but He does not leave any room for
doubt as to the meaning of the words employed. For a man to be born of water and
of the Spirit, would never be mistaken by such a man as this ruler of the Jews.
But at all times, in giving a law with ordinances, nothing but the plainest use
of words is to be expected.

Rule 3. The literal meaning of a word is that meaning which, is given it by
those to whom it as addressed.--It is always to be supposed that when an author
has written to a people, knowing in what sense they would certainly understand
his words, he has had the good sense to use the words in that signification; or
if, at any time, he has seen proper to use the words in a better sense than that
in which the people did, he has given their meaning in some other way. In
writing an account of the Saviour’s life, His words are sometimes employed in a
sense that was not common to the people. But the apostles have immediately given
the meaning that the words have in that place. If He said, "Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up again," the writer says He referred to the
temple of His body. Or again, when He said if any one would come to Him and
believe in Him, out of his belly should flow rivers of water, to prevent any
misapplication of the language, the writer says that He said it of the Holy
Spirit, that should be given to His disciples after that He should be glorified.

How shall we know what the words meant or in what sense the People understood
them?--This may be known by the use made of the word by the writer. He probably
employs the word several times in the communication, and in some one of these he
will have so surrounded it that its meaning is clear. Again, it may be
determined by other writers who have lived at the same time and among the same
people. Indeed, it may be that one of the people to whom the language was
addressed, has indicated the meaning they gave to it. If so, his use of the word
will determine the meaning, beyond any question. But if the writer has not made
any use of the word that will clearly designate its import, and if no one of the
people of that age has employed the word in question, and especially from among
that people, then we are bound up to the classic use of the word--for the
classic use of a word may be assumed to be its import, unless, because of the
known education of the people to whom it was employed there should be some good
reason for departing from that signification. If good dictionaries can be had,
they should be regarded as of great value. But the classics are of greater
authority, for they are the source from which the lexicographers have gathered
their meanings belonging to the words they have inserted and defined in their
works.

Rule 4. The Scriptures are supposed to give to some words meanings which they do
not have in the classics, and therefore the, Bible becomes a dictionary of
itself.--This statement is entirely too broad, and yet it is proper that the
scriptural use of a word should be examined. For instance, the word elder occurs
several times, with an official import. But what office is intended by the word
must be learned by the use of the word. By reference to 1Pe 5:1-2; Acts
20:17-28; Tit 3:5-6; 1Ti 3:1-8, 1Ti 5:17, we discover that the office of bishop
or overseer is intended, when the word elder occurs as indicative of office. But
it has not been found that any word of the Scriptures has been used in a sense
contrary to the classic use. In every case, where you have a word that needs to
be defined by the nomenclature of the Bible, you have a word that may be
employed differently without violation of any authority. Nor does it follow from
all that can be found in the advisability of searching for the scriptural use of
a word, that it is always to be understood in the same sense--in any case, in
which more than one meaning is possible to the word. The word tempt, many times,
occurs in the sense of induce to do wrong, but generally it has the meaning of
to try, or prove. Thus it is said that God tempted Abraham, and yet an inspired
apostle says that "God can not be tempted of evil, neither tempteth he any man."
Unless we shall allow the two meanings of the word in the Bible, as elsewhere,
we are confronted with a contradiction in the word of the Lord. But it is
sometimes the case that an author has a favorite expression, and his use of it
differs from that which is generally made of it. Phrases in the Bible are
somewhat peculiar to the men who use them. A favorite expression of Isaiah was
rush and palm branch." When we have become acquainted with him and his writings,
his meaning is very plain. It is a metaphor that stands for all the people. If
they were to be carried away "rush and palm branch," then they were all to be
taken. He uses head and tail for the same purpose. "Thou hast said," for an
affirmation, is of the same kind. Almost every people will be found to use words
and phrases in this way.

Rule 5. Words of definite action can have but one meaning.--That is, they can
have but one meaning that relates to action. If they could have more than one
meaning in this respect, they would not be words of definite action. Jump, walk,
run, sit, chop, clip, sprinkle, pour, shoot, hang, strike, etc., are definite,
and therefore but one meaning is possible to any one of them. Hence, when action
is ordered by any one of them it can not be obeyed by doing any other thing than
that which is the meaning of the word employed. As to the result, or
consequence, however, it is not so. To shoot may mean to kill, but it may mean
to wound. To hang may differ in results, sometimes having one effect and
sometimes another. So with all the other words.

Rule 6. The writer’s explanation is the best definition that can be found.--He
is supposed to know, better than any one else, just what meaning he wished to
put into the word. Hence if he has told us in words that admit of no doubt, that
is the end of all query in the matter. Immanuel means, God with us. Rabbi means
master, or teacher. Ordinarily, Rabbi meant great, but in this instance it means
master; and this, too, is the meaning which is in the word in all its New
Testament use. When Paul represents the Saviour as having opened for us a new
and living way into the Holiest of all, he meant to say, by His death it was
accomplished through the vail of His flesh. But as this will occur again in the
rules by which figurative language is to be understood, we leave it for that
place.

Rule 7. The proper definition of a word may be used in the place of the
word.--If the trial be made in this way, and the definition is wrong, the sense
of the passage will be so destroyed as to make it apparent. It need only to be
stated that the true meaning of a word will give the same sense that the word
would give; hence, to remove the word and replace it with the definition, is
easily done, and is a valuable method.

Rule 8. By antithesis.--Many times two positions are matched one against the
other. The best illustration known to me is found in the second letter to the
Corinthians (2Co 3:6-14). Paul here changes the terms several times on both
sides; but by this rule we trace his meaning without any possibility of being
mistaken. In his two double allegories (Gal 4:22-31, and Rom 11:16-26), these
opposites serve a valuable end. By proper attention to them, neither one can be
lost sight of, nor be misunderstood. But as this will be treated as a figure of
speech, we dismiss it from further consideration at present.

Rule 9. By the general and special scope.--By the general scope, we mean the
general range of mental vision, or the main purpose in the mind of the writer.
By the special scope, we mean any sub-purpose having reference to any particular
part of the general discussion. To illustrate: Paul wished to make it clear to
the minds of the saints that were in Rome, that the gospel was the only system
by which men could reasonably hope for salvation. He embraces this in his thesis
(Rom 1:16-17). But to find that this proposition was true, it was necessary to
show that men are lost. There could not be a system of salvation if there was
nothing to save; hence he starts out to show that all men are lost. This again
has to be divided, that he may approach the subject in a way that would not give
offense. So he shows that the Gentiles were sinners. But in doing this, it was
still necessary to divide the subject in hand and show (1) that they were
responsible in that they once knew God; that they could know of God by his works
in nature; and that in history, or in His dealings with the children of men He
had revealed His wrath against all ungodliness. (2) That they began to fall by
the neglect of their devotions, and continued by becoming vain or filthy in
their imaginations; by changing God into the likeness of men, and four-footed
beasts and creeping things; that the stages of their fall were: leaving God,
becoming corrupt in themselves, and then becoming immoral towards men, or evil
affected towards men. A second subdivision is to show that the Jews were in no
better condition than the Gentiles; hence that they were also in need of
salvation. This, again, is subdivided into two different lines of argument:
their history, or an examination of the facts in the case, and also the
statements of their own Scriptures. But, having gained the first point in the
argument, he next proceeds to show that they could not save themselves. That
accomplished, he must show them that the gospel could do what could not be
accomplished in any other way. But now there are new lines of thought that must
needs be investigated, such as the extent and results of this salvation, and
whether there has been any injustice on the part of God in arranging this plan
of saving men. Also, when man has been redeemed from a state of sin, he must
needs be placed under some system by which he will be kept from sin, and made to
be the kind of man that he ought to be. To develop the man, should he be placed
under the law that Moses gave, or will the gospel of Christ furnish him with
those directions and helps which he most needs? And even then it was left to
know if the redemption in Christ was fill and complete, or if it saved the
spirit and left the body to rot in the grave. In this way Paul conducts the
argument, following each proposition with another which connected with it.

Having the main purpose of this letter in the mind, and the particular purpose
in view in the section from which the words come, the interpretation is easy and
safe. Instead of this safe rule of interpretation, there has ever been a
tendency to ignore the topic had under discussion, and find first what the word
under some circumstances might be made to mean, and to conclude that such must
be its meaning in the passage in question. Though no one interprets any other
book in that way, yet there seems to be a willingness to compel the Bible to
submit to such treatment.

Rule 10. Etymological construction will many times tell the meaning of the
word.--Nearly all the names of they ancients had meanings, and, when they are
constructed of more than one syllable, the meanings of the several syllables
will give the meaning of the whole word or name. Beersheba, from beer, wells,
and sebiah, seven, would be seven wells; Bethel, house of God--are specimens of
the meanings that attached to the names of places. If we analyze our English
words, we find that, they were made of patchwork, and came into being with the
meaning of the added patches. It should be confessed, however, that the rule
does not always work, as some words have changed their meanings entirely since
they were first made.

Rule 11. The meaning of a word is frequently known by the words used in the
construction with it.--In this way we could first determine what part of speech
it was. We could tell whether it indicated action or transition. If a verb is
used at any time in any unusual sense, or a preposition, its society will reveal
the fact. This is especially true when we know the manner of the writer.

Rule 12. We may have sometimes to study the history of a word in order to get
its meaning at any particular time.--It has occurred, in the history of some
words, that they have changed their meanings a number of times. Hence, if we are
asked what such a word means, we must answer according to the time and place of
its use. Let once meant to hinder; prevent once meant to come before. On this
subject Mr. Terry, in his work on Biblical Hermeneutics, says:

"Words, being the conventional signs and representatives of ideas, are
changeable in both form and meaning by reason of the changes constantly taking
place in human society. In process of time the same word will be applied to a
variety of uses, and come to have a variety of meanings. Thus, the name board,
another form of the word broad, was originally applied to a piece of timber,
hewed or sawed, so as to form a wide, thin plank. It was also applied to a table
on which food was placed, and it became common to speak of gathering around the
festive board. By a similar association, the word was also applied to a body of
men who were wont to gather around a table to transact business, and hence we
have board of trustees, board of commissioners. The word is also used for the
deck of a vessel; hence the terms on board, overboard, and some other less
common nautical expressions. Thus it often happens that the original meaning of
a word falls into disuse and is forgotten, while later meanings become current,
and find a multitude or variety of applications. But, while a single word may
thus come to have many meanings, it also happens that a number of different
words are used to designate the same, or nearly the same, thing."

All living languages are subject to such changes as those which have just been
mentioned. Hence the necessity of carefully attending to the question of history
when the meaning of a word is under consideration.

Rule 13. Illustrations or parables may give the peculiar sense in which a word
is to be understood in the Scriptures.--The young lawyer conceded that to love
God and to love one’s neighbor were the great commandments of the law. But, to
excuse himself, he was anxious not to know to whom he was neighbor. This the
Saviour brought out by the parable of the Good Samaritan, so that the man
himself assented that to do kindness was to be neighborly. And, like the
Samaritan, race prejudice was to be forgotten in the face of want, and human
sympathy was to have its rightful control.

Rule 14. In defining definitions nothing but primary meanings are to be used.--I
will illustrate by the introduction of a few of the most common words: To eat,
means literally to chew and swallow. Hence, if this word shall be translated
into any other language, the word containing that thought must be used, and no
other. Then it may be translated again from that into a third, if the same
precaution be used, and no change occur. But let us see what will become of the
word in case we should be permitted to use secondary words in translating or
defining. To eat means secondarily to corrode, to consume, to enjoy, to rub or
fret, to wear away by degrees, to prey upon, to impair. To consume means to
waste away slowly, to be exhausted, to squander. Now, as to eat means to
consume, and fire consumes, or to burn is to consume, therefore to eat and to
burn are the same thing! Yet every one knows that it is not true. To walk is to
move slowly on the feet in such a way as to permit the heels to touch the
ground. But secondarily the word means to appear as a spectre, to act on any
occasion, to be in, motion, as a clamorous tongue--"their tongue walketh through
the land"--to live, act, behave. Men who have no feet can live and walk with
God, that is, they can worship and obey God. Now you can see in this way we can
prove that to walk does not mean any action, either on the feet or any other
way, but simply to worship. To shoot means to discharge with force, to
germinate, to sprout, to begin to vegetate, as a plant or its seed. As a result,
to shoot means to kill; but to hang means to kill, therefore a man may be shot
by being hung! But who believes such nonsense? In this way we might continue
till we should have examined every word of definite action, and in each case we
will find that very ordinary skill would be equal to the removal of the meaning
of any word in English, or in any other language. Unless this rule be observed,
there is no safety in translating from one language into another, or in defining
definition in any language. The story is told of a Welsh minister who preached
for two churches, one a Welsh speaking and the other an English speaking people.
Some one asked him how he supplied sermons in both languages. He said he took
the Bishop’s sermons and translated them into Welsh, and read them to his flock.
"But," said the querist, "how then do you supply the other congregation?" "Oh,"
said the ingenious divine, "I translate them back into English, and the Bishop
himself would not recognize them by that time." If this free translation stopped
with the sermons of men it would be a small matter, but the Bible is treated in
the same way.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 11: 01.08.     FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE
========================================================================

CHAPTER VIII.

FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.

We have already seen that much of the Scriptures was written in language that
was highly figurative; that its poetry and prophecy, and very much of its prose,
contain the loftiest of Oriental hyperbole. It becomes, us, then, to acquaint
ourselves with the rules governing this kind of speech. We know that if we shall
interpret literal language as if it were figurative, or figurative as if it were
literal, we will certainly miss the meaning.

SEC. 51. HOW CAN WE KNOW FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE?

Rule 1. The sense of the context will indicate it.--As before said, nothing
should be regarded as figurative unless such a demand is made by the meaning of
the immediate context, or by the evident meaning of the passage as a whole.

Rule 2. A word or sentence is figurative when the literal meaning involves an
impossibility.--In Jer 1:18 it is said:

"For, behold, I have made thee this day a defenced city, and an iron pillar, and
brasen walls against the whole land."

Literally we know that such was not the fact. God had made this man to resemble
these things in some respects: he should be strong and immovable like them,
hence the comparison.

"The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God, my strong rock,
in him will I trust; my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower"
(Psa 18:2).

Literally it is impossible for God to be a rock, a tower, or a horn. It is
evident to every one, at sight, that the author did not expect to be understood
as indicating such a thing as that God was a literal rock, etc.

"Leave the dead to bury their own dead" (Mat 8:22).

Those who were literally dead could not have buried any one. Hence we are bound
to regard the dead in this phrase as not literally dead.

"And the stars of the heaven fell unto the earth, as a figtree casteth her
unripe figs, when she is shaken of a great wind" (Rev 6:13). Of course John did
not see the literal stars fall to the earth. There are millions of these bodies,
most of which are many times the size of the earth.

"This is my body; . . . this is my blood" (Mat 26:26-28).

It was a literal impossibility. Metaphorically it was true, but literally it was
not true.

Great caution must be used in the application of this rule; otherwise we will
have all the ignorance of self-constituted critics arrayed against the
statements of the word of God. We must pause long enough to know that
impossibilities are really confronting us before we make the demand that the
passage shall be regarded as figurative.

Rule 3. The language of Scripture may be regarded as figurative, if the literal
interpretation will cause one passage to contradict another.--That is, if we
have two passages, and the literal interpretation of both makes the one to
contradict the other, we are at liberty to regard the language of one, at least,
as figurative. There is one possible exception. We have some words that are used
in more than one meaning. Hence the word in one place may have one meaning, and
in another it may depart from that thought.

"The fool and the brutish together perish" (Psa 49:10).

"For, lo, they that are far from thee shall perish" (Psa 73:27). "All the wicked
will he destroy" (Psa 145:20). Not only do the wicked perish, but the righteous
also.

"There is a righteous man that perisheth in his righteousness" (Ecc 7:15).

"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart" (Isa 52:1).

"The godly man is perished out of the earth" (Mic 7:2). But it is easy to have
all this contradicted by using a literal interpretation in each case.

"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1Co 15:22).

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the
unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment" (2Pe 2:9). Not only will
God reserve the wicked as well as the righteous in the intermediate state, but
He will send the one away into everlasting life and the other into everlasting
punishment. See Mat 25:46.

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth on
me, though he die, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth on me,
shall never die" (John 11:25-26).

Take all these passages in a literal sense, and contradiction is inevitable.

It would be easy to prove, in this way, that the dead are unconscious, that they
know not anything, and just as easy to show that living men were in the same
condition. Indeed, we can find that the two hundred men who followed Absalom,
who were the statesmen and counselors of David, "knew not any thing." In this
way we can make the word of God contradict itself, and say what we all know to
be false. Let no one say that this is the fault of the Bible, for the same thing
can be done with any other book. The trouble that is usually experienced in
these contradictions is to decide which text is to be understood figuratively.
This, however, will be explained when we come to give the rules for the
interpretation of figurative language.

Rule 4. When the Scriptures are made to demand actions that are wrong or forbid
those that are good, they are supposed to be figurative.

"And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it
from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than
having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. And if thine eye
causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for
thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast
into the hell of fire" (Mat 18:8-9).

Perhaps a few have understood this to be intended to direct the actual physical
pruning, but it is sufficient to say that ninety-nine out of every hundred, at
least, have understood it to be figurative. Indeed, it is not right for a man to
dissect himself in any such a manner. Hence the language is figurative.

"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 can not
he my disciple" (Luk 14:26).

Except those who have wished to find something in the Bible that is repugnant to
all our knowledge of right and wrong, none have regarded this as literal speech.
The command to honor father and mother would be violated directly, by the
authority of the Saviour, in demanding a literal interpretation.

"And thou shaft say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel:
drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the
sword which I will send among you. And it shall be, if they refuse to take the
cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus with the Lord of
hosts: Ye shall surely drink" (Jer 25:27-28).

We can not think of anything being commanded by the devil that would be worse
than a literal interpretation would make Jehovah require of His own people. But
when we come to know that God was using their own conduct as a symbol of the
destruction that was coming upon them because of these very crimes, and that He
is presenting their faults before their minds by the strongest use of irony, the
case becomes very different.

Rule 5. When it is said to be figurative.--The author is supposed to know
whether the language was figurative or not: and hence, if he says it is, we have
nothing to add.

John 2:18-22 gives the statement of the Master that if they should destroy this
temple He would raise it up again in three days. They thought, or, at least,
they pretended to think, that He referred to the temple in the city of
Jerusalem; but the writer says He spoke concerning the temple of His body.

"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying,
If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as
the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. But
this he spake of the Spirit, which they that believed on him were to receive:
for the Spirit was not yet given; because Jesus was not yet glorified" (John
7:37-39). In John 10:6 it is stated that Jesus spoke a parable to them. In Luk
18:1; Luk 19:1, it is expressly stated that He was speaking in parables. In Gal
4:24 Paul says, "which things contain an allegory."

Rule 6. When the definite is put for the indefinite.--This is many times the
case in the Scriptures. Day, hour, year; ten, one hundred, one thousand, ten
thousand, and ten thousand times ten thousand. Such expressions occur
frequently. They are rarely supposed to refer to just that number or period.

"His goods shall flow away in the day of his wrath" (Job 20:28).

"In the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers tempted me,
proved me, and saw my works forty years" (Psa 95:8; Heb 3:8).

"Hide not thy face from me in the day of my distress" (Psa 102:2).

"Thy people offer themselves willingly in the day of thy power" (Psa 110:3).

"In the day that I took them by the hand, to bring them out of the land of
Egypt" (Jer 31:31-32).

"Glorify God in the day of visitation" (1Pe 2:12).

"To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our
God" (Isa 61:2; Luk 4:19).

"We will . . . continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain" (Jas
4:13).

"Changed my wages ten times" (Gen 31:7, Gen 31:41).

"And in every matter of wisdom and understanding, concerning which the king
inquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and
enchanters that were in all his realm" (Dan 1:20).

We leave the other numbers for the present, as they will be called up in the
rules that shall be found necessary for such figures of speech.

Rule 7. When said in mockery.--Men have always had the habit of using words so
as to convey a thought quite different from that which a literal interpretation
would indicate.

"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for
he is a god; either he is musing, or he is gone aside, or he is in a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked" (1Ki 18:27). No one has ever
supposed that Elijah meant to say that Baal was a god, for he said it mockingly.

"But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine" (Acts 2:13).

New wine, or sweet wine, would not make any one drunk, and all knew it, and they
meant to say just what we do when we say of a man that he has taken too much
tea. We do not mean to assert that tea would make him drunk, but in mockery we
use one word for another.

"And the rulers also scoffed at him, saying, He saved others; let him save
himself, if this is the Christ of God, his chosen" (Luk 23:35).

They do not mean to concede that he saved others; but that he had claimed to
save them, and that his hypocrisy was at last revealed in the fact that He could
not save Himself, assuming that, if He could not save Himself, He had not saved
others. In Acts 23:5, Paul seems to deny that he knew that Ananias was high
priest. But that is impossible. It is easier understood as sarcasm, as if he had
said: "Pardon me, friends; I should not have known that he was high priest if
you had not informed me; he has acted more like a leader of a mob than a high
priest."

Rule 8. Common sense.--Figures of speech sometimes occur when we have to depend
on the things we know, in order to decide if the language is figurative or
literal.

We have many statements in the Scriptures that are in excess of the facts. We do
not need to be told that they are figurative; we know it. And yet no untruth is
told if we keep the hyperbole in view. It is used for the purpose of
intensification, and, with the purpose in mind, there is no danger of being
misled. When God says that He will make His "arrows drunk with blood," or Paul
declares that he is less than the least of all saints, there is nothing
deceptive to those who will employ their common sense in the interpretation.

"Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it
is that with to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he
would have given thee living water. The women saith unto him, Sir, thou hast
nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then halt thou that
living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well,
and drank thereof himself, and his sons, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said
unto her, Every one that drinketh of this water shall thirst again: but
whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but
the water that I shall give him shall become in him a well of water springing up
unto eternal life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I
thirst not, neither come all the way hither to draw" (John 4:10-16).

We are safe in saying that this was a low-minded woman. Her mistake in
interpreting the language of the Saviour was because she was not competent to
lift her mind into the realm of spiritual thought. Even after the Master had
given her a view of His blessing, she was thinking of the water she had come to
carry home in her pitcher. In Mat 20:22-23, the Saviour tells the disciples that
He had a cup to drink, and a baptism to be baptized with, and asks the ambitious
James and John if they were able to endure these things; and they said they were
able. Now, we have no direct rule that will reach the case, except that of
common sense. By that rule we know that the language was figurative.

"They are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink"
(Isa 29:9).

"The Lord hath given us water of gall to drink (Jer 8:14).

"Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord’s hand, that made all the earth
drunken; the nations have drunk of her wine; therefore the nations are mad" (Jer
51:7).

"And I trod down the peoples in mine anger, and made them drunk in my fury, and
I poured out their lifeblood on the earth" (Isa 63:6).

"With whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and they that dwell in
the earth were made drunken with the wine of her fornication" (Rev 17:2).

"I fed you with milk, not with meat; for ye were not able to bear it" (1Co 3:2).

We might continue till we should weary the reader, with those Scriptures that
all know to be figurative; and yet we have scarcely a rule for determining that
fact, nor do we need any. We do not conduct the investigation of such passages
by tardy rules; through common sense all readers know them to be figurative.

SEC. 52. RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE.--We shall find
that many of the rules which applied to didactic speech will be applicable here,
and we shall depend upon the reader to keep those rules in mind. But some of
them we shall feel obliged to mention, because of their peculiar use and value
in the interpretation of figurative language. We also find that there are
additional rules necessary to a full understanding of this kind of speech. Hence
the section now introduced.

Rule 1. Let the author give his own interpretation. This, of course, applies as
well to literal as to figurative language. But it is very seldom that an author
has thought it necessary to interpret language that was strictly literal.
Generally he would not be able to do better by the second effort. But many
times, when the language is highly tropical, the writer feels that some
explanation is needed. It is always safe to take his definition of the speech he
has made. He certainly knows more than any one else could know respecting his
meaning. As simple as this rule is, and as certainly correct as it is, still it
is greatly neglected. Many have proceeded as if their calling was to correct the
blunders of the author. They show their ability as exegetes in making out of the
figures employed a great many things that the writers never thought of. When
Ezekiel saw his vision of the valley of dry bones (Eze 37:1-28), he gave the
world of interpreters a vast field for the employment of genius. Men have made
many things out of that vision; in fact, there are not many things they have not
found in that chapter. And yet, in the eleventh verse, the prophet says it
referred to the house of Israel-that as they were away from home, and seemingly
neglected, they were ready to give up all hope of returning, But in this vision
it was made known that they should return to their land again. Scattered as they
were, God could bring them together, and bring them out and plant them again in
their own land. In Jer 18:1-10, we have another abused passage. When the prophet
went down to the potter’s to see a work wrought on the wheel, a vessel of honor
was made, but it became marred in the hand of the potter, and he made it into
another and less honorable vessel; and then the man of God has the application,
"So are ye in my hand, O house of Israel." God had done well enough by them, but
they became marred in His hand; and as the potter had power over the clay to
make of the "same lump" a vessel unto honor, and then one to dishonor, so He
could and would do with Israel--if they would not be the people that they ought
to be, He would give them a place of less importance and glory.

John 2:14-22 has an explanation by the writer. Jesus would raise up His body in
three days--not the temple in Jerusalem. In Mat 13:18-23, the Master explains
the meaning of the parable of the sower. We have several explanations of the
Master by which His parables are made clear to the mind of all disciples.

Rule 2. The interpretation should be according to the general and special
scope.--As this is one of the rules for the interpretation of literal language,
but little now needs to be said. If the rule is necessary to a right
understanding of that which was meant to be plain, certainly it is of great
importance in the exegesis of that which is confessedly difficult.

"The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul" (Psa 19:7). In the
interpretation of this passage we must not lose sight of the topic under
consideration. God’s ways are not as our ways; He employs silent forces for
mighty ends. In His handiwork can be seen the evidence of His wisdom and
goodness, and in His law is that power by which the souls of men are turned
around from the wrong to the right. This does not mean to say that God had
nothing to add to this law; it was perfect for the purpose for which it had been
given. We learn afterwards, from Paul, that it was a school-master to bring men
to Christ. But David does not teach differently when he is studied in the light
of the purpose before his mind.

Eze 36:23-29 : In this passage we have some splendid figures, but when studied
in the light of the purpose of the writer, they are very easy of interpretation.
He presents the children of Israel, in returning from their long captivity in
Babylon, as being cleansed from their filthiness and their idolatry; as a man in
the camp of Israel would have to go out of the camp, and have a clean person
sprinkle on him the water of purifying, on the third day, and on the seventh day
(Num. xix.), and on the seventh day at even wash his clothes and bathe his flesh
in water, God represents Himself as undertaking their cleansing by sprinkling
this clean--or cleansing--water on them, that they may be clean.

Mat 5:13-15 is regarded as an easy figure, and yet it can be removed from its
purpose by a failure to keep in mind the topic before the mind of the Saviour.
Ye are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. Let your light so
shine, etc. Christ’s disciples are to guide the world into truth and duty, and
exercise a saving power in behalf of the race.

Rule 3. Compare the figurative with literal accounts or statements of the same
things.--In doing this, it will be seen that you can not make the figurative
contradict the literal. It may add beauty and strength to the literal statement,
but it can not teach differently.

"And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all
flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream
dreams, your young men shall see visions: and also upon the servants and upon
the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit" (Joe 2:28-29). When we
have carefully read the Scriptures respecting the Holy Spirit, we are sure that
God is meant. Whether we shall adopt the language of the Nicene Creed, and speak
of God the Holy Ghost, or not, when we speak of the Spirit of the Lord we speak
of God. But how shall we think of God being poured out as if He were water? His
gifts may be given without limit, in such abundance as to justify the figure in
the mouth of a poet, but no one expects to find anything that will seem like a
literal pouring out of God on men and women. The Saviour tells of the same
occurrence, but in very different style. His words are prophetic, but they are
plain.

"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even
the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of
me" (John 15:26). In the account of the fulfillment of this prophecy we have all
the facts brought out.

"And when the day of Pentecost was now come, they were all together in one
place. And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of the rushing of a mighty
wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared
unto them tongues parting asunder, like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of
them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:1-4). By these literal
statements, then, we have the figure of the Spirit of God being poured out. He
came to the earth to make His residence with the disciples of the Master; He
came with splendid gifts, and assumed the work which had been assigned Him--that
of comforting all disciples, and guiding the apostles into all truth. The
Saviour says (John 7:37-38) that out of believers should flow rivers of living
water. And this figure He used to indicate what the Holy Spirit would do when He
should come. But to know just what was meant by such a figure, we have no more
to do than to read the accounts of the work accomplished by the disciples, for
in this way we certainly know what was referred to by;he Lord. This promise was
fulfilled. What did the-disciples do when they fulfilled it? Learning that, we
have a full answer to the query, and the correct exegesis. No one expects any
literal flowing, and nothing like that is seen in the history of the men who are
the fulfillment of the prediction. Being full of the Spirit, they went and
preached everywhere.

Rule 4. By the resemblance of things compared.--Christ is represented as a lamb
slain from the foundation of the earth; and in His trial and crucifixion is
presented to us as a sheep before her shearer and a lamb taken to the slaughter.
When we have considered the characteristics of a lamb, we are not at any loss to
see the force and beauty of the figure. But in the Revelation He is also called
the Lion of the tribe of Judah. How is He, then, both a lion and a lamb? This
last figure sends us back to look for other qualities in the Saviour than those
of gentleness and innocence. He is mighty as well as meek. In Gen 49:1-33 we
have the patriarch Jacob telling his sons what should come to pass in the latter
times. Beginning with the eldest, he continues till he has told their
characteristics. But the figurative language in which this is done makes it
necessary for us to study each one of the tribes, that we may have the true
interpretation of this prophetic blessing. Reuben is the excellence of dignity,
and yet as unstable as water; Simeon and Levi were instruments of cruelty, and
should be divided in Jacob and scattered in Israel. Judah was a lion’s whelp,
and his hand should be on the neck of his enemies, and should hold the sceptre
till the Shiloh should come. He should wash his garments in wine and his vesture
in the blood of grapes. His eyes should be red with wine and his teeth white
with milk. Here is Judah’s character as a tribe, and the history of the people.
In this way continue, making a diligent search for the features of likeness
between the symbols and the facts, and there will be but little difficulty in
the interpretation.

"But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep" (John 10:26).

It is not difficult to add a little to this statement, and make out the idea
that because they had not been foreordained from the foundation of the world to
be saved, they were unable to believe. The Saviour did not have that subject
before Him at the time. Still the language can be pressed into that thought. If
"sheep" here stands for the disciples, then they had to believe in order to
become His disciples; and the language would be, in substance, "ye believe not,
because ye believe not." This would be so perfectly meaningless that it can not
be admitted for a moment. In John 10:16, He says, "Other sheep I have, which are
not of this fold." All admit that this reference is to the Gentiles. But
certainly they were not believers then, for they never heard of Him. By reading
John 10:3-4, we have the peculiarities that made the metaphor appropriate. They
heard Him, they followed Him; they were therefore of that willing mind that made
them ready to hear and receive the truth. It was this unsuspecting quality in
them that marked the difference between them and those Jews who refused to
consider the evidence of His divinity, and therefore remained in unbelief. In
Mat 23:1-39 we have some of the strongest metaphors in any language. In Mat
23:27-28 we have a simile and its interpretation, which makes it valuable:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited
sepulchers, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead
men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous
unto men, but inwardly ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity." But if the
Saviour had not interpreted this figure for us, its meaning would have been
clear by using the rule just laid down. But in the use of this rule, we must be
careful not to compare accidental qualities, those for which the figure was not
employed. A very ingenious interpretation of Psa 1:3, draws all attention to the
fact that the tree was planted by the streams of water. It did not grow there of
its own accord; and reaches a conclusion that was never in the mind of the
author. Whether the doctrine of foreordination, that gives being to the
exegesis, be true or not, certain it is that David was not discussing any such
fine theology. His contrast was simply between righteousness and
ungodliness-righteousness prospered and iniquity cursed. The righteous man was
like a tree planted by the rivers of water, getting moisture in the time of
drouth, and therefore bringing forth his fruit in his season.

Rule 5. The facts of history and biography may be made to assist in the
interpretation of figurative language.--If we can know certainly to what the man
of God has referred, then, by an acquaintance with that person or thing, we can
certainly find the point and power of the trope. In Jer 1:1-19 the enemies that
were to come against the land of Judah were pictured, in the evil that they
should work for that people, by a boiling caldron, with its mouth from the
north. Hence it was about to overflow them, and scald them to death, The coming
and destruction of the Babylonians, related in the history of the nations,
enables us to see the meaning and force of the figure employed by the man of
God.

"Then said the Lord unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and
Shear-jashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in the high
way of the fuller’s field; and say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not,
neither let thine heart be faint, because of these two tails of smoking
firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin and Syria, and of the son of Remaliah"
(Isa 7:3-4).

Now, to get the meaning that the prophet put into this figure, one needs to
study the character and condition of the two kings who had made a league against
Judah. Pekah, king of the ten tribes, had formed an alliance with Rezin, the
king of Damascus, in which they had agreed to combine against Judah, and place a
vassal king on that throne, the son of Tabeel. But the force of these two men
was nearly spent, and hence the prophet represents them as two smoking
firebrands hence in no way to be feared. When Jesus was on the east side of the
river Jordan, they came and told Him that it would be better for Him to depart
out of the coasts, lest Herod should kill Him. He said: "Go and tell that fox,"
etc. We should study the character of Herod Antipas, in order to see the pith of
the metaphor. When we have a people drunk, but not with wine, staggering, but
not from strong drink, it is important to learn of their condition to assure
ourselves of the exact purpose of the figure. It is valuable, in the exegesis of
any speech, to have before the mind just what was under contemplation when the
speech was made. If we could be in Jerusalem in the winter, and see the
shepherds of that region bring their sheep to the cotes at night, and give them
shelter, and then lead them out in the morning to some place of grazing, and
guard them during the day, we would better understand the two allegories of the
Saviour in John x., which were designed to teach the same lesson--that He was a
sufficient protection by day and night, in life or in death. But without this
knowledge or attention to these facts, we are liable to abuse the passage, as
has been generally done. Christ is not the door of the church, but of the sheep;
He had no church at that time. He is the way, or the through--the aperture that
leads to protection and repose--for all the disciples. And in the study of the
allegory of John xv., we must understand the vineyard, the trimming, burning
dead branches, fruit bearing, etc. Indeed, if we could go with the Saviour and
the disciples across the Kidron, and sit down with them on the side of the Mount
of Olives, and look at the vineyards on the other hillside, by the lights made
by the burning of the piles of dead branches, then the allegory would be all the
more impressive. In the interpretation of prophecy especially, it is of great
importance to be well acquainted with the facts of history. They tell of the
destruction of many cities and countries in language that is highly figurative;
and, without any knowledge of the historic facts in the case, we may form an
incorrect view of the teaching. Many prophecies will never be understood till
trey shall have been fulfil led, and then they will be grand evidences of the
inspiration of the prophets. The destruction of Babylon, as foretold by Jeremiah
and Isaiah, can be easily understood in the light of the events that have
occurred. We can now go and stand with Isaiah on the walls of Babylon, in the
vision, and see the two lines of smoke, or dust, rising from the East, and
listen to the wail from within the city, and see well enough the two lines of
the approaching army of Medes and Persians. The many statements of the prophet
Isaiah concerning the destruction to be wrought by the hands of Sennacherib, the
king of Assyria, are all clear after the events. The language that was dark to
us before reading the account of their fulfillment, because of the highly
wrought imagery, is very plain in view of the history.

Rule 6. Any inspired interpretation, or use of the figure, in an argument, or
teaching, will decide its meaning.--In Rule 1 we have the author’s
interpretation, which, of course, must be admitted by every one. But this is
based upon the same principle. If we concede that the writers of the New
Testament were inspired of God, then we must accept any application of Scripture
that they have made. To deny their exegesis of any passage, is to deny the
authority by which they spoke.

Isa 6:8-10 is applied by the Saviour in Mat 13:14-15. And though we may say that
this had been the condition of that people for many centuries, certainly the
Master’s use of the language was correct. In 1Co 10:1-8, we have an application
of some Old Testament typology that is very instructive--Israel fleeing from
bondage; being baptized into Moses; and that rock following them representing
Christ. So in the fourth chapter of the Hebrew letter, there is a typology of
the Sabbath given that would not have been understood but for the teaching of
the apostle Paul or the instruction of some other inspired man. Also his use of
Sarah and Hagar and their sons, found in Gal 4:21-32. "These are an allegory."
And he not only announces that they are an allegory, but he tells what they
mean. The one stands for the Old Institution, and the other for the New. We
belong to the New, and not to the Old. The son of the bondwoman shall not be
heir with the son of the free. The one Institution gendereth to bondage, while
the other brings freedom. Isa 29:14 is employed by Paul in Acts 13:40-41. By
this use of the passage we learn of its Messianic import. In this way Psa 41:9
has been shown to refer typically to Judas, who was guide to them who took
Jesus: "My own familiar friend . . . hath lifted up his heel against me." In
Acts 1:15-18, Peter quotes several Scriptures, the meaning of which, would not
have appeared to us but for the use he makes of them; after this it is clear
enough that they refer to Judas, and that another should take his place as a
witness for the Saviour. I think we might have read these texts a great many
times without ever once suspecting their meaning, but for the assistance thus
rendered.

There seems to be a lurking suspicion that the apostles used the Old Testament
Scriptures with too great freedom, and quoted them rather for the sound than for
their evident sense. But this criticism is not begotten by faith in the
inspiration of these men.

Rule 7. We must be careful not to demand too many points of analogy.--Many have
proceeded in the interpretation of figurative language as if it was their
privilege, or rather their calling, to invent as many features of similarity as
their genius could originate, and then demand a corresponding thought and
purpose for each. If they could know certainly that the man who is used as a
type had a wart on his nose, or a mole on his ear, the wart or mole would have
to come in for a hearing--they would see some typical intention in the whole
affair. You see, it would have been just as easy for the Lord to select one
without these features as with them, and therefore He must have had some divine
reason for such a selection. By these interpreters, every occurrence of Old
Testament times is supposed to have some feature of typology. And in the
interpretation of these types and symbols, every peculiarity in the type must
have some antitypical thought. Perhaps the very purpose for which the type was
employed, is lost sight of in the haste to identify small and unimportant
features, that act no part in the revelation of God to men. Sometimes the
apostles have taken up some portion of Old Testament history and used it for the
purpose of illustrating some truth in hand; but it does not follow that it was
intended as a feature of typology. Paul says, "harden not your hearts as in the
provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness, when your fathers
tempted me, and proved me, and saw my works forty years." It does not follow,
from this, that all this stubbornness was intended as a type of anything in the
New Testament time. A colored man is said to have found in the sheep being
placed on the right hand of the Master in the day of judgment, evidence that all
the colored people would be saved, as they had wool. But while we are disposed
to smile at the quaint interpretation, it is no more ludicrous than many that
are given at the present time. Very much harm is done to the word of God by
over-interpretation. Men sometimes bombard the Bible--they plant their batteries
on some eminence, and see how many bombs they can shoot into it.

Rule 8. It must be remembered that figures are not always used with the same
meaning.--A lion may not always symbolize the same thought, nor need a sheep,
water, or fire always be employed for the purpose of expressing the same
calamity or blessing.

There is a very grave error among an untaught class of exegetes in compelling
every word that has, at any time, been used figuratively, to always represent
the same thought as in that passage. To follow out this plan, we would have
nothing left in the Scriptures of a literal character. It is about impossible to
find any word that has not, at some time, been employed in a figurative sense;
and nearly every animate and inanimate object has been used to represent some
thought other than that which would simply state its being or action. This comes
from a wrong method of interpretation, or from not having any method. Many seem
disposed to regard themselves as at liberty to make anything out of the Bible
which their theology may demand or their whims require. And if, at any time,
they find a passage that will not harmonize with that view, then the next thing
is to find one or more words in the text used elsewhere in a figurative sense,
and then demand that such use be the Biblical dictionary on the meaning of that
word, and hence that it must be the meaning in that place. Because the term
Logos is employed in speaking of the Christ, therefore it must always have that
meaning; and it is even carried so far as to say that the Word, either in the
Old or New Testament, must always refer to the Saviour. And yet ten minutes’ use
of a good concordance and the Bible would convince any thinking person that it
is a fearful blunder. Oil and water have been employed to represent the Holy
Spirit; therefore they always have that meaning! Because metaphors have been
used in the Scriptures, therefore everything is a metaphor!

It is a kind of standing rule with a certain class of prophets, who are
prophesying now, and trying to get the old prophets to agree with them, that if,
at any time, a figure has been employed under circumstances in which it is
doubtful as to the import of the figure, if some other prophet has used that
symbol, in a manner that removes doubt as to its meaning in that place, then
take that use as a dictionary for the purpose of the figure in the doubtful
passage. If this should be adopted as a rule, the exceptions will be found to be
so numerous that the rule will be found of no value. If, at any time, it is
found that two prophets are describing the same thing and employing the same
figure for that purpose, it is possible that one of them has been clearer in the
use of the figure than the other; and, in that way, there can be found a
definition of the text that would otherwise have remained in doubt. But under
almost any other circumstances the rule will not do.

Because Jesus said He was the bread from heaven, it does not follow that the
word bread must always refer to Him. He used the word leaven to represent
teaching and influence both, and yet these are the figurative uses. It does not
mean that the leaven that the Israelites were to put out of their camps before
the feast of the Passover, was influence or doctrine. Nor because the word
leaven, when used as a symbol, must always mean something bad, because it
usually has that signification, for Jesus says that the "kingdom of heaven is
like leaven that a women took and hid in three measures of meal till the whole
was leavened"--surely the kingdom of heaven is not something that is to be
shunned. Fermentation is not the only quality of leaven: its ability to
gradually and quietly extend its power is one of its features, and is that one
for which the Master employs it in the passage quoted (Mat 13:33).

Water is many times used as the symbol of blessing among the ancients: it stands
many times for almost any kind of refreshment. In Deu 23:4, Moses remembers the
Moabites and the Ammonites in their unkindness in not meeting Israel with bread
and water. In 1Sa 25:11, we have the churlish Nabal refusing to give bread and
flesh and water to the servants of David. In 1Co 3:6, Paul uses it as a symbol
of Christian culture. In John 7:38-39, the Saviour symbolizes the Holy Spirit by
its use; And in John 17:10, He uses it in a more extended sense of spiritual
blessings, including eternal life. But water has not only the power to bless,
but the power to injure; hence it has been employed for that purpose, or to
symbolize that thought. In Psa 69:1, David says; "Save me, O God; for the waters
are come in unto my soul." Isa 30:20 speaks of the water of affliction. This
power of water to deluge and drown, gives signification to Mat 20:22 : "I have a
baptism to be baptized with." The word sheep is many times used as the symbol of
innocence, because a sheep is less offensive and defensive than any other of the
domestic animals. In metaphor, therefore, they represent the people of God,
while the goat is the symbol for the children of the wicked one, (Mat 25:1-46).
And yet a ram is a sheep. He is the symbol of a kingdom, and is offensive. Many
times sheep go astray. Isa 53:6 : "All we like sheep have gone astray." Jer
1:6-17 : Israel was scattered and lost. Eze 34:6-11 : Israel had fled to the
mountains, and were scattered abroad, and needed to be hunted up.

Fire has more nearly always the same metaphorical import than any other word I
know of in the Scriptures. It is a good servant and a cruel master. But its only
Scriptural use is in view of its burning. It is never the symbol of blessing,
only as trials and pains result in reformation and purity. Our faith may have to
be tried in the fire, and we may be said to be salted with fire, and all this
may work for us the peaceable fruits of righteousness; but at the time of this
purification it did not seem to be very joyous. If we are made to pass through
the furnace of affliction or persecution, it may do us good; but fire has all
the time been employed as the figure of that which causes pain. Though it remove
our dross, yet it does so by burning, and not by any soothing process. God’s
word is as a refiner’s fire, in that it separates a man’s sins from him, or the
man from his wickedness.

It is true that some writers have favorite illustrations, and when we have
become familiar with their use, we have a dictionary that will fairly define
them. It is also true that one inspired man copies from another. Finding that
another has said the same things that the Lord wishes him to say, it is right
and proper that the same things should be said again; and he is right in saying
them again. If, at any time, we can be sure that one is a copy in whole or in
part of the other, and the ore is clearer than the other, it is proper that the
clearer language should aid us in the exegesis of that which is doubtful. But
beyond this we may be very chary of compelling figures to mean the same thing.

Rule 9. Parables may explain parables.--We have seen that any figure of speech
may be explained by the writer, or any other inspired writer, by literal
language. We have also seen that a figure may be adopted by another writer in
whole or in part, and, in such cases, that which is free from doubt as to its
import, may be employed to make known that which is not clear. This rule only
carries that thought a little farther, and shows that a parable, or other figure
of speech, may be legitimately made to assist in the interpretation of another
figure of speech. In John 10:5, the Saviour begins an allegory that closes in
the sixth verse. In this He introduces the thought of a shepherd, faithful in
all his work, to illustrate His relation to them. "But they understood not what
things they were which he spake unto them."

He therefore began another allegory, to give them this thought. This time he
takes the door, or the open space into the sheepcote, to assure them that His
help and protection would be sufficient (John 10:7-18).

One of these illustrates the same thought that the other does, and therefore the
one assists us in comprehending the meaning of the other. In Mat 13:1-58, we
have seven parables for the purpose of causing the disciples to understand the
nature of Christ’s kingdom. This is a large number on one topic, and yet to this
list Luke and Mark add three more. They do not all of them cover exactly the
same point, and yet they were all employed to assist in understanding the things
concerning the kingdom of God. And many of the same points were covered several
times. Christ was intent on removing a fundamental mistake. They supposed that
when the kingdom of the Messiah should come, it would be like the other great
kingdoms of the world--it would be temporal, and therefore it would come in much
the same way. But He wished them to know that such was not the nature of His
kingdom, and that it would not come by an army, but by the power of truth--the
truth being sown into the hearts of men would cause them to be subject to Him.

I have no doubt that a number of the sayings of Jesus were repeated in many
places. Even the prayer which He taught His disciples, was repeated. In Luk
15:1-32 there are three parables for the same purpose. He had been eating with
publicans and sinners, and the Pharisees blamed Him for it. He showed them, by
the parable of the lost sheep, and the lost piece of money and the lost boy,
that they were the last persons in the world who should find any fault with it.
Indeed, they should rejoice that these then were returning home. The Master gave
several parables on the subject of the use and abuse of riches. One of these can
be rightfully employed in the interpretation of another. That rich fool that
said, "I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all
my corn and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid
up for many years; take thine ease," etc., gives us the stupidity of the silly
man who will plan as if this life was all that is for him. In the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus, we have not only the foolishness of thus giving one’s mind
to the accumulation of wealth, but the corrupting influence on the mind and
heart of him who possesses it. While they have something of different ends in
view, in several features they are quite the same, and may render much
assistance each in the interpretation of the other.

Rule 10. The type and the antitype are frequently both in view at the same
time.--It is common to say that a type is made of material things, and the
antitype is always a spiritual thought or fact. The anointing with oil
prefigured the anointing of the Holy Spirit; the anointing of the prophet,
priest, and king of the patriarchal and Jewish times, told of Him who should be
our Prophet, Priest and King; that the washing under the law symbolized the
spiritual purity that should be in all the people of God. The wilderness of
wandering represented the journey of life, With its many dangers, toils and
trials; the Jordan told them of the death that was to be before the land of
promise; and passing it prefigured the resurrection of the dead; and then, when
they should enter the promised land, they had a type of heaven itself. All this
we can admit. Indeed, I think it is quite true. And yet several figures and
types have been employed to represent the same antitype and several of these may
be seen at the same time; and even the mind of the prophet may be fixed not only
on several types, but on the antitype as well.

We may say that the bondage of Israel, in Egypt, symbolized our bondage in
sin--that when they left Pharaoh we have a figure of the necessity of repenting
and turning away from sin;--but just there we come up to what seems to be the
introduction of another thought, for the apostle Paul uses the passage of the
sea as a type of our baptism into Christ. Their sabbath was a type of Christian
rest in Christ (Heb 4:1-10); but it had also in view that which the Christian is
looking for--the eternal rest that remains for the people of God. Here, then, we
have one spiritual thought symbolizing another of greater extent and duration.
1Pe 3:16-21 uses the flood of Noah and the salvation of the righteous family as
typical of our baptism. This is not strange, when we know that there are two
symbols for the same safety in God.

Many of the prophecies of Isaiah are inexplicable on any other hypothesis. In
nearly all the latter part of his vision, he is carried away to Babylon, and is
looking into the future from the time of the captivity. Hence he frequently sees
the children of Judah and Benjamin returning home. And the joy of the man of God
becomes so great that everything seems to him to be ecstatic--the very land of
Canaan itself is glad: its hills are frisking about like lambs, and its
mountains are skipping like rams; and the cedars of Lebanon are clapping their
hands for joy But in that ecstasy of mind the prophet is sure to see the still
greater redemption in Christ. Here are the type and the antitype both in
prophecy. Nor is this all: this type and antitype are like two hills in a line,
the smaller one being the nearer. There may be a long distance between the two,
but they look as it they were one hill only. Hence, after one line of prophetic
history is described, which runs through the type and antitype, it is in order
for the prophet to return and bring forward another. But this makes him refer to
the type immediately after mentioning the antitype. Many commentators have lost
their star here. Having seen one prophecy relating to the return from Babylon,
and then the clear and certain reference to the coming of the Christ and the
work of redemption which He should accomplish, and then another mention of
return to the Holy Land, they take it for granted that it must now relate to
some final return of the Jews to that country. But let us remember that these
men were telling what they saw, and that in the range of their mental vision
there are both type and antitype, and the trouble is removed.

There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of Mat 24:1-51 on this account.
Some have seen in it nothing but the destruction of Jerusalem. Beyond any
question, the Saviour did refer to the destruction of that city. But others find
in it language that must refer to the final judgment of the world, and then
hasten to the conclusion that it can not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem
at all, but that it must all relate to the coming of the Lord and the end of the
world. But when we find that both of these things were before the mind of the
Master at the same time, the trouble is taken out of the passage, for we have in
these two events all that the language demands.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 12: 01.09.     VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (1)
========================================================================

CHAPTER IX. THE VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE.

We, have done more in the separation of all figurative language into families of
figurative speech than any other people. Among the ancients there were but few
designations. In the Scriptures we have the parable, the proverb, the type, and
the allegory named. We also have the fable used, but not named. Into these
figures they crowded all we know of tropical language. They were free in the use
of figures, but not in definitions of them. We must, therefore, be permitted to
bring to the task everything we can get by which to understand the kinds of
figurative language they employed, and the laws that govern each of these
classes. The parable then contained all we put into the parable and the simile
and the similitude, and sometimes the parable and the proverb were used
interchangeably. At other times it means a type. This seems strange to us, for
they are so unlike, as we speak of them. But we will give the reasons for this
further along in the work. We do not stop to blame the Orientals for not
distinguishing between one figure and another, for modern writers, with all the
advantages of our schools; do not always succeed. Our works of rhetoric are not
well agreed as to the exact office of the several figures that are now in common
use; and there are many writers on types, and metaphors, and parables, and
allegories, who do not seem to have taken any advantage of our works of
rhetoric. But when we have exhausted the list of figures found in our modern
books on interpretation, we have not yet found all the figures that are used in
the Scriptures. It has seemed necessary to either enlarge some of the figures we
have now, or invent terms by which to indicate the character and power of other
forms of speech found in the Bible.

SEC. 53. THE PARABLE.--This is from the two Greek words, para, beside, and
ballein, to throw; hence a placing beside or together, a comparing, comparison:
a story by which something real in life is used as a means of presenting a moral
thought. The actors in a parable are real--human beings are the actors, and they
do nothing which they could not do; things were not related which could not be
accomplished by the agencies employed. The parable is the oldest and most common
of all the figures of speech. The Old Testament contains many of them, and the
Saviour taught almost constantly by that medium of illustration.

There seem to have been several reasons for its use in the teaching of the
Master.

"And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in
parables? And he answered unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries
of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever hath, to
him shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but whosoever hath not, from
him shall be taken away even that which he hath. Therefore speak I to them in
parables; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do
they understand" (Mat 13:10-13).

Now, in this declaration of purpose the Saviour seems to have in view the
teaching of one part of the crowd, and preventing the other part of it from
understanding what was being said. His reason for not giving them the truth, was
that they would not receive it nor follow it. And yet when we have read the
Scriptures through, the parables seem to have been employed, for the most part
at least, for the purpose of making clear that which would not otherwise have
been understood. That purpose of the parable is so patent that it is the only
view that the people generally have of it. The allegories which the Saviour
employed in John 6:1-71, seem to have been to hide the truth from those who
would abuse the light if it were furnished. And yet at the same time the
teaching became more powerful to those who came to Him afterwards, and had it
explained to them. And I think there is every reason to believe that the parable
was used for the same purpose--that of embalming the truth, that it might never
be forgotten. These story illustrations of the Saviour were not only a means of
making truth to be understood, but to cause it to be remembered. Those who heard
His stories of illustration never forgot them. Again, we find a purpose in the
use of this figure that is quite in addition to any others yet mentioned: it was
to present a truth to the mind, and yet keep the person for whom it was intended
from seeing the point till the mind had assented to the truth that was taught
thereby. To proceed by the use of statement and argument would cause the person
to array himself against the force of the truth being presented. Nathan came to
David with a very pitiful story about some man who went and took the ewe lamb,
the only one his poor neighbor had, and killed it for the friend who stopped
with him, while he had plenty of flocks of his own (2Sa 12:1-6). David could
easily see the meanness of such conduct, and he became so enraged that he
determined to have the man put to death--he was too mean to live. Nathan had not
made the application. But when he said, "Thou art the man," David was soon made
to see the force of the truth. He could not have been made to understand his sin
in any other way--at least, not so clearly. In 2Sa 14:1-24, we have the account
of a parable arranged by Joab, and told to David by the woman of Tekoah, to have
the king send for Absalom from the land of Geshur. She came looking very
heartbroken, and told the king of her two sons who strove, and one having killed
the other; the people were trying to kill him, and that would quench her coal,
or extinguish her family. This so wrought upon the feelings of David that he
said he would protect her son. Then she asked why he did not cause his own son
to return home. The point was gained, and Absalom came home to his own
possessions. An illustration of this use of the parable will be found in the
teaching of the Saviour on the fourth day of the week of crucifixion. It is
commonly called the parable of the vineyard, and will be read in full in Mat
21:33-46; Mark 12:1-12; and Luk 20:9-19. To get this lesson properly before the
mind of the reader, I will make a condensed reading from the three records: And
he began to speak this parable to the people. There was a master of a house that
planted a vineyard, and set a hedge around it, and digged in it a winepress, and
built a tower, and let it out to vine-dressers, and went into another country,
and was absent from home a long time. And when the time of the fruit drew near,
he sent his servants to the vine-dressers to receive the fruits of it. And the
vine-dressers took his servants and scourged one, and killed another, and stoned
another, wounding him in the head. Again he sent other servants more than the
first: and they treated them in like manner. And the owner of the vineyard said:
What shall I do? Having one son, my beloved, I will send him; perhaps when they
see him, they will reverence him. But when the vine-dressers saw him, they
reasoned among themselves, saying: This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and
the inheritance will be ours. And they took him and drove him out of the
vineyard, and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what
will he do to those wicked vine-dressers? They said to him, He will miserably
destroy those wicked men, and let his vineyard to other vine-dressers, who will
give him the fruits in their seasons. Yea, said Jesus, He will come and destroy
those vine-dressers, and will give his vineyard to others. And when they heard
it (perceiving how that he had spoken the parable against them), they said, Let
it not be! And Jesus looked on them, and said to them: Did you never read in the
Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the
corner? This was from the Lord, and it is wondrous in our eyes. For this reason,
I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation
that will bring forth the fruits of it. And he that falls upon this stone shall
be dashed to pieces: but him on whom it shall fall, it will make him like chaff
for the wind. And when the chief priests and Pharisees heard his parables, they
sought to lay hold on him, but they feared the multitude, because they regarded
him as a prophet. This is the form of the parable, and its results that I get by
reading the account in all of the evangelists. If we have not read amiss, then
Jesus did for them what Nathan did for David--He came up on the blind side of
those men, and presented them truth so that they assented to it, before they saw
that it meant them.

I think, then, we are at liberty to say that parables were used for the
following purposes--(1), To reveal truth: making the people to understand the
unknown by a comparison with the known. (2) For the purpose of concealing truth
from the minds of those who had no right to it, or who would abuse it if it were
given to them. (3) They were made the means of embalming truth. (4) And in the
fourth place, for the purpose of causing men to assent to truth before they
could know it certainly meant them.

While we are ready to regard the parable as the most apt mode of instruction,
and the easiest and safest manner of enforcing conviction, yet it is the most
difficult of all figures to construct. It is easy to rehearse a story for
illustration, but to construct a parable is not so easy. In 1Ki 20:35-43, we
have a parable in which Ahab is condemned for permitting Benhadad to go free,
when it was his duty to destroy him:

"And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his fellow by the word
of the Lord, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him. Then said
he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the Lord, behold, as soon
as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was
departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him. Then he found another man,
and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, smiting and wounding
him. So the prophet departed, and waited for the king by the way, and disguised
himself with his head-band over his eyes. And as the king passed by, he cried
unto the king: and said, Thy servant went into the midst of the battle; and,
behold, a man turned aside, and brought a man unto me, and said, Keep this man:
if by any means he be missing, then shall thy life be for his life, or else thou
shalt pay a talent of silver. And as thy servant was busy here and there, he was
gone. And the king of Israel said unto him, So shall thy judgement be; thyself
hast decided it. And he hasted, and took the head-band away from his eyes; and
the king of Israel discerned him that he was of the prophets. And he said unto
him, Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast let go out of thy hand the man whom
I had devoted to destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy
people for his people. And the king of Israel went to his house heavy and
displeased, and came to Samaria." The purpose of this parable is clear to every
one. The king was to be condemned by himself. David had been led to do that; and
the Master had caused the Jews to pass judgment against themselves by the use of
a parable. The parables of the New Testament are quite clear. A few of them were
explained by the Saviour, but most of them were so clear that no one would miss
the meaning who wanted to know the truth. And yet some of these have been very
strangely interpreted. The three parables in Luk 15:1-32, are so plain that it
would seem impossible for any one to miss their import. And yet many things have
been deduced from them that were not in the Saviour’s mind. The first and second
verses give the key to all of them:

"Now all the publicans and sinners were drawing near to him for to hear him. And
both the Pharisees and the scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners,
and eateth with them."

Then, to show them the unreasonableness of such a complaint, He gave them the
three parables that followed--the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the
lost boy. By these He taught them that they ought to forget the better class,
for the time, in their earnest endeavor to save sinners. The parable of the
sower (Mat 13:1-9) is explained in Mat 13:10-23; and the parable of the good
seed and the tares (Mat 13:24-30) is explained in Mat 13:36-43. Although these
are exceedingly plain in themselves, and the explanation is as clear as language
could be, still they have been made to teach almost everything that genius could
imagine. Quite a common interpretation of the good seed and the tares is that
there can be no withdrawal of fellowship, for the wicked and the righteous shall
grow together till the end of the world.

It is nothing to these exegetes that the Scriptures teach in several places that
they must withdraw from all that walk disorderly, and that the man that will not
hear his brethren nor the church should be to them as heathen and a publican.
Nor does it change the matter for them that the Master says the field is the
world, and the harvest is the end of the world. Some way they have fixed it in
their minds that the kingdom and the church are the same, and therefore the
field is not the world, but the church. It is strange that they do not see that
Christ is Ruler of the kings of the earth, and that all authority in heaven and
earth was given into His hands. The rest of the parables spoken at the time that
Jesus was in the boat at Capernaum, are easily explained as similes or
similitudes. They differ from what we now denominate a parable, in that they are
not stories, but statements of truth or fact, with which statement the unknown
truth is compared. But of this in its own place. The parable of the great supper
(Luk 14:16-24) has several points to present to the mind: (1) The greatness of
the feast being prepared. (2) The unreasonableness of apologies that were made
for not attending it. (3) The ease with which all could attend. (4) The sin of
slighting honor and favor, and the punishment that would come to such persons.
(5) And that the places that had been reserved for those first bidden would be
given to others who would accept. Of course it is easy to see that the Jews had
been favored with this first invitation, and that, refusing it, they would be
cast aside, to make room for those who would receive an invitation as a great
honor. The parable in Luk 16:19-31, of the rich man and the poor man, has been
made to mean almost everything within the range of theological speculation. And
yet, if one will turn and read Luk 16:14, it will be easily seen that it was for
the purpose of showing them the results of wealth on the mind that would yield
to its influence and control. The Master had said that it was impossible to
serve God and Mammon both; but there were wealthy Pharisees present who derided
Him. To show the result of the course they preferred, the parable is recited:

Now there was a certain rich man, and he was clothed in purple and fine linen,
faring sumptuously every day: and a certain beggar named Lazarus was laid at his
gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs that fell from the
rich man’s table; yea, even the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to
pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into
Abraham’s bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in hades he
lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus
in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for
I am in anguish in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy
lifetime receivedst thy good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things: but
now here he is comforted, and thou art in anguish. And beside all this, between
us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they which would pass from hence to
you may not be able, and that none may cross over from thence to us. And he
said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s
house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also
come into this place of torment. But Abraham with, They have Moses and the
prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one go to
them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not
Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the
dead." No one asked that this parable should be explained. Its meaning was clear
to those to whom it was spoken. But modern theology is opposed to its teaching,
and it is doubtful, if the Saviour had explained it, if the interpretation would
be any better received.

Some have been heard to say, "It is nothing but a parable." Well, what of that?
It is not said to be a parable, and yet there is much evidence that it was. But
does that fact lessen the importance of its teaching?

Another way of removing the offensive truth is to say it refers to the Jews and
the Gentiles. But why say that? There has been no reference to any such a topic
in the connection--no evidence that the Master had these nationalities before
Him. Here are a few reasons why it can have no such meaning:

1. It was not stated, nor even hinted, as being any purpose in giving the
parable. There is neither statement before nor afterwards, that would lead to
such a conclusion; nor is there the slightest hint in the presentation of the
parable that it had that thought for them.

2. The purpose is clearly indicated, as before shown, to be to show the dangers
of wealth.

3. The Jews have never seen the Gentiles in a condition such that they regarded
them as in Abraham’s bosom and themselves shut out.

4. They have never believed themselves delivered over to torment.

5. They have never asked that the Gentiles should come to their relief by
administering comforts that were beyond their reach.

6. There has never been any impassable gulf fixed between these peoples, so that
one may not pass over to the other.

7. The Gentiles were never laid at the gate of the Jewish nation, asking crumbs
that were falling from their table.

8. Neither nation has gone into another state of being, or into non-existence,
as some critics would have death to signify.

9. If the Jewish nation had died, it would not have five brothers remaining yet
in the world, who might be warned against its fate.

10. To try this interpretation of the parable by removing the word and inserting
the definition, we would have nothing but nonsense made of the whole figure. If
rich man means Jewish nation, then remove rich man and insert Jewish nation; and
so for the beggar insert Gentile nation. Now read the parable, inserting these
definitions, and nothing but nonsense is left in it.

Then there is no reason for the interpretation, and every reason why it can not
be correct. The real import of the figure may be easily gathered by any one at
all interested in knowing the teaching of the Master:

1. It is not possible to serve two masters (Luk 16:13-14).

2. After death, the conditions can not be changed. If men are not in a safe
condition then, it will be impossible for them to be prayed out of that
purgatorial condition, or for any relief to come to them.

3. Praying to saints is of no value.

4. Men are expected to prepare to meet God by the light of the revelation which
He has furnished.

5. There are no warnings to come back to us from the Spirit land.

6. There is consciousness between death and the resurrection from the dead.

7. There is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection. This scene
is laid on a condition that comes after death. It was before the resurrection,
for there will be none on the earth to warn after the resurrection shall have
taken place. But someone will say that the eternal state of these men being
fixed, the judgment is passed with them, and therefore the resurrection, in
their cases, has been accomplished. This is not true. Lazarus going back would
be regarded as one going to them from the dead; and this could not be said of
any one in the resurrection state.

We have chosen to give this much space to this one parable, first, because of
its own worth; and second, because of the many wrong views that have been taken
of it. Many of the things to be gained from it have been taken for granted by
the Saviour. He uses the words of the Pharisees, and evidently in the same sense
in which they employed them. In Luk 18:1-74, we have two parables on the subject
of prayer. In that of the importunate widow we have perseverance in prayer
taught, and in the second, relating to the Pharisee and publican, the humility
necessary to acceptance before God. These are the only lessons contained in
them. The quality of the unjust judge in no way represents anything that is true
with God; and the parable was not instituted for that purpose, but simply to
show that men ought always to pray, and not to faint.

Jesus taught a young lawyer how to be neighbor by the use of the parable of the
good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37). We are not able to say if this case ever
occurred, nor do we care: the lesson is perfect. Having agreed that to love God
with all his heart and his neighbor as himself, were the duties of men, he
wished to excuse himself with a pretense of ignorance about who his neighbor
was. So the Master has a Jew, who was hated by all Samaritans, to fall among
robbers and to be left in need of help; and while the priest and the Levite
passed without noticing him, looking on the other side, the Samaritan took him
to an inn and paid his expenses. And, having presented the case, He said: "Go
and do likewise." There could be no question asked respecting the meaning of
this parable, for but one was possible--that the Samaritan was made to know that
the Jew was his neighbor, and that he must do him good. Hence, if this man will
love his neighbor as himself, he must do as that man did.

It would seem impossible for any one to misunderstand the parable of the good
Samaritan. And yet Bishop Heber has a sermonic exegesis of it in which the
traveller represents the human race; his leaving Jerusalem is made to symbolize
man’s departure from God; Jericho is the symbol for temptations; the robbers are
the devil and his angels; the priest signifies the sacrifices of the Old
Testament; the Levite represents the law of Moses, and the Samaritan typifies
the Saviour. And yet it is candidly asserted that the Bishop was a man of good
sense! I think he might have gone further, and made the inn represent the church
of Christ; the oil and the wine the blood of the atonement and the gift of the
Holy Spirit; the two pieces of money the two ordinances left till the Saviour
shall come again; and the promised return of this man, to stand for the second
coming of the Saviour to the world. Then it would be too bad to leave out the
ass on which the man had ridden. The beast. might symbolize the feeling of
self-sufficiency on which the world rides away from God. But the time is coming
when such vagaries and conceits will not form any part of the culture or genius
necessary to the ministry. It is high time that we were done with such
foolishness. And yet almost every figure of the whole Bible has been rendered
about as ludicrous as this, by some one who was regarded as brilliant. The
parable of the Saviour concerning the feature of rewards in the kingdom of
heaven (Mat 20:1-16), has suffered more from interpretation than did the woman
with an issue of blood from the physicians during a period of twelve years.
There was never any reason for all this, except that men have wished to find
some apology for delinquency, or to exhibit skill in exegesis possessed by no
one else. This householder went out in the first, hour, and in the third hour;
also the sixth, ninth, and the eleventh. Each time he found men waiting for some
one to employ them. In the evening he had his steward to pay them all alike--a
penny.

Many have seen in this parable that the Lord is holding out encouragement for
those who come late in life to begin in the service of the Lord. They have
lived, perhaps, in the light and blaze of Christian truth, and now, when the
dying hour has come, and they have no further strength with which to serve the
devil, they repent, and are to be preached into the highest heavens, because
there were some contortions when they came face to face with death.

Others have shown skill in the work of interpretation by supposing that the Lord
referred to different ages of the world by the several hours at which servants
were employed. For instance, the Lord employed men in the Adamic period; then in
the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses, John, Jesus. If this arrangement does not suit
the particular fancy, then some other can be fixed upon that will show an equal
amount of dexterity. It is not interpretation, however, but injection. Nothing
like either of these was in the mind of the Master. The chapter begins with:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like." Its beginning word is the sign of a logical
conclusion, and hence the parable that follows is to illustrate a statement
already made. Turning to the last verse of the previous chapter, and the remark
that needs to be carried out is: "But many shall be last that are first; and
first that are last." And then, when the parable has been recited, that point is
supposed to have been gained, for He says: "So the last shall be first, and the
first last" (Mat 20:16). By reference to the previous chapter, and the
twenty-seventh verse, the reason for the remark appears to be the danger of
Peter, and, perhaps, others of His early disciples, taking too much glory to
themselves. He said, "We have left all, to follow thee." The Master says that
all who had left houses, etc., to follow Him, should be rewarded; but it is not
a question of having had first opportunities to know Him, for all those who
would unite their fortunes with Him should receive the same reward. There is no
thought about any being acceptable to God who had wasted their lives in the
service of the enemy, when they had a chance to know the will of the Saviour;
nor is there the slightest reference to the different ages of the world. The
parable is beautiful, when employed as the Master gave it. The parable of the
ten virgins is one of the clearest in all the New Testament. Its one point--the
need of watchfulness, in view of the coming of the Lord--is apparent to every
reader. And yet this parable has suffered much from over-interpretation. Men
have seen that the Lord will come when the world will be indifferent, or sound
asleep--it is midnight; that He will come with a crowd of attendants--or with
all His holy angels; that the supply of the Holy Spirit will be wanting with
those who do not renew frequently. Some have found that all the virgins slept
before the Lord’s coming, and therefore He must refer them to the time of the
resurrection of the dead. But all of this is a work of supererogation. The whole
thought of the figure is that they should always be ready; for the Lord will
come at a time when men do not expect Him, and they must be ready to enter with
Him, or they will not be able to enter at all. There will be no opportunity to
prepare then for entering into the wedding. The parable of the unjust steward
(Luk 16:1-13), has, perhaps, given more difficulty to critics and commentators
than any other. Many strange translations have been proposed, to get rid of the
imaginary troubles of the figure. It is maintained by some that the rendering
generally given makes the Saviour recommend the dishonesty and theft of this
man; whereas, instead of being held up as a model, he ought to be regarded as
the most arrant of knaves. Hence, instead of the common translation of Luk 16:9,
"Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness," it should read,
"Make to yourselves friends without the mammon of unrighteousness." They think
that it was the Saviour’s purpose to direct them to do just the opposite of what
this wicked steward did: he made friends with money, or wealth, and they should
make friends without it. And this thought is supposed to be enforced by the fact
that He said this to His disciples, who were without this mammon.

I shall not stop to criticise the translation proposed, but suppose that the
language may be so rendered. The way to settle the question is not, however, by
the possibilities of translation. The Lord never presented a figure that He made
to depend upon any renditional gymnastics. The truth is much easier than that.
When we learn that there may be many things in a parable that are merely
incidental, and are no part of the lesson to be learned, we will be ready to
search, first of all, for the purpose for which the figure was employed.
Learning this, the interpretation will be easy. No one can suppose, for a
moment, that the Saviour had in His mind any sanction for the robbery
perpetrated by this man (Luk 16:11-13). Several questions need to be settled, in
order to assure ourselves that we know exactly the purpose of the parable: Who
constituted His hearers?--It will be answered, "His disciples." But who are
meant by that term? From the word "also" (1), we suppose it to be the crowd that
He had addressed in the previous chapter. And we know that they are a mixed
assembly--publicans and sinners, Pharisees and scribes. We learn from Luk 16:14,
that these Pharisees were lovers of money, and that they heard this parable, and
scoffed at Him for speaking it. Hence, if the word disciple must be limited to
the apostles, yet it remains a fact that, as the sermon on the mount was
delivered in the hearing of the multitude, and much of it for the multitude, so
it was in this case. And yet it is more probable that Luke uses the term to
indicate no more than those who were learning of Him at that time. These
publicans were very much in need of something on the money question that would
check their avarice and theft. It is seen that the Pharisees were in no better
condition.

What did He intend to accomplish by the parable?--They understood Him to condemn
them for giving their hearts and lives in the acquisition of wealth. The closing
of this parable and the institution of the next (Luk 16:19-31), show that such
was His purpose.

Where, then, is the lesson?--The wisdom of using the things of this life that we
may have a home provided in the life that is to come. The Saviour does not
commend the wrong that the steward did, but the wisdom of looking ahead far
enough to secure a home when he should be cast out of this one. Hence they were
not to be so wedded to their money that they would fail to make a good use of
it; and to give their hearts to its acquisition would prevent that service of
God which would be necessary to secure for them a home beyond this life. The
seven parables of Balaam are difficult, because they are not what we call
parables. There are in them similes, similitudes, and clear prophetic
statements. See Num 23:7-10, Num 23:18-24; Num 24:3-9, Num 24:15-19; Num
20:21-25. Each time it is said in the beginning that Balaam "took up his
parable." I understand this to mean, he spoke by inspiration in figurative
language. Some of these are beautiful similes, but there is not what we now
denominate a parable.

There are a number of parables in the New Testament that will be treated under
the head of similes, because they belong in that line of figure. As we said
before, they had but few figures, or but few names for figures of speech in
Bible terms. We have now separated these, and given to them names by which we
can understand definitely just what we have to deal with. There are also many
parables which we have not mentioned; they are in the order in which parables
are presented, but we have not the space to devote to them. Besides, there will
not be found any difficulty in their interpretation.

SEC. 54. THE FABLE.--This is often confounded with the parable. Yet there is a
clear distinction. Webster says of a fable:

"1. A feigned story or tale; a fictitious narration, intended to enforce some
useful truth or precept; an apologue.

"’Jotham’s fable of the trees is the oldest extant, and as beautiful as any made
since.’--ADDISON.

"2. The plot, or connected series of events, forming the subject of an epic or
dramatic poem.

"’The moral is the first business of the poet: this being formed, he contrives
such a design or fable as may be most suitable to the moral.’--DRYDEN.

"3. Fiction; untruth; falsehood.

"’It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away a great
fortune by secret methods.’"--ADDISON.

If we take the fables of Æsop as a guide, a fable is an illustration made by
attributing human qualities to animate and inanimate beings. The truth or moral
to be enforced may be of a very high order, but the actors are selected from
those beings which are incompetent to do such things. Like a parable, it is put
into a form of a story; but unlike the parable, its actors are unreal, while the
parable is made from the actual occurrences of life, and no one is made to act a
fictitious part. The fable is better suited to indicate some blunder made by
men, and to serve the purpose of amusing criticism, than to illustrate any high
moral truth. Hence it is little used in the Scriptures.

"And all the men of Shechem assembled themselves together, and all the house of
Millo, and went and made Abimelech king by the oak of the pillar that was in
Shechem. And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of Mount
Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto
me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you. The trees went forth on a
time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou
over us. But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith
by me they honor God and man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? And the
trees said to the fig tree, Come thou and reign over us. But the fig tree said
unto them, Should I leave my sweetness, and my good fruit, and go to wave to and
fro over the trees? And the trees said unto the vine, Come thou, and reign over
us. And the vine said unto them, Should I leave my wine, which cheereth God and
man, and go to wave to and fro over the trees? Then said all the trees unto the
bramble, Come thou, and reign over us. And the bramble said unto the trees, If
in truth ye anoint me king over you, then come and put your trust in my shadow;
and if not, let fire come out of the bramble, and devour the cedars of Lebanon.
Now therefore, if ye have dealt truly and uprightly, in that ye have made
Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have
done unto him according to the deserving of his hands: (for my father fought for
you, and adventured his life, and delivered you out of the hand of Midian: and
ye are risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons,
threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of
his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother:) if
ye then have dealt truly and uprightly with Jerubbaal and with his house this
day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: but if not,
let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house
of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo,
and devour Abimelech. And Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt
there, for fear of Abimelech his brother" (Jdg 9:6-21). The criticism of this
fable was not only good for that time, but it is yet a fine illustration of the
way of the world. Those least competent and worthy are most ready to assume
responsibilities and take command.

We have a fairly well constructed fable in 2Ki 14:8-10 :

"Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash, the son of Jehoahaz son of Jehu, king
of Israel, saying, Come, let us look one another in the face. And Jehoash the
king of Israel sent to Ammazíah king of Judah, saying, The thistle that was in
Lebanon sent to the cedar that was in Lebanon, saying, Give thy daughter to my
son to wife: and there passed by a wild beast that was in Lebanon, and trode
down the thistle. Thou hast indeed smitten Edom, and thine heart hath lifted
thee up: glory thereof, and abide at home; for why shouldest thou meddle to thy
hurt, that thou shouldest fall, even thou, and Judah with thee?" The criticism
intended by this fable is easily reached. Amaziah had hired an army of
Israelites to assist him against Edom, but the Lord refused to let them go with
the Jews. So he paid them, and sent them home. But they were angry, and injured
the people of the Jews on their return. Amaziah was successful against the
Edomites, and then adopted their idolatry. When he returned, he asked that the
matter of bad faith be settled between the armies of the Jews and the
Israelites. This brought the reply from Jehoash in the form of a fable.

SEC. 55. SIMILE.--Webster defines it.

"A word or phrase by which anything is likened in one of its aspects to another;
a similitude; a poetical or imaginative comparison.

"’A good swift simile, but something currish.’"--SHAKESPEARE. A few examples
will suffice for this figure of speech:

"And it shall be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he
awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold,
he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold he is faint, and his soul hath
appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount
Zion" (Isa 29:8).

Nothing need be said about this simile respecting its import. The prophet
explains it. The nations that will come against mount Zion, while they will
dream of getting spoil, will be mistaken, This has particular reference to the
coming of Sennacherib, of Assyria, who should gather much spoil from the land of
the Jews, and then, the night before he should expect to have Jerusalem in his
power, would have nearly all his men destroyed in the night by the angel of the
Lord.

"For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not
thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth
seed to the sower and bread to the eater; so shall my word be that goeth forth
out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that
which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Isa
55:10-11).

It should be noticed that this is said concerning the promises of Jehovah. What
He has offered to those who love to do His will, He will give them. To show His
faithfulness in this respect, He presents them with His work for the good of the
race in the sowing and gathering of grain. God fulfills His part; and yet if man
does not fulfill his part, there will be no harvest. To those who will trust the
Lord according to His word, there shall be no disappointment.

"And the daughter of Zion is left as a booth in a vineyard, as a lodge in a
garden of cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the Lord of Hosts had left unto
us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, we should have been like
unto Gomorrah" (Isa 1:8-9). This simile is a very strong one, as the comparison
is vivid. A booth in a vineyard or a lodge in a garden of cucumbers would not be
expected to be very enduring; a besieged city would certainly be in great danger
of destruction; indeed, if it had not been that there was a seed of those who
did good and followed God, they would have been ruined before that time, and
that as utterly as Sodom and Gomorrah.

"Lest my fury go forth like fire, and burn that none can quench it, because of
the evil of your doings" (Jer 4:4).

"And the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods" (Dan 3:25).

"And he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him" (Mat
3:16).

"They are like unto children that sit in the market place, and call one to
another; which say, We piped unto you, and ye did not dance; we wailed, and ye
did not weep" (Luk 7:32).

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited
sepulchers, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead
men’s bones, and of all uncleanness" (Mat 23:27).

"All we like sheep have gone astray; . . . as a lamb that is led to the
slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb: yea, he opened not
his mouth" (Isa 53:6-7).

"And when ye pray, ye shall not be as the hypocrites" (Mat 6:5). The simile
always furnishes the means of a comparison by a statement, not a story. It also
contains the sign of that comparison. It is plainer than the metaphor, on that
account; the metaphor makes the comparison by mentioning the one when you know
the other is meant, because of some feature or features in the thing referred to
that are like the thing that is mentioned. In many popular works these figures
are used interchangeably. But they are more easily explained when properly
defined.

SEC. 56. THE SIMILITUDE.--This is a drawn-out or prolonged simile. It differs
from an allegory, in that it is constituted of similes, and not of metaphors. It
differs from the parable, in that it is made from statements, but is not woven
into a story. The similitude frequently contains its own explanation. An
allegory is frequently followed by an exposition. So are parables. We have a
number of parables in the New Testament which, in the form we have them, are
properly denominated similitudes. They may have been presented in the parable
form, but, if so, they have been reduced to the form of statement, and are not
parables as we have them. This should not excite any wonder, as they did not
define figures of speech as we do. In Luk 4:23, we have the word parable, where,
in our custom, it should be proverb. Indeed it is so rendered in the Common
Version. Jesus says: "Doubtless ye will say unto me this parable: Physician,
heal thyself." Of course that is not a parable, in the sense in which we use the
term. It also occurs in Heb 9:9; Heb 11:19, and in the Common Version is
rendered "figure." In many other places we have been so long accustomed to
calling them parables, that it is like sacrilege to us to have them called
anything else. And yet there is no name given to them in the Scriptures.

"Every one therefore which heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be
likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock: and the rain
descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house;
and it fell not: for it was founded upon the rock. And everyone that heareth
these words of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man,
which built his house upon the sand: and the rains descended, and the floods
came, and the winds blew, and smote upon that house; and it fell: and great was
the fall thereof" (Mat 7:24-27).

Here the comparison is clear, by means of this double simile or similitude. It
would have been a parable if the same thought had been put into the form of a
story, and exhibited in that way.

"And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the
earth; and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up
and grow, he knoweth not how. The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the
blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe,
straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come" (Mark
4:26-29).

This, again, is called a parable; but if our definitions are correct, it is a
similitude.

What is usually called the parable of the lamp (Mat 4:21-22), is properly a
metaphor. This, however, will be seen under that figure of speech.

"Suffer hardship with me, as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on
service entangleth himself in the affairs of this life; that he may please him
who enrolled him as a soldier. And if also a man contend in the games, he is not
crowned, except he have contended lawfully. The husbandman that laboreth must be
the first to partake of the fruits. Consider what I say; for the Lord shall give
thee understanding in all things" (2Ti 2:3-7).

Part of this has the exact form of the metaphor, but it contains the likeness or
sign of comparison, and therefore must be catalogued as a similitude.

Many of the Psalms are in the form of similitude. It was a favorite form of
expression with the writer. We are sorely tempted to give a number of these, but
we must desist for lack of space.

"Hide not thy face from me in the day of my distress Incline thine ear unto me;
In the day when I call answer me speedily. For my days consume away like smoke,
And my bones are burned as a firebrand, My heart is smitten like grass, and
withered; For I forget to eat my bread. By reason of the voice of my groaning My
bones cleave to my flesh. I am like a pelican of the wilderness; I am become as
an owl of the waste places. I watch, and am become Like a sparrow that is alone
upon the housetop. Mine enemies reproach me all the day; They that are mad
against me do curse by me For I have eaten ashes like bread, And mingled my
drink with weeping, Because of thine indignation and thy wrath For thou hast
taken me up, and cast me away. My days are like a shadow that declineth; And I
am withered like grass" (Psa 102:2-11).

Here we have a goodly number of similes for the purpose of expressing the
condition of the writer. He was weak, short-lived, hated by many, and under the
wrath of God. But to put it in that form would not do for an Oriental. He must
have something stronger and more vivid. A beautiful similitude is found in Psa
90:4-6 :

"For a thousand years in thy sight Are but as yesterday when it is past, And as
a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a
sleep In the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it
flourisheth, and groweth up; In the evening it is cut down, and withereth." This
song is supposed to have been composed by Moses, and gives forth his thought
respecting the shortness of human life. God’s years shall not fail, but the time
allotted to man is but "as a watch in the night."

SEC. 57. THE METAPHOR.--This is from the two Greek words, meta, beyond, over,
and pherein, to bring, to carry. Webster says of it: "A short similitude; a
similitude reduced to a single word; or a word expressing similitude without the
signs of comparison. Thus, ’that man is a fox,’ is a metaphor; but ’that man is
like a fox,’ is a simile, similitude, or comparison." The metaphor is briefer
and more pungent than the simile. On that account it was more frequently used by
the ancients. It presents characteristics by the means of a representative of
the thought that is intended to be conveyed, by calling one thing by another
term which denotes the characteristic which is to be made prominent. The simile
gently says that is like it; the metaphor says it is it. "I will devour them
like a lion" (Hos 13:8), is a simile; "Judah is a lion’s whelp" (Gen 40:9), is a
metaphor. The Bible is full of metaphors, and yet we must not now offer many.
But we must have enough, that we may understand the allegory.

"In that very hour there came certain Pharisees, saying to him, Get thee out,
and go hence: for Herod would fain kill thee. And he said unto them, Go and say
to that fox, Behold I cast out devils and perform cures to-day and to-morrow,
and the third day I am perfected" (Luk 13:31-32).

If He had said, "Go tell that man that is like a fox," it would have been a
simile, but it would have lacked its force. In Jer 2:13, we have two metaphors,
one by which God would be understood in His providential and benevolent
character, and the other to indicate the condition into which Israel had come by
forsaking His service:

"For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of
living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no
water." In the song that Moses taught to the children of Israel, God presents
His willingness to destroy the wicked, by the use of the metaphor (Deu 32:42):

"I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, And my sword shall devour flesh; With
the blood of the slain and the captives, From the head of the leaders of the
enemy." When the Saviour gave the institution of the supper, He did it in the
most beautiful of metaphorical language (Mat 26:26-28):

"And 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 shed for many unto the remission of sins."

Paul presents this thought without the use of the metaphor (1Co 10:16):

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a communion of the blood of
Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a communion of the body of Christ?"
But in 1Co 10:23-25 he employs the same figure that the Lord did in instituting
it. This shows that they regarded the one form of expression as containing the
same as the other. To say this is the communion of the body and blood of Christ,
is metonymy of the agent; to say that these are like the body and blood, would
be a simile, but the beauty and strength would have been removed in that way;
hence the Master chose the form of the metaphor as the most expressive. In John
6:32-65 is the finest collection of metaphors to be found anywhere. Some deal
with this chapter as they do with the institution of the supper, in a spirit of
legalism, as if the Master had been delivering a lecture on chemistry--and in
that way rob themselves of the thought and sweetness of the teaching. There were
those present on that occasion that did the same thing, and hence thought He had
given them some very hard sayings. They were about as low-minded as the
Samaritan woman, reported in John iv. Whosoever would drink of the water he
would give, would never thirst, made her wish for that water, so that she would
not have to come there and draw. And when the Saviour told the disciples that He
had bread to eat they knew not of, they said, "Hath any man brought him aught to
eat?" So they failed, about as signally as did the woman, to catch the meaning
of His words. They did this again when they were on their way to Cæsarea
Philippi (Mat 16:1-28). They had forgotten to take bread, and in His teaching He
said to them, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees;" and they
regarded it as a rebuke, for not having provided bread. John seemed to
understand this style of speech better than any of the other disciples, and
therefore has made more frequent use of the Saviour’s metaphors. John 2:19,
"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," had a meaning which
the Jews pretended not to understand. John 7:37-38, is so full of beauty and
strength that John explains it, lest some would not be able to understand it:

"Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying,
If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as
the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water."

It would be as reasonable to interpret this literally as Mat 26:26-28, or the
many figures of John 6:1-71.

"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith
shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out and
trodden under foot of men. Ye are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
can not be hid. Neither do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on
the stand; and it shineth unto all that are in the house. Even so let your light
shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father
which is in heaven" (Mat 5:13-16).

They were not said to be like salt, nor to have the qualities of light, or be in
view of the world as a city on a hill, but they were all these.

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out the old
leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover
also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: wherefore, let us keep the feast, not
with old, leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the
unleavened bread of sincerity and truth" (1Co 5:6-8). In a church like that at
Corinth, a man living with his father’s wife would have a bad influence--so
corrupting that ruin would be almost sure to follow. Start a social disorder of
that nature, and the church will come to nothing unless the evil is removed very
soon. It works like leaven, till it overcomes the entire body. In Eph 3:18, the
love of Christ is presented by breadth and length, and height and depth, as if
ii were something that might be weighed--measured with a yard-stick. This
metaphor is difficult to explain, and yet it is understood by every one. All
know that Paul meant to say that it is more profound than man can comprehend.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born anew, he can not see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, 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 answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man
be born of water and the Spirit, he can not enter into the kingdom of God" (John
3:3-5).

If Jesus had said that a man must pass through a process that is like a birth,
it would have been a simile; but the form of expression here used is that of the
metaphor--a man must be born again. The metaphor employed by Paul twice (Rom
6:3-4, and Col 2:12):

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith
in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." "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."
In one respect, the latter of these quotations has the feature of a simile, but
on the whole it is better explained by the use of the metaphor. The burial was
not literal--they could not have been entombed with the Saviour. It was
therefore only in the likeness of that occurrence. If the sign of that likeness
had been used, it would have been a simile; but the burial stated, it has the
form of the metaphor.

Metaphors are frequently taken from the characteristics of animals.

"Issachar is a strong ass, Couching down between the sheepfolds: And he saw a
resting place that it was good, And the land that it was pleasant; And he bowed
his shoulder to bear, And became a servant under taskwork" (Gen 49:14-15).

Here the characteristics of the ass are ascribed to Issachar. If it had been
said that he should be like an ass, in that he would be satisfied with plenty to
eat and be willing to bear the burden placed upon him, then it would have been a
simile; but the metaphor presents the thought in a more rugged way--"Issachar is
a strong ass."

Gen 49:16-17, is a beautiful metaphor:

"Dan shall judge his people, As one of the tribes of Israel. Dan shall be a
serpent in the way, An adder in the path, That biteth the horses’ heels, So that
his rider falleth backward." A play is first made on the word Dan, which means a
judge; and then the character of the man and the tribe is given by the serpent
which he is said to be.

"Gad, a troop shall press upon him: But he shall press upon their heel" (Gen
49:19).

Here, again, a play is made upon the word Gad, which means a troop; and then the
characteristics of the Gileadites come to view in this metaphor.

"Naphtali is a hind let loose" (Gen 49:21). This is very expressive. In his
history, or that of his descendants, he has more running to do than any other of
the tribes. Stationed at the northeast of their territory, and most of the
attacks on the land coming from that direction, they affected the tribe of
Naphtali. He is first to be carried away, on that account.

"Benjamin is a wolf that ravineth In the morning he shall devour the prey, And
at even he shall divide the spoil" (Gen 49:27). In this way Christ is called a
husband (2Co 11:2). He is the lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the
world, and also the lion of the tribe of Judah.

All animate and inanimate creation has been put under tribute by this figure to
represent God and his people, and also the enemies of the race. Christ is a
vine, a shepherd, a door, a rock, a fountain, a servant, and the Captain of our
salvation. God is spoken of as having ears and eyes, and hands and feet, and
hinder parts; as hating, being jealous, divorcing Israel, and permitting his
wife to return again, after she had played the harlot. Thus by the use of the
metaphor vivid description is given, that all may understand.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 13: 01.09A.   VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (2)
========================================================================

SEC. 58. THE ALLEGORY.--This word comes from allos, other, and agoreuein, to
speak in the assembly, to harangue. Webster says:

"A figurative sentence or discourse, in which the principal subject is described
by another subject resembling it in its properties and circumstances. The
principal subject is thus kept out of view, and we are left to collect the
intentions of the writer or speaker by the resemblance of the secondary to the
primary subject."

"The distinction in Scripture between a parable and an allegory is said to be,
that a parable is a supposed history, and an allegory a figurative application
of real facts. An allegory is called a continued metaphor. Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s
Progress, and Spenser’s Faery Queen are celebrated examples of the allegory." In
Hart’s Rhetoric, page 167, the figures mentioned are shown in their relation to
each other:

"Difference between Allegory and Metaphor.--Allegory differs from Metaphor in
two respects. First, it is carried out into a greater variety of particulars,
making usually a complete and connected story. Secondly, it suppresses all
mention of the principal subject, leaving us to infer the writer’s intention
from the resemblance of the narrative, or of the description to the principal
subject.

"Points in common.--Allegory, Metaphor, and Simile have this in common, that
they are all founded in resemblance, there being in each case two subjects, a
primary and secondary, having certain points of likeness. In Simile, this
resemblance is expressed in form, as when it is said, ’Israel is like a vine
brought from Egypt, and planted in Palestine.’ In Metaphor the formal comparison
is dropped, as when it is said, ’Israel is a vine brought from Egypt,’ etc. In
Allegory, both the formal comparison and the principal subject are dropped, and
the secondary subject is described by itself, leaving the application entirely
to the imagination of the reader, as when it is said, ’God brought a vine out of
Egypt and planted it in Palestine.’ The reader knows that by vine is meant God’s
people, Israel. Yet Israel is not once mentioned, and there is neither metaphor
nor simile, though there is likeness.

"This Allegory occurs in Psa 80:1-19, and is as follows:

"’Thou broughtest a vine out of Egypt: Thou didst drive out the nations, and
plantedst it. Thou preparedst room before it. And it took deep root, and filled
the land. The mountains were covered with the shadows of it, And the boughs
thereof were like cedars of God. She sent out her branches unto the sea, And her
shoots unto the River. Why hast thou broken down her fences, So that all they
which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth ravage it, And
the wild beasts of the field feed on it."

I do not agree with this author in the supposition that an allegory can be
constructed and yet no metaphor be employed. In the illustration from the Psalm,
there are a number of metaphors. Indeed the allegory stands to the metaphor as
the similitude or the parable does to the simile. It is made by arranging
metaphors into a story, or statement of fact, or secondary subject, by which the
primary is to be understood. In a work on Composition and Rhetoric, by
Quackenbos, page 248, is found a very direct statement:

"It will be seen that an allegory is a combination of kindred metaphors so
connected in sense as to form a kind of story. The parables of Scripture, as
well as fables that point a moral, are varieties of this figure. Sometimes an
allegory is so extended as to fill a volume; as in the case of Bunyan’s
Pilgrim’s Progress." This statement is satisfactory, except that it is not quite
correct to say that a parable is constructed of kindred metaphors. The truth is,
metaphors are not used in the construction of parables. The remark, however,
comes from a want of clear views as to the difference between a parable and a
fable.

Mr. Terry, in his work on Biblical Hermeneutics, says:

"An allegory is usually defined as an extended metaphor. It bears the same
relation to the parable which the metaphor does to the simile. In a parable
there is either some formal comparison introduced, as ’the kingdom of heaven is
like a grain of mustard seed,’ or else the imagery is so presented as to be kept
distinct from the thing signified, and to require an explanation outside of
itself, as in the case of the parable of the sower. . . . The allegory contains
its interpretation within itself, and the thing signified is identified with the
image, as, ’I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman’ (John 15:1);
’Ye are the salt of the earth’ (Mat 5:13). The allegory is a figurative use and
application of some supposable fact of history. The parable uses words in their
sense, and its narrative never transgresses the limits of what might have been
an actual fact. The allegory is continually using words in a metaphorical sense
and its narrative, however supposable in itself, is manifestly fictitious."

Most allegories are simple, that is, they are for a single purpose and have but
one line of metaphorical representation in order to the presentation of the
thought. But some of them are double, or, they are in the form of antithesis;
there are two lines of metaphors, for the purpose of presenting two lines of
thought, and these two lines of thought are put in the form of antithesis, one
is set over against the other. Paul is more given to this kind of allegorical
illustration than any other writer in the Scriptures.

"Or ever the sun, and the light, and the moon, and the stars, be darkened, and
the clouds return after the rain: in the day when the keepers of the house shall
tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because
they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened, and the doors
shall be shut in the street; when the sound of the grinding is low, and one
shall rise up at the voice of a bird, and all the daughters of music shall be
brought low; yea, they shall be afraid of that which is high, and terrors shall
be in the way; and the almond tree shall blossom, and the grasshopper shall be a
burden, and the caper-berry shall fail" (Ecc 12:2-6). In this way Solomon would
exhort young men to seek after the Lord before the time of age comes on, when
the weaknesses and fears of old age shall be realized. Here is a splendid list
of metaphors, in which the light stands for the hope of youth; and the clouds
returning after the rain, the dubiety of age. The keepers of the house are the
arms as they are the defenders of a man, and the strong men are the legs, which
are not now competent to bear him around as before. The grinders (teeth) are few
and the doors (lips) close because there are no teeth now to hold the jaws
apart. These grinders make but a feeble impression on their work, and the eyes
are looking as if through a glass darkly. Every noise now startles him, and the
slightest weight is a burden. He finds no pleasure in the sense of taste as he
once did, and even the caper-berry fails to give him appetite. The hair is
white, giving the old man the appearance of the almond tree, for soon shall the
silver thread of life be snapped, and all the vitality of life poured out as the
golden bowl, broken at the cistern. When Jesus was at the house of Matthew, they
came to Him with the question as to why His disciples did not fast, and
insinuated that they were somewhat disorderly in that they did not keep the
customs of the people. The Master responds by the use of an allegory. See Mat
9:16,

"And no man putteth a piece of undressed cloth upon an old garment; for that
which should fill it up, taketh from the garment, and a worse rent is made.
Neither do men, put new wine into old wine-skins: else the skins burst, and the
wine is spilled, and the skins perish: but they put new wine into fresh
wine-skins, and both are preserved." In this, Jesus recognizes the propriety of
clothing religious thoughts and convictions with appropriate forms. But fasting
was a symbol of grief, and as they could not be sorry while He was with them, it
was impossible for them to fast without acting a lie. And as to their paying any
attention to the forms and customs which they kept, it would not be appropriate
for them to do so. His teaching was new and the old forms in which their
convictions might find protection, would not be sufficient to retain the new
wine of truth that He was furnishing to the world. Hence He would have to give
to them such forms and rites as would be appropriate to the truth He was then
giving them.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles
of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the
principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness,
against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Wherefore take
up the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day,
and, having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your loins with
truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your
feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; withal taking up the shield of
faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the evil one.
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word
of God" (Eph 6:11-17). This is Paul’s description of the defensive armor, of the
Christian’s means of defense. It is one of the easiest allegories in the
Scriptures to interpret. The foes are clearly announced and their manner of
warfare was well understood. Only one set of foes were out of sight; the
spiritual hosts. Still with the needed preparation, they should not fear. Let
them be righteous, think, and speak, and live the truth, filling their hearts
and their minds with the hope of salvation in Christ, and walking in the
commandments of the Lord, and the darts of the enemy and missiles from ambush
would do them no harm. The false teaching and the influences of wicked men would
not harm them.

I will cite a few double allegories--those in which there are two lines of
thought., one put over against the other. These are difficult of interpretation,
from the fact that they have twice as much in themselves for the mind of the
interpreter to deal with, and also when we have the two lines of thought, we
have yet to find the purpose of the comparison. Fortunately, however, for us in
the allegories of the apostle Paul, he has let us into the secret, and told us
what he wished to accomplish by the figures:

"For if the casting away of them is the reconciling of the world, what shall the
receiving of them be, but life from the dead? And if the firstfruit is holy, so
is the lump: and if the root is holy, so are the branches. But if some of the
branches were broken off, and thou, being a wild olive, wast grafted in among
them, and didst become partaker with them of the root and the fatness of the
olive tree; glory not over the branches: but if thou gloriest, it is not thou
that bearest the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, Branches were
broken off, that I might be grafted in. Well; by their unbelief they were broken
off, and thou standest by thy faith. Be not highminded, but fear: for if God
spared not the natural branches, neither will he spare thee. Behold then the
goodness and severity of God: toward them that fell, severity; but toward thee,
God’s goodness, if thou continue in His goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be
cut off. And they also, if they continue not in their unbelief, shall be grafted
in: for God is able to graft them in again. For if thou wast cut out of that
which is by nature a wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to nature into a
good olive tree: how much more shall these, which are the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive tree" (Rom 11:15-24)? This allegory has given more
trouble to exegetes than any other in the Bible, and it should certainly be
managed with care. A number of the rules for the interpretation of figurative
language will be demanded, that all possibilities for mistake shall be avoided:

1. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Rom 11:1).

2. But he was a Jew, of the tribe of Benjamin (Rom 11:1).

3. God had not cast off His people whom he foreknew (Rom 11:2).

4. For many of them remained faithful to God (Rom 11:2-5).

5. But for Israel to be saved, the dependence must be upon grace, not the deeds
of the law (Rom 11:6-7).

6. Those who had depended upon this scheme of salvation by grace had found it
(Rom 11:7).

7. Those who refused that grace, had been blinded and hardened by that refusal
(Rom 11:7-10).

8. But the whole nation had not been cast away, nor had they stumbled so as to
fall, and not rise again.

9. By the temporary fall of Israel, salvation had been secured for the Gentiles.

10. If their fall had been the enriching of the world, their rising would be
much more fruitful of good results (Rom 11:11-12).

11. Paul hoped to stimulate them to thought and action by presenting to his
people the glory conferred on the Gentiles through the acceptance of the Messiah
(Rom 11:13-14).

12. Those who had failed to retain the favor of God, had failed through
unbelief.

13. The Gentiles had succeeded by faith.

14. Hence, if the Gentiles did not continue in faith, they would be cast off.

15. If the Jews should not abide in unbelief, they would be returned to the
favor of God.

16. It was much more reasonable, then, to suppose that the great mass of the
Jews would, in the future, turn and accept the Saviour, their own Messiah, than
to have expected that the Gentiles would do.

17. Then (Rom 11:25-32) Paul argues that the Jews will finally accept the
Messiah. Hence we now see that his allegory was a part of his argument to show
that the Jews will finally turn to the Lord and be saved; and that when they do
turn and accept of their Messiah, it will be like a resurrection from the dead.

18. The tame olive tree represents the Jews in a state of favor.

19. The wild olive tree certainly stands for the Gentiles, at a time when they
did not know God.

20. The only difference, therefore, between the wild and the tame olive trees is
a difference in culture and favor.

21. Hence, when the Jews were broken off, they were separated from their former
condition of culture and favor.

22. The first fruit, and the root, are figures of the same thought, and were
presented to show that God had not cast off Israel as a people. The only thing
in their history that would prove that, was not what Abraham had done, or what
he had been, but the fact that some of the Jews had accepted of Christ, and were
saved. Hence these were the first fruit, or the wave loaf that was offered on
the Pentecost, which, being accepted, the whole harvest might be eaten.

23. The Gentiles were then to know that the Jews had not been sundered by an act
of the Almighty, but those who had failed had done so for the want of personally
accepting of the Messiah, and that they were all, therefore, on an equality: any
Jew might be saved, and any Gentile be lost; on both sides, it would depend upon
personal faith and obedience to the will of the Saviour. In the interpretation
of this allegory, many more things are put into it than Paul ever thought of.
They go to work to find a full grown tree, trunk and bark, and root, and then to
demand something to answer in the place of every feature of a tree. This is the
way that parables and types are interpreted to death. Nothing is said about
Abraham, nothing about the trunk of the tree, nothing about the tree being a
church. Every bit of it has to be injected into the passage. Indeed, if the tame
olive tree meant church, the wild olive tree would mean church, and then we
would have a tame church and a wild church! But if we keep before the mind the
purpose of the figure, and the rules of interpretation, there is no trouble.

Paul’s allegory of the two covenants, found in 2Co 3:6-16 is next to the two
olive trees in respect of difficulty in interpretation. It reads:

"But our sufficiency is from God; 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 is 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 surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more
that which remaineth is in glory. Having therefore such a hope, we use great
boldness of speech, and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the
children of Israel should not look stedfastly on the end of that which was
passing away: but their minds were hardened: for until this very day at the
reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth unlifted; which veil is done
away in Christ. But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon
their heart. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away."
The change in the terms in which Paul presents the metaphors of this allegory,
has been a source of darkness. When we come to know the versatility of the man,
we will not expect him to continue the same form of expression. He is rich in
language, and changes the forms of expression more for the beauty of the
composition than for any other apparent reason. That there should ever have been
any trouble in the passage, seems strange to one that is familiar with it. It is
plain at the first sight, that the two legs of the antithesis are the New
Covenant in contrast with the Old Covenant; and that to make that contrast as
bold as it ought to be, he selects its very heart--the ten commandments. This
fact has frightened many commentators from making any clear and definite
statement as to the teaching of this Scripture. Some way it has gotten into
theology that the Decalogue is an essential part of the New Institution; hence
Paul must not be permitted to say anything to the contrary.

We may get the exact thought of this allegory by placing these legs of the
antithesis over against each other. So we arrange two columns--the one headed
Old Covenant, or Law, and the other headed New Covenant, or Gospel:

OLD COVENANT.

NEW COVENANT.

1. They were not ministers.

1. They were ministers.

2. The letter killeth.

2. The Spirit giveth life.

3. It was the ministration of death, written and engraven on stones; was
glorious; was passing away.

3. The ministration of the Spirit had much more of glory, but was not passing
away.

4. The ministration of condemnation was with glory.

4. The ministration of righteousness exceeded in glory.

5. It had no glory in this respect by reason of the greater glory.

5. It far surpassed in glory.

6. It was passing away.

6. It remaineth.

7. Moses put a veil upon his face.

7. We use great boldness of speech.

8. They could not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away.

8. This remains, and may be seen clearly.

9. In the reading of this, the veil was unlifted.

9. This darkness that troubled the world in former times is removed in Christ.

There should not remain any trouble in the mind of any one as to the teaching of
this allegory. Suppose that it does say that even the Decalogue was passing
away! It was no more than he said elsewhere in didactic speech (Col 2:14-18).
Whatever Christ has given us remains, for it can not pass away. He has condemned
every sin and maintained every virtue. He is the one mediator between God and
men, and it belongs to Him to say, in all respects, what shall, and what shall
not, be law. Hence His apostles must be heard.

Paul’s allegory of the two women (Gal 4:21-31, Gal 5:1), has the same object in
view as the one just noticed. It is clearer, however, in that the apostle
himself interprets it for us:

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is
written, that Abraham had two sons, one by the handmaid, and one by the
freewoman. Howbeit the son by the handmaid is born after the flesh; but the son
by the freewoman is born through promise. Which things contain an allegory: for
these women are two covenants; one from mount Sinai, bearing children unto
bondage, which is Hagar. Now this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth
to the Jerusalem that now is: for she is in bondage with her children. But the
Jerusalem that is above is free, which is our mother. For it is written,

Rejoice thou barren, that bearest not; Break forth and cry, thou that travailest
not; For more are the children of the desolate than of her which hath the
husband.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But as then he that was
born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it
is now. Howbeit what saith the scripture? Cast out the handmaid and her son: for
the son of the handmaid shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
Wherefore, brethren, we are not children of a handmaid, but of the freewoman.
With freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled
again in a yoke of bondage."

One who has read what the apostle has had to say in all his epistles, has no
trouble with this passage. Indeed, if we had read nothing from any other writing
of his, this would seem to be very plain. Here are two sets of metaphors: Hagar
(bondage), Sinai (law, or the law that was given on Sinai); Jerusalem that then
was. On the other hand we have Sarah, (freedom); Jerusalem that is above;
children of promise; made free in Christ. So far the antithesis is complete. But
now, having these two institutions, or covenants, what about them? Can they be
blended? "Cast out the bondmaid and her son, for the son of the bondmaid shall
not inherit with the son of the freewoman." Cast out the Old Covenant, that was
given at Mount Sinai, for it shall not have possession along with the covenant
of Christ by which we are made free.

SEC. 59. METONYMY.--The etymology of the word indicates its meaning. It is from
the Greek words meta, change, and onoma, name, hence a change of name; the
employment of one name or word for another. Webster says of this figure:

"A trope in which one word is put for another; a change of names which have some
relation for each other, as when we say a man keeps a good table, instead of
good provisions; we read Virgil--that is, his poems, or writings; they have
’Moses and the prophets’--that is, their books, or writings; a man has a clear
head--that is, an understanding, or intellect; a warm heart--that is,
affections."

Many times this figure bears a close resemblance to the metaphor and the
allegory. All figures of speech are related to each other, in that they are
employed for the purpose of comparing one thing with another. The metonymy is
one of the most definite of tropes. It is capable of such divisions and
subdivisions as will enable us to apply definite rules in the exegesis of the
passage containing it. Hence, for the sake of perspicuity, we will consider it
under its several heads.

SEC. 60. METONYMY OF THE CAUSE.--By this figure the cause is stated while the
effect is intended.

(1.) God and Christ and the Holy Spirit are frequently mentioned, whereas the
result of their efforts in the redemption of the race is intended.

"But ye did not so learn Christ" (Eph 4:20). That is, ye did not so learn the
teaching of Christ respecting the manner of living.

"When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him
be manifested in glory, (Col 3:4).

Christ is our life, in that we have life through Him: He is the cause of life;
He is named, but the effect of His work is intended.

"Which veil is done away in Christ" (2Co 3:14).

Here the word Christ stands for the New Covenant of which He is the author.

"And he came by the Spirit into the temple" (Luk 2:27).

Simeon has received a communication before that, assuring him that he should not
die till he had seen the Christ. And now that Joseph and Mary were there, be is
informed by the Spirit that the promise of the Lord is being fulfilled, and if
he will go into the temple he can see the Saviour. So in 2Co 3:6, it is said
that the "letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." The word Spirit is here
employed for the New Institution which had been given by His inspiration. In the
same way, Jesus says (John 6:36), "The words that I speak unto you, they are
Spirit and they are life."

"He that doeth good is of God" (3Jn 1:11). That is, he is living according to
the truth which God has taught.

(2.) Parents are put for their children.

"And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done unto him.
And he said, Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants shall he be unto his
brethren. And he said. Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem And let Canaan be
his servant. God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem: And
let Canaan be his servant" (Gen 9:25-27).

It is clear to every one, at sight, that the curse has respect to the posterity
of these men. Enlarging Japheth was not increasing the bulk of the man, but
making his descendants numerous.

"I will divide them in Jacob, And scatter them in Israel" (Gen 49:7). Of course
this refers to the descendants of Jacob--the tribes when they should be located
in the land of promise. And so it was Simeon obtained a little corner of the
country down toward Egypt, and Levi had no tribal possession. They received
forty-eight cities, and were distributed among the other tribes. In Num 23:7,
Balaam said that Balak had sent for him to come and curse Jacob and defy Israel.
Jacob had been dead many years. It was the people of Israel or Jacob. So it is
in the following chapter of the parables of this prophet. All the way through
the Scriptures the word Jacob, or Israel, represents the people that had
descended from him. So it is with the tribes--the name of the head of the tribe
passes upon the tribe, so that the people of the tribe of Reuben are named from
the oldest son of Jacob, and so on to the close. Even Ephraim and Manasseh come
to be terms by which we are to understand the people that sprang from them.

"Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom 9:13), was not said concerning
those twin boys, but their children, some twelve hundred years after their
progenitors were dead. See Mal 1:2-3 :

"I have loved you, with the Lord. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was
not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob; but Esau I hated,
and made his mountains a desolation, and gave his heritage to the jackals of the
wilderness."

"Shall I not in that day, with the Lord, destroy the wise men out of Edom, and
understanding out of the mount of Esau? And thy mighty men, O Teman, shall be
dismayed, to the end that every one may be cut off from the mount of Esau by
slaughter. For the violence done to thy brother Jacob shame shall cover thee,
and thou shalt be cut off forever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other
side, in the day that strangers carried away his substance, and foreigners
entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of
them" (Obadiah 1:8-11).

These Scriptures show that the language was not concerning Jacob and Esau when
they were children, or before they were born, but was used concerning their
descendants, many centuries after these patriarchs were dead. And the good and
sufficient reasons that are given for loving Jacob and hating Esau are based
upon national character.

(3.) Authors are put for the works which they have produced.--This is one of the
most common forms of metonymy at the present time. We inquire of the student if
he has read Virgil, Homer, Xenophon, etc., etc., by which we mean to ask if he
has read the writings of these men. In Luk 16:20-31, the Saviour makes Abraham
say to the rich man in hades, that his five brethren back in the world had Moses
and the Prophets, and if they would not hear them, they would not give heed to
one though he should go to them from the dead. The meaning is easy: they had
what Moses had said in the law, and what the prophets had written by way of
warning the people against iniquity, and the truth there taught was the same
that anyone else would have taught them if it should please the Lord to send
them such warning. Hence, if they would not listen to the instruction already
furnished, it would be unreasonable to expect them to attend to the same things
if re-furnished by some inferior agent.

"And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he interpreted to them in
all the scriptures the things concerning himself" (Luk 24:27). No one is in
doubt, for a single moment, as to the meaning of this language. It can have but
one meaning. These disciples had misunderstood the prophecies respecting their
Messiah; they held the common view that when He should come, He would remain
forever, and reign as an earthly king. And when the Saviour was crucified, their
hopes were destroyed at the same time. Now they had been astonished at what the
women said to them that morning, when they reported that they had seen a vision
of angels declaring that their Lord was not in the grave, but that he had risen
from the dead. But the teaching of the Scriptures on that subject was not known
to them. Hence the Master makes them understand that the word of the Lord
teaches that He must die and rise again. And again, that evening, as the ten
were met together in the city, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and opened
their minds to the word of the Lord on that subject, and showed them that they
taught that the Christ should die and rise again (Luk 24:44-47). So it was with
the apostles when they went to preach the gospel--they had to begin with the
Scriptures of Moses and the Prophets, and show to the Jews everywhere that they
had foretold that the Messiah should die for men (Acts 17:1-3). This is the
meaning of Acts 15:21 : "For Moses from generations of old hath in every city
them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath." Not Moses,
but the law that was given through Moses. The same figure is found in 2Co 3:15 :
"Wheresoever Moses is read" that is, the law given by him.

(4.) Instruments are put for their effects.--These instruments, being supposed
to be the immediate cause, are spoken of, whereas the result of their use is
intended.

"At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be
put to death" (Deu 17:6).

Here the mouth is put for the testimony to be spoken by it. So in Mat 18:16 :

"That at the mouth of two witnesses or three every word may be established."
From Acts 15:7-11, we learn that the Gentiles were converted by Peter’s
mouth--that is, it was by the mouth of Peter that they first heard the word of
the gospel and believed. In this way Christ is said to be our peace (Eph
2:14-16), our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption (1Co 1:30).
He is the means, the cause, the instrument in the hands of the Father, by which
we have all these.

"Think not that I came to send peace on the earth: I came not to send peace, but
a sword" (Mat 10:34).

Christ was not intending to send a sword on the earth in any literal sense. The
sword is the instrument of war, and stands for that disturbance which would
follow the introduction of the truth of redemption.

"Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he
is his money" (Exo 21:21). This is the case of a man smiting his servant. Had it
been another man, he would have been compelled to make good the time lost, and
to cause the man to be healed. But in case of smiting his servant, he does not
make good the time; but simply loses it. His servant was his money--that is, he
was the means or the instrument of money. Very many times the sword, the bow and
spear are spoken of, instead of the work which they were expected to accomplish,
in which we have plain cases of the metonymy of the cause (Exo 5:3; Lev 26:6;
Isa 1:20; Jer 43:11; Rom 8:35).

SEC. 61. METONYMY OF THE EFFECT.--The effect is put for the cause. The cause is
meant, but the effect is named.

"Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days" (Ecc
11:1). A man casting bread on the water will not find it again; and Solomon did
not intend to say the silly thing that he has been accused of saying. Let the
bread stand for the bread seed, or wheat, sown on the water from a skiff, to
fall into the alluvial deposit below, and, with the going down of the stream,
spring up and grow, and you will get the idea of sowing in hope.

"And he answered and said, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; and
the field is the world; and the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom;
and the tares are the sons of the evil one; and the enemy that sowed them is the
devil" (Mat 13:37-38). The sons of the kingdom were not sown there by the Son of
man; what was done by the Saviour was the sowing of the truth, giving to the
world the word of the Living God, which has resulted in the Christians referred
to. So it is with the children of the evil one--the devil did not sow them, but
he presented the world with the falsehood, and gave the influences that have
brought them into being, or made them the children of the wicked one. They are
the effect, not the cause.

"See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil" (Deu
30:15). But every one sees these as the result of serving God or refusing that
service. The life and the good, the death and the evil, were the results of that
which he presented to them. In Luk 11:14, we read that Jesus was casting out a
demon, and it was dumb. And then we are informed that when the demon was gone
out, the man spoke. Now, as to the condition of the demon, nothing is intended
to be affirmed. It was the effect of the demon on the man possessed by it. The
man was dumb, and the possession made him dumb. The effect is spoken of, whereas
the cause was meant. Christ is the resurrection and the life (John 11:25). He is
our wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption; He is our
life, and our peace--that is, he is the cause of all these things to us. So is
the kingdom of God righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Spirit--that is,
these are blessings derived therefrom. These are the effects. In all these the
effect is mentioned, while the cause is understood.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 14: 01.09B.   VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (3)
========================================================================

SEC. 62. METONYMY OF THE SUBJECT.--In this form of the figure, we have the
subject announced, while some property belonging to it, or circumstance, is
referred to. These things are meant, but the subject is named.

(1.) The subject put for the adjunct: some mere appendage or circumstance
dependent upon it. "Thou shalt love, the Lord thy God with all thine heart,"
means with the affections. (Deu 6:5). In Acts 4:32, it is said that the
disciples were of one heart and one soul--that is, they were one in feeling,
wish, faith, desire to glorify the Lord. In 1Sa 1:13, we are told that Hannah
spoke only in her heart--that is, in her mind. David prayed that the meditation
of his heart might be acceptable in the sight of the Lord. In that use of the
word, the thinking power of the heart is intended. In Luke ii. 19, it is said
that "Mary kept all these sayings, pondering them in her heart." The shepherds
related what had occurred to them in the field, in the visit of the angels, and
she remembered them, and thought over them frequently. In Acts 8:22, Peter said
to Simon the sorcerer, "Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray the
Lord, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall be forgiven thee." The power of
believing is ascribed to the heart (Rom 10:9-10); also the power to reason (Mark
2:6-9); and the power to judge (1Jn 3:20). Now, no one of these passages fully
represents the heart of man. In each of these we have an adjunct, a quality, or
power. So it is in all those Scriptures in which we have the different kinds of
hearts referred to--the hard heart, the evil heart of unbelief, the upright in
heart, the pure heart, the tender heart, the faint heart. These conditions and
qualities are mentioned, not to indicate the whole heart. In this way an
examination maybe conducted. For instance, it would not be agreed as to the
meaning of the word heart as found in the Scriptures. The question might be
decided by an induction of the whole number of things said of the heart; for a
scriptural definition must certainly be equal to the whole number of things said
of it. In this it would be found that the heart is said to imagine, to think, to
reason, to meditate, to understand, to believe, to fear and love. Having, in
this way, learned what the heart is supposed to be, it will be easy to
understand the divine plan for the change and control of that heart.

(2.) The container is put for the contained.-- Gen 6:11 : The earth was corrupt,
means that the people living in the earth were corrupt. John 1:29 : that taketh
away the sin of the world--that is, of the people of the world. John 3:16-17 :
"God so loved the world"--that is, He so loved the human race "that he gave his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have
everlasting life." Psa 105:38 : "Egypt was glad when they departed"--that is,
the Egyptians were glad. See Mat 3:5-6 : "Then went out unto 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." No one thinks of these places doing
all that, but all know that the people living in those places are meant. In Mat
11:20-24, Jesus is reported as upbraiding the cities wherein most of His mighty
works had been done, and be says if the mighty works which had been done in
Chorazin and Bethsaida had been wrought in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented in sackcloth and ashes; and that if the works that had been done in
Capernaum had been wrought in Sodom, it would have remained till that time, and
that it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of
judgment than for that city. Any reader will observe that not the cities nor the
country of Sodom was had in mind, but the people who lived there. Luke says of
Cornelius, that he was a devout man, and one that feared God with all his
house--that is, he feared God, with all the members of his household. Exo 2:1 :
"There went a man of the house of Levi." Pro 11:29 : "He that troubleth his own
house shall inherit the wind." Not the building in which he lives, but the
members of his family. Eze 18:31 : "For why will ye die, O house of Israel?"
means the descendants of Jacob. In 2Sa 7:13, the Lord promises David to build
him a house. It is then explained to mean that He would set up his son on the
throne, and through his family put One on the throne at last who should never
fail. The meaning of this language will be still more apparent by reading Isa
9:6-7. And when, in the course of centuries, this family seems to be giving
away, and likely to fail utterly, it was foretold that David’s house should be
reinstated in its former glory.

"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close
up the breaches thereof; I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in
the days of old; that they may possess the remnant of Edom, and all the nations
which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this," (Amo 9:11-12).

Now, from the use of this language, by James (Acts 15:13, Acts 15:17), it is
evident that the tabernacle of David is simply the house of David, and that in
the re-establishment of the house, we have the Christ placed upon the throne, to
rule it with judgment and with justice from henceforth, even for evermore; now
not to rule fleshly Israel only, but spiritual Israel.

(3.) The possessor put for they thing possessed.--In this use of the figure the
possessor is named but the thing possessed is to be understood.

"Hear, O Israel: thou art to pass over Jordan this day, to go in to possess
nations greater and mightier than thyself, cities great and fenced up to heaven,
a people great and tall, the sons of the Anakim, whom thou knowest, and of whom
thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the sons of Anak? Know therefore this
day, that the Lord thy God is he which goeth over before thee as a devouring
fire; he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thee: so shalt
thou drive them out, and make them to perish quickly, as the Lord hath spoken
unto thee" (Deu 9:1-3).

These nations were composed of men and women and children, but they were not to
be their possession, for they were to drive them out; but their possession was
to be in the cities which they had built and the land on which they lived. Hence
these cities and lands were their possession. So the cities and lands are not
mentioned, but nations are mentioned; but their possessions were intended.

"For they have devoured Jacob, And laid waste his habitation" (Psa 79:7).

Here is a double metonymy--first, the word Jacob refers to his descendants; and
second, his descendants stand for the land they owned and occupied.

Deu 10:9 : "Wherefore Levi hath no portion nor inheritance with his brethren;
the Lord is his inheritance." See Jos 13:33. The name of the Lord is here put
for the sacrifices that should be given to the tribe of Levi. These sacrifices
were the Lord’s possession and they are given to this one tribe. Hence, to speak
literally, Moses would have said that Levi had no possession with the other
tribes, but their inheritance should be the sacrifices made unto the Lord. But
by the figure of metonymy, he says the Lord is his inheritance. In Tit 2:14, 1Pe
2:9, Christians are presented as the inheritance of the Lord. Hence, by this
figure (Mat 25:31-40), the Lord indicates that he can be fed and clothed in the
persons of His disciples. "I was hungry, and ye fed me"--that is, they fed His
disciples, who are His possession. In strict accord with this is the language of
the Master to Saul: "Why persecutest thou me?" He regarded the disciples as His
own, and hence a part of Himself.

Many times the church is presented under the figure of a body--the body of the
Lord Jesus Christ. Hence, by the use of this figure we have the word Christ many
times in the New Testament, in the place of the body, or church, which He owned.
This is why Paul says, "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ, have
put on Christ" (Gal 3:27). By this we come into covenant with Him, hence into
His church; and by this figure Paul says "into Christ."

(4.) The subject is sometimes named, whereas something consequent thereon, or
connected therewith, is intended.--The burdens of Isaiah respecting the
different countries, were evils or calamities that were coming upon them. But
what follows the announcement of each one of these burdens, is the prediction of
the coming affliction (Isa 13:1; Isa 15:1; Isa 17:1; Isa 21:1; Isa 22:1; Isa
23:1).

Also the promise is put for the faith that receives it:

"That is, it is not the children of the flesh, that are children of God; but the
children of the promise are reckoned for the seed" (Rom 9:8). The whole
contrast, however, is not respecting the promise so much as the manner of
receiving that promise. The Jews had the idea that the promise was to be enjoyed
because of fleshly relation to Abraham. Paul assures them that it is not so, but
that the blessings of the Lord are appropriated by faith. Hence the word promise
is used for the faith that accepts it. In Gal 4:28 : that thought is presented
in the same way: We, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise." By
reading Gal 3:25-27, this language is interpreted: "For ye are all sons of God
through faith, in Christ Jesus." In like manner sin is presented, instead of the
offering that is to be made for its removal.

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin
coucheth at the door: and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule
over him" (Gen 4:7). In this argument the Lord makes Cain to understand that
there was no reason for a fallen countenance. The inheritance was his; his place
was higher than that which belonged to his brother; and Abel would look to him
for guidance and protection. If he did well, he would be accepted; and if he did
not well, for whatever of wrong might be found in him, the sacrifice would be
easily made, as if the animal was already crouching at the door, waiting for the
services to be rendered. Hence, while the word sin is employed, the sin-offering
is intended. See Exo 29:14; Lev 10:17; Hos 4:8; Isa 53:10, where the Hebrew has
sin, though our translators have felt it to be their duty to add the word
offering, lest the language should not be understood. And we can scarcely
suppress the wonder that it did not occur to them to do so in some New Testament
cases.

"Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the
righteousness of God in him" (2Co 5:21).

Literally, Christ could not be sin; He was wholly without sin; and the only way
for the language to be true is by the use of this form of metonymy. He became a
sin-offering for us.

"So Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear
a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation" (Heb
9:28).

He shall come without a sin-offering the next time. He made the sin-offering the
first time, and the next, He will come in judgment, not to make a sacrifice for
the race.

(5.) The thing signified is put for the sign.

"Seek ye the Lord and his strength; Seek his face evermore" (1Ch 16:11). This is
repeated in Psa 105:4.

"Arise, O Lord, into thy resting-place; Thou, and the ark of thy strength" (Psa
132:8).

It is evident that the ark was the sign of the strength of Jehovah. It was
always so regarded when taken into battle. But in those passages, the strength
is mentioned rather than the ark which signified it.

"The king shall mourn, and the prince shall be clothed with desolation" (Eze
7:27).

Here the word desolation refers to the sackcloth, or some other sign of sorrow
indicated by the dress of the princes.

Very many times in the Scriptures the word mourn is employed where some symbol
of sorrow is intended. "We have mourned unto you, and ye have not lamented."
These children in the market had made the sound of mourning. There was a great
deal of unreal mourning then, as now. There were hired mourners, who went about
the streets making hideous noises and telling the good qualities of the dead.
This is called "mourning," but of course it is only a symbol that is meant. The
land of Israel is said to mourn, and the cities of Judah mourn, and Zion
mourneth and languisheth. This can have no other meaning than that the land was
neglected, the crops failed, and altogether there were everywhere the signs of
lamentation, as if the land had been dressed in sackcloth and draped in the
deepest sorrow. We now say of persons that they are wearing mourning, when they
are wearing some badge of grief.

(6.) Many times actions are said to be performed when they have only been
permitted, or even foretold.

"That my soul may live because of thee" (Gen 12:13). That is, if Sarah would
claim to be his sister, they would not put him to death, but permit him to live.

"Then said I, Ah, Lord God! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people and
Jerusalem, saying, Ye shall have peace; whereas the sword reacheth unto the
soul" (Jer 4:10).

God had not told them that they should have peace in their iniquity, but He had
permitted their prophets to do so.

Eze 13:19-22, speaks of slaying the souls that should not die, and saving the
souls that should not live. This was done by the false dreamers, as they told
the things that were not true. The mere telling of the things is spoken of as if
they were done.

"Moreover also I gave them statutes that were not good, and judgements wherein
they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they
caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make
them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord" (Eze
20:25-26). This can not refer to any law that God ever gave to that people;
indeed, the idea that the first-born child should be offered in sacrifice was
not in existence at the time that God’s law was given to them. The thought is
that He gave them this bad law by their own hands, because of their wish in the
matter, that they might reap the fruits of their own folly, and learn that He
was the Lord.

"I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to pluck up
and break down, and to destroy, and to overthrow; to build, and to plant" (Jer
1:10). And yet the truth is, Jeremiah had been appointed simply to foretell
these calamities that were about to come upon the nations for their iniquity.

"Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of
my mouth: and thy judgements are of the light that goeth forth" (Hos 6:5). No
more is meant than that the ruin and general disaster had been foretold by the
prophets of the Lord.

"What God hath cleansed, make not thou common" (Acts 10:15).

God had removed the partition from between Jew and Gentile, and hence all the
ceremonies of the Jewish institution, and had called the Gentiles clean as well
as the Jews. It does not mean that they were already pure in His sight, but that
the whole world would be accepted on the same terms in Christ.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mat 16:19).
Not that these men could bind anything upon men as a requirement of the Lord,
but they could announce the things which had been given them, and that should be
ratified in the upper courts.

"Whose soever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them" (John 20:23). This
does not mean that it belonged to men to forgive sins which had been committed
against God, but they could make known the conditions of such heavenly
forgiveness, and that should be approved in heaven.

(7.) An action is sometimes said, to have been accomplished when all that is
meant by it is that an occasion was given.--In nearly all the lives of the kings
of Israel, there is a statement that "he followed in the ways of Jeroboam, the
son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin." Of course he did not make those men to
sin who lived after his time, nor did he compel others to sin who lived at the
same time that he did; but he set the example, and led them into that sin. This
is the subject being stated, whereas the agent only is intended. So a man is
said to do that which his action occasions, or which he causes to be done. In
Acts 1:18, Judas is spoken of as having obtained a field with the reward of
iniquity. It was the money that he obtained for the delivery of the Saviour from
the hands of the priests that bought the field, and the act is attributed to him
because he was an actor in the matter, and what he did led to the consummation
of that purchase.

"Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died" (Rom 14:15).

It would only be the example that might lead the man into idolatry.

"For how knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how
knowest thou, O husband, whether thou shalt save thy wife?" (1Co 7:16).

"Take heed to thyself, and to thy teaching; continue in these things; for in
doing this thou shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee" (1Ti 4:16). Of
course, these cases of one person saving another refer to the effect their
actions and teachings have in the way of influence on others, to cause them to
accept of the Lord and be saved. In this way it is said that Jesus made and
baptized more disciples than John. Yet Jesus did not baptize in person. He
caused it to be done, and therefore the baptizing was credited to Him. The
angels that came to Abraham at Mamre were regarded as men, yet one of them is
the Lord, or the Lord’s agent in the destruction of the doomed cities, and in
the blessing of Abraham. In Gen 28:13; Gen 31:11, Gen 31:13, the Lord God of
Abraham is referred to as having appeared to Jacob while on his way to
Paddan-aram; but in Gen 48:16, he is called the angel that had saved Jacob. In
this way the angel is called by the name of Him whom he represents. He was
simply the agent of the Lord.

(8.) Sometimes a statement is made as complete when the thought is only
comparative. Those who were acquainted with that figure would not be liable to
be misled by it. But it differs so much from our didactic style of speech, that
we need to be reminded of the custom in the days of the Scriptures.

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Add your burnt offerings unto
your sacrifices, and eat ye flesh. For I spake not unto your fathers, nor
commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them,
saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my
people" (Jer 7:21-23). But we know that God had given them commandments
concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices. Hence we find here the comparative.
Higher than these services was His demand for obedience. Compare 1Sa 15:22.

"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 can not
be my disciple" (Luk 14:26).

If this had to be understood literally, it would contradict what the Master said
on the mount (Mat 5:43-48). Indeed, it would contradict all we know in both
Testaments respecting the duty of the race. To honor father and mother, was
taught in the decalogue, and endorsed by the Saviour. Indeed, it was regarded as
one of the great commandments to love one’s neighbor as himself. Besides, to
absolutely hate, as here indicated, would make a man a demon, This is not a
parallel with Mat 10:27, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not
worthy of me;" for that was given to the twelve in Galilee; but this was spoken
in Perea, a good while after that. And yet there is no doubt that the meaning of
the two passages is the same. The "hate" of Luk 14:26 is comparative; hence it
is, love less.

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood" (Eph 6:12). This must be
understood in a comparative sense. We do wrestle with flesh and blood; and no
man knew it better or presented it in any stronger light than did the apostle
Paul. In Gal 5:19-21, and in the whole of Rom. vii., he treats on the danger of
being in the body, and shows the only way of escape. Hence the meaning of the
passage is, We wrestle not against flesh and blood only. While that is one of
our foes, it is not the only one.

"Be no longer a drinker of water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake
and thine often infirmities" (1Ti 5:23).

Here, again, beyond any question, the thought is comparative. He does not intend
to prohibit the use of water, but prescribes a little wine with it, on account
of some physical infirmity. In this way a very large number was spoken of as the
whole. There went out to John the Baptist, "Jerusalem, Judea, and the region
round about Jordan; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan." Yet
there were many whom he would not baptize, calling them a generation of vipers;
there were many who would not be baptized of him, of whom Jesus said, "they
rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." And
still it is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John; and that
was said, too, of His work in the same country; hence only comparatively a large
number were baptized of John. In Gen 5:24, it is said that "Enoch walked with
God: and he was not; for God took him." When it says that he was not, it only
means that he was not on the earth.

"Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and ye will take Benjamin away" (Gen 42:36).
Of course, Jacob may have thought that Joseph was dead; but that was not to be
supposed respecting Simeon, whom they had left in Egypt as a hostage. He did not
mean that they were not in existence, as some have argued, but that they were
not where he could secure them.

Again, on the positive side (Mat 5:48), we are required to be perfect, even as
our Father in heaven is perfect. And even though this refers to having love for
all, and doing good unto all, still it is furnished as a copy after which we are
to pattern, and in which we are to do our best as long as we live, form of the
metonymy the adjunct is put for the subject: the subject is intended, but the
adjunct is named.

SEC. 63. METONYMY OF THE ADJUNCT.--In this form of the metonymy the adjunct is
put for the subject: the subject is intended, but the adjunct is named.

(1.) Sometimes an accident, or that which is in addition to the subject, is
mentioned, whereas the subject is meant.

"Then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave" (Gen 42:38).

Then shall ye bring me to the grave in sorrow. The gray hairs only relate to the
age.

"I said, Days should speak, and multitude of years should teach wisdom" (Job
32:7). The abstract thoughts of days, and multitude of years, stand for the man
who had seen them.

Circumcision and uncircumcision stand for Jews and Gentiles, because this mark
on the Jew made him to differ from every other people (Rom 3:30; Gal 2:9). In
Rom 11:7, the abstract thought of election stands for those who, from among
Israel, had accepted the Christ, and thereby had become the elect of God.

"For every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians (Gen 46:34). The
thought is that a shepherd is an abominable thing or person; the abstract,
abomination, is employed for the person or thing that was regarded with
loathing.

"For ye were once darkness, but are now light in the Lord" (Eph 5:8).

Darkness is the abstract for persons who were unenlightened by the power of
saving truth. Being the light in the Lord, has just the opposite thought.

"I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these
things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes" (Mat
11:25).

Here are the qualities of men, real or claimed, put for the men themselves. In
literal language, these heavenly truths had not been given to the supposed wise
men of the country, but rather to the humble and the unpretending.

(2.) The thing contained is put for the container.--In metonymy of the subject
we saw that the container was frequently put for the contained; but this is just
the opposite.

"This stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God’s house" (Gen
28:22).

We would say, rather a peculiar kind of house. Rather the place where he set it
up, should be God’s house.

"Opening their treasures, they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and
myrrh" (Mat 2:11).

What they opened was the wallets, or bags, in which these treasures were
contained; the treasures are put for the bags that contained them. The "outer
darkness" of Mat 22:13, refers to the place of darkness--the quality of the
place having been given for the place itself. And the marriage of Mat 25:10 is
the place where the marriage was to be. Demons cried out, and said this or that;
whereas it was done by those who were possessed by them. So are the qualities of
the person described by assigning those characteristics to the demons
themselves. The container is intended, but the contained is mentioned. Acts
16:13 : "A place of prayer" is a place where people were accustomed to meet for
prayer.

(3.) Time, is put for the things which are done or happen.

"Men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do" (1Ch
12:32).

They understood the things done, and the condition of affairs (1Ch 12:29-30).
The history of David had been written by Samuel and Nathan and Gad, giving his
reign and his might, "and the times that went over him" that is, the things done
in those times. Est 1:13 : "Then the king said to the wise men, which knew the
times"--that is, the things that were occurring. 2Ti 3:1 : "But know this, that
in the last days grievous times shall come." Grievous conditions and conduct.
Deu 4:32 : "For ask now of the days that are past"--the events of the past. Mark
14:35 : Christ prayed in the garden that the hour might pass from Him--that is,
that the suffering and trial might pass--if consistent with the will of the
Father. John 12:27 : "Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father,
save me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour." This is the
struggle that is in the mind of the Saviour, found in the last quotation.

Days are said to be good or evil, according to the things done in them (Gen
47:9; Ecc 7:10; Eph 5:16). A day is called in honor of some person, because of
something done therein, or something promised to be done on that day. Hos 1:11 :
"For great shall be the day of Jezreel." This day was in the future, when the
language was written--the greatness was to come.

"And when he drew nigh, he saw the city and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst
known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they
are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, when thine enemies
shall cast up a bank about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on
every side, and shall dash thee to the ground, and thy children within thee; and
they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not
the time of thy visitation" (Luk 19:41-44).

Even at that late hour, if they could have discerned the signs of the times, and
known and acknowledged the Saviour, their city and their own welfare would have
been secured. For further investigation of this use of the subject, read Job
18:20; Psa 137:7; Eze 22:4; Obadiah 1:12; Mic 7:4; Psa 37:13. The day of the
Lord is spoken of as the day of judgment; but sometimes the destruction of
Jerusalem, because it was a typological prophecy of that coming event (Job 24:1;
Isa 13:6; Joe 1:15; Joe 2:1-2; Amo 5:20; Zep 1:14-18; Zep 2:2). While these do
not look directly at the day of judgment for the whole race, they have in view a
punishment from the Lord. But many times the day refers to the judgment scene
(Mal 3:2, Mal 3:17; Mal 4:1, Mal 4:3, Mal 4:5; Mat 24:36, Mat 24:50; Mat 25:13;
Acts 2:20; Rom 2:5, Rom 2:16; 1Co 1:8; Php 1:6; 2Th 1:7-10). This custom of
speaking of the day in honor of any one, was of long standing. The days of
victories of the ancient generals and kings were known by their names. This is
why the resurrection of the Saviour on the first day of the week, gave to that
day his name, "the Lord’s day" (Rev 1:0). It rendered that day sacredly His own,
because he had conquered death and the grave for the whole race on that day.
This day should not be called the sabbath; it is "the Lord’s day," and should be
kept in honor of him (Acts 20:7; 1Co 16:1-2). The passover is frequently used,
when the paschal lamb is intended (Exo 12:21; 2Ch 30:17; Mark 14:12-14; Mat
26:17-19).

(4.) Sometimes things are spoken of according to appearance, opinions formed
respecting them, or the claims made for them. Thus in Jer 28:1, Jer 28:5, Jer
28:10, Hananiah is called a prophet. This was reputation, rather than fact. Eze
21:3 : "Will cut off from thee the righteous and the wicked." These were
apparently righteous, rather than really so. Mat 9:13 : "I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners." The Lord does not mean to say that those men who
complained against Him were righteous, bat that such was their claim. Compare
Luk 18:9. In Luk 2:41-48, Joseph is spoken of as the father of Jesus, because he
was supposed to be. Compare Luk 3:23; John 6:42.

"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" (1Co 1:21). This is not Paul’s estimate, but the estimate of the
Greek philosophers--it was foolishness to them (1Co 1:22-24). In Gal 1:6, Paul
wondered that they were so soon turned away to another gospel; not because he
thought there could be any other gospel, but because they thought the gospel of
Christ ought to be conglomerated with the law of Moses, which would make a false
teaching of it. Mat 12:27 : "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your
sons cast them out?" He does not mean to say that they cast out demons, but that
they thus claimed.

"Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to
thee to the earth?" (Gen 37:10).

Jacob did not refer to Rachel as the mother of Joseph, for she had been dead for
a number of years, but to Leah, who was not his mother, but seemed to be.

Psa 72:9 : "His enemies shall lick the dust," must refer to their prostration,
and hence seeming to lick the dust. Compare Isa 49:23; Mic 1:10.

"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgement with the men of this
generation, and shall condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to
hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here" (Luk
11:31). Of course this coming from the ends of the earth is taken by appearance.
There are many such expressions (Deu 4:32; Deu 30:4; Neh 1:9; Mat 14:31). And
with all our scientific knowledge, we continue to say that the sun rises and
sets. Angels are spoken of as men (Gen 18:16; Gen 19:10; Luk 24:4; Acts 1:10),
because they were in the form of men--it was the appearance, not the fact.

(5.) The action, faith, or feeling, stimulated or caused by anything, may be
employed, instead of the thing which caused such action, affection or
feeling.--The senses are put for the things apprehended by them. Rom 10:17 : "So
belief cometh of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." This read in
connection with the preceding verses, and it is apparent that the hearing is put
for the gospel heard. In 1Co 1:21, the foolishness of preaching is not
preaching, but the thing preached, that was decided to be foolishness, in the
minds of the philosophers. Gal 3:2-5, the hearing of faith, is the gospel
received. Mat 14:1, Herod heard the report of what Jesus was doing. It was the
faith in the statements made that gave him trouble, for which the hearing
stands. Many times the word "faith" denotes the doctrine on which it was
founded. Acts 6:7 : "And a great company of the priests were obedient to the
faith." Gal 1:23 : "He that once persecuted us, now preacheth the faith."

"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 hath been 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 3:23-25).

Eph 4:5 : There is one faith. Eph 4:13 : "Till we all attain unto the unity of
the faith."

1Ti 4:1 : "In latter times some shall fall away from the faith." (Tit 1:13; Jude
1:3; Rev 2:13)

Love is put for the object of love. Jer 2:33 : "How trimmest thou thy way to
seek love!"--to seek some object of affection.

Jer 12:7 : "I have given the dearly beloved of my soul into the hand of her
enemies"--the dearly beloved one.

Fear is often put for the object of fear. Pro 1:26 : "I will mock when your fear
cometh"--that is, when some object approaches that shall terrify you. Isa 8:13 :
"The Lord of hosts, him shall ye sanctify; and let him be your fear, and let him
be your dread" that is, fear ye the Lord, and be in dread of Him.

"Except the God of my father, the God of Abraham, and the Fear of Isaac, had
been with me, surely now hadst thou sent me away empty" (Gen 31:42).

Thus Jacob is made to remind Laban that the God of Abraham, who was feared by
Isaac, was his defense.

(6.) A sign is put for the thing signified.

"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his
feet, Until Shiloh come; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be"
(Gen 49:10).

Judah was characterized for strength, and should hold a ruling power till the
time of the coming of the Messiah. This ruling power is signified, rather than
stated.

"And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder" (Isa 22:22).
This was said of Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and it is splendid typology of the
coming Son of David, who shuts, and no man opens; opens, and no man shuts.

Zec 10:11 : "And the sceptre of Egypt shall depart away"--that is, the power to
rule, which is signified by the sceptre.

"And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine band unto the Lord,
God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth, that I will not take a thread,"
etc. (Gen 14:22-23). The thought is, that Abram had sworn to that effect, as the
hand was lifted up in affirmation.

"He breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder" (Psa 46:9). As the bow
and the spear were the weapons of war, breaking them is to cause war to
discontinue.

"My sword go forth out of its sheath against all flesh," etc., etc. (Eze 21:4).
The sign of destruction was the sword, hence general destruction is threatened.
So in Mat 10:34, Christ had come to send a sword--contention, and disturbance,
as in war. To beat swords into plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks, is to
quit war and cultivate the arts of civilization (Isa 2:3-4). To bow the knee is
the sign of reverence and worship (Isa 45:23; Php 2:10; Eph 3:14). To wear
sackcloth was to mourn, as they did that in the time of very great distress:

"When I made sackcloth my clothing, I became a proverb unto them" (Psa 69:11).

(7.) The names of things are presented for the things themselves.--In many
passages the name of the Lord, or of God, denotes Jehovah.

"The name of the God of Jacob set thee up on high" (Psa 20:1).

"O give thanks unto the Lord, call upon his name" (Psa 105:1).

"The name of the Lord is a strong tower" (Pro 18:10).

"Behold, the name of the Lord cometh from far" (Isa 30:27).

"Pour out thy fury upon the heathen that know thee not, and upon the families
that call not on thy name" (Jer 10:25).

Joe 2:32; Acts 2:21; Rom 10:13 : "Call upon the name of the Lord"--that is, they
were to call on the Lord.

Names are given in the place of persons. In the Common Version of Acts 1:15,
"And the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty," meaning the
number of persons.

"But thou halt a few names in Sardis which did not defile their garments" (Rev
3:4). A few persons.

Sometimes names are given to denote character or condition.

"Afterward thou shaft be called The city of righteousness, the faithful city"
(Isa 1:26). The thought is that, having been cleansed by having all their sin
removed, they would be a people that would be faithful in the service of the
Lord.

"Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be
termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah [my delight is in her], and
thy land Beulah [married]: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall
be married" (Isa 62:4). The reason that they should be called the city in which
the Lord delighted was, they should be that city; and the reason that they
should be called married, was that they should be married.

"So then if, while her husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall
be called an adulteress" (Rom 7:3). That is, she shall be an adulteress.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 15: 01.09C.   VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (4)
========================================================================

SEC. 64. SYNECDOCHE.--This word is from the Greek sunechdeechesthai, meaning to
receive jointly. But the meaning now given to the trope is not easily traced
from the origin of the word. It is usually spoken of as a figure of speech by
which we speak of the whole by a part, or a part by using a term denoting the
whole. But while this is the main feature of this trope, it by no means exhausts
it.

(1.) The whole is put for a part.--"By which means, the world that then was,
being overflowed by water, perished." There are many evidences that the flood
did not overflow all lands in all countries at the same time.

"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of insurrections
among all the Jews throughout the world" (Acts 24:5).

Now, after making all due allowance for the fact that Tertullus was a lawyer and
had a case to gain, still the assertion that Paul was moving insurrections
throughout the world is too large, except by the figure of synecdoche, that
allows the whole to be put for the part. In Luk 2:1, it is affirmed that from
Cæsar Augustus there went out a decree that all the world should be enrolled.
This could not have embraced more than the Roman provinces.

Rom 1:8 : The faith of the brethren was spoken of throughout the world. In Acts
19:27, it is stated that not only Asia, but the world, worshiped Diana. By this
figure the kingdom of Christ is spoken of many times, when but a single feature
of that kingdom is meant. The parables spoken in Mat 13:1-58 are inexplicable on
any other hypothesis.

"The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field."
Some have gone to work to show some analogy between the kingdom as a whole and a
man sowing in the field. But this is to fail of the purpose of the parable. The
kingdom is not represented by a man, nor by the seed, nor by any other feature
of the whole parable, but by all of them, and more, too. The truth is, the word
kingdom is used in this limited sense--the whole being stated, whereas a part
only was intended. The Saviour’s purpose, in all these parables and similes, was
to remove certain errors from their minds respecting the coming of His kingdom.
They thought that it would come like all the kingdoms they knew anything about,
and therefore with spears and bows and battering-rams. He wished to teach them
that it was not that kind of kingdom, and that it could not gain its victories
in that way. Its success was to depend upon truth, planted in the hearts of the
people; and when it would grow, then would it bear fruit. So you see that the
man who was to sow the seed was just one feature in that institution. By the
figure of synecdoche the word kingdom is employed, whereas there is only the one
element meant.

"The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed." It would be the extreme
of folly to undertake to find the analogy between the kingdom of Christ as a
whole, and a grain of mustard. One feature of the kingdom is illustrated by
it--it has a small beginning and a grand result. Again we have the word kingdom
employed, only to give one thought with respect to it.

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three
measures of meal, till it was all leavened." Again there is but one point of
analogy--that of a gradual enlarging from a small beginning to a grand final
result. Hence the word kingdom is employed for the one idea of a quiet but
certain gain, till the influence shall reach the ends of the earth.

"The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in the field." In one
particular only is it like a treasure--it has great value. So with the pearl of
great price: while the similitude of the "net and the fishes" gives the feature
of the judgment. Take every parable-illustration of the kingdom of heaven, and
it is the use of the synecdoche--the word kingdom being used, whereas there is
but a single feature of that institution intended.

"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands
on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer the
little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the
kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence" (Mat
19:13-15).

They brought these children to Jesus for a blessing, and He gave it to them, for
it belonged to them. Here it is evident that the word kingdom is used to
indicate the blessings to be conferred by the king. They had not sinned, and in
that sinless condition they had a right to these blessings. Indeed, this verse
has been rendered by the best authority in the country, "To such as these
belongs the kingdom."

"For the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace
and joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom 14:17). No one thinks that Paul had in his mind
the kingdom as an entirety. He is not talking about the king, and the subjects,
and the laws, and the officers and territory, and the throne for the king, nor
of the judgment and the punishment that shall follow those who have been
disobedient, but of the one great feature of holy living and peace in the
service of God. Some of them were making this service to consist in forms and
ceremonies and nice distinctions about meats, but He wished to have a larger
view of the service of God and its blessedness than that; so he employs the word
kingdom for the one thought.

Under this figure, Lazarus (Luk 16:23) is put for the spirit of Lazarus. The
angels carried him to Abraham’s bosom, and yet the body of the poor man was
lying at the gate of the rich man, and the dogs were his attendants. In John
19:42; John 20:2, we have this figure used for the body. "There laid they
Jesus"--that is, the body of Jesus. And Mary came and told the apostles that
they had taken away her Lord. But in the twelfth verse the distinction is
clearly made; she stooped down and saw two angels sitting, one at the head and
the other at the foot, where the body of Jesus had lain. So in Luk 24:3 : "And
they entered in, and found not the body o: the Lord Jesus."

(2.) A part put for the whole.--Sometimes the spirit is spoken of as a
possession. Christ gave up the Spirit to the Father, and Stephen commended his
spirit to the Lord Jesus. The Master said: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." In
this he might be understood to mean that the man was the being, and the spirit a
mere dweller, or some feature of his mentality. In Rom 1:9, Paul says that "I
serve in my spirit, in the gospel." Here Paul is one thing and the spirit
another, or a mere possession. When Paul was in Athens, "his spirit was provoked
within him, as he beheld the city full of idols." But sometimes the other form
is found, and the mental man is spoken of to indicate the whole man. In Gen
46:27, "All the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were
threescore and ten." The word soul here, as in many places in the Bible, stands
for person. One entity is named, but the whole person is intended. In other
places, however, the outer and inner man are spoken of as the two great features
of the man. In the whole of the seventh chapter of the Roman letter, Paul is
showing the struggle that was going on between the spirit that consented to that
which was good, and the flesh that demanded that which was not good. So in Gal
5:16-24, the same struggle for the mastery is indicated. In 2Co 4:16, Paul says
that, "Though our outward man is decaying, yet our inward man is renewed day by
day." Here is a something mentioned as the real self, having an outward man and
an inward man, both of which are the property of this imaginary self.

"And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by
putting you in remembrance; knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh
swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signifies unto me. Yea, I will give
diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these
things to remembrance" (2Pe 1:13-15).

Here the apostle speaks of himself living in a tent, or tabernacle, which is
soon to be laid aside. Putting this tabernacle aside is explained to be death,
or decease; hence, living in this tabernacle was living in the body. The body,
then, was the tabernacle, and the inner man, or the spirit, was the real man.
But in 1Th 5:23, and Heb 4:12, there are indicated three entities in the
man--spirit, soul, and body. It is, then, very evident that, in many passages, a
part is put for the whole. This is many times the case with the salvation of
sinners. The whole number of conditions are indicated by the use of one.
Generally the first one is mentioned--that of faith--because without it nothing
else could follow. Men were to call on the name of the Lord, in order to be
saved (Rom 10:17); they must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31); they
must repent of their sins (Acts 17:30); they must be baptized in the name of the
Lord (Acts 22:16). But it is common to have one of these mentioned, without any
statement as to the presence of any other.

(3.) Time is put for a part of time.--All the way through the Scriptures the
Oriental form of expression is found, in this respect.

"Of them shall ye take your bondmen for ever" (Lev 25:46)

Whatever construction may be put upon this passage, they have long ceased to
take bondmen from the strangers around them.

"And my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant" (Gen
17:13). In Gen 13:15, God promised the land of Canaan to Abram and his seed
forever. In Num 25:13, to Phinehas was promised an everlasting priesthood. It
failed a long time ago. Sometimes men have been staggered at the discovery of
this fact, and have almost reached the conclusion that these statements were
never made by the God of heaven at all. Others have concluded that wherever
eternity or everlasting occurs, only limited duration is intended. But this will
not do, for it limits the blessedness of the righteous, and the years of God
himself. He is the same, and His years shall not fail; from everlasting to
everlasting He is God. It will not do to rush from one extreme to another. This
is the truth in the case, forever exhausts the period to which it belongs. If it
was said to a king, "live forever," it meant a long life, and yet the life of a
man. If it referred to a nation, it was to extend till that nation would be
scattered and the nationality be destroyed. If we could know that it related to
time, we could be sure that it would exhaust the period. But if it reach beyond
the precincts of time, there then being no limit, it must have all the meaning
that can attach to the word. Hence, because a word is sometimes used in a
figurative sense, it does not follow that it is always to be so understood.

(4.) The plural is put for the singular.--The ark that carried Noah across the
flood rested on the mountains of Ararat (Gen 8:4). It could not have rested on
more than one. To one accustomed to their style of speech there would be nothing
strange in the expression. There were three ranges of hills, or mountains, and
in one of these ranges the ark rested.

"And it came to pass, when God destroyed the cities of the Plain, that God
remembered Abraham, and sent Lot out of the midst of the overthrow, when he
overthrew the cities in which Lot dwelt" (Gen 19:29). But Lot only dwelt in one
city--Sodom.

"Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should give children suck?" (Gen
21:7).

She never had but one child, and no other was ever promised. In Gen 46:7, when
Jacob was going into Egypt, it is indicated that he took "his sons, and his
sons’ sons with him; his daughters, and his sons’ daughters." But Jacob never
had more than one daughter--Dinah--that was defiled by Shechem.

"Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths,
where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls"
(Jer 6:16).

Here the paths denote that which is right in the sight of the Lord, and
therefore could not have been different. This path meant the good way in which
they were to walk. This may account for the singular being used by one apostle
and the plural by another, when describing the same thing. Matthew and Mark
usually differ in this respect. Matthew has two men possessed by demons in
Gadara; Mark tells of but one. Mark tells of one blind beggar at Jericho that
wished to be healed; Matthew has two. Mark describes the ride into Jerusalem to
be on a colt whereon man never sat; Matthew has an ass and a colt. Mark and
Matthew both say that they who were crucified with Jesus reproached him; while
Luke declares that one defended his claims by rebuking the other (Luk 23:39-43).
To say that they reproached Him when only one did it, would not have been out of
harmony with general custom at that time. A number are frequently said to have
done a thing, when it is certain that but one of the number did it. This may be
all there was in the remark of Paul to the serjeants (Acts 16:35, Acts 16:37),
"They have beaten us publicly, uncondemned, men that are Romans." We know that
Paul was a Roman citizen; but that Silas was, could hardly be sustained by this
text.

(5.) The singular is put for the plural.--This is commonly understood when the
statement is a general one. When God ordained marriage, it was not for the one
man and woman in the garden--it was not for them that it was said, "Therefore
shall a man forsake father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife"--for it
meant all men; so that marriage was instituted for the race.

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that
hath life, and let fowl fly above the earth" (Gen 1:20). The moving creature and
the fowl do not mean one of each, but the whole family of each. In Exo 8:17; Exo
13:15, we have the plagues of Egypt that came upon man and beast. While the
words man and beast do not mean all men and all beasts, they do mean all those
that were exposed in Egypt, belonging to the dominion of Pharaoh. The term is
singular, but the meaning is plural.

"I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously: The horse and his
rider hath he thrown into the sea" (Exo 15:1).

"Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and
the swallow and the crane observe the time of their coming; but my people know
not the ordinance of the Lord" (Jer 8:7).

Here a number of things are spoken of in the singular, while the whole number is
intended: the stork, the turtle, the crane, stand for all such.

"The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib" (Isa 1:3).

All oxen, and all asses, is the meaning. Lev 11:29 tells of some unclean
animals, such as the weasel, the lizard, and the mouse. In Deu 7:20, God
promised to send the hornet, and drive out the inhabitants; and in Jos 24:12,
they are reminded that God had sent the hornet, and had driven out the people in
that way. Of course it was not any one hornet that did that work. He is to be
regarded as a numerous hornet! This is, perhaps, the proper interpretation of
Gen 6:16, respecting the light in the ark, which God appointed.

(6.) A definite is put for an indefinite number.

"That she hath received of the Lord’s hand double for all her sins" (Isa 40:2).
The word double stands for plenty.

"Render unto her even as she rendered, and double unto her the double according
to her works" (Rev 18:6). That is, she must be punished sufficiently.

"God hath spoken once, Twice have I heard this" (Psa 62:11).

"Howbeit in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that
I might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue" (1Co 14:19).
In this he is understood to mean that he would prefer to use a very few words
that would instruct the people than a great number that would not do any good.
Elkanah said to Hannah (1Sa 1:8), "Am I not better to thee than ten sons?"--that
is, than a whole family of sons?

"A rebuke entereth deeper into one that hath understanding Than an hundred
stripes into a fool" (Pro 17:10). That is, than any number of stripes.

"If a man beget an hundred children" (Ecc 6:3). A great number.

"For the child shall die an hundred years old, and the sinner being an hundred
years old shall be accursed" (Isa 65:20). This is a strong figure for the
blessings that would be for them when they should return from their captivity in
Babylon.

One thousand stands for a higher number, and yet indefinite, many times.

"And showing mercy unto thousands, of them that love me and keep my
commandments" (Exo 20:6).

Here the thousands include the whole number of those that love the Lord, and
keep His word.

"The Lord, the God of your fathers, make you a thousand times so many more as ye
are" (Deu 1:11). That is, increase your number very greatly.

"He can not answer him one of a thousand" (Job 9:3).

"For every beast of the forest is mine, And the cattle upon a thousand hills"
(Psa 50:10).

Ten thousand stands for a very great number, but sometimes as indefinite as the
others.

"And when it rested, he said, Return, O Lord, unto the ten thousands of the
thousands of Israel" (Num 10:36).

"A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands
ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him" (Dan
7:10).

"And the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of
thousands" (Rev 5:10).

Every one understands by these expressions a very great number, but no one
thinks of the number being accurately made out. The words hour, day, year, are
employed with the same latitude. Jesus said to the disciples the night before
the crucifixion, "Could ye not watch with me one hour?"--that is, just a little
while.

Numbers, among the ancients, were very loosely kept. All the antediluvian
patriarchs seem to have died on their birthdays, for they were so many years
old. The same is true of the men who lived on this side of the flood. And yet we
do not think but what they lived months and days, more or less, just as the
people do now.

If we take the ordinals among the Greeks, first, second, third, etc., they are
always to be relied upon; but if we have the indication in the use of the
cardinals, one, two, three, etc, we may feel sure that it is not as we would say
it. Jesus says that He was to be in the heart of the earth three days and three
nights; and again, that He would rise again on the third day. As we speak, this
could not be true. See John 2:19; Mark 8:31; Mat 16:21. And by reading 1Ki
12:5-12, both styles of record will be found.

(7.) A general name is put for a particular name.--"All flesh" stands for all
human beings. Psa 145:21. "And let all flesh bless his holy name, for ever and
ever."

"And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it
together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it. The voice of one saying,
Cry. And one said, What shall I cry? All flesh is grass" (Isa 40:5-6).

"Because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom 3:20).

"And preach the gospel to the whole creation" (Mark 16:15).

It is not meant to preach the gospel to the animal creation, but to the human
family. The word creature stands here, for the human race, only. In the time of
Abraham it was said that "the Canaanite was then in the land" (Gen 12:6). But
this is the general for a large number of tribes into which the descendants of
the fourth son of Ham had been divided. It is not certain that the races of
giants--the Anakim, the Avim, the Emmim, the Horim, the Rephaim, the Zuzim, or
the Zamzummim--were descendants from this line or not; but the probabilities are
that they were. At any rate, the Canaanite includes the Amorites (between Hebron
and the salt sea, that afterwards spread to the east side of the Jordan, and
occupied the country from the river Arnon on the south, to the north line of
Bashan); the Arkites (at Arka, opposite the northern part of Lebanon); the
Arvadites (around Arad); the Girgashites (around the sea of Tiberius); the
Hamathites (around Hamath, in the extreme north of the land); the Hittites
(around Hebron); the Hivites (about the foot of Hermon); the Jebusites (about
Jerusalem); the Perizzites (in Samaria); the Sinites (south of Arka); the
Zerarites (south of Arad); and probably the Zidonians (at Zidon).

It is quite common, in all ages of the world, to speak of the smaller tribes by
mentioning the larger, which contained the smaller.

(8.) Sometimes a special name or word is put for a general.

"He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; He breaketh the bow, and
cutteth the spear in asunder; He burneth the chariots in the fire" (Psa 46:9).
That is to say, God is the great peace-maker, and he accomplishes the work by
the destruction of the means of warfare. So bread is used in the place of food
in general.

"Command that these stones become bread" (Mat 4:3).

"Give us this day our daily bread" (Mat 6:11). That is, our daily food. Many
times the word meat is used in the same sense. These special names are employed
because they are leading, and therefore indicate the whole line of food in
general. In Dan 12:2, many is put for all mankind, for, though the thought to be
conveyed is the restoration of Israel from Babylon, yet the scene is laid on the
general resurrection of the dead. Hence the "Many that sleep in the dust of the
earth" meant all that sleep in the dust of the earth. (2Co 2:6). In Mark 16:16,
"He that believeth" stands for all who believe, etc. In Psa 1:1 : "Blessed is
the man" blessed are all men who walk as indicated in that place. In like manner
we have father, mother, brother, sister, daughter, son, etc., used for relatives
that are more distant. They are the particular things used for the general.
Consult Gen 1:21; Gen 17:4; Gen 24:38-40; Gen 29:12; Gen 28:9; Gen 3:20; Jdg
5:7; Rom 16:13; Deu 15:7; Deu 23:19; Ruth 4:3; Mark 3:35; Jos 7:19; Mat 1:6. It
will be found in the genealogy of Matthew, that there are skips where even the
form of begat is used. We are ready to excuse Luke, in adopting the Septuagint
in giving the line of Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David; and yet from the birth
of Boaz to the birth of David, there is scarcely less than four hundred and
fifty years of time, which would demand that each father mentioned should have
been about one hundred and fifty years old when his son was born. And yet men
were not as long lived then as now. David was an old and worn out man at
seventy, and Solomon reaches the end of life under sixty. It is better to
concede that there are vacancies in the account, and that they did not choose to
fill them, and have used the terms in a larger sense, giving the specific for
the general, as in Rom 1:16. In many other places the word Gentile occurs for
all heathen.

SEC. 65. PROVERB.--This seems to come from the Latin proverbium, from pro,
before, or for, and verbum a word. A sentence condensed into a word, or its
smallest form. Webster says of it:

"1. An old and common saying; a phrase which is often repeated; especially a
sentence which briefly and forcibly expresses some practical truth, or the
result of experience and observation; a maxim; a saw.

"’The proverb is true, that light gains make heavy purses; for light gains come
often, great gains now and then.’--BACON.

"2. Hence a striking or paradoxical assertion; an enigma.

"’His disciples said unto him, Lo! now speakest thou plainly, and thou usest no
proverb.’--WYCLIFFE’S BIBLE, 1551.

"3. A byword; an expression of contempt.

"Thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations"
(Deu 28:37). A proverb, then, may be regarded as a short, pithy sentence,
containing a complete and valuable thought. Its value may be judged of (1) by
its prominence and value of truth; (2) its brevity; (3) its elegance and beauty.

It is constructed of several different figures of speech, and when they are
employed the rules that relate to their interpretation should be used. As they
were in the habit of calling nearly all figures parables, several times in the
New Testament the word parable is used where, according to our forms of speech,
we would say proverb. Once before we mentioned Luk 4:23 (See Parable), and also
the parable of the fig tree (Mat 24:32) is a proverb: When the fig tree puts
forth leaves, the summer is nigh.

Here are a few model parables.

"Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness" (1Sa 24:13).

"It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).

"The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth" (Eze 3:22). The form of that
was good enough, but God found fault with it on the ground that it was not true
(Eze 3:23).

They used another that looked well enough, but was faulty on the same account.

"The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge"
(Eze 18:2).

Sometimes they spoke of proverbs as dark sayings (John 16:25, John 16:29).

These sayings, or "words of mine" (Mat 7:24), might be called proverbs. Indeed,
the Sermon on the Mount is almost made up of terse, forceful sentences, each one
of which contains a great volume of truth. From 1Ki 4:32; Ecc 12:9, Solomon
seems to have spoken many proverbs which have not been reported to us. The whole
book of Proverbs should be studied, in order to be familiar with this form of
speech.

It was used by the ancients, as by us, for the purpose of making the truth
appear with greater force, and to be remembered longer. "The legs of the lame
are not equal." "Consistency thou art a jewel." "He laughs best who laughs
last." Ahab, king of Israel, is the author of a very fine proverb. It was in
answer to Benhadad, king of Syria: "Let not him that girdeth on his armor boast
himself as he that putteth it off" (1Ki 20:11).

"It has happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog turning to his
own vomit again, and the sow that had washed to her wallowing in the mire." (2Pe
2:22). That illustrates those who are low in their disposition and practices,
and have turned to be Christians, and then permit their old desires and customs
to control them. A proverb may be enlarged into a parable, simply by the use of
a story which will contain the thought that would otherwise be put into a brief
sentence. The parable of the good Samaritan (Luk 10:25-37), might be made into a
proverb: "To be neighbor, is to show kindness." And while that truth might be as
potent to one who wished it, yet it would not enforce itself on the mind as well
as in the parable form in which the Saviour put it.

SEC. 66. IRONY.--From the Greek eironeia, dissimulation; as a figure, it means
to dissemble in speech--to say one thing, while another is meant. Webster says
of this word:

"A kind of ridicule which exposes the errors or faults of others by seeming to
adopt, approve, or defend them; apparent assent to a proposition given, with
such a tone, or under such circumstances, that opposite opinions or feelings are
implied."

Irony can be detected (1) by a statement made by the author: he sometimes says
that certain things were said in mockery. (2) It is sometimes apparent from the
tone or accent, or the manner of the speaker. (3) Sometimes it will be
recognized by the character of the address: if the speaker has been dealing in
that kind of dissimulation for the purpose of ridicule, it will be the easier
detected. (4) The extravagance of praise, when we know both the subject and the
author, will enable us to note the intent. (5) When the language was used
orally, and has been printed, there may be nothing in the form of words to
denote that it was an ironical speech; but if we can get the opinion of those
who were present, it will assist us; for they would be able to discover in the
tone or the accent what has been lost to us by distance and time. The Scriptures
contain many examples of irony, but, with the rules we have given already for
its detection, we will cite but a few, for the real meaning in any case is not
difficult.

"And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for
he is a god; either he is musing, or he is gone aside, or he is in a journey, or
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked" (1Ki 18:27).

"And when he was come to the king, the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go
to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go up, and
prosper; and the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king. 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 the Lord? And he said, I saw all Israel
scattered upon the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd: and the Lord said,
These have no master; let them return 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?" (1Ki 22:15-18).

There is nothing in the form of this address that would enable us to discern the
irony in it. But Ahab knew the man, and perhaps detected in the tone and accent
of the speech the ironical under-current.

"No doubt but ye are the people, And wisdom shall die with you" (Job 12:2). The
wisdom these men supposed they possessed, but did not possess, made it necessary
that the patriarch should deal in a very rugged language to bring them to their
senses.

"Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them save you in the time of
your distress" (Jdg 10:14).

"Already are ye filled, already ye are become rich, ye have reigned without us:
yea and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. For, I
think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death:
for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men. We are
fools for Christ’s sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are
strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonour Even unto this present hour we both
hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain
dwelling-place; and we toil, working with our own hands: being reviled, we
bless; being persecuted, we endure; being defamed, we intreat: we are made as
the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now" (1Co
4:8-13). The wisdom that this church supposed they possessed, but did not
possess, made it necessary that the apostle should deal in very rugged language
to bring them to their senses.

"But others mocking said, They are filled with new wine" (Acts 2:13). Of course
they meant to be understood as saying that they were drunk; but being full of
sweet wine would not make them drunk. They meant what we now mean when we say of
a man that "he is happy," or that he "he is full of milk." They say one thing,
but mean another.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 16: 01.09D.   VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (5)
========================================================================

SEC. 67. SARCASM.--This is from the Greek sarkasmos, from sarkadzein, to tear
flesh like dogs; to bite the lips in rage; to speak bitterly; to sneer. Webster
says of it:

"A keen, reproachful expression; a satirical remark uttered with some degree of
scorn or contempt; a taunt; a gibe; a cutting jest."

It is so related to irony that it is quite common for them to be regarded as the
same. It differs, however, from the usual form of irony in its severity and
evident spitefulness. It is only used for the purpose of reproof and
condemnation, and when the soul is too angry to secrete its bitterness. It is
used to condemn some action by seeming to order it, or decide the claims of
those who are condemned.

"And they plaited a crown of thorns and put it upon his head, and a reed in his
right hand; and they kneeled down before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King
of the Jews!" (Mat 27:29).

"In like manner also the chief priests mocking him among themselves with the
scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save. Let the Christ, the King
of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe" (Mark
15:31-32). The Saviour uses sarcasm in His fierce condemnation of the
self-righteousness of the Jews. They were punctilious in the payment of tithing
on mint and dill and rue; they were strict in keeping the traditions of the
fathers, but had little respect for the authority of God Himself.

"And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye
may keep your tradition" (Mark 7:9). In Paul’s anger at the high priest at
Jerusalem (Acts 23:3-5), he gives vent to his feelings by the use of this
figure. And when God told the Jews to get drunk and spew, He used the severest
form of sarcasm.

SEC. 68. HYPERBOLE.--Greek huper, above, over, beyond; and bolee, from bolein,
to throw. Webster says:

"A figure of speech in which the expression is an exaggeration of a meaning
intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or
less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement which exaggerates
through passion or intense excitement."

"And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, which come of the Nephilim:
and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight"
(Num 13:33). This was the report of the ten spies whose faith failed them. And,
according to Deu 1:28, they also said: "The cities are great and fenced up to
heaven." In Deu 9:1, Moses repeats this to the Israelites just before they
passed over the Jordan. In Gen 41:49, it is said that Joseph "laid up corn as
the sand of the sea, very much." God said to Abraham (Gen 13:16), "And I will
make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of
the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." When the Midianites had
overrun the land of Israel, for several years, the Lord raised up Gideon for
their deliverance. But the insignificance of the army of the Lord, when compared
to the Midianites and the help they had provided, is strongly expressed by Jdg
7:12 : "And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east
lay along in the valley like locusts for multitude; and their camels were
without number, as the sand which is upon the sea shore for multitude."

"And the Philistines assembled themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty
thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on
the sea shore in multitude" (1Sa 13:5).

"And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of
heart, even an the sand that is on the sea shore" (1Ki 4:29).

"But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men, and despised of the people"
(Psa 22:6).

Again, in Psa 22:14-15 :

"I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint: My heart is like
wax; It is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a
potsherd; And my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; And thou hast brought me into the
dust of death."

David expresses his sorrow in a very strong light in Psa 6:6-7 :

"I am weary with my groaning; Every night make I my bed to swim; I water my
couch with my tears. Mine eye wasteth away because of grief; It waxeth old
because of all mine adversaries."

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the
books that should be written" (John 21:25).

"All the nations are as nothing before him; they are counted to him less than
nothing, and vanity" (Psa 40:17).

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given" (Eph
3:8).

There need be no rule for the interpretation of the hyperbole, except to keep
before the mind the purpose of the author, and the language will interpret
itself. It is simply an intensification, and not used with any intent to
misrepresent the facts in the case. Of course, to make these statements literal
will find the Bible guilty of many falsehoods; but when we treat such figures in
the Scriptures as we treat them elsewhere, there is no danger of failing to
comprehend them.

SEC. 69. THE APOSTROPHE.--Greek apo, from, and strephein, to turn, a turning
from, or away from. In rhetoric it is a turning away from the real auditory, and
addressing an imaginary one.

(1.) When this audience is from the inanimate world, it is common to call it
Personification. Yet there is a clear distinction between ascribing to them
powers and volition and knowledge which do not belong to them, and addressing a
speech to them. Personification is present, but it is not all; the turning aside
from the regular discourse, and speaking to another than the real audience,
makes it Apostrophe.

"O thou sword of the Lord, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? Put up thyself
into thy scabbard; rest, and be still. How canst thou be quiet, seeing the Lord
hath given thee a charge?" (Jer 47:6-7).

"O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting?" (1Co 15:55).

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are
sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a
hen gathereth her own brood under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your
house is left unto you desolate: and I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until
ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord" (Luk 13:34-35).

(2.) When the address is to an absent person, it is pure apostrophe.

"And the king was much moved, and went up to the chamber over the gate, and
wept: and as he went, thus he said, O my son Absalom, my son, my son Absalom!
would God I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!" (2Sa 18:33). This is
an address to the absent son as though he were present, and is the unmixed
apostrophe. The finest and boldest apostrophe found in any book is to be read in
Isa 14:9-20. It is properly regarded as the prophet’s address to the king of
Babylon. The man of God had seen his work of disaster until he was sick at
heart, and now that the Lord permits him to see what is reserved for that power
that had trampled every other to the ground, he delivers the matter with zest:

"Hell from beneath is moved for thee, to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up
the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from
their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall answer and say unto
thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is
brought down to hell, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee,
and worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, O day star, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst lay low the nations!
And thou saidst in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my
throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in
the uttermost parts of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the
uttermost parts of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee,
they shall consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to
tremble, that did shake kingdoms; that made the world as a wilderness, and
overthrew the cities thereof, that let not loose his prisoners to their home?
All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, every one in his own
house. But thou art cast forth away from thy sepulchre like an abominable
branch, clothed with the slain, that are thrust through with the sword, that go
down to the stones of the pit as a carcass trodden under foot. Thou shalt not be
joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast
slain thy people; the seed of evil-doers shall not be named forever" (Isa
14:9-20). This is a most wonderful address, especially when we realize that the
prophet was talking to a man who was not yet born, and whose end was two hundred
years away. He might have presented this in the usual form of prophecy, but he
could not have given to it the strength and force that was desired. Hence he
calls up the king of Babylon, and delivers to him the sentence of death, and
even permits the slain kings to rise up from the grave and taunt him for not
having a place in which to be buried; and the unseen is set into a roar of
laughter at the pretensions of this mighty man.

SEC. 70. PERSONIFICATION.--This is a figure of speech by which inanimate beings
are spoken of as animated, or endowed with life and volition; animals are
endowed with feelings akin to those of men. This is well suited to an imaginary
condition of mind, and therefore frequently employed in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Indeed, it is now a staple in the market of communication, and we use it so
commonly ourselves that we have almost ceased to think of it as a figure of
speech.

"And it came to pass, as he made an end of speaking all these words, that the
ground clave asunder that was under them: and the earth opened her mouth, and
swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men that appertained unto
Korah, and all their goods" (Num 16:31-32). The earth opening her mouth
indicates volition, and intent to remove those rebels against the Lord and His
servant.

"Be not therefore anxious for the morrow: for the morrow will be anxious for
itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof" (Mat 6:34).

Here is a day or some period of time spoken of as having the reason and interest
of men.

"The sea saw it, and fled Jordan was driven back. The mountains skipped like
rams, The little hills like young sheep" (Psa 114:3-4).

"The mountains saw thee, and were afraid; The tempest of waters passed by The
deep uttered his voice, And lifted up his hands on high. The sun and moon stood
still in their habitation; At the light of throe arrows as they went" (Hab
3:10-11).

Here the mountains, the sea, and the sun and the moon are endowed with powers
which belong to the human race, and are not in the choice of inanimate things.

"If any man thinketh himself to be religious, while he bridleth not his tongue
but deceiveth his heart, this man’s religion is vain" (Jas 1:26). In this text
the apostle ascribes to the tongue of man an independent power, as if it were
some ferocious animal. In Jas 3:9-10, he has another use of it, very much the
same.

Job, in his valuation of wisdom and search for understanding, says some
beautiful things respecting its home being in the mind of God.

"The deep saith, It is not in me: And the sea saith, It is not with me" (Job
28:14).

"Destruction and Death say, We have heard a rumour thereof with our ears" (Job
28:22). In these texts the sea and death and destruction are regarded as
considering questions which are worthy of the best minds of mortals.

"The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea,
the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art
laid down, no feller is come up against us" (Isa 14:7-8). This was the rejoicing
of nature at the thought of the destruction of the king of Babylon. Isaiah sees
everything as conforming to the feelings of the people of the Lord respecting
the breaking down of that power that had retained them in bondage away from
their own land. So again, when he is permitted to see the dews returning home,
it seems to him as if the very land itself will be frantic with joy at the
sight, once more, of the children of that country.

"For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace the mountains and the
hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field
shall clap their hands" (Isa 55:12).

Thus he gives to them all the volition and thought and feeling that belonged
even to men.

"Go up, ye horses; and rage, ye chariots; and let the mighty men go forth: Cush
and Put, that handle the shield; and the Ludim, that handle and bend the bow.
For that day is a day of the Lord, the Lord of hosts, a day of vengeance, that
he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour and be satiate,
and shall drink its fill of their blood" (Jer 46:9-10).

Here the horses and chariots and the sword are filled with animation, and have
desires that are to be satisfied with the destruction of those who oppose their
country.

Fables can only be constructed by the use of this figure of speech. From first
to last, human ability must be ascribed to the lower animals, or to inanimate
creatures.

SEC. 71. INTERROGATION.--This is a figure of speech when it is employed for the
purpose of affirming or denying with great force. It is no longer an inquiry
into any proposition, but the end of it. By it the affirmation or denial is
made, and is to be understood as the conclusion of all investigation, and is
only referred to because it will serve as a basis for some conclusion which it
is desired to reach.

"Nicodemus saith unto them (he that came to him before, being one of them), Doth
our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth?"
(John 7:50-51).

He meant to say that the law did not permit any man to he condemned without
first having been heard, and he meant to say it with force.

"Am I not free? am I not an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not ye
my work in the Lord?" (1Co 9:1)

Surely Paul does not ask these questions for the sake of any light he might gain
respecting them. He meant to say, These things are so, and you know them to be
so; these are facts about which there is no doubt.

"Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of
miracles? have all gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all
interpret?" (1Co 12:29-30).

Here are seven questions to which a negative answer was expected. Indeed, they
are presented as if they were the conclusion on the subject--as if he had said:
You know that all are not apostles, etc.

"Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of
them that shall inherit salvation?" (Heb 1:14).

It was not because Paul, or any one else, doubted that the angels were
ministering spirits, that he puts the question, but because on that point there
was no dispute, as if he had said, You know that they fill that mission. Job
indulges this style, and the Lord, when He speaks to Job, presents the thought
with great force in this way.

"Canst thou by searching find out God? Canst then find out the Almighty unto
perfection?" (Job 11:7).

Zophar the Naamathite, tries this form of emphasis (see Job 20:4-5):

"Knowest thou not this of old time, Since man was placed upon earth, That the
triumphing of the wicked is short, And the joy of the godless but for a moment?"

He is not inquiring after anything that Job might know on that subject, but
using this figure as the best way of enforcing his thought. When the Lord
answered Job out of the whirlwind (Job 38:1-41, Job 41:1-34), everything,
almost, was put in this terse way:

"Who is this that darkeneth counsel By words without knowledge?" "Where wast
thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?" " Hast thou commanded the
morning since thy days began!" "Hast thou entered into the springs of the sea?"
"Have the gates of death been revealed unto thee?" "Hast thou entered the
treasuries of the snow?" "Hath the rain a father?" "Out of whose womb came the
ice?" "Canst thou bind the cluster of the Pleiades, Or loose the bands of
Orion?"

These are but a few for the whole; for God’s reproof of this man was by the use
of the Interrogative, making him to understand that he had undertaken to speak
on subjects with which he was not acquainted. The reproof had its desired
effect, for he was made to feel that his knowledge was not equal to the topics
on which he had spoken. But one of the finest figures of this kind is to be read
in Rom 8:31-35 :

"What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He
that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not
also with him freely give us all things? Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect? It is God that justifieth; who is he that shall condemn? It is
Christ Jesus that died, yea rather, that was raised from the dead, who is at the
right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. Who shall separate us
from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or
famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?" (Rom 8:31-35).

SEC. 72. PROLEPSIS.--This is from the Greek pro, before, and lambanein, to take;
hence to take beforehand. Of this figure Webster says:

"’1. (Rhet.) A figure by which objections are anticipated or prevented’--BISHOP
BRAMHALL.

"’2. An error in chronology, when an event is dated before the actual time: a
species of anachronism’--THEOBOLD.

"3. A necessary truth or assumption; a first or assumed principle." The works on
Rhetoric seem to know nothing of this figure, and yet it is one of the most
common in all languages. In the Scriptures we have Bethel spoken of at the time
that Abraham came into the land of Canaan (Gen 2:8), and yet at the time of
Jacob’s flight from the face of his brother, he slept there; and because of the
visitation of the angels it received its name (Gen 28:10-19). When the writer
gave the account, it lead long been known by that name, and he therefore speaks
of it by the name commonly spoken by the people. So with Hebron; it was called
Mamre, and Hebron is a later name; but because it was known by that name when
the account is written, it is so denominated in the earlier record (Gen 13:18;
Gen 23:2; Gen 35:27; Gen 14:14). In this way Moses is said to have seen as far
north as to Dan (Deu 34:1-5). In Jos 19:47, the country is described, indicating
that place in the far north where a portion of the tribe dispossessed the people
of Laish, or Leshem, and built up a city, and called it Dan. But there was no
place by that name when Moses looked from the top of Nebo; and certainly not
when Abraham pursued the kings of the east. The account is completed, then,
after the tribe had built up that city; and the name is carried back on the same
principle by which we speak of "President Garfield, when, he was a boy." We do
not mean to say that he was then President, but because he afterwards came to
that position, we feel that we can carry back these honors, in mentioning his
earlier life. So we hear of what General Grant did when he was a boy. He was not
General then, but as the people have become accustomed to calling him General,
we do so when referring to his early life.

"And the man called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all
living" (Gen 3:20). At that time she was not a mother of any one. But when Moses
wrote, she stood at the maternal head of the race. So he borrows from the then
present knowledge and lends to Adam.

"And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she
shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man
leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be
one flesh" (Gen 2:23-24). The ordination of marriage would seem to be from Adam.
In Mat 19:5, the Saviour indicates that it was from God. But it is quite certain
that God did not proceed at that time to instruct Adam on that subject. But long
before Moses wrote the account of the beginning, marriage had been ordained, and
the remark is thrown in here when the man and his wife were created, because at
the time of the writing the institution had long been known. The Saviour is
right in attributing it to the Father, for He was its author. In Gen 10:1-32 and
Gen 11:1-32, where the three sons of Noah are written up, with their posterity,
the form of writing is frequently proleptic. The account runs many centuries in
advance of the time. The history had been made when Moses wrote the account, and
therefore he borrows from that future record.

"And the Lord said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, And two peoples shall
be separated even from thy bowels; And the one people shall be stronger than the
other people. And the elder shall serve the younger" (Gen 25:23). This would be
strange, if literally true. There were the potencies; and from those two sons
should spring two nations, and by the figure of prolepsis they are said to be
present.

"Now a certain man was sick, Lazarus, of Bethany, of the. village of Mary and
her sister Martha. And it was that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment,
and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick" (John 11:1-2).
This anointing did not occur yet for about three months, but John speaks of it
as having already taken place, because when he wrote the account it was
generally known that she did this (John 12:5). So in Mat 10:4, Judas is
mentioned as the one who betrayed Christ, and yet it was more than a year before
the betrayal took place. He dates the event ahead, because at the time of
writing it was known to almost every one who it was that betrayed Him. On the
same principle the Saviour says (Mat 22:30), "For in the resurrection they
neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven." Here
they are spoken of as having passed into the resurrection state already, and
they were a long ways from it; but in the contemplation of that condition He
correctly speaks of it as present, and puts "they are," for they will be. When
the object is high, the intervening distance becomes trivial. Hence the
Messianic prophecies are generally spoken of as if the event was just at hand,
or even in the past. "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given" (Isa
9:6). In view of the ascension and coronation that were soon to follow, Jesus
came to His disciples and said, "All authority hath been given unto me in heaven
and on earth" (Mat 28:18).

Care must be taken that we do not avoid any facts respecting the time of any
event. It will be easy to say that any reference to time, present or past, is a
proleptic statement. We must be sure that we are not making a contradiction in
the word of God by the introduction of this figure. However, there is but little
danger in the hands of any conscientious man, for the presence of the figure is
so guarded that there is no mistaking it. And when there is no such necessity
laid upon us, we will do better not to regard the language as proleptic.

SEC. 73. PARALLELISM.--Greek parallelismos, from para, beside, and allelo, each.
As a figure of speech, it is placing beside each other several lines having the
same or similar import. Bishop Lowth maintains that it is the sole
characteristic of Hebrew poetry; that it is a certain equality, resemblance, or
relationship, between the members of each period; so that in two lines, or
members of the same period, things shall answer to things, and words to words,
as if fitted to each other by a kind of measure or rule. Such is the general
strain of Hebrew poetry. The origin of this form of poetical composition among
the Hebrews, is supposed to be the chanting of songs, when one company or choir
answers another. It is understood that Moses and Miriam (Exo 15:1-27), conducted
their joyful singing in that way. In 1Sa 18:7, it is quite certain that the
women in their praises of David and Saul gave a song in this way. So it was when
Deborah and Barak rejoiced against Sisera and his men, that they sang back and
forth at each other in this responsive way. But to call this the origin of
parallelism is certainly to miss the facts. The mind is most likely to give off
poetry when highly wrought by love, triumph, or anger. There are few poets among
farmers on level land, who pass their time in an even way. The imagination
necessary to that kind of composition is not aroused. But those who live in
mountainous countries, and are frequently thrown into a highly excited
condition, will dream and talk in poetry. In the song of Deborah and Barak it is
clear that the construction was the result of an exultant state of mind. They
are not now angry, but they rejoice that their enemies have been destroyed. But
in the response of Mary to Elizabeth, it can be seen that her heart is
overflowing with love and gratitude to God for his wonderful works.

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in
God my Saviour. For he hath looked upon the low estate of his handmaiden. For,
behold, from henceforth All generations shall call me blessed. For he that is
mighty hath done to me great things; And holy is his name. And his mercy is unto
generations and generations On them that fear him. He hath shewed strength with
his arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their heart. He hath
put down princes from their thrones, And hath exalted them of low degree. The
hungry he hath filled with good things; And the rich he hath sent empty away. He
hath holpen Israel his servant, That he might remember mercy; (As he spake unto
our fathers) Toward Abraham and his seed forever", (Luk 1:46-55). A careful
reading of this address will cause any one to see the parallel lines and rhythm
in the heart wrought to the highest tension with love for and praise to God. But
when Laban followed the fleeing Jacob out of Paddan-aram, and overtook him in
the mountains of Gilead, his mind was highly wrought, but in a very different
way.

"What hast thou done, that thou hast stolen away unawares to me, And carried
away my daughters, as captives of the sword? Wherefore didst thou flee secretly,
And steal away from me; And didst not tell me, that I might have sent thee away
with mirth, And with songs, with tabret, and with harp?" (Gen 31:26-28).

Laban makes a search for his teraphim, and finds nothing that was his, and Jacob
is angry, and chides in the same way:

"What is my trespass? What is my sin, That thou hast hotly pursued after me?
Whereas thou hast felt about all my stuff, What hast thou found of all thy
household stuff? Set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, That they may
judge betwixt us two" (Gen 31:36-37).

I think it certain that this figure of speech has had its origin in the passions
of the people, for it suited well as a method of giving vent to their feelings.
A short, crisp, terse sentence or statement, and another following just like it
in sentiment, gives the emphasis that is in a heart full of love or anger.

There are so many forms of parallelism that it will be better to treat it under
the several heads into which it is naturally divided.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 17: 01.09E.   VARIOUS FIGURES OF THE BIBLE (6)
========================================================================

SEC. 74. SYNONYMOUS PARALLELISM.--This is when the lines contain the same
thought, or nearly the same thought.

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; Ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech For
I have slain a man for wounding me, And a young man for bruising me If Cain
shall be avenged sevenfold, Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold" (Gen 4:23-24).
This may be denominated identical, for some of these lines contain exactly the
same thought. Adah and Zillah were the same as the wives of Lamech, and the man
that wounded him was the same as the young man that bruised him. In such cases
we have the same thing repeated for the sake of beauty and force.

(1.) We give, then, the first form of this kind of parallelism as identical, for
the comparison is made by employing a part of the same words, intended to convey
the same thought.

"Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, Thou art taken with the words of
thy mouth" (Pro 6:2).

"The floods have lifted up, O Lord, The floods have lifted up their voice; The
floods lift up their waves. Above the voices of many waters, The mighty breakers
of the sea, The Lord on high is mighty" (Psa 93:3-4). In Isa 45:6-7, we have a
parallelism that is more nearly of this order than any other, and therefore we
quote it:

"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, Call ye upon him while he is near: Let
the wicked forsake his way, And the unrighteous man his thoughts: And let him
return unto the Lord, And he will have mercy upon him; And to our God, for he
will abundantly pardon."

(2.) A similar synonymous parallelism is one in which the lines have the same
meaning, or nearly the same, but not couched in the same words.

"Doth the wild ass bray when he hath grass? Or loweth the ox over his fodder?
Can that which hath no savour be eaten without salt? Or is there any taste in
the white of an egg? My soul refuseth to touch them; They are as loathsome meat
to me. Oh that I might have my request; And that God would grant me the thing
that I long for! Even that it would please God to crush me; That he would let
loose his hand, and cut me off" (Job 6:5-10). A good example of this is found in
Hos 11:8-9.

"How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall
I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned
within me, My compassions are kindled together. I will not execute the
fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim For I am God, and
not man; The Holy One in the midst of thee" (Hos 11:8-9).

"At their presence the peoples are in anguish All faces are waxed pale. They
shall run like mighty men; They climb the wall like men of war; And they march
every one on his ways, And they break not their ranks. Neither doth one thrust
another; They march every one in his path And they burst through the weapons,
And break not off their course. They leap upon the city; They run upon the wall;
They climb up into the houses; They enter in at the windows like a thief" (Joe
2:6-9).

"Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: The young lion and the serpent shalt
thou trample under feet" (Psa 91:13).

SEC. 75. ANTITHETIC PARALLELISM is that in which lines and sentences are made to
oppose each other. Truth is often made to appear by the use of antithesis; and
this may be done in poetry, as well as elsewhere.

(1.) Simple antithetic parallelism is that in which the sentences opposed are
simple.

"In the multitude of people is the king’s glory: But in the want of people is
the destruction of the prince. He that is slow to anger is of great
understanding: But he that is hasty of spirit exalteth folly. A sound heart is
the life of the flesh: But envy is the rottenness of the bones. He that
oppresseth the poor reproacheth his Maker: But he that hath mercy on the needy
honoureth him. The wicked is thrust down in his evil-doing: But the righteous
hath hope in his death. Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath
understanding: But that which is in the inward part of fools is made known.
Righteousness exalteth a nation: But sin is a reproach to any people. The king’s
favour is toward a servant that dealeth wisely: But his wrath shall be against
him that causeth shame. A soft answer turneth away wrath: But a grievous word
stirreth up anger. The tongue of the wise uttereth knowledge aright: But the
mouth of fools poureth out folly" (Pro 14:28-35, Pro 15:1-2).

(2.) A compound antithetic parallelism is one in which the sentences opposed are
compound, or have less of the directness and simplicity of the former.

"The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master’s crib: But Israel doth not
know, my people doth not consider" (Isa 1:3)

"Come now, and let us reason together, with the Lord: Though your sins be as
scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; Though they be red like crimson, They
shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword" (Isa
1:18-20). In Isa 54:7-8, we have this form of parallelism, though it seems a
kind of mixture.

"For a small moment have I forsaken thee; But with great mercies will I gather
thee. In overflowing wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; But with
everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee."

SEC. 76. SYNTHETIC PARALLELISM.--This is where the words and sentences do not
answer to each other. There may be several lines running parallel bearing
certain relations to each other, as our blank verse, with a view of bringing out
a certain thought.

(1.) The corresponding synthetic parallelism is where the correspondence is
between relative sentences. Sometimes the responding thought is found in one
sentence, and sometimes in two or more.

"The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the
strength of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?" (Psa 27:1).

Any one will see that these sentences contain the same thought, and that the
author repeated the thought of the first in the second, for the sake of
strength. In Psa 35:25-26, we have a more difficult form of this figure:

"Let them not say in their heart, Aha, so would we have it: Let them not say, We
have swallowed him up. Let them be ashamed and confounded together that rejoice
at mine hurt: Let them be clothed with shame and dishonour that magnify
themselves against me."

It will be seen that these sentences respond to each other; that they present
the same view, but that they do so in different ways. In this way thought is
intensified by being set forth in this compound or double manner.

(2.) Cumulative synthetic parallelism.--This is ordinarily climacteric: each
line or sentence is supposed to be a gain on the preceding one in some
particular, until the purpose of the author finds satisfaction in a completed
statement. The full truth might have been stated at the beginning, but the
bearing, force and beauty would have suffered by that directness. It should be
remembered that this is dust as competent to present the descendent as the
ascendant scale. From not noticing that thoughts are increased in a downward
course as well as in an upward, many beautiful Scriptures have been
misinterpreted.

Some examples of the ascendant scale (Psa 19:1-14): In Psa 19:1-6, the author
gives us a view of the greatness of God, seen in the work of creation.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament showeth his handywork.
Day unto day uttereth speech, And night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is
no speech nor language; Their voice can not be heard. Their line is gone out
through all the earth, And their words to the end of the world. In them hath he
set a tabernacle for the sun, Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his
chamber, And rejoiceth as a strong man to run his course. His going forth is
from the end of the heaven, And his circuit unto the ends of it And there is
nothing hid from the heat thereof." In this way the Psalmist accumulates, and
adds to the statements already made, till his mind is satisfied. And having
sufficiently praised God for the wonderful work of His hands, for the wisdom and
goodness everywhere displayed, he gives us his still higher appreciation of the
law of the Lord in the same way. See Psa 19:7-11 :

"The law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul The testimony of the Lord is
sure, making wise the simple. The precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the
heart: The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of
the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: The judgements of the Lord are true, and
righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine
gold Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant
warned: In keeping of them there is great reward." To indicate the revealed will
of God, the author uses the terms law, testimony, precepts, commandment, fear,
judgments; and to show his appreciation of it, has employed the terms perfect,
sure, right, pure, clean, true; and says of it, in a general way, that it
restores the soul, makes wise the simple, rejoices the heart, enlightens the
eyes, endures forever; and, not yet satisfied, he goes on to say that it is more
valuable than gold, and more delightful than honey. While it can not be said
that each line is a stronger statement than the preceding one, still, as a
cumulative synthetic parallelism, it is very valuable.

Psa 29:1-9 contains an ode to the voice of the Lord, in which this manner of
accumulating thought is followed. It may be studied with profit.

(3.) The descendent scale is seen also in many passages of Scripture.-- Pro
9:13-17 contains Solomon’s view of the woman of folly. She talks much, but knows
nothing of any value; she shows herself at her own door, and in the prominent
places in the city. She calls the attention of those who would otherwise go on
and attend to their business, and suggests that secret vices are very pleasant;
but her guests are killed. This begins in the ways that are not so palpably
wrong, and by the cumulative method the whole road to evil is pointed out, and
the terrible and awful results. The first Psalm, which has been a favorite with
preachers as being easy of interpretation, has been quite generally
misinterpreted from a want of acquaintance with this form of parallelism.
David’s aim is to show the difference between the righteous man and the
unrighteous. He changes terms in presenting the man who is not blessed, but the
degrees are made known in the other words indicative of conduct.

If he will have the blessing of the Lord, he must not walk in the counsel of the
wicked--no, he must not stand in the way of sinners--no, nor even sit among
those who make light of divine things. Nor is that all--he must not only not be
on the wrong side, but he must be on the right side: he must delight in the law
of the Lord; yea, and must meditate upon it day and night. If he shall thus
refuse the wrong and do the right, then he shall be like the tree beside the
waters, that shall not be injured by any temporal calamity.

(4.) Irregular synthetic parallelism is one in which the thoughts are brought
together in an irregular way.--We choose to denominate it irregular, because
there are no exact rules or forms by which the thoughts are gathered. Sometimes
there are three lines of comparative expression; sometimes there are four; but
the first and the third are matched, and the second and fourth; sometimes the
first and the last, and the two intermediate, are to be read together, while at
other times there are several lines of comparative thought to be put in
antithesis with a line before and one or more afterwards. To follow this out and
illustrate ail these irregularities, would demand more space than we can give to
it.

"My son, if thine heart be wise, My heart shall be glad, even mine: Yea, my
reins shall rejoice, When thy lips speak right things" (Pro 23:15-16).

It is common to denominate this the inverted form, but it is rather the
introverted, as it reads from the inside out, thus:

"My heart shall be glad, even mine, Yea, my reins shall rejoice, If the heart of
my son is wise, And his lips speak right things."

One of the loftiest Psalms containing a Messianic prophecy, has been composed on
the plan of introverted parallelism. That this may appear, we will have to quote
it as we think it should be read, in order to get its meaning (Psa 35:15-21). In
this we will find that Psa 35:15 matches Psa 35:21; Psa 35:16 matches Psa 35:20;
Psa 35:17 matches Psa 35:19; and Psa 35:18 is last, and is the relief that comes
in the just judgment of God.

Psa 35:15 : "But when I halted they rejoiced, and gathered themselves together;
The abjects gathered themselves together against me, and I knew it not; They did
tear me, and ceased not."

Psa 35:21 : Yea, they opened their mouth wide against Me: They said, Aha, aha,
our eye hath seen it."

Psa 35:16 : "Like the profane mockers in feasts, They gnashed upon me with their
teeth."

Psa 35:20 : "For they speak not peace But they devise deceitful words against
them that are quiet in the land."

Psa 35:17 : "Lord, how long wilt thou look on? Rescue my soul from their
destructions, My darling from the lions."

Psa 35:19 : "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me
Neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause."

Psa 35:18 : "I will give thee thanks in the great congregation; I will praise
thee among much people."

I was never able to see why the Psalmist should have stopped in the midst of the
crucifixion of the Saviour to give praise to the Father, and then repeat the
same things, or proceed to deliver himself with respect to the mocking of the
high priests. But with this reading all is plain. In Isa 65:21-22, there is a
parallelism in which the alternate lines are in antithesis, answering to each
other in that way:

"And they shall build houses, and inhabit them And they shall plant vineyards,
and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; They shall
not plant, and another eat."

Sometimes the parallelism is in triplets--there will be three lines expressing
the same thing, or one answering to two; at other times there are four
expressing the same thing, but this is unusual. The Saviour and the apostles
many times quote from the Psalms a beautiful parallelism, but it is so written
in the gospels and epistles as not to be noticed.

Many times the copulative is employed for the purpose of intensification, where
the thought is to be repeated either in the same, or nearly the same, words. The
import of these passages is, many times, mistaken, from the want of noticing the
figure of speech that has been employed.

"And many peoples shall go and say, Come ye, And let us go up to the mountain of
the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; And he will teach us of his ways,
And we will walk in his paths: For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the
word of the Lord from Jerusalem" (Isa 2:3).

Here the thoughts are repeated in couplets, and joined together, not by way of
adding new thought, but to intensify the one already stated.

"My son, hear the instruction of thy father, And forsake not the law of thy
mother: For they shall be a chaplet of grace unto thy head, And chains about thy
neck" (Pro 1:8-9).

(Jer 31:31; Hos 2:2)

"Therefore as the tongue of fire devoureth the stubble, And as the dry grass
sinketh down in the flame, So their root shall be as rottenness, And their
blossom shall go up as dust: Because they have rejected the law of the Lord of
hosts, And despised the word of the Holy One of Israel" (Isa 5:24).

Very many times there is demanded the use of the disjunctive, that negative
truth shall have the proper emphasis. Two very striking passages will be enough
to cite-- Neh 1:7; 2Ki 17:34.

There is need of caution, however, in the use of this fact. While this figure
has made the use of the conjunction that we have mentioned, we shall need to
exercise care lest many truths shall be thrown away, by supposing the presence
of the figure, when it is not present.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 18: 01.10.     FIGURES OF THOUGHT
========================================================================

CHAPTER X.

FIGURES OF THOUGHT.

There are many things in the Bible which are conveyed to our minds, not in
didactic language, nor yet in figurative language, properly speaking. They are
figures of thought, rather than figures of speech. Indeed, some of the figures
of speech might have been presented as figures of thought. This is true of most
of the proverbs, and a large part of the poetry of the Scriptures. But several
features of interpretation remain to be brought out which we can not
consistently denominate figures of speech. Hence we have introduced the term
that heads this chapter, not knowing what else to say.

SEC. 77. ANTITHESIS.--This is from the Greek anti, against, and thesis, a
setting. Of this word Webster says:

"An opposition of words or sentiments occurring in the same sentence; contrast;
as, ’When our vices leave us, we flatter ourselves we leave them.’ ’The prodigal
robs his heir, the miser robs himself.’ ’Excess of ceremony shows want of
breeding.’ ’Liberty with laws, and government without oppression.’"

If we had two pillars of equal dimensions and height, one set opposite the
other, with a compass on top, with one leg resting on each pillar, we would have
a mechanical antithesis. There would then be no difference between these, except
one would be on the north and the other on the south, the right hand or the
left, black or white, etc. But the two legs are supposed to be exactly equal,
except in that respect in which the author has seen proper to make them to
differ. A rhetorical antithesis has the same ground--thought and purpose. Hence,
if at any time there shall be one member of the antithesis which we can
understand, we can know what is intended by the other, by knowing that it is the
opposite of the one we have described. If we know that one is on the right hand,
we know just as certainly that the other is on the left hand; if one is North,
the other is South-for such opposites inhere in the figure. If, at any time, we
should be in doubt about what faith is, we may get its opposite, or its
opposites, and understand it by the things which it is supposed to antagonize.
The question of how faith comes, may be settled in the same way. If we can know
all the causes of unbelief, and put them into one pillar, knowing that faith is
the opposite, we will know that the causes directly opposite to these of
unbelief will be the power, or the powers, that produce faith. In the fifth
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew we have several uses of the antithesis. Jesus
says, "Ye have heard that it was said by them in old time," etc.; "but I say
unto you" (Mat 5:21, Mat 5:27, Mat 5:33-34, Mat 5:38-39, Mat 5:43-44). In all
this, Christ shows that the righteousness which He should require of His
followers was higher than that which was demanded by the Pharisees, or even that
of the law. The duration of the punishment of the wicked can be settled by this
law of antithesis (Mat 25:46):

"And these shall go away into eternal punishment: but the righteous into eternal
life." The duration which is the measure of the one of these, must of necessity
be the measure of the other, unless the author of the antithesis has seen proper
to make a difference in that respect. In this case, so far from making any
difference, He has used the same word on both sides; if the eternal life of the
righteous is life without end, so is the punishment of the wicked. This is
absolutely demanded by the law of antithesis. In Rom 2:7-10, there is more of
the need of close attention to this law; hence I quote the whole passage:

"To them that by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and
incorruption, eternal life: but unto them that are factious, and obey not the
truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and
anguish, upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of
the Greek." In this antithetical statement there is glory and honor and peace,
put over against wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish. It is easy to
see that these are the opposites; but there is one other word used that is
liable to be missed-to those that do well, eternal life shall be the reward.
This is, in that place, put as the antithetical thought, but in the rehearsal
the other things are mentioned, which might not be eternal; but as we understand
that the eternal life means eternal glory, honor and peace, so we are compelled
to regard the wrath, indignation, tribulation and anguish as eternal. We have no
right to suppose that one leg of the antithesis passes through eternity, and to
regard the other as limited to time.

"So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised
in incorruption: it is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in
weakness; it is raised in power it is sown a natural body; it is raised a
spiritual body" (1Co 15:42-44). In the interpretation of this passage, it should
be remembered that the only point in the antithesis is between the body as it
lived and moved in the world, and what it would be in the resurrection. With
that fact clearly in the mind, it will be easy to see the point of comparison.
Corruption, dishonor, weakness, animal, are on one side, and incorruption,
glory, power, spiritual, are on the other side. The former denotes the body as
the man lived in this world, the latter as he may live in the world to come.
These expressions mutually explain each other. The most perfect antithesis to be
found in the whole Bible is to be read in 2Co 3:5-13. As this has been cited
already for the teaching contained in the passage, we will not quote it again,
but would ask the reader’s attention to it as a most instructive lesson on this
subject.

SEC. 78. SYMBOLS. This is from the Greek sumbolon, a sign by which one knows a
thing or infers it, from sun, with, and ballein, to throw, to throw with, or
throw together. Webster’s first definition fairly exhausts its meaning:

"1. The sign or representation of something moral or intellectual, by the images
or properties of natural things; and emblem, a representation; as, the lion is
the symbol of courage; the lamb is the symbol of meekness or patience."

It may be said that types were representatives of thought, but they always
represented a thought yet to be, or fact in the scheme of redemption. A symbol
may tell the conditions existing at the time, or it may relate to something to
occur in the future; in that case they become typological prophecy--they
symbolize the events beforehand and in that way foretell them.

We can better examine the subject under three heads, or classes: The miraculous,
the material, and the visional--those seen in visions, or in dreams. Several
other subdivisions would be allowable, but for our brief space it is not well to
introduce them.

SEC. 79. THE MIRACULOUS SYMBOLS.--The first we come to is in Gen 3:24, and
exhibits cherubim and a flaming sword at the East of the garden in Eden. It is
emblematic of the fixedness of the word of Jehovah. Whether man had been
separated from the tree of life to prevent him from living forever in sin and
misery, into which he had then fallen, or for some other reason, the one thought
is everywhere to be seen that the heavens and the earth are all put under
tribute to keep the commandments of God. When Moses saw the burning bush (Exo
3:2), God’s, glory was made to appear; it was not so much intended to tell of
any future fact, as of the present majesty and dignity of the God of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob. So the pillar of a cloud and the pillar of fire that went with
the Israelites, (beginning Exo 13:21), was to them a constant symbol of God’s
presence and watchfulness. In Exo 16:10, we are informed of an appearance
similar, in the glory of the Lord seen as the people looked towards the
wilderness. Just what was then seen, may not be known, but we are certain that
God made them to understand His glory by what they saw. This was seen in the
display made at the Mount of Commandments, when the Lord appeared on the summit
in the smoke and the fire, and all the divine manifestation that accompanied the
giving of the law at Mt. Sinai (Exo 20:1-26). Often during the wandering of
Israel the Lord manifested His presence in this symbol of His glory. The
acknowledgment of the Son at the time of His baptism, and at the transfiguration
(Mat 3:1-17 and Mat 17:1-27), may be regarded in the list of miraculous symbols.
So also was the coming of the Spirit from the heavens on the day of Pentecost
(Acts 2:1-47). The apostles had known of its coming, and for it they were
waiting. As it had been previously interpreted for them, its meaning was clear.
So, when the same symbol was present at the house of Cornelius, Peter was at no
loss in understanding it. These divine or miraculous symbols were not prophetic;
they did not tell of some future event, but of present truth.

SEC. 80. MATERIAL SYMBOLS.--In selecting representatives of this kind of divine
instruction, it is very difficult to make any clear and satisfactory distinction
between symbols and types, and many commentators do not seem to have noted any
difference. Like many of the figures of speech between which the distinction is
not clear, symbols and types frequently seem to overlap each other. It should be
remembered that the symbol is supposed to relate to the present, and only
concerns the future as the same things will continue to be true; or that the
symbol is employed to represent a thought that shall be true in time that is to
come. But this is just where the type begins. It gathers its power of expression
from the condition of things at the time, and images beforehand the things that
are to come. Many things are clearly symbols, and others are clearly types;
while others seem to have the two thoughts and purposes combined. Many of the
most beautiful and instructive of types had, at the time they were given, a
symbolic truth to present of very great importance. In all the sacrifices by
which sin was to be removed, there was the then present truth upon the face of
all the services required that man, by his sin, had lost his right to live.
There was also the thought of divine mercy in the acceptance of the sacrifice,
in the place of man who deserved to die. But these become the most powerful and
instructive of types as they tell of the coming of that Saviour that should
suffer death for all men. In the same way we might go through the tabernacle and
the temple, and find the beauty and force of symbolic truth in everything that
the Lord had given them, for they were object-lessons, containing present and
valuable truth; but they have an answer still to be made, in the coming of
Christ and His grand accomplishments in behalf of the children of men. But there
are enough left, that are symbols purely, for a careful study. The "testimony,"
as applied to the tables of the law (Exo 25:16-21; Exo 31:18), and also called
the tables of the covenant (Deu 9:9), because on the basis of these God made a
covenant with Israel (Exo 34:27-28; Deu 4:13), served as a symbol as God’s
judgment against sin. The offering of incense from the golden altar symbolized
the thought of worship, or the prayers of God’s children. And while the worship
of the heart is more prominent now than then, it was true then that God required
them to draw near to Him in the loftiest devotion of which they were capable.
And while the cherubim, stretching their wings on high, overshadowed the mercy
seat, and gazed intently at the same place on the mercy seat below, there was
ever presented to the Jewish mind the thought that God and the angels are
attentive to their worship. And as the tables of the covenant were in the ark,
it was necessary that the mercy seat should overlay the ark, for the race judged
by that law would all be lost; but mercy rejoices against judgment. In Isa 7:4,
the prophet calls Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, king of Israel, two tails of
smoking firebrands. Of course, in the form in which this comes to us, it is a
metaphor; but it should be remembered that a symbol is in action, or being what
a metaphor is in speech. This is true of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper
(Mat 26:26-28). "This is my body," "This is my blood," etc., is metaphorical
language; but the bread and the wine are symbols of the body and blood of the
Saviour. The bow that was set in the cloud (Gen 9:13), was a token or a symbol
of the covenant. When Abraham treated with Abimelech, he told the king of the
well his men had taken from them, and then symbolized his innocence in the
matter by seven lambs (Gen 21:28-30). Circumcision was a symbol of the lopping
off of sin.

SEC. 81. BUT THE GREAT NUMBER OF SYMBOLS ARE VISIONAL.--They were seen in
vision, in dream or in the wakeful hours, but by the power of God. They are
employed as object-lessons by which to make the man of God understand some
present truth, or some event to come. Jeremiah foretold many things by the use
of these forms. He has sometimes been denominated the acting prophet, on that
account.

"Moreover the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, Jeremiah, what seest thou?
And I said, I see a rod of an almond tree. Then said the Lord unto me, Thou hast
well seen: for I watch over my word to perform it" (Jer 1:11-12). The almond
tree was the first to blossom--in fact, it seemed never to sleep--and
consequently it was regarded as a symbol of wakefulness, or watchfulness.

Then, in the two following verses, there is a symbol of a prophetic character:

"And the word of the Lord came unto me the second time, saying, What seest thou?
And I said, I see a seething caldron; and the face thereof is from the north.
Then the Lord said unto me, Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the
inhabitants of the land." A seething caldron, tilted so much as to enable a man
to look into the mouth, would be a symbol of a thorough scalding. And the Lord
uses it to show what was about to come upon them. The families of the kingdoms
of the North should come and sit on the thrones at Jerusalem, and make war with
the cities of Judah. In Gen 40:1-20, we have the two dreams of the men in prison
with Joseph, in Egypt. Each had a dream: the one saw what, in symbol, meant that
he should be restored--the three branches of grapes were an omen of good; but
the other dreamed of the three baskets of white bread, and of the birds picking
the meats from the upper, which meant that within three days his head should be
lifted up from off him.

Two symbols were presented to Pharaoh in a dream, by which he was to know what
was in store for them in the days to come. (See Gen 41:1-57) The seven fat kine,
and the seven lean, that ate them up, and the seven full ears of corn, and seven
thin ones, that devoured them, told of seven years of plenty, and then seven
other years in which they should not be able to gather food. In a dream quite
similar to this, Nebuchadnezzar was made to know of the four universal
monarchies, himself being at the head (Dan 2:1-45). In the first chapter of the
book of Revelation we have several beautiful symbols. There are seven golden
lamp-stands; One, like unto the Son of man, walking in the midst of them, who
holds seven stars in His right hand. We learn that the lamp-stands were the
seven churches, and that the seven stars were the seven messengers of the seven
churches. In Acts 10:1-48 we are introduced to a symbol furnished for the
education of the apostle Peter. He had gone upon the top of the house to pray,
and fell into a trance, and saw a vessel, as it had been a great sheet, knit at
the four corners, and full of all kinds of animals. And as he gazed upon the
object-lesson, he was told to arise, and kill, and eat. But he said, Not so. He
had kept the law as it related to food, and did not know that it was removed.
This was the first lesson in the series by which he was to know that the
Gentiles were to be fellow-heirs and of the same household with the Jews. At
first it seems strange that an apostle has to be taught in this way; and yet,
when we come to study the matter, we find that they had to learn very much as
the rest of us. While the Lord used their organs of speech for the purpose of
presenting truth to the world, they did not always understand it themselves.
Peter had said, on the day of Pentecost, that the promise was to them, and to
all, even as many as the Lord should call. There was a great truth that would
embrace the ends of the earth; but it was several years later before its meaning
was clear to him.

SEC. 82. SPECIAL RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SYMBOLS.--These rules are few
in number, yet we feel that they are needed. So many different things have been
made to appear in the unfolding of some of the symbols, that there is certainly
no rule in the minds of many interpreters. Each man feels, that he must find
something like the symbol, in the interpretation, that will fit the theology
which he favors. If he is skillful in cutting and fitting history, he will
doubtless succeed.

Rule 1. Many of the symbols have been interpreted, in whole or in part, by their
authors. In such a case, we have nothing to do but to accept the interpretation
just as far as it goes.

Rule 2. Other symbols have been interpreted by other inspired authors. This,
again, must stand as the interpretation.

Rule 3. Sometimes the symbol has been given in a manner that is difficult, but
another writer or speaker has used the same illustration in such a way that
there is no doubt as to its meaning. In that case, that which is perspicuous
must declare the meaning of that which is doubtful.

Rule 4. The names of symbols are to be understood literally. While they tell us
what they saw and heard, we are to understand them as telling these things in
the plainest and most direct manner possible. Many times, too, there is peculiar
significance to be found in the etymology of the names or words employed. Hence
the words used should be subjected to the same rules as if they were found in
other composition.

Rule 5. There must be found a resemblance, more or less clear, between the
symbol and the thing signified. If this relation were not intimate, it is
probable that the author would have selected some other.

Rule 6. The condition of those to whom the symbol was given must be known, if
possible, for the meaning which they would be most likely to get out of it is
the meaning that the author intended to put into it. The valley of dry bones
(Eze 37:1-14) was to teach the restoration of the Jews from their captivity. The
lesson given to Jeremiah (Jer 18:1-10) at the potter’s by the vessel that became
marred in the hands of the potter, meant the house of Israel. And
notwithstanding these have been explained by divine authority, they have been as
lavishly interpreted as any other symbols; so that almost everything has been
made out of them. In Jer 24:1-10 we have a symbol of two baskets of figs. After
the description of the figs--that one basket was very good, and the other very
bad--it is explained to mean that of those who had gone away into captivity
those who were true to the Lord, were good figs, and should be brought back
again; but the bad people, including Zedekiah, their king, should be too bad for
any use, and therefore should be tossed to and fro from Egypt to Babylon, until
they should be utterly destroyed. Now, if there was only some particular opinion
to assist, this might be paralleled till it would have no meaning whatever. God
has interpreted it, but that does not always protect the symbol from abuse. In
Isa 22:22, there is a prophecy concerning Christ, in which it is said that on
Him should be laid the key of the house of David. The word key, of course, means
that he should not only be in the line of kings, but that he should sit upon the
throne of David, and that he should have the power that would of right belong to
Him as David’s descendant. The same word, when the Saviour said to Peter, "I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom," contained the authority to open
it, with all its advantages, to the world. Keys are for the purpose of opening,
and it was left for men to tell the world what they were to do to be saved. When
Jacob said, "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah" (Gen 49:10), every one
would understand it at once to refer to the symbol of power to rule or control.
It is its natural and easy interpretation, and about it there has never been any
difficulty. But the point with me is to induce men to use the other symbols in
the same way. In Zec 4:1-14, Zec 5:1-11, Zec 6:1-15, there are several symbols
that have had about as many interpretations as there have been interpreters.
Every genius has found room for his skill. And yet the interpretations that are
given in the text are never followed. This is to suppose that when the Lord
tells what He means by the use of object-lessons, His statements are not
reliable. That splendid lamp-stand, and the two olive trees that supply with
oil, were symbols of the watchfulness and helpfulness of the Lord, which assured
Zerubbabel that he should succeed in rebuilding the temple. And so the flying
roll was God’s condemnation of thieves and false swearers. Now, when the Lord
gives the meaning of the symbol, and the purpose of its exhibition, it is a sin
to refuse to accept it. Speculations are excusable when the meaning has not been
announced. In Dan 2:1-49, we have a symbol which is partly interpreted. So there
are some things which we know about the dream of the king, and some things that
we must interpret by rules. We know that the four several sections in that image
were four universal empires; we know that the head was the Babylonian
government; we know that the three others followed in the order of the silver,
the brass, and the iron; we know that during the time of these kings, the God of
heaven should set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed. And when we use
the divine interpretation as far as it goes, the meaning of the rest is easy to
be found. The whole of the book of Revelation, or nearly the whole of it, is
presented by the use of symbol. Prophets have gone to that book to prophesy, and
then compel the apostle John to sanction their imaginations. Every man succeeds.
Not wishing to enter this field, I have only to say that we must take every
statement of meaning and purpose found in the book for its face. After that, we
must remember where and when the symbols have been used, beforetime; for if they
may be found in any clearer light, that usage may help in the interpretation. We
must remember to whom these symbols were shown, and therefore what he would
likely get out of them. We must be careful not to demand too many points of
analogy, lest we shall have eisegesis, and not exegesis.

SEC. 83. TYPOLOGY.--Of course, we mean by this a discourse about types. But then
comes the question, What is a type? It is from the Greek tupos, from tuptein, to
strike. Hence Webster’s first definition. His first, second and fourth
definitions relate to religious truth, and we quote them:

"1. The mark or impression of something; stamp; impressed sign; emblem.

"2. Impressed form; stamp; kind; sort.

"4. A figure or representation of something to come; a token; a sign; a symbol;
correlative to antitype.

"’A type is no longer a type, when the thing typified comes to be actually
exhibited.’--SOUTH."

It is necessary to remark, concerning types--

(1.) That the original meaning of the word is not that which is generally found
in the Scriptures.--It does not generally mean to strike, nor yet the result of
striking. We say that we have seen a horse’s foot in the clay, when we have only
seen the impression of his foot, which would be the type. But when we take the
track of the foot for the foot, we really have just the opposite of the foot. So
if a man should strike his fist into a ball of putty, he would leave there, not
his fist, but the type of it. Though this is not the meaning it generally has in
the Bible, yet to remember this original import will be of service in the
interpretation of types.

(2.) We must never expect the type and the antitype to be the same, for that
would not be type and antitype, but identity. We shall find, therefore, that it
is utterly impossible to find something in the antitype that is analogous to
every feature of the type, or that the type has perfectly prefigured the
antitype.

(3.) Let us remember that for one purpose generally the type has been selected,
and, finding that purpose, the application will be easy.

(4.) It must foretell something.--When it is a representation of a present truth
or duty, it is a symbol, and not a type.

(5.) It must not simply happen to represent something in the future and
therefore do as an illustration--it must have been intended to represent that
thought or fact when it was given. It must be as old in design as the antitype
it presents.

(6.) The Scriptures should be made to interpret them, as far as possible; and
with such definition we must be content.

(7.) While we are always safe in calling anything a type that is so denominated
in the word of God, it is not necessary to suppose that we are limited to these
statements. It would not be reasonable that they should have gone through the
whole Bible, and descanted upon every type.

(8.) As in the interpretation of symbols the similarity between type and the
antitype will lead, in most cases to the true meaning.

(9.) Any thing, to be a type, must have been a real person, thing, event, or
office.--Not so with the symbols. All the visional symbols were unreal--they
were seen by assisted or superhuman sight--they were not present, though they
appeared to be. But the type is real. Adam was a type of Christ; so were the
sacrifices from the foundation of the world; the kings, priests, and prophets,
in that they were anointed; the serpent in the wilderness, Solomon, and Joshua,
etc. These were as real as the Saviour.

(10.) The antitype is always superior to the type.--If this were not the case,
there would be no reason in the type. The type is always visible at the time it
is given, because it is material; but the antitype contains divine or spiritual
thought. However, many times there are two or more of them in one line, and one
seems to look to another as its fulfillment; yet they are all looking to the
final object for their meaning.

(11.) Sometimes figurative, language is employed in giving a typical event.--The
figure should be treated as it would be if given under any other circumstances.

(12.) The rules for the interpretation of symbols apply as well to types.--They
have several features in common. In so far as the type becomes a prophecy,
history should be carefully examined, that we may have all the facts on both
sides.

SEC. 84. THE SEVERAL KINDS OF TYPE.--We do not mean, by this heading, that there
are differences in the construction of types, or in the rules by which they
shall be interpreted, but the different sources from which instruction is drawn.

(1.) Typical persons.--No person, as such, can be regarded as a type. It must be
because of some relation, office, or characteristic, that typology is possible.
Adam is generally regarded as a type, in that he is the several head of the race
(Rom 5:12-19; 1Co 15:22, 1Co 15:45). But the features of typology, as they are
mentioned by the apostle, are opposites. He represents the Christ by presenting
just the antithesis of what Christ was and did. He was at the beginning, and
Christ at the ending of sin; he was disobedient, Christ was obedient; he brought
death, Christ brought life from the dead; he made many sinners, Christ makes
many righteous; he was natural, Christ was spiritual; he was from the earth
earthy, Christ was the Lord from heaven. All this, however, is according to the
original intent of the word.

Moses was a type of Christ, in that he was a leader and mediator between God and
the people (Deu 18:15-18). But this language looks to Joshua for its first and
partial fulfillment. Joshua was like Moses, in that he led the people. But its
meaning is not satisfied till the Saviour has come (Acts 3:22-24). It is safe to
say, then, that both Moses and Joshua were types of the Messiah. Moses
prefigured Him, in that he was a leader, a lawgiver, a prophet, and a mediator.
Joshua was a type, in that he led the people--in that he took them across the
Jordan into Canaan, which in itself was a type of entering into heaven.

Melchisedec was a type of Christ. (Gen 14:18-20; Psa 110:4; Heb 5:5-10, Heb
6:20, Heb 7:1-17). He prefigured Christ in his priesthood, in his excellent
character, and in that he was king and priest at the same time.

David was a type of Christ (Acts 13:33-35; Isa 9:6). He was not only a king, but
was a model for his people, and, in that respect, about as complete a type as
could be found.

Solomon was a type of the Messiah though a more feeble one (2Sa 7:13-15; 1Ki
8:18-20; Rom 1:1-4). When God promised to establish the house of David, it
looked directly to Solomon, but eventually to Christ, as the greater Son of
David.

Zerubbabel was a type of Christ (Hag 1:1-12; Zec 4:1-10; Zec 6:12, Zec 6:14). He
was not only a deliverer of the people, but he built the temple of the Lord, and
returned the people to the pure worship of the Father.

Cyrus, king of Persia, was a type of Christ (Isa 44:27-28; Isa 45:1-4). He was
the anointed of the Lord. He was not intended as a representative of the
Saviour’s character, and yet in that respect he would do as well as many others;
but he was a deliverer. He gave the people liberty, and even helped them to
return to Jerusalem.

Ahithophel was a type of Judas (2Sa 15:30-35; Psa 41:9; 2Sa 17:23; Psa 55:12-13;
Psa 55:20; Acts 1:16-20) Here is the intimacy of friendship, the heartlessness
of greed, followed with suicide.

Elijah was a type of John the Baptist (Mal 3:1, Mal 4:5-6; Isa 40:3-4; Mat
3:1-3; Luk 1:17; Mat 17:10-13). The similarity between these men was known
beforehand, and stated by the prophets. Indeed, John is called "Elijah, which
was to come."

(2.) Typical things.--Things, as well as persons, have represented the coming of
the Saviour and the work which he has accomplished for men. They are not types
on their own account, but because divinely appointed to represent the Deliverer
to come. The serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14; Num 21:9). It was not because
of the material out of which--it was constructed, but because it was to remove
the sting of the serpent, and that for that purpose it was lifted up. In this
way the lambs slain from the foundation of the world represented the
Saviour--"the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world." The altar in
front of the tabernacle, represents the beginning services in becoming
Christians, and the laver stands for baptism (Tit 3:5-7; Heb 10:22). So is there
a symbolico-typical import in the animals seen in Dan. vii. They were not only
symbols of certain characteristics, but they represented those men and traits
that were yet to be manifested. They not only looked to the future, but they
were so intended. They are not fairly types, for they were not really present,
and were only seen in visions.

(3.) Typical institutions. The sacrifices in the time of the patriarchal times,
and in the times of the law, all looked either to the atonement of the Saviour,
or to that spiritual worship which Christians should render the Father. The
tenth day of the seventh month, which was the day of atonement, with all its
services, was typical of that sorrowful night before the crucifixion, and the
atonement that followed. The Sabbath was a type of the Christian’s rest in
Christ, and of the eternal rest in heaven (Heb 4:1-10). The cities of refuge
appointed for the man-slayer (Num 35:9-34), were a type of Him to whom we may
flee for refuge, to lay hold upon the hope that is set before us (Heb 6:18-20).
The feast of the Passover is full of the thought that we are spared from death
by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, who is our paschal sacrifice (Exo 12:1-51;
1Co 5:7). So were the other annual feasts of the Jews--the Pentecost (Lev
23:15-16), and the feast of the tabernacles--in the divine economy,
representatives of coming thought in the scheme of salvation. The law was
probably sent forth on the fiftieth day after leaving Egypt; and as it always
occurred on the first day of the week, it seems to typify the great Pentecost,
at which the perfect law was first announced to the world, and the purer and
higher worship of the Father, through the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:1-38). The feast of
tabernacles had in view the greater joy of the Church of Christ (Zec 14:16). The
Jubilee called for the great deliverance from debt and bondage, and represented
the Saviour’s work (Luk 4:16-21). Indeed, the whole of the tabernacle services
were regarded by Paul as being representative of the worship in the New Covenant
(Heb 9:9-10). They were a shadow, type, or parable (New Version) figure.

(4.) Typical offices.--We have already seen that men do not, of themselves,
serve as types, but because of some position they occupy, or work they may
perform. In this way we have found that Moses and Joshua, and others, have been
types. We have called them personal, because they were represented by peculiar
persons pointed out as such. But we now come to notice that office answers to
office. Every prophet, priest and king of the Old Testament served a purpose
that answered to some particular work to be accomplished by the Saviour. These
services grew out of the wants of the race. The first want is that of knowledge,
and it was supplied by the man of God called a prophet, because he was to be
God’s man in speaking to men. Our next want was the removal of sin, and this was
accomplished by the offering made by the priest. In the third place, we are in
need of government and protection. This want was met by a king. Each one of
these not only performed an office that was a part, though an imperfect part, of
the Master’s work, but they came to their position by being anointed of the
Lord. The word in the Hebrew is messiah; in the Greek it is christos; in the
English it is anointed. Every prophet, priest and king of ancient times was
anointed or christed. Before he performed the duties of his office he became a
Christ, or a christed one. Jesus was the Christ--a name above every name that
had been named (Php 2:9-10)--for he represented in Himself all the qualities of
these dignitaries; being to us a prophet, priest and king, by being the Christ.
Those men were anointed with oil, but He with the Holy Spirit (Luk 3:21-22; Luk
4:18; Acts 10:38; Psa 2:6; Heb 4:14-16, Heb 9:12, Heb 5:4).

(5.) Typical conduct.--This, in a general way, partakes largely of the nature of
symbol, and yet when it clearly related to the future, and that by divine
purpose, the action becomes a type. In this sense Abraham is a type of all
believers, and in that he offered up his only son, he signified the gift of
God’s only Son for the sins of the world (Heb 11:17-19). When Isaiah walked
naked and barefooted (Isa 20:2-4), he not only symbolized conditions of the
people, but he foretold a future event. It seems, therefore, to have the double
import. So it was with Jeremiah, when he took his girdle and went and hid it in
a rock on the Euphrates, and afterwards found it rotten; that was symbolic and
prophetical (Jer 13:1-11). While the action of Jonah lad nothing in it but an
unwillingness to do the thing that God ordered, yet it was probably the means of
getting a hearing at Nineveh. It symbolized nothing at that time that we know
of, but it did point to the Son of man going into the heart of the earth (Mat
12:39). When Jeremiah (Jer 18:1-10) went to the potter’s house to see a work
wrought on the wheel, and when the vessel became marred in the hand of the
workman, there was a symbol of the then present condition of the nation of
Israel, but it was employed as the means of a teaching respecting the future.
His wearing a yoke for the nations (Jer 27:1-14) is sometimes interpreted as a
type, but it is better to regard it as a prophecy in action.

(6.) Typical events.--From 1Co 10:1-10, we have the fact that the passage
through the Red Sea was a type of Christian baptism; that the escape they
thereby accomplished from their former oppressors was typical of the escape of
the sinner in being baptized unto Christ; and that the rock from which water was
supplied, represents Christ. From John 6:36, we are assured that the manna that
fell in tie wilderness could only faintly represent the true bread of life. In
Heb 3:1-19, Heb 4:1-16, we are made to understand that the passage of Israel
through the wilderness was typical of our journey through the world; that the
good news that was presented to them of entering a land of their own did not
profit them being not mixed with faith in them that heard it, and so there may
be in us an evil heart of disobedience in departing from the living God. He
therefore warns us that we also may fall after the same example of unbelief. The
whole journey through the wilderness is full of typical instruction, even to
crossing the Jordan, leaving twelve stones piled up in the midst of the river,
and taking twelve other stones and heaping them up at Gilgal, seems to have
something to do with the witnesses of the resurrection. Peter held the view that
in the ark of Noah we have a type of the sinner’s salvation in baptism (1Pe
3:18-22).

(7.) Typical places.--In the shadowy representation of divine things found in
the tabernacle, the outer court stands for the world, the first veil for the
church on the earth, and the holiest of holies for heaven itself (Heb 9:1-28).
Egypt is made to typify bondage in sin, since fleeing from there represents
deliverance from sin. The wilderness of wandering becomes the journey of life;
the Jordan represents death; and the land of Canaan tells of heaven, the final
and perfect rest of all who look for the glorious appearing of our Saviour.
Egypt, Sodom and Babylon typify a fallen church, with all the iniquity that
comes as the result (Hos 7:11; Hos 8:13; Hos 9:3, Hos 9:6; Zec 10:10; Rev 11:8;
Rev 14:8; Rev 16:19; Rev 17:5; Rev 18:2, Rev 18:10, Rev 18:21). This seems
appropriate. After the salvation which God provided for His people in saving
them out of the land of Egypt, they went away backward, and kept not the
covenant of the Lord, and were sold into Babylon, hence no other word seemed to
be quite so appropriate to indicate the condition of the people who had been
saved in the Christ, and then had gone away from that service which He had
directed, as to speak of them as having gone into Babylon. And when it was seen
that this delusion should be finally lifted from the hearts of the people, and
that it would lose its power, it was proper to announce the event by saying that
"Babylon is fallen." In this brief outline of types we have aimed at nothing
more than a beginning for the student of the Bible. We have not thought of being
exhaustive in their treatment. This would not have been possible. But having
these outlines and the rules fairly well in our minds, there will be but little
difficulty in dealing with any type that may appear in the investigation of any
Scripture. And I conclude this section by renewing the request that all exegetes
be careful to not make types of the mere circumstances of human history. And
also that when we are certain that we have typical language, we guard against
demanding too many points of analogy. Remember that the type has been selected
for one point, or, at most, for but a very few features of similarity.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 19: 01.11.     PROPHECY
========================================================================

CHAPTER XI.

PROPHECY. In the chapter on Figurative Language we have given a number of rules
for the interpretation of prophecy, not because it is a figure of speech or a
figure of thought, but because so large a part of this manner of divine
communication is in figurative language, and so much of it has been given by the
use of symbol and type.

SEC. 85. THE DUTY OF THE PROPHET.--Our word prophet is from the Greek prophetees
and is compounded of pro, before, and phanai to speak. Hence it is one who
speaks before another or for another. Webster says of this word:

"1. One who prophesies, or foretells events; a predicter; a foreteller.

"2. (Scripture) A person illuminated, inspired, or instructed by God to speak in
His name, or announce future events, as Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, etc.

"3. One who explains or communicates sentiments; an interpreter.

"’School of the prophets (Ancient Jewish History), a school or collection in
which young men were educated and qualified for public teachers. These students
were called sons of the prophets.’" His definition of prophecy throws no
additional light on the subject.

(1.) We are limited to the Hebrews and Christians for examples of that spiritual
ecstasy that enables one to communicate the mind of the infinite respecting the
things that are to come. Among the nations of antiquity we have the augurs, the
diviners, and the oracles; but these were nothing more than the guesses of the
men who gave the information. Sometimes the guesses were reasonably founded in
the appearance of things; at other times, the prophecy was because of a personal
wish in the matter, or to get the praise of the king and the people. But because
of the uncertainty of the future, they usually clothed their prophetic
utterances, if we should denominate them by such a term, in language that could
be interpreted one way about as easily as another. If the king is told to go to
battle, and succeeds, then the praise is given to the oracle; but if he fall
before the enemy, they return, and find that the utterance was entirely
misinterpreted. The king lost, but the oracle stood firm. But the Hebrew
prophets foretold the things that they did not wish--that were disagreeable to
the king and the people, and that were very little likely to occur. Their
warnings were not the soothing symphonies of sycophants, but the condemnations
of the invisible Jehovah issuing from the secret chambers of the thunder. He
does not necessarily foretell future events, but gives God’s message to the
world, whether it relates to the future or the present. Abraham was a prophet,
in that he spoke for God (Gen 20:7). Aaron was to be prophet to Moses, by
speaking the things that Moses would tell him (Exo 7:1; Exo 4:16). The Hebrew
word nabi, generally used for prophet, means one who boiled forth, or who ran
over. The cause of this strange vociferation, however, was regarded as of divine
origin; they supposed that God caused the man to speak in that way. It has been
supposed that when Saul was numbered with the prophets (1Sa 10:11), and
afterwards, when his three companies and himself were all made to prophesy at
Naioth, that the language means no more than that they were caused to act the
prophet (1Sa 19:20-24); that no more is meant than that they acted like prophets
sometimes did, and not that they foretold any future event, or that they
delivered any message from God to men.

(2.) The prophetic office of Elijah was to convey the word of God to the court
of Ahab, and to condemn the wickedness of his people. This was largely true of
Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Rightfully enough they were called men of God (1Ki 13:1-2; 2Ki 4:7-8; Hos 9:7).
They were thus denominated, because they came with God’s message and to attend
to God’s business.

Since the fall of man, and the communion between God and man was clipped because
of sin, it has been necessary that some one divinely appointed should be the
teacher of the race. Hence, God has raised up for men seers, revelators,
prophets, and has sent them with messages, as the world has had need.

Philips (Commentary of Rom 12:6) urges that "the New Testament idea of the
prophetic office is identical with that of the Old Testament. Prophets are men
who inspired by the Spirit of God, and impelled to theopneustic discourse,
partly removed the veil from the future (Rev 1:3; Rev 22:7-10; John 7:52; Acts
11:27-28; Acts 21:10-11; Comp. 1Pe 1:10), partly make known concealed facts of
the present, either in discovering the secret counsel and will of God (Luk 1:67;
Acts 13:1; Eph 3:5), or in disclosing the hidden thoughts of man (1Co 14:24-25),
and dragging into light his unknown deeds (Mat 26:68; Mark 14:65; Luk 22:64;
John 4:19); partly dispense to these hearers instruction, comfort, exhortation,
in animated, powerfully impassioned language, going far beyond the wonted limits
of the capacity for teaching, which, although spiritual, still confines itself
within the forms of reason (Mat 7:28-29; Luk 24:19; John 7:40; Acts 15:32; 1Co
14:3-4, 1Co 14:31).

(3.) It should be noticed that the prophet is of great value as a historian, and
that the prophecies of the Old Testament should be read in connection with, the
history of the people.--In the history we have ordinarily the hull--nothing
more. We have the condemnation of God upon the people, but we do not see the
justice. A great reformation has taken place, and we wonder why the
condemnations of Jehovah must continue. But if we turn and read the prophets of
those times, they show us that the reformation was only on the surface. While
they came with their offerings to Jerusalem, and spread their hands before the
Lord in prayer, God would not hear them (Isa 1:16-18). Their hands were red with
innocent blood, and their hearts were hard toward the poor in the land, whom
they continued to oppress. They give us the inside of history, and make us to
know the causes of calamity as we never could know it in any other way.

(4.) Persons are called prophets who interpreted the Scriptures and exhorted the
people to faithfulness in the service of God.--There has not always been a
necessity for a revelation. We would think that to be the condition of the
church in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas had been there, and had wrought a great
work in that city. No doubt that they had made known to the church the whole
counsel of God. And yet (Acts 13:1) Barnabas, Simeon, Manaen and Lucius are
mentioned in that roll. In Acts 15:32, Judas and Silas are mentioned as
prophets, and in the fulfillment of their duties as such they exhorted the
people. In 1Co 14:1-40 the prophet was supposed to edify the church, and in 1Co
14:24, prophesying was regarded as that gift by which sinners would be
converted. This was not a foretelling of future events, for that would not at
the time convert any one. It would have to be fulfilled before it would be
evident to them that God was directing the affair. It was, therefore, most
probably an interpretation of Scripture truth. That gift was, therefore, more
desirable than the gift of tongues.

SEC. 86. DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH PROPHECY WAS DELIVERED.

(1.) Sometimes it was like history written beforehand.--Samuel (1Sa 10:3-6)
tells Saul what would occur as he would return home; whom he would meet; and
what they would have; and what they would propose; where he would meet the
prophets, and what would come of it all. If he had waited till it was all over,
he would have found it necessary only to change the tense in order to give a
correct history of the matter. In one of the efforts of Balaam to curse Israel
(Num 24:14-24), he tells what Israel should do to Moab, and to Amalek. Though
the language is figurative in a high degree, yet the history of those events is
fairly related. Beginning with the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah, and reading to
the close of the twenty-third chapter, we have the burdens of Babylon, Moab,
Damascus, Egypt, the Wilderness of the Sea, and of the Valley of Vision. These
denunciations are intensified with trope more than is generally found in
history, but the evils were told in about as plain language as could be
selected. Eze 25:1-17, Eze 26:1-21, Eze 27:1-36, Eze 28:1-26, Eze 29:1-21, Eze
30:1-26, Eze 31:1-18, Eze 32:1-32 gives the denunciations of the man of God
against several nations. Amon, Moab, Edom, Philistia, Tyre: by whom slaughtered,
the effect, the weeping, the bitter lamentation, the injury to commerce; Zidon,
and how they should treat Israel after they should return; Egypt: the sword to
visit that people, and all the calamities that were to come upon them. In
narrating these things, there are many highly-wrought figures employed, but the
style is that of the historian of the Oriental type. It seems to the reader that
the prophet saw the events beforehand as they really occurred, and spoke of them
in the language of the people. The place where the Saviour should be born (Mic
5:2), was foretold with all the certainty of a historical record. The time of
His birth is clearly announced (Dan 9:24-27). Also the maltreatment that He
received while on trial at Jerusalem (Isa 50:6). His resurrection, too, is
stated in language susceptible of but one interpretation (Psa 16:8-10). The part
that Cyrus took in behalf of the children of Israel is very clearly stated (Isa
44:28; Isa 45:1).

(2.) Many times the thoughts respecting the future are presented in figurative
language, so that it is difficult to get the meaning.--When the prophet was sent
to condemn the sins of the people, he used very burning words; and the
interpretation of such passages is attended with some difficulty. But by the
rules already agreed to, we can proceed in safety. The symbols that have been
employed for the purpose of foretelling the future, are subject to the rules
that govern symbolic language. When Jeremiah (Jer 27:8; Jer 28:14), made a yoke
to show the rule of the king of Babylon, the meaning is so easily gathered that
no one has ever been in doubt of its import. When Agabus (Acts 21:11) took
Paul’s girdle, and bound his hands and feet with it, every one expected to hear
of some one being bound; and when he said that it was to be the owner of that
girdle, and that the Jews at Jerusalem should bind him, the brethren at once
began to try to dissuade Paul from going there. The symbolism in the dreams of
Nebuchadnezzar and Pharaoh would seem to be easily interpreted, and so the
hand-writing on the wall at Babylon. And still the meaning was hidden from the
wise men of the times. Dream-books were of no value whatever. Nothing less than
inspiration from the Lord would do.

(3.) The peculiarities of the prophets are maintained in their writings.--It is
clear, to every attentive reader, that they differ as much in their manner of
stating things as other men. We conclude, therefore, that in most instances the
Lord has furnished the needed intelligence by inspiration, and trusted them with
the presentation of it to the people.

Occasionally, of course, there were thoughts that a Hebrew prophet could not get
into his mind. In such a case, God had to give him words (1Pe 1:11; 2Pe 1:21;
Acts 2:4). While they did not know the time of the fulfillment of their own
predictions, or when the Messiah should come to bless the world, they could
understand enough of the history of their own people to present it with
clearness and force. But a common error among all Jews, that their Messiah would
establish a temporal kingdom, and reign forever without seeing death, would not
enable any one of their prophets to know that Christ was to die. It would be as
difficult for them to get that thought as it was for the apostles to learn the
same lesson, and they could not understand it till it had occurred; and even
then it had to be explained to them before they could comprehend it (Luk
24:44-49; John 20:9; John 12:34). And yet the prophets did certainly teach that
the Christ should die. Hence, as this thought could not have been understood by
them, the language must have been given by the Lord directly. Another thought
would be about as difficult as that for any Hebrew prophet to understand--that
was, that the Gentiles were to have a part in the great salvation of the Lord.
This was many times foretold by them, especially by the prophet Isaiah; and I
must believe that at such a time he was directed by the Lord in a way above the
ordinary manner of inspiration.

(4.) Much of the language of the prophets is very literal.--This is especially
true of those portions which were delivered to the people concerning the sins of
the hour. When Jeremiah stood in the gate of Jerusalem, and delivered them a
discourse containing a message from the Lord (Jer 7:10), he gave them the fact
in a plain manner. So with John the Baptist, a man sent of God with a divine
message, who came preaching in the wilderness of Judea. I suppose that there
never was a plainer preacher than he. This was true with Elijah. Indeed, it was
true with all the prophets of the Lord-when they came to men with a message for
that people and that age, it was plainly stated. Some way it has gotten into the
minds of many persons that the language of any prophet must necessarily be in
symbolic form. When they told their own, or the dreams of others, and gave the
meaning, it was in language very easily understood.

SEC. 87. THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPHETS.

(1.) God has used the best material for any given purpose that could be
found.--The supernatural is never employed till the natural is exhausted. When
Jesus fed the five thousand, or the four thousand, He used the loaves and fishes
on hand, as far as they would go. And when they were done eating, the fragments
were taken up, "that nothing be lost." When He healed the daughter of Jairus, He
told them to give her something to eat. Of course He could have furnished the
strength that she needed, but that was not His way. She was then able to take
food, and that was the natural way of obtaining strength. So in all that He did,
and all that the apostles did, natural resources were employed as far as they
would be of service. The same law is found in nature. There is no redundancy.
Everything has its place and power; it has its own work to accomplish, and has
been assigned to that task. So it is with the history of the dealings of God
with men. When He has had work to perform, He has selected the best men that
could be found for that work. If they have lacked the qualification necessary to
the task, He has sent them to school till they were prepared for the work. He
had Moses in school for nearly eighty years, that be should be able to do forty
years of good work. The schools of the prophets had the divine approval. They
were to prepare young men, as far as they could, for the work to which the Lord
might select them. The apostles were not entrusted with any work by themselves,
till they had been in the school of the Master for nearly three years. And they
were not then prepared for the work of the ministry under the great Commission.
After the resurrection of the Saviour from the tomb, He continued with them for
forty days, speaking to them concerning the kingdom of God; and even then they
were in need of a new teacher to "guide" them "into all truth." With all these
facts before us, and many more that might be presented, we feel certain that
when God made choice of a man as a prophet, He selected the best man that could
be found.

(2.) The prophets were good men.--This does not say that they were faultless.
They were men, and not only so, but they lived under circumstances in which the
development of character was not an easy task. It was an age of ignorance,
coarseness and lust. And yet it is fair to say that they were the best men that
could be found. David, with all his imperfections, was one of the grandest
characters of that age. He was not perfect, but far above the average for
purity, integrity and piety. When God inspired his songs, that he might tell of
the coming of the Lord’s anointed, He employed the heart and the pen of the man
whom we would select as the best man of the time. It will be said that Balaam,
who prophesied, was not a good man, and yet the probabilities are that he had
done well in most of his life before his temptation and fall; and then God
simply used the man’s mouth to say the things that were to stand for a rebuke
for those who opposed the children of Israel. Balaam’s ass reproved him, and was
in no need of character. If Caiaphas said what he did not intend to say
respecting the need of one dying instead of all the people, it was not to his
praise, nor did God select him as a representative to the race. From all we can
learn from the Old Testament and the New Testament prophets, they were among the
best men that could be found on the earth at the time. They were not only the
best men in point of goodness and firmness, but their qualifications were of the
very best. There is no evidence that God has chosen unworthy men for His work.
Hence, when we find men making claims to inspiration and divine communications,
it is fair to examine the characters of the men. If they are not among the best
men of the age in which they live, we may know at once that they are not
prophets.

(3.) Women prophesied.--The woman is not as well fitted to this work as the man,
but it has sometimes been the case that good men were scarce, and then the Lord
has called good women to do the work that men ought to have done. Even when
there were good men, very excellent and godly women have assumed this work.
Miriam (Exo 15:20-21) was a prophetess in leading the women in their holy joy at
the time of deliverance from their bondage in Egypt. From Jdg 4:4, we learn of
Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, who judged Israel for forty years.
When that people were being overrun by Jabin, king of Hazor, for a period of
twenty years, purity and piety seemed to be wanting; real men became scarce, and
a woman was selected to judge the people and to make known to them the word of
the Lord. In 2Ki 22:14-20, we have an account of Huldah, the prophetess, the
wife of Shallum, who lived in the second quarter of the city, to whom Josiah
sent his chief of staff to know what would become of that nation for having so
long neglected the right ways of the Lord. This, too, it should be remembered,
was in the time of the prophet Jeremiah; and for a woman to rank him, in the
estimation of the king, shows a wonderful confidence in her communion with God.
In Isa 8:3, we have the prophetess spoken of, but the language means no more in
that case than that she was the wife of the prophet Isaiah. The trouble in the
time of Nehemiah (Neh 6:1-19), with Sanballat and Tobiah, needed the wisdom that
cometh down from the Father of Lights. A number of the prophets seemed to have
been hired by these men to fill Nehemiah with fear, and among them was the
prophetess Noadiah. From this it will appear that a woman may be a prophetess,
and not only so, but she may be false, just as a man. The prophet Joel looked
forward to the coming of the kingdom of the Christ, when the Holy Spirit should
be given to the saints, and their young men should see visions, and their old
men should dream dreams, and on the servants and the handmaids of the Lord the
Spirit should be poured, and they should prophesy (Acts 2:17-21). Philip, the
evangelist (Acts 21:9), had four daughters that prophesied; and in 1Co 11:5-16,
Paul gives directions for the attire of women when they should prophesy. From
this, it is certain that God selects prophets generally from among men; but
because of unusual fitness, He has sometimes selected godly women for this
responsible work. Of course, in the exercise of these gifts, their speaking had
to be public; for the time, they were God’s teachers of the multitude. And this
would be true whether the prophecy should relate to the foretelling of future
events, the condemnation of some present sin, or the explanation of some
Scripture, or an exhortation founded upon anything which God had revealed.

(4.) Guilt of pretending to prophetic knowledge not possessed.--The man who
would change a landmark, or in any way deceive the unsuspecting, was held a very
guilty man. When the blind lead the blind, all fall into the ditch. But when one
pretends to have a communication from the heavens, which he has not received, he
purposes to mislead the world to a far greater extent. It is partly on this
account that God has been so particular respecting the character of those whom
He would send to the world as its teachers. There would be necessarily some
rules by which to know the true from the false prophets. If any truth that has
been clearly attested shall be contradicted by a pretended prophet, then it
should be known that such an one was a false prophet. If one should say, Let us
go and serve other gods, and ask a following on account of some vision or
pretended revelation, it should be disregarded, and the man put to death (Deu
13:1-6). So if any should preach any other gospel than that which the apostles
had preached, he should be accursed; not even an angel from heaven would be at
liberty to do such a thing (Gal 1:6-10). When one should presume to speak in the
name of the Lord that which the Lord had not commanded, he should not be
followed nor feared, but put to death; and they were to know whether the Lord
had directed him or not by the fulfillment of his prediction (Deu 18:20-22).
Compare Jer 14:14-15; Jer 23:9-35)--for misleading the people in that way, they
should be punished, and their houses with them (Eze 13:1-16). We have a case of
the punishment of one Hananiah, who prophesied falsehood in the days of
Jeremiah. See Jer 28:1-17. God has been thus careful of His word, lest men
should follow false lights to their injury. It was understood by the ancients,
that if a man had that communion with God which would enable him to reveal new
truth to the world, he would be enabled to do wonders. They got that thought
from their history, for the men who brought to them intelligence not known
before, did possess that power. Though John did not work any miracle, yet it was
in the mind of even Herod Antipas that he had risen from the dead; and Nicodemus
regarded the Saviour as having come from God, because of the signs which He
wrought (John 3:1-2). In this way pretended revelators in the time of the
apostles might be detected (1Jn 4:1-6; Rev 2:2; Amo 2:11).

SEC. 88. SCRIPTURAL ACCOUNT OF THE FULFILLMENT OF PROPHECIES.

(1.) The seed of Abraham should be a bond people for four hundred years (Gen
15:1-14).--And after the affliction, they should be delivered with great
substance. The fulfillment of this will be found by reading Exo 2:23-25, Exo
3:1-22, Exo 4:1-31, Exo 5:1-23, Exo 6:1-30, Exo 7:1-25, Exo 8:1-32, Exo 9:1-35,
Exo 10:1-29, Exo 11:1-10, Exo 12:1-40.

(2.) The flood of Noah was threatened (Gen 6:9-22).--And it came (Gen 7:1-24,
Gen 8:1-14).

(3.) The land of Canaan promised to the seed of Abraham by that power by which
prophetic wisdom is had (Gen 12:7).--And it came true, as it may be read in the
book of Joshua.

(4.) Isaac promised and given (Gen 18:10; Gen 21:1).

(5.) Esau should serve Jacob, and afterwards break the yoke from off his neck
(Gen 27:39-40).--So we find that David entirely subdued Edom in his reign (2Sa
8:14); but in the time of Joram, the son of Jehoshaphat, they broke away from
Israel (2Ki 8:20-22).

(6.) Jacob’s vision at Bethel (Gen 28:10-12) was made good in his preservation
and return to that land in peace (Gen 32:9-12; Gen 33:1-20).

(7.) Joseph dreamed that he should have the rule over his brethren (Gen 37:5-8);
which came to be true (Gen 42:6).

(8.) In Gen 49:1-33, Jacob foretells the things that were to occur in the latter
times.--He gives a good outline history of each of the tribes; and we need only
to study their after history to see that the patriarch said these things by the
word of the Lord.

(9.) Moses foretold the utter corruption and ruin of the children of Israel (Deu
31:28-29).--No one who knows their history can deny that the statement he made
came true to the letter. The Scriptures are replete with the fulfillment of this
prediction.

(10.) In Jos 6:26, after the taking of Jericho, Joshua told them that any one
who would attempt to rebuild the city, should do so by the loss of his
first-born, and that he should set up the gates in his youngest son. This was
fulfilled in one Hiel, more than four hundred years after that (1Ki 16:34).

(11.) The death of the two sons of Eli in one, day (1Sa 2:34).--This was
literally kept (1Sa 4:11).

(12.) In 1Sa 10:1-13, we have the account of the prophecy of Samuel concerning
Saul, and the fulfillment of the prediction.

(13.) Saul’s defeat and death made known (1Sa 28:19); and was fulfilled (1Sa
31:2-7).

(14.) David invited evil upon him and his house, in causing the death of Uriah,
and in taking his wife; and for it the sword should not depart from his house,
and one of his house should rebel against him and take his wives, in the
presence of all the people in the daytime (2Sa 12:7-12). This is fulfilled in
the defiling of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon (2Sa 13:6-22); in the killing of
Amnon by the command of Absalom, two years later (2Sa 13:23-30); and in the
rebellion and death of Absalom (2Sa 16:1-23, 2Sa 17:1-29, 2Sa 18:1-33).

(15.) The prophecy of Ahijah concerning the division of the ten tribes from
Judah and Benjamin, by parting his new garment into twelve pieces, and giving
Jeroboam ten of them (1Ki 11:26-34).--All this came true (1Ki 12:16-18), when
the ten tribes revolted with their chosen leader.

(16.) Ahijah prophesies of the destruction of the house of Jeroboam (1Ki
14:10-13).--See its fulfillment in 1Ki 14:17-18.

(17.) The destruction of the house of Baasha (1Ki 16:1-12).

(18.) The three years of drought (1Ki 17:1-24, 1Ki 18:1-41).--Elijah had said
that it should not rain except at his word for that time, and the statement was
made true by the facts.

(19.) Elijah foretold rain, and it came (1Ki 18:44-46).

(20.) The king of Syria, after having been defeated by Ahab, and Israel made to
feel safe, the prophet came and told the king to prepare for the return which
would occur at the end of the year; and it was so (1Ki 20:22-26).

(21.) Death of Ahab (1Ki 21:19; 1Ki 22:38; 2Ki 9:34; 2Ki 10:11).--For his murder
of Naboth, he was told by Elijah that he should perish, and his house. And so he
came to his death in a strange way, and came to the place where he had done the
wrong to the innocent man in robbing him of his vineyard. And when Jehu came to
the throne, all the house of Ahab was destroyed.

(22.) The victory of Jehoshaphat over Moab, Ammon, and Edom (2Ch 20:14-25).-When
it was told the king that these forces were at En-gedi, or between Tekoah and
the Dead Sea, he was afraid; and the people came together, and, while they
worshiped, the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel, who told them that the
Lord would fight for them. So they went out with the singers, and while they
praised the Lord, the battle was fought for them, as the Edomites and the
Moabites fought each other, and both armies were destroyed.

(23.) The Moabites delivered again to Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, by a miraculous
freshet of waters, according to the word of the Lord by Elisha (2Ki 3:17-24).

(24.) Plenty supplied in Samaria, according to the word spoken by Elisha (2Ki
7:1-18).

(25.) The sons of Jehu were to sit on the throne to the fourth generation,
because he had destroyed Baal-worship out of the land (2Ki 10:30); and it was
fulfilled (2Ki 15:12). This was certainly a prophecy. Jehu was not the man to
receive direct communications from the Lord.

(26.) The ruin of Damascus seen by Amos (Amo 1:5) in the days of Uzziah, and
fulfilled in the fourth year of the reign of his grandson, Ahaz (2Ki
16:9).--This also was foretold by Isaiah, three years before its occurrence (Isa
8:4).

(27.) The destruction of the army of Sennacherib, and his murder at the hand of
his own sons (2Ki 19:7-27).--This occurred in the time of Hezekiah, and was
foretold by Isaiah. He had this vision in whole or in part a good many times.
But in this chapter it can be read in prophecy and history. He had spoiled the
land, and now loses 185,000 men by the destroying angel, and escapes with 15,000
to his home, to be killed in the temple of Nisroch.

(28.) Josiah destroys the altar of idolatry, according to the statement of the
man of God that went down from Judah to Bethel, in the time of Jeroboam (1Ki
13:1-4; 2Ki 23:15-17).

(29.) The captivity in Babylon (2Ki 20:17-19; 2Ki 24:8-16; 2Ki 25:8-13).

(30.) The time of that captivity (Jer 25:1-11; Jer 29:10).--This began in the
fourth year of Jehoiakim, and seventy years reaches the first year of Cyrus (2Ch
36:22; Ezr 1:1), when the edict went forth that the Jews should return.

(31.) The destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar.--It should be remembered that
there were two cities by that name: the one was on the shore, and the other was
built out into the sea, and away from the continent. Sometimes the prophecies.
relate to the one of these, and sometimes to the other. With this fact in the
mind and the knowledge of the place the city held in the commercial world; that,
while it was the daughter of Sidon, it was the great maritime city of the world,
trading with Egypt--valley of the Nile, Sihor--and supplying the isle of Kittim,
or Cyprus, and trading even as far west as Tartessus, in Spain. It will be seen
in the prophecies we refer to, that the city should not only be thrown down, but
rebuilt, and sing again like a harlot, and even traffic in holy things, and that
the time of her prostration should be seventy years, according to the years of a
king or kingdom (Joe 3:5; Amo 1:9; Isa 23:1-18; Eze 26:7-11; Eze 27:3; Eze
29:18). The whole of Eze 26:1-21, Eze 27:1-36, Eze 28:1-26, Eze 29:1-21, can be
studied with profit on this subject. It would be an easy task to show the
fulfillment from history. Nebuchadnezzar was thirteen years in leveling down the
walls of this mighty city; and even then he found that the spoils had been
removed, when the people had flowed like a river away from the doomed place. It
is certain, too, from history, that it was in desolation for a period of seventy
years. The same thought can be had from reading Zec 9:1-3. It will be seen by
this text that the city had been rebuilt, and by referring to Zec 1:1; Zec 7:1,
we find that it was written in the fourth year of Darius Hystaspes.

(32.) The destruction of Babylon (Jer 50:17-18; Jer 51:1-63; Isa 13:19-22; Isa
44:28, Isa 45:1; Dan 5:16-31).

It would be easy to continue to notice these prophecies and the fulfillment, as
they relate to Egypt, Damascus, Arabia, Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Edom, Assyria,
Ethiopia, etc., etc. But we have aimed rather at a sample of these predictions,
that we might discover the clearness and force with which they are presented.
These men were not telling the things which they wished to have come to pass-not
the things which, judged according to human wisdom, were likely to occur. These
countries and cities were never in better condition than when their destruction
was foretold. These fulfillments can be verified by history, as well as by the
statements of the Scriptures.

SEC. 89. NEW TESTAMENT PROPHECIES, AND THEIR FULFILLMENT.--We have seen already
that there were New Testament prophets; that the Spirit of the Lord would not
only enable men to dream dreams and see visions, and to prophesy, but that women
should have the same enduement. In the giving of the new law, some time would
necessarily pass before it would be possible for the whole will of God to be put
to record. During the time there was a partial revelation within the reach of
the churches, but they would need something to take the place of a revelation;
hence the promise that the Spirit of the Lord would give this wisdom, to the
extent of their need.

"So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but ye are fellow-citizens
with the saints, and of the household of God, being built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in
whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in
the Lord; in whom ye also are budded together for a habitation of God in the
Spirit" (Eph 2:19-22).

Also the following chapter, Eph 3:5-6 :

"Which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it hath
now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; to wit,
that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and
fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel." The gospel
could not all be given at once in all its bearings nor could it be written fast
enough to supply the demand of the newly-organized churches. But these prophetic
gifts supplied the need for the time. We want to notice a few of these prophetic
teachings and warnings, to see in what manner the Lord directed His people.

(1.) The well-known Agabus (Acts 11:27-28), went down from Jerusalem to Antioch,
and warned them of the great dearth that was to come upon the whole land, which
came in the time of Claudius Cæsar.

(2.) The imprisonment of Paul (Acts 21:10-11).--This was foretold by the same
Agabus, who met the apostle at Cæsarea, at the house of Philip. He first
fastened his own feet and hands with Paul’s girdle, and in that way illustrated
what was about to befall its owner.

(3.) The persecution that should come upon the disciples (Mark 13:9-11; Luk
21:12-15; Acts 4:3; Acts 16:23; Acts 12:1-4; Acts 6:1-15, Acts 7:1-60, Acts
8:1-3).

(4.) Many shall stumble (Mat 24:10).--See the fulfillment 1Ti 1:6; 1Ti 6:10; 2Co
11:13; 2Ti 2:17-18.

(5.) Mat 9:11 : "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There be some
here of them that stand by, which shall in no wise taste of death, till they see
the kingdom of God come with power." This kingdom has been expected by the
apostles for some time, and now they are glad to know that it is soon to come.
They did not know the nature of it, nor the sorrows that would sweep over them
before it should be established. Just before the Master ascended into the
heavens, He came and told the disciples that all authority in heaven and in
earth had been given into His hands (Mat 28:18). Still the kingdom had not come.
But on the Pentecost, the prophecy was fulfilled (Acts 2:1-47). Then they were
at liberty to announce that He had risen, to occupy the throne of His father
David, and that the world must now submit to Him, in order to be saved.

(6.) The Holy Spirit would be given to the disciples in a manner not yet enjoyed
(John 7:37-38; Luk 24:46-49; Acts 1:4; Acts 2:1-5).

(7.) Jesus foretold His death (John 2:19; Mat 16:21). See Mat 27:1-66 and Mat
28:1-20. Nothing could have been taught more plainly than the death, burial and
resurrection of the Saviour.

(8.) Acts 2:16-21

"But this is that which hath been spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall be in
the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh And your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams

Yea and on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days Will I pour forth of
my Spirit; and they shall prophesy. And I will shew wonders in the heaven above,
And signs on the earth beneath; Blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke The sun
shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before that day of the
Lord come, That great and notable day And it shall be, that whosoever shall call
on the name of the Lord shall be saved." This is not a prophecy made in the New
Testament, but a prophecy applied in the New Testament. It is found in Joel ii.
We quote it here that we may have an application of it, and from it get a rule
for the interpretation of prophecies that are confessedly difficult. So far as
we have gone, in both Testaments, the interpretation has been easy. Indeed, they
have been but little else than history written beforehand. They have been
susceptible of but one meaning. But in the one just quoted we have room for much
speculation. And the manner of exegesis adopted by many is little likely to give
any assurance of the meaning of the passage.

Peter says: "This is that which hath been spoken." Hence there is a question of
veracity involved, to begin with. If we take the language, and apply it to
something in the future, or remove it from that day and the things then
occurring, we set aside Peter as an exegete.

Some way it is in the mind of most commentators that this prophecy demands such
a wonder for its fulfillment as the world has never seen. But this is a great
mistake. This language is highly figurative, and must have applied to it the
rules which such language would have if found in other compositions. Now let us
turn back to the first verse of the chapter, and see now much of this language
had its certain fulfillment on that day:

1. I will pour forth of my Spirit.--That had occurred.

2. Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy.--And that also was being
fulfilled. While we do not know if the daughters were then engaged in that work,
we do know that they were afterwards, and that, too, because of the coming of
this gift.

3. The Spirit given to the servants and the handmaidens.--That is answered.

4. I will show wonders in heaven.--The Spirit had come from heaven that morning,
and the rushing sound of the mighty wind did not move horizontally, but came
down, and that sound pointed out the place of meeting to the multitude. No
greater sign had been exhibited since the world began.

5. And signs on the earth.--And there was the sign of all the signs that had
ever been seen-a few unpretending and unlearned men speaking in nine or ten
different languages and dialects.

6. Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.--These were all present that day. That
was Pentecost; it was nine o’clock in the morning, and therefore the time at
which the great sacrifices were to be offered. They were largely free-will, and
the number of people present assures us that it was unusually well attended, and
therefore that the sacrifices were many. The blood is running, the fire is
burning, the smoke is rising; nay, more-the vapor of smoke, for it comes from
the burning of flesh.

7. The sun darkened, and the moon given the appearance of blood.--This was
certainly the appearance of things that morning. Hence there is no need of going
into some far-fetched and imaginary interpretation of the prophecy. It was then
being fulfilled, or Peter over-talked the facts in the case.

If we are not at liberty to differ from the conclusions of an inspired man, the
question is settled, and the passage is interpreted. This is by far the safer
plan--indeed, it is the only one in which there is any safety. The conclusion:
"Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved," gave hope to the
crowd that, though they had crucified the Lord’s Anointed, still they could be
saved; therefore they ask, "What shall we do?" In the predictions of the
Saviour, and in the symbolic prophecy of the Apocalypse, there is work for a
large book. But these should be interpreted in the light of history--those that
have been fulfilled, and the rest without such advantage. It is not possible for
us now to enter so large a field. We will notice one more prediction, or
promise, of the Saviour.

8. Mat 16:13-20 :

"Now when Jesus came into the parts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples,
saying, Who do men say that the Son of man is? And they said, Some say John the
Baptist; some, Elijah; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He saith
unto them, But who say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou are
the Christ, the Son of the living God, And Jesus answered and said unto him,
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say unto thee, that thou art
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall
not prevail against it. 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. Then charged he the
disciples that they should tell no man that he was the Christ." From this
language, a few things are evident to every careful reader:

(1.) Christ was going to establish a kingdom.

(2.) The words kingdom and church are used in this passage as synonyms.

(3.) Peter was to have the keys, or serve as gate-keeper.

(4.) He could not be the rock on which this kingdom should be built, and be the
gate-keeper at the same time.

(5.) From many other Scriptures, we know that Christ was that rock (Psa 118:22;
Isa 28:16; Mat 21:42; Acts 4:11; Eph 2:19-21).

(6.) The authority of Peter in that kingdom was just that which belonged to the
other apostles (Luk 24:46-49; John 20:21-23).

(7.), After the kingdom had been established, Peter never claimed any
superiority over the other apostles, and they never hinted that he had any
position above the others.

Hence the meaning of the promise, or prophecy, of the Saviour is clear, that, in
the near future, He would build his church, or organize his kingdom; that in the
establishment of that institution Peter would serve as spokesman, and hence it
would be his place to announce the terms of admission. This was fulfilled on the
first Pentecost after the ascension of the Saviour. The value of these
predictions of the Saviour to the apostles was very great. They are of supreme
importance to us; as they are fulfilled before us, we have a continued line of
evidence of the clearest and strongest character (John 13:19; John 13:29; John
16:4).

SEC. 90. PROPHECIES CONCERNING CHRIST.--These prophecies, as we would expect,
are the most complete of all the subjects treated by the prophets of the Lord.
And yet the men that gave them never fully understood their meaning. Hence it is
very evident that many times they told more than they knew. They have seen the
character of the Christ in the distance, with all they did to Him, and have told
what they saw and felt and heard. Sometimes it would seem that they must have
been directed to say the things which God put into their mouths. They tell of
the cross, and yet not one of them ever saw any such an instrument of torture
and death.

(1.) He was to be the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15; Gen 4:2; Mat 1:18).

(2.) He would be the Son of God (Psa 2:7; Luk 1:32-35).

(3.) He would overcome the serpent (Gen 3:15; Heb 2:14).

(4.) The seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; Gen 17:7; Gen 22:18; Gal 3:16).

(5.) The seed of Isaac (Gen 21:12; Heb 11:18).

(6.) The seed of Judah (Gen 49:10; Heb 7:14).

(7.) The seed of David (Psa 132:11; Jer 23:5; Acts 13:23; Rom 1:3).

(8.) The time of His coming and death (Dan 9:24-27; Luk 2:1).

(9.) Born of a virgin (Isa 7:14; Mat 1:18; Luk 2:7).

(10.) He was called Immanuel (Isa 7:14; Mat 1:22-23).

(11.) Born in Bethlehem of Judea (Mic 5:2; Mat 2:1; Luk 2:4-6).

(12.) Great men shall come and bow down to Him (Psa 72:10-15; Mat 2:1-11).

(13.) Children slaughtered, that he might be killed (Jer 31:15; Mat 2:16-18).

(14.) Introduced by John the Baptist (Isa 40:3; Mal 3:1; Mat 3:1-3; Luk 1:17).

(15.) Was anointed by the Holy Spirit (Psa 45:7; Isa 11:2; Isa 61:1; Mat
3:16-17; John 3:34; Acts 10:38).

(16.) He was a prophet like unto Moses (Deu 18:15-18; Acts 3:20-22).

(17.) Was sent as a deliverer to the people (Isa 61:1-3; Luk 4:16-21, Luk 4:43.

(18.) He is the light to Zebulun and Naphtali (Isa 9:1-3; Mat 4:12-16).

(19.) He comes to the temple and cleanses it (Hag 2:7-9; Mal 3:1; Luk 19:45;
John 2:13-16).

(20.) His poverty (Isa 53:2; Mark 6:3; Luk 9:58).

(21.) He was meek, and without ostentation (Isa 42:1-2; Php 2:7-9).

(22.) His compassion (Isa 40:11; Isa 42:3; Mat 12:15-20; Heb 4:15).

(23.) Was without guile (Isa 53:9; 1Pe 2:22).

(24.) Great zeal for the house of God (Psa 69:9; John 2:17).

(25.) He taught by the use of parables (Psa 78:2; Mat 13:34-35).

(26.) He wrought miracles (Isa 35:5-6; Luk 7:18-23).

(27.) Rejected by His brethren (Psa 69:8; Isa 53:3; John 1:11; John 7:5).

(28.) Hated by the Jews (Psa 69:4; Isa 49:7; John 15:24-25).

(29.) Rejected by their rulers (Psa 118:22; John 7:48; Mat 21:42).

(30.) A stone of stumbling and rock of offense (Isa 8:14; Rom 9:32; 1Pe 2:8).

(31.) Betrayed by a friend (Psa 41:9; Isa 55:12-14; John 13:18-21).

(32.) Forsaken by His disciples (Zec 13:7; Mat 26:31-56).

(33.) Was sold for thirty pieces of silver (Zec 11:12; Mat 26:15).

(34.) This money was given to buy the potter’s field (Zec 11:13; Mat 27:7).

(35.) He was patient and silent in all His sufferings (Isa 53:7; Mat 26:63; Mat
27:12-14).

(36.) Smitten on the cheek (Mic 5:1; Mat 27:30).

(37.) His sufferings were intense (Psa 22:14-15; Luk 22:42-44).

(38.) Was scourged and spit upon (Psa 35:15; Isa 50:6; Mark 14:65; John 19:1).

(39.) His visage was greatly marred (Isa 52:14; Isa 53:3; John 19:1-5).

(40.) He suffered, that he might bear away our sins (Isa 53:4-6; Dan 9:26; Mat
20:28; Mat 26:28).

(41.) The rulers, Jews and Gentiles, combine against Him to put Him to death
(Psa 2:1-4; Luk 23:12; Acts 4:27-28).

(42.) He was extended upon the cross, and His hands and His feet were nailed to
the wood (Isa 25:10-11; Psa 22:16; John 19:18; John 20:25).

(43.) This agony was increased by being numbered among thieves (Isa 53:12; Mat
15:28).

(44.) They gave him gall and vinegar (Psa 69:21; Mat 27:34).

(45.) He was cruelly mocked (Psa 22:7--8; Psa 35:15-21; Mat 27:39-44).

(46.) He suffered alone; even the Father’s presence was withdrawn (Isa 63:1-3;
Psa 22:1; Mat 27:46).

(47.) They parted his garments among them, and cast lots for his vesture (Psa
22:18; Mat 27:35).

(48.) He thus became a curse for us, and bore our reproach (Psa 22:6; Psa 79:7;
Psa 9:20; Rom 15:3; Heb 13:13; Gal 3:13).

(49.) He made intercession for the murderers (Isa 53:12; Luk 23:34).

(50.) After his death they pierced him (Zec 12:10; John 19:34-37).

(51.) But did not break a bone of his body (Exo 12:46; Psa 34:20; John
19:33-36).

(52.) He was buried with the rich (Isa 53:9; Mat 27:57-60).

(53.) His flesh did not see corruption (Psa 16:8-10; Acts 2:31)

(54.) He rose from death the third day, according to the Scriptures (Psa
16:8-10; Psa 30:3; Luk 24:6, Luk 24:31, Luk 24:34).

(55.) He ascended into the heavens (Psa 68:18; Psa 24:7-9; Luk 24:51; Acts 1:9).

(56.) He became a priest after the order of Melchizedek, who was king and priest
at the same time (Psa 110:4; Heb 5:5-6; Zec 6:12-13).

(57.) He received for Himself a kingdom that embraces the whole world (Psa 2:6;
Luk 1:32; Dan 2:44; Dan 7:13-14; John 18:33-37; Mat 28:18-19; Php 2:9-10).

(58.) His law went forth from Zion and his word from Jerusalem (Isa 2:1-3; Mic
4:12; Luk 24:46-49; Acts 2:1-40).

(59.) The Gentiles should be admitted into his service, (Isa 11:10; Isa 42:1;
Psa 2:8; John 10:16; Acts 10:44-48; Rom 15:9-12).

(60.) The righteousness of His reign (Isa 9:6-7; Psa 45:6-7; John 5:30; Rev
19:11).

We have sketched through these prophecies, not thinking of furnishing all that
might be said of them, or of giving all of them. What we have given is to show
what a large portion of the prophecies refer to the coming Saviour. When
salvation is proposed for the Gentiles, we may be sure that the statements were
from the Lord.

Jewish prophets were incompetent to understand any promise made to any other
people than those who were of the seed of Abraham. Because they had been the
peculiarly favored of the Lord, they looked for all excellence in Judah, and all
blessings and favors to be extended to that people. But God had a different view
of the matter, and when he gave promises to the race, they were upon the basis
of character. We greatly misunderstand the Bible if we suppose that the Hebrews
were the only people that received the revelations of God. Because they were
more cultured than those about them, they were put in charge of holy things, and
used as a vessel for the preservation of the divine records. God must
necessarily bring the Saviour into the world through some line, and it would be
as well to select that line as any other, and better, for they were the best
prepared to furnish the world with the evidences of God’s faithfulness in
keeping his promises.

We have now seen that all truth centers in the Christ; that He is our prophet,
priest, and king; that all the types and ceremonies and symbols that were before
the crucifixion looked forward to that event; and that since that time, all
ordinances and teachings and promises, look to Him for meaning and fulfillment.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 20: 02.00. SABBATH OR LORD’S DAY? WHICH?
========================================================================

SABBATH OR LORD’S DAY?

WHICH? By D. R. DUNGAN, Author of "On the Rock," "Rum, Ruin and the Remedy,"
Etc.

Originally Published in 1885


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 21: 02.00.2.     CHANGES IN THIS EDITION
========================================================================

CHANGES MADE IN THIS EDITION This edition of D.R. Dungan’s book The Sabbath or
the Lord’s Day, Which? (which was written and originally released in 1885) has
been carefully and painstakingly proofread and re-formatted in order to give
you, the reader, a more pleasing reading experience. No changes have been made
to the text of this book, with the exceptions of obvious spelling errors and
unintentional repeating of words. All changes which have been made in this book
fall under one of the following categories:

Obvious spelling mistakes have been corrected.

Occasional repeating of words (“of of” for example) have been corrected.

Some words and phrases have been capitalized to conform with modern usage
(“Lord’s day” is now “Lord’s Day,” “sabbath” is now “Sabbath”).

Main points throughout the chapters have been bolded and italicized in order to
make them stand out.

Lists found within a paragraph (like (a), (b), (c)) have, in most occasions,
been changed to look like the listing found on this page.

The font type and font size of this book have been changed in order to make it
easier to read.

Because of the change in page size and font size, the page numbers of this
edition will not match with the page numbers of the original printed copy. As
such, if you reference this edition of the book in a separate work, please
remember to reference it as the electronic edition.

This 2012 edition of D.R. Dungan’s book, The Sabbath or the Lord’s Day, Which?
was reformatted by Bradley Cobb. This book and more can be found, along with
many other e-books, at http://www.GravelHillchurchofChrist.com This book has
also been made available in e-Sword format, and can be found at the above
website.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 22: 02.01.     THE SABBATH: THE STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION
========================================================================

CHAPTER I THE STATEMENT OF THE QUESTION The question is one of importance, as it
concerns a matter of obedience to God. If God has required us to keep one day
out of every seven, and if blessings and penalties depend upon our obedience or
disobedience, it well becomes us to know whether we are in the way of blessing
or cursing. All through the Old Testament, after the giving the law from Sinai,
the Sabbath is made binding upon the people of Israel. Not only so, but it was
enforced by very severe penalties. Like other features of that law, men must
observe it or die. Found guilty of violating this law, the rebel must surely be
put to death. Even picking up sticks on that holy day was a capital offence. No
one at­tempts to deny these facts.

Again, it is just as evident that the seventh day was the Sabbath day as that
there was a Sabbath day required to be kept by anyone. The commandment was not
to keep one day out of seven, but to keep the seventh day. If the Israelite had
kept the first day of the week, with all the solemnity of the law, but not the
seventh, he would have been regarded as a violator of the law, and punished
accordingly. Indeed, he might have observed all the other six, but if he had not
remem­bered the seventh to keep it holy, he would have been regarded as a
transgressor of the law. This also is acknowledged by everyone who has read the
Scriptures on the subject.

If the Sabbath is now binding, are the penalties then belong­ing to the
institution, yet to be inflicted upon the violator of the law? If not, when were
these penalties removed, and by whom? If those penalties have been removed, are
there any others come to take their place? And if there are other penal­ties,
not found in the Law of Moses, where can we find them? If there are any changes
in the severity of the penalties, or in the rigor of the law, how can we assure
ourselves of the fact? If this law of the Sabbath is still binding, and yet
without penalties for its violation, or blessings for its faithful observance,
then it may be a matter of small moment to many per­sons, whether they keep it
or not. If the blessing pronounced upon faithfulness to this requirement is
eternal life, and the curse to be visited on the disobedient eternal death,
where can we find the statement which will warrant our faith?

There is now a very earnest effort being made by Advent­ists and Seventh-Day
Baptists to bring about a return to Sab­bath-keeping, according to the law. If I
have understood them correctly their positions are as follows:

The Sabbath was given at the creation of the world.

It was given to all men, and was to be observed during all time.

It was to be observed on the seventh day of the week.

The law of which it was a part has never been done away.

Now, beyond all question, if their theory is right, their practice cannot be
wrong. I understand the religious world generally to agree with their views
concerning the giving of that law, as to form, time and extent. Indeed, I am not
aware that either of the four positions taken by Sabbatarians is dissented from
by the average religious teacher of to-day. Still, the practice is very
distinct. The whole religious world, aside from the parties already named, keep
the first day of the week instead of the seventh, which was required to be
observed by the law.

Here is a manifest inconsistency, and no man can deny it. If God required us to
keep the seventh day of the week, keeping the first will not be obeying that
command. And it is vain to talk of keeping the spirit of a law when we
deliberately violate its letter. It is impossible to be religiously right and
scripturally wrong at the same time. If God commanded all men to keep the
seventh day of the week, and has never changed or removed that law, then we must
either keep the seventh day or violate the commandment of God. This is so
self-evident that to elaborate or repeat it would indicate a want of confidence
in my readers.

Some have been heard to say, however, that the Sabbath has been changed from the
seventh to the first day of the week. But the Bible does not know anything of
any such a change. No inspired man ever called the first day of the week the
Sabbath! It was centuries after the last apostle was dead before men began to
speak of keeping the Sabbath by observing the first day.

It will be said, however, that the Sabbath, as required of the Israelite, could
not be observed in cold climates, and hence the rigor of the law must
necessarily have been somewhat abated. But if any such necessity has existed, He
who gave the law has surely known it quite as well as any of His creatures, and
has therefore, somewhere in His word, removed the severities of the law, or, He
has not intended it to be regarded in these cold cli­mates. But if it was not
intended for these northern countries then it was not meant to be universal.
Hence all that may be legitimately argued from the fact of a needed change in
the severities of the fourth command, is that it was not intended for persons
living in cold climates. No one can change a law in any feature, except He who
gave it. And if God had made any such a change, such amending enactment could be
found somewhere in the Bible. But as no such enactment can be found, the law
remains as it was.

I have heard a peculiar argument against the Sabbath to the effect that all men
cannot observe the Sabbath at the same time; that when it is daylight on one
side of the globe, it is night on the other. Hence, while one half of the world
are keeping the Sabbath, the other part will be busily at work. They illustrate
by starting two men around the world from the same place, but in opposite
directions. With one the days get shorter, and with the other, they grow longer,
so that the man going east has gained a day on his neighbor, at their next
meeting; hence one will be keeping one day for Sabbath and the other will be
keep­ing the next. And some ingenious person has made a reckon­ing, showing
clearly enough, to himself, that we are really now keeping the seventh, and not
the first day. All this seems to me very much like surrendering the question.
These men say—without intending it—that the Sabbath keepers are right in their
demands, and that it is necessary for us to find some way of excusing ourselves.
Whatever difficulties there may be found in keeping the Sabbath in other
countries or under other circum­stances than could be found in Palestine, at the
time it was intended for the Israelites, may show that it was not given to other
peoples, but can have no effect to prove that the law has in any sense changed.

Again it is argued that Jesus taught the superiority, not only of man, but also
of the beast, to the strict demands of the Sab­bath. It is claimed that Jesus
violated this law when occasion required, and justified himself in doing so on
the ground that human want was of more importance than the letter of the law.
But no man has yet been able to find a single instance in which Jesus violated
any declaration given by Moses. He could not do so after the statement we find
in Mat 5:17-19 :

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to
destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass,
one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever
shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven." No one could be the author of that language and then violate that law
himself without gross inconsistency, such as would unfit him for a public
teacher.

Christ neither violated the law nor winked at such conduct on the part of anyone
else. No case has yet been reported, and no such teaching can be found as coming
from Him.

Sabbatarians are claiming, and with some show of reason, that a large majority
of the Protestant clergy believe just as they do respecting the sanctity of the
Sabbath, and that, if their popularity and salaries were not endangered, would
advocate the keeping of the seventh day just as they do. They conclude this from
their admissions, as before stated, which legitimately bind them to the law of
the Sabbath. They further claim, too that the devotion of the Christian world to
the first day of the week, is a superstition, which has no higher origin than
the edict of a heathen king.

Now to my mind, the question resolves itself into this: Are we now under law of
which the Sabbath was a part, or is the Sabbath now finding on Christians? For
certain it is, if we are to keep the Sabbath, then we are bound to observe the
seventh day of the week. No matter how the law was changed, unless Jehovah
changed it, if it is yet binding, it is our Place to keep it to the end of life,
unless sooner released from its obligations by Him who gave it.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 23: 02.02.     THE SABBATH: THE HYPOTHESIS OF A PRE-MOSAIC REQUIREMENT
========================================================================

CHAPTER II REASONS FOR KEEPING THE SABBATH EXAMINED UPON THE HYPOTHESIS OF A
PRE-MOSAIC REQUIREMENT

I. The first reason usually assigned for keeping the Sab­bath is that it was
given at creation, to all men and for all time. This position is called in
question. If we can have no law respecting the Sabbath without the use of that
word, then there was no command from Jehovah to any man to observe THE Sabbath
for at least 2, 500 years after the world was framed. In Exo 16:23 is the first
occurrence of the word in the English Scriptures. Nor is there any text which
would con­tain that word if properly translated. Just how a law was in
existence, requiring men to observe the seventh day of the week, and yet no
mention made of the fact in the Bible, will never be solved in the minds of
those who are disposed to think for themselves. But someone answers, We find
Cain and Abel offering sac­rifice, and yet no mention made of the fact that God
had required such service at their hands. Not only so, but Paul says that Abel
offered by faith. And, as we know that faith is the belief of testimony, it
therefore follows that commands are sometimes enacted when there is no notice
given of the fact.

This, however, is a long ways from the case in hand. Here we find sacrifice.
Though we have no mention made of the original command, we do have mention made
of the practice. But there is no mention made of command or practice respect­ing
the Sabbath for twenty-five centuries. But it is said that God not only rested
on the seventh day, but he sanctified it in commemoration of that fact. Hence it
was set apart to a holy or a sacred use, and as this was at the beginning, the
law was known from that time and observed by all who feared the Lord.

Two things are taken for granted here which are not granted. First, it is
presumed that "sanctified," when said of the seventh day, means, necessarily,
set apart to be observed by men as a day of worship; and second, that it was
thus set apart at the creation of the world. But neither of these is by any
means certain. "Sanctified “might refer to a holy joy in the mind of God; or it
might indicate that God would mark the time, and in the ages to come require his
people to abstain from labor on that day. Hence the language cannot mean
anything absolutely which will be of any service to the cause for which it is
used. Nor is this all. The deductions from the supposed existence of the law of
the Sabbath are by no means legitimate. For instance, if the law had been given
at the creation it would not follow that all men were expected to obey it for
all time. We are sure, from the reference to sacrifice, that an offering for sin
was required, and that it was a sacrifice of blood, but these services are not
therefore required of all men and for all time. When the seventh day was
sanctified is not indicated in the language referred to. I will quote Gen 2:2-3
:

"And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on
the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh
day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which
he had created and made."

Now it was not the first seventh day in which the sanctifica­tion took place,
for he sanctified the day because that in it he had rested. The day was not
wholly given to silence and inactivity; that is not the meaning. The thought is
that he discontinued the creative or formative work on that day. The following
sensible treatment of the subject is found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, Am. Ed.;
Vol. 4:, page 2763:

"We have hitherto viewed the Sabbath merely as a Mosaic ordinance. It remains to
ask whether there be indications of its having been previously known and
observed; and, secondly, whether it have an universal scope and authority over
all men.

"The former of these questions is usually approached with a feeling of its being
connected with the latter, and, perhaps, therefore, with a bias in favor of the
view which the questioner thinks will support his opinion of the latter. It
seems, how­ever, to us, that we may dismiss any anxiety as to the results we may
arrive at concerning it. No doubt, if we see strong reason for thinking that the
Sabbath had a pre-Mosaic exist­ence, we see something in it that has more than a
Mosaic character and scope. But it might have had such without a universal
authority, unless we are prepared to ascribe that to the prohibition of eating
blood or things strangled. And again, it might have originated in the Law of
Moses, and yet possess ail universal scope, and an authority over all men, and
through all time. Whichever way, therefore, the second of our ques­tions is to
be determined, we may easily approach the first without anxiety.

“The first and chief argument of those who maintain that the Sabbath was known
before Moses, is the reference to it in Gen 2:2-3. This is considered to
represent it as coeval with man, being instituted at the creation, or, at least,
as Lightfoot views the matter, immediately upon the fall. This latter opinion is
so entirely without rational ground of any kind that we may dismiss it at once.
We have no materials for ascertain­ing or even conjecturing, which was put forth
first, the record of the creation, or the Fourth Commandment. If the latter,
then the reference to the Sabbath in the former, is abundantly natural. Had,
indeed, the Hebrew tongue, the variety of preterite tenses of the Greek, the
words in Genesis might require careful consideration in that regard; but as the
case is, no light can be had from grammar; and on the supposition of these being
written after the Fourth Commandment, their absence, or that of any equivalent
to them, would be really marvelous."

Nearly all able critics are of the opinion that the whole of Genesis was written
after the law had been given at Sinai. Hence, as Moses had learned that the
Fourth Commandment was to keep in memory the creation of the world, the most
natural thing would be for him to mention the sanctification of that day in
connection with the account of the creation. This has been the manner of
historians and biographists in all time. It is in this way that we speak of
General Washington when he was a boy. And yet no man would understand us to say
that he was a general at that tender age. As our learned author has indicated,
there are no rules of grammar which require us to regard the time of that
sanctification as having occurred previous to the giving of the law on Mt.
Sinai, and as it is most in accord with all the facts known to us, to regard it
as never having been mentioned before that event, it is safer to say that Moses
referred to the sanctification of the Sabbath, as having taken place when the
law was given at Sinai. This will account for the fact that no mention is made
of any law of that nature during all these centuries. In appropriating this text
the friends of the Sabbath have to assume every essential feature of the
argument:

They assume that Gen 2:2-3, describes an event which took place at the
foundation of the world.

They assume in the second place, that “blessed and sanctified" require that man
should observe that day as a day of rest, without any mention being made of the
fact.

They assume in the third place, that if the law had been given at that time, it
would therefore be binding upon all men for all time

These are the very essentials, in the whole matter, and yet they are assumed;
not one of them can be sustained.

It has sometimes been argued that Gen 4:3, presents the idea of a pre-Mosaic
Sabbath: "And in process of time" they render, "And in the end of days," which,
they tell us, shows that they had knowledge of some artificial measurement of
time, most likely the Sabbath. This comes from too fruitful an imagination. [The
language does not indicate any artificial measurement of time, nor any division
of time whatever. It is equal to saying that it occurred i n the history of this
family, etc. And if there was any division of time in the language, it would be
more easily interpreted of the new moon, or of some measurement of time which we
know to have been before the people. But the seizure of this and many similar
passages of Scripture, only to force them into some sort of support of their
theory, contrary to all probability and even possibility of meaning, only shows
how far mere speculators will go in search of support for a favorite dogma.

Again we are told that this arbitrary division of time is to be seen in the
seven days of Noah, and also in the week which Jacob fulfilled for Rachel (Gen
29:27). While these things would accord well with the idea of a pre-Mosaic
Sabbath, yet the existence of such an institution is not a necessary inference
therefrom. If they could be accounted for in no other way, I lien we would give
them a prominent place in the consideration if the subject. But such is not the
case. Seven days is a natural division of the moon, by which we know that the
ancients measured the year. And yet, for all that, the third day is of more
frequent occurrence in Genesis than the seventh. It is not a natural division of
time, nor does anyone claim it to be sacred. And yet, the word week, in Gen
29:27, has most probable reference to seven years, during which Jacob should
continue his toils with Laban. It must be conceded that the word week everywhere
else in the Old Testament has the mean­ing of seven years. Hence, when we come
to look at this argument, there seems to be nothing in it. The Sabbath must be
found in some way, hence the ancient cities are put under tribute to the cause.
Mr. Smith finds in Nineveh, (1869) the fifth of the Assyrian tablets, and also a
religious calendar, in that ancient city. Here are evidences that the people
knew of the Sabbath, and probably kept it. This, too, is supposed to have been
written before the Law of Moses was given on Mt. Sinai. Hence that people had
carried down with them this religious requirement. But when we find the name of
Merodach in this, we are quite sure of the later origin of this production.
Certain, it is, that Solomon largely influenced the nations of the east long
before these tablets were probably written. And still further, it will be seen
in these, that the service of the New Moons, and the feast days of the Jews
stand in the same relation to time that the Sabbath does:

"Every month without fail he made holy assembly days." And the whole of this
tablet shows the common Jewish origin, with the after glosses of heathenism.

I have no need to say to anyone who reads history that all reckoning upon dates,
which claim to have been given, among the heathen nations before the seventh
century, B. C., is ex­ceedingly doubtful as to its correctness. Hence, since we
know that these writings give certain evidence of their Jewish origin, nothing
more need to be said of them. A very strange argument, and yet a very common
one, is that the form of the law of the Sabbath in the Decalogue is proof that
it was an old institution. They say that as it there occurs, it has all the form
of a requirement already known. But who does not know that the Sabbath was given
a month before that? In Exo 16:23, the word occurs for the first time in the
Bible. But this was a month before the law was given at Mt. Sinai. If it could
be said that the requirement to keep the Sabbath as it is found in Exo 16:23
indicates that it was an old institution and well understood by the people, then
there would be some argument in it. Even then, however, it would only be
sug­gestive.

Exo 16:22-23 :

"And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread,
two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told
Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow
is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord; bake that which ye will bake
to-day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for
you to be kept until the morning."

They are not reminded to renew their faithfulness in keeping an ordinance which
they had previously known, but had, on some account, neglected.

But the institution is given in the form in which a new commandment is
presented.

There is no account in their history that they had ever kept it or known
anything about it.

Every ruler seemed perfectly surprised that two portions of manna was given on
the sixth day, and could not imagine why it should be so. If they had ever known
anything about the Sabbath day before this, their ignorance and astonishment is
perfectly unaccountable.

If we had found that the law of the Sabbath was given at the creation, it would
not follow that all peoples are to observe it, for all time. Hence, in every
way, the argument for a pre-Mosaic Sabbath, must be regarded as a complete
failure.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 24: 02.03.     THE SABBATH: TO WHOM WAS THE LAW OF THE SABBATH GIVEN?
========================================================================

CHAPTER III TO WHOM WAS THE LAW OF THE SABBATH GIVEN?

It is maintained that the Sabbath was given to all men, and was, therefore,
intended to be a universal law. Of course the purpose of this argument is to
find that the removal of the law given at Mt. Sinai can have nothing to do with
the cessa­tion of the Sabbath.

1. The first proof of the correctness of this position usually relied upon, is
the numerical argument. A careful gleaning of the whole of the Scriptures is
made and the number of times which the Sabbath is commanded, in one way or
another, is stated. This is done to show the importance of the institution in
the mind of the Author.

Surely this is a work of gratuity. If we could so far forget our logic as to
imagine the possibility of maintaining any proposition in this way, we could
easily find that almost every requirement of the Old Testament was intended for
all men. Sacrifices, circumcision, new moons, sabbatical years, and almost the
entire law has been required with equal emphasis. No one doubts that the Sabbath
was binding on the people to whom it was given, and that it was to continue in
force till it should be taken out of the way by the same authority which gave
it.

2. But the great argument is derived from the statement of the Master: "The
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark 2:27. They repeat
this very frequent­ly, with very telling effect, at least on themselves. And yet
everything that was said of the Sabbath in this re­spect could have been said
with equal propriety concerning every other Old Testament requirement. Every
decree that God ever gave to the race, or any portion of it, was given to man,
or made for man. But there is nothing in it to show that it was intended for all
men. This is a rule in hermeneutics, agreed to by all who have really studied
that science: Nothing should ever be applied to any subject not before the mind
of the author at the time of writing or speaking. Indeed, the first thing that
the exegete has to do in beginning his work, is to deter­mine the purpose of the
author, so that in the work of interpre­tation he may never go beyond that
purpose in his exegesis.

Now with that rule before us, let us turn and see if Jesus was intending to say
anything respecting the extensiveness of that institution. The question was, had
his disciples violated that commandment? If we know the law in the matter, we
know they had not. And as for their traditions, Jesus cared nothing. But while
he and his disciples were free from trans­gressions of the law, they were not.
They had violated that commandment, and excused others in doing the same. They
had done so, too, when they had regarded it necessary to sus­tain life, or even
to remove suffering. And yet upon such a basis as that, no law should be
violated. One who was the Lord of the Sabbath might do so, for he would be
unerring in his opinion of the necessity of the case. Hence he adds: "The Son of
man is Lord also of the Sabbath." The argument, then, of Jesus stands:

My disciples have violated no law. See Mat 12:7.

You agree that human life is more than keep­ing the Sabbath, and if there is
therefore ever a conflict be­tween the two, the Sabbath will have to give way;
and

I am the Lord of the Sabbath, and can therefore dispose of it as I please. Hence
it will appear to every careful reader that in making Mark 2:27 testify on the
subject of the extent of the Sabbath, they have done violence to one, of the
most funda­mental rules of interpretation; that they have insisted on a meaning
that was not in any way before the mind of the Lord when the language was
employed.

It now seems proper that I should state some reasons for denying the
proposition. This I must do very briefly:

1. The Scriptures directly state that they were only given to ancient Israel. If
this be true, the question ought to end. For if He who gave the Sabbath says it
was only intended for the descendants of Jacob, no true believer will dare
affirm the proposition which we now oppose.

Exo 34:27 : "And the Lord said unto Moses, write thou these words: for after the
tenor of these words I have com­manded a covenant with thee and with Israel." No
man, not even Adventists, deny that this covenant com­manded, contained the
Sabbath. Hence this law was given to Moses and the people of Israel. If this law
belonged to others, what emphasis could have been placed on its being the
property of Moses and that people?

Exo 31:13; Exo 31:16-17 : “Speak thou also unto the children of Israel, saying,
Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout
your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you." …
"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath
throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me
and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed."

Now whatever was a sign between God and his people was not equally intended for
other people. God gave to Abraham and his seed the sign of circumcision. But if
that mark had been put upon all other peoples, it would not have been a sign
between God and the seed of Abraham. So with the law of the Sabbath, it could
not have been a sign between God and that people if it had been given to others
as well as to them. Hence, its being a sign is certain proof that it was not
intended for any other nation.

Deu 4:8 : "And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments
so righteous as all this law which I set before you this day? " This question
can only be answered in the negative "No nation." It was intended to affirm that
no nation was in pos­session of this law. With this statement men ought to be
satisfied, so that when God says no other nation possesses this law the whole
question should be dropped.

Deu 5:3 : "The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even
us, who are all of us here alive this day."

Now when God is said to have made that covenant with that people only, and not
even with their fathers, it must be a strange form of faith that will contradict
him by saying that he did make it with their fathers, and not only with them,
but with all men and for all time. But someone may say that this covenant here
spoken of, did not contain the Sabbath. This, however, is not correct. Read
right along and see what the covenant was that was only given to them and not
even to their fathers.

Coming to Deu 5:15, we read: "And remember that thou wart a servant in the land
of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty
hand and by a stretched-out arm: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to
keep the Sabbath day." This not only Shows that the Sabbath was not given to
others but why it was given to the Israelites.

A second reason for believing that God only intended the Sabbath for the
descendants of Jacob, is that it is never spoken of as in any way connected with
any duty which He required of the Gentiles. They are never reproved for not
having kept it. And yet it is certain that they never kept it.

He reproved the Jews for the want of faithfulness to that commandment; why not
condemn the Gentiles for like negli­gence? He reproved them for their many sins;
he judged them for their wickedness and maltreatment of Israel; for their
idolatry; for their adultery and sodomy; for their want of natural affection.
Nay more, He shows clearly the ground of their responsibility. But never does He
reprove them for not observing the Sabbath. Now, upon the hypothesis that this
law was given to them, these things are inexplicable.

The Sabbath could not be kept by those who live in cold climates. This will be
seen in the nature of the institution.

No work should be done.

Exo 20:10 : “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." See
Deu 5:14.

They were to abide in their places.

Exo 16:29 : “See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he
giveth you on the sixth day the bread of I wo days: abide ye every man in his
place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day."

They must not even kindle a fire on the Sabbath.

Exo 35:3 : "Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitation upon the Sabbath
day."

The penalty for violating the law of the Sabbath was death.

Exo 31:14-15 : "Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you.
Every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any
work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may
work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord:
whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."

Exo 35:2 : “Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be
to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth any work
therein shall be put to death."

Num 15:32-36 : "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they
found a man that gathered sticks on 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 because it was not declared what should
be done to him. And the Lord said unto Moses: The man shall be surely 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 with stones,
and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses." No one claims that such a law could
be observed in this climate, say nothing of the Laplands, or the great area of
north­ern countries. Hence, we are compelled to say that the law was not
intended for any but those living in a land where the people could keep the law
as it was given, or that its rigor has since then been abated, and that, too, by
the same authority that gave it being. Has the law been abated in its rigor, and
yet left standing? Here the Bible is silent. It is commonly said that the law of
the Sabbath now stands, but the penalty has been changed or taken away. But of
all this, the Bible knows no more than it does of pilgrimages to Mecca. Jesus
taught that not one jot or tittle of the law should in any wise pass till all
should be ful­filled. Hence, the only way for these penalties to disappear can
be found in the removal of the law as a whole. The penalties stand or fall with
the law itself. From all this, it is just as evident as it can be, that the law
was given to the Israelites and to them alone. They were in a land where it
might be observed. And they were expected to remain there. So far we are
warranted in saying:

There is no account of the law having been given to any other people than the
descendants of Jacob.

It is plainly stated that it was not even given to their fathers. Hence, that it
was given alone to those who came out of Egypt, and to their children forever
throughout their genera­tions.

No Gentiles could be held responsible for a law that was never given to them.
This accounts for the fact that they were never reproved for having disobeyed
the law of the Sabbath.

The penalties of the law could only be removed by the authority which enacted
them. God gave them, and he alone could remove them. Hence, as long as the law
remained, even picking up sticks on the Sabbath must be punished with death.

It is left for us to see in the further discussion of the subject, how the
penalties of that law were removed by the law being taken out of the way and
nailed to the cross of Christ.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 25: 02.04.     THE SABBATH: WAS THE LAW OF THE SABBATH PERPETUATED IN CHRIST?
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV WAS THE LAW OF THE SABBATH PERPETUATED IN CHRIST? No one doubts that
the Jews were commanded to keep the seventh day of the week. But we have not
found that anyone else was required to observe that day. But God has designed
His people to serve him. Has he directed them to continue to keep this law? If
so, the whole question is at an end. No matter when that law was given, if its
Giver intended it to be a continuous institution, then, beyond all controversy,
it remains an eternal fixture. Those who demand that we should keep the Sabbath
present several arguments on this point, and it is our linty to hear them. It
will do no one any good to be mistaken in any matter like this. And it is
certain if they who keep the Sabbath are right, most other persons are wrong.

1. It is claimed that the Ten Commandments are the moral code. And as the
Sabbath is a part of the Decalogue, it was therefore a moral commandment, or a
part of the moral law.

It should be noticed here that our friends have to employ dis­tinctions which
are never found in the Bible. No inspired man ever galled the Ten Commandments a
moral law. The reason that men now so denominate it is that their theory cannot
be sustained by simply using Scriptural terms. It is not clear to me that they
have any definite idea of the meaning of the word moral. They seem to mean by
the use of that term, anything which is right and pure. But in that sense, every
feature of the law given by Moses was moral. Neither impurity nor injustice
attaches to anything which God ever commanded men to do. And if such were the
meaning of the word, there could be no reason for applying the term to one
portion of the law, more than another. Webster’s definition of the word is:

“Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those inten­tions and actions of
which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which
such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice,
manners, or con­duct of men as social beings in relation to each other, as
respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules." This
shows that the word moral refers to man’s duty toward his fellow; that all its
demands spring out of the relation which men sustain toward each other. Hence
moral, is that which is right in the nature of things, in this respect, for
justice between man and man can never change. But the Sabbath has no feature of
the moral thought in it. It is not right in the nature of things to keep the
seventh day any more than to observe the first, second, third, or any other day
of the week. Nor does it regulate any duty of man toward his fellow, more than
any feature of judicial or ritual procedure. It was right only because God
required it. It was right just to the extent that he commanded it, and beyond
that limit, there is no more authority for it, than for any of the mummeries and
rites of the apostasy. It was given to Israel as a test by which God should
prove them, whether they would keep his commandments or not. There are six moral
enactments in the Decalogue, but the Sabbath is not one of them.

2. It is claimed that we have the example of Christ and the apostles for keeping
the Sabbath.

Very certainly Christ and the disciples kept the Sabbath during the time that it
was binding upon the people of Israel. Christ did not come to destroy the law
but to fulfill it. This, however, was not truer of the Sabbath or the Ten
Commandments than of any other portion of the law. Every "jot and tittle" of it
was regarded as sacred by him. If this proves that the Sab­bath is now binding,
it proves that all of the law is binding, for he treated it all alike. Hence we
know that the argument proves nothing. What was sacred during the life of Christ
was done away in his death.

We find the apostles meeting in the synagogues on the Sabbath day. But that they
observed it as a sacred day is nowhere stated. Adventists now meet on the first
day of the week, not because they regard the day as a sacred day, but because
they can have an audience to hear them on that day. For the same reason the
apostles met in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Paul went a thousand miles to
attend a Pentecost. But that does not bind that feast upon Christians. James
reveals the fact that many believers were yet zealous in keeping the Law of
Moses. Does that fact make those services binding upon us, when we are told by
inspiration that we are freed from the law by the body of Christ? Suppose that
we shall find Christians who had been Jews were slow to learn that they were not
under law, but under grace, will that bind the law upon us? Paul took and
circumcised Timothy, because of the Jews which were in those quarters; will that
make it necessary for us to be circumcised? It took a number of years before
even the apostles knew that the Gentiles were to have the gospel preached to
them. Will that in any way interfere with our authority to carry to them the
word of life? The Holy Spirit was given to those men to guide them into all
truth. But all needed knowledge did not mine in a day. It was years in being
given and in being established with signs following. And yet, even though the
minds of disciples had to open gradually to the whole truth, there is no
recorded instance of their meeting on the Sabbath after the day of Pentecost.
There were Judaizers who taught that they must keep the law, but they never had
any consider­able following. And when we come to a completed revelation we learn
that we are not under the law in any respect what­ever. That while the law had
served a valuable purpose as a school-master to bring us to Christ that we might
be jus­t i fled by faith, yet, faith having come, we are no longer under the
school-master.

3. But it is claimed that Jesus bound upon the disciples this institution.

If this is true, then there is an end of all controversy respect­ing the matter.
Where and when did he do this? Show this, and we will keep the seventh day, not
because it is of the Decalogue, but because it is of Christ. We must have the
state­ment of Christ however. Where is it? They say that it is to be found in
Mat 24:20. They were to pray that their flight should not be in the winter, nor
on the Sabbath day; and as this referred to the destruction of Jerusalem, it
would be about forty years after the death of Christ; hence he makes keeping the
Sabbath a matter of prayer, forty years after the inauguration of his church. As
much reliance is placed upon this passage, I will quote it in full. Mat 24:17-21
:

"Let him which is on the house-top not come down to take anything out of his
house; neither let him that is in the field return back to take his clothes. And
woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days. But
pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day: for
then shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

Why this is ever quoted by Adventists to show that the Sab­bath would be sacred
in the year seventy is not easily seen. As they argue that all penalties are
removed in case of absolute necessity, there would be nothing wrong in their
fleeing on that day. And as for any tradition concerning a Sabbath day’s
journey, they do not suppose that Christ ever attached any importance to it.
Since, then, there would be no wrong in fleeing on the Sabbath day, if necessity
should require it, there would be nothing in it that would, in any way,
interfere with their flight out of Jerusalem. Hence they have already destroyed
their argument on this Scripture.

There were a number of things which they were to avoid.

Coming down from the housetop to take anything out of the house.

Must not return from the field to take his clothes.

Woe unto them that are with child;

and to them that give suck.

Pray that your flight be not in the winter;

Nor on the Sabbath day.

Would it be religiously or morally wrong to do anyone of these things? The
Adventist finds no sin in anything but fleeing on the Sabbath. He accounts for
all the other inhibitions on the ground of inconvenience, or necessity. It is
only the Sabbath that was surrounded by religious author ity. There was just as
much prohibition on fleeing in the winter as on the Sabbath day. But while, to
them, it proves that the Sabbath would be regarded as sacred, it does not have
that meaning concerning the winter. This shows that they can find in the passage
just what they wish to find. It means in­convenience in five cases out of the
six, but in the sixth it must mean the sacredness of the day. Certainly Jesus
knew it would be difficult for them to flee on the Sabbath day. The customs and
rules of the people, whatever might be in the minds of the disciples respecting
it, would make it almost impossible for them so escape from the doomed city on
that day. Their fellow Jews would suspect them and apprehend them as traitors.

Renee, while this command of the Savior cannot be accounted for upon the
hypothesis of the sacredness of the day, it is easily understood in the light of
the others, convenience: and neces­sity.

4. Paul is said to bind upon them this law in his letter to the saints in Rome.

See Rom 3:31 : “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
establish the law."

There are two questions to be settled in determining the meaning of
this-passage.

What is meant by the word law? and

what is meant by “we establish the law?

Of course Adventists understand the term law here to refer to the Ten
Commandments, to the exclusion of all the rest. For, with them, it will not do
to have the rest of the law bound upon Christians. Though nothing has been said
about the Decalogue in the connection, yet it must have that meaning, forsooth,
it must.

Those who will be at the pains of reading this letter from the beginning up to
this text will dud that Paul was trying to con­vince them that the gospel was
the only power by which men could be saved. To do this he had shown (1) that all
men were lost, and therefore were in need of salvation. (2) That they could not
be saved by the law. (3) But that they could be saved through the gospel without
the deeds of the law. Now what law is established in this way? Let me read the
28th, 29th and 30th verses: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not
also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Seeing it is one God
which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through
faith."

Now it will be seen by every reader that the same law that was established by
the gospel, was that law by which they could not be saved; without the deeds of
which they might be saved. But now the question recurs: In what sense was that
law established? Does Paul mean to say that a law by which no man could be
saved, and that without performing its deeds they might be saved, had been bound
upon them as a rule of life? Such a thought is perfectly unreasonable. You know
that Paul never said anything of the kind. Hence, in estab­lishing this law he
has not the remotest idea of binding it upon them as a rule of life. But what
does he mean by the remark? In proving that men were in need of salvation, Paul
had to show the Jew, especially that he was a sinner in the second place he had
to make him see that he could not be saved by the law. These he did by appealing
to their records, declaring that they related to those who were under the law in
particular; hence, that the Jew as well as the Gentile was lost and in need of
salvation. Therefore it was as a witness to the condition of the people that the
law was established. But I am told that very respectable commentators regard the
law here referred to as the moral law, taught in the Old Testa­ment. This,
however, does not make it true. And if it did, it would not furnish any aid or
comfort to Adventism, since we have seen that the Sabbath would not belong to
the last; being a positive and not a moral commandment. But it is not possible
to accept the common version and regard the law here mentioned as simply those
eternal principles which a man must do or not be just before God, for we are to
be justi­fied without the deeds of this law. No, it is as a witness that the law
is confirmed by the establishment of this Remedial system, by which alone it was
possible for men to be saved. The law was given as a whole, and for a definite
purpose, of teaching and governing that people till the Christ should come. To
have caused it to fail of that purpose would have been to destroy the law, but
to cause it to answer that purpose, by bringing in that salvation for which it
prepared the people, was to fulfill it. Hence, to fulfill, to establish, or
confirm, the law was the work of Christ in giving the gospel to the world, by
which the world could be saved. The law and instruction of the pedagogue is
established by the higher teacher, when his lessons and rules are declared to
have been right. But no one thinks that this leaves the student under the old
school­master. If you yet have any doubt of the subject, return and read the
third chapter of the Roman letter, beginning at the ninth verse. Then, after
quoting freely from some of the prophets and the Psalms, he says, Rom 3:19 :

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are
under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become
guilty before God."

There is nothing unusual in this use of the word law. Many times different parts
of the Old Testament are called law. Both prophecy and history are so
denominated.

5. It is said that Paul has plainly declared to the Hebrews that a Sabbath
remains to the people of God; and that as there never was but one Sabbath given
to men, to be kept by them, it fol­lows that he intended them to understand that
they were yet to observe the seventh day of the week as it was given at Sinai.

According to the new Revision, in Heb 4:9, we should read:

"There remaineth therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God."

Let us read the whole passage from the first verse:

“Let us fear therefore, lest haply, a promise being left of entering into Ills
rest, anyone of you should seem to have come short of it. For indeed we have had
good tidings preached unto us, even also as they: but the word of hearing did
not profit them, because they were not united by faith with them that heard. For
we which have believed do enter into that rest; even as he hath said, As I sware
in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest: although the works were finished
from the foundation of the world. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh day
on this wise, And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; and in this
place again, They shall not enter into my rest. Seeing therefore it remaineth
that some should enter thereinto, arid they to whom the good tidings were before
preached failed o enter in because of disobedience, he again defineth a certain
lay, saying in David, after so long a time, To-day, as it hath been before said,
Today if ye shall hear his voice, Harden not your hearts. For if Joshua had
given them rest, he would not have spoken afterward of another day. There
remaineth therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For he that is entered
into his rest hath himself also rested from his works, as God did from his. IA
us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no roan fall after the
same example of disobedience."—Heb 4:1-11. That this language can have no
reference to the weekly Sab­bath is evident from the following reasons:

This rest was a promise made to them.—Heb 4:1, Heb 4:6, Heb 4:8-11.

It had been promised to Israel.—Heb 4:2. The Sabbath had been commanded of them,
but never promised. Commands and promises are very different.

They had the Sabbath, but they did not have this rest.

Neither did Joshua give them this rest. Yet they had, and kept the Sabbath while
he was with them.

As they kept the seventh day, speaking in David of another day, renders it
impossible that this rest can refer to the Sabbath which they already had. That
day at its best could only be a type of the rest here promised. And like all the
types and shadows of the law, disappeared when the New Institu­tion was ushered
in.

6. In the new earth state, they tell us, there will be the Sabbath To prove this
they quote Isa 66:23.

Let us turn and read the connection that we may understand the subject before
the mind of the prophet. See Isa 66:20-23 :

"And they shall bring all your brethren for an offering unto the Lord out of all
nations, upon horses, and in chariots, and in litters, and upon mules, and upon
swift beasts, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, saith the Lord, as the children of
Israel bring an offering in a clean vessel into the house of the Lord. And I
will also take of them for priests and for Levites, saith the Lord. For as the
new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith
the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass,
that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to an­other, shall all
flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord."

It is assumed that this new earth state has reference to the Christian
dispensation, and hence that in it the Sabbath shall be as prominent an
institution as it was under the Law of Moses.

It will be noticed, however, by everyone who reads to under­stand the meaning of
the Scripture, that if this text gives any assurance of the continuance of the
Sabbath, it as certainly per­petuates the "new moons." The new moon is used in
the sense that it is in the Law of Moses. Upon the use of this phraseology, let
the reader turn and read Num 10:10; Num 28:2; 1Ch 23:31; 2Ch 2:4; Isa 1:13; Eze
45:17; Hos 2:11. As we know that the "new moons" are not to be observed in the
kingdom of Christ, we know that these Sabbaths here spoken of do not refer to
that period, or the expression is only a figure to indicate that the habit of
worship will be general.

7. A seventh argument in favor of the Sabbath is made by repeating the word
commandment, and always referring it to the Decalogue. The average Advent
lecturer hangs his chart on the wall, and every time he can find the word
command or com­mandment, he points to the chart, as if to impress it upon the
minds of the hearers that they are being spoken of. With them, for a man to sin
he must absolutely violate law, and that he cannot do where there is no law.
Hence, because Adam sinned, he must have violated the Ten Commandments. They can
think of no law but that of the Decalogue. So I suppose as the angels sinned and
kept not their first estate, they must have had the Ten Commandments up in
heaven, Sabbath and all, a long time before the world was created, or anything
done that was to be memorialized by that institution. This is the extreme of
folly to which such a theory will drive even good men.

Turn to Mat 5:27; Mat 7:26, and get a fair view of the manner in which such
terms are employed in the New Testament. Christ first says that “you have heard
that it hath been said of old time," "But I say unto you." And after repeating
this a good many times, he pronounces a blessing upon those who “hear these
sayings of mine and do them." This is the meaning in Rev 22:14 :

“Blessed are they that do his commandments."

They were recognized as being under the authority of Christ, the King of kings
and Lord of lords. So in Rev 2:26, "And he that overcometh and keepeth my works
unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations." The same thought is
found in the third chapter of this book (Rev 3:7-11), in keeping my word, “the
word of my patience." In Mat 10:40, Jesus says:

“He that receiveth you receiveth me; and he that receiveth me, receiveth him
that sent me."

If we would receive the Father, we must receive the Son, and if we would receive
the Son we must receive those whom the Son has sent into the world. This shows
plainly, that the only authority in religion recognized on the earth, is that of
the Christ.

Mat 28:18-20 :

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, all power is given unto me in
heaven and earth. Go ye therefore and 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: and lo, I am with you alway,
even to the end of the world." The only things which the apostles had any
commission to teach the disciples to keep, were the things he had commanded them
to teach. They were not the commandments of Moses nor of the Decalogue, but the
things which Christ had com­manded.

John 14:21-23 :

“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 to him Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me he
will keep my words, and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and
will make our abode with him."

John 14:15-16 has the same thought:

“If ye love me, keep my commandments, and I will pray the Father, and he shall
give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Read also John 15:10-14; Acts 17:30-31; 1Jn 3:22-24; 1Co 2:1-2; Rev 6:9; Rev
12:17; Rev 14:12.

These are a fair sample of the New Testament use of the word commandment. They
show that the salvation of the world depends not on keeping the commands of the
law, but by hear­ing what Jesus says and doing what he has commanded.

True the Master has required us to observe many of the things that may be found
in the Law of Moses; even the golden rule, he says, was taken from the Law and
the Prophets. But they are before us as matters of authority not because they
were in the Law of Moses or in the Decalogue, but because they were commanded by
the Lord Jesus Christ. If he had commanded us to keep the Sabbath, then we
should have done so, but since he did not, we are perfectly free from any
obligation to that institution.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 26: 02.05.     THE SABBATH: IS THE DECALOGUE YET BINDING?
========================================================================

CHAPTER V IS THE DECALOGUE YET BINDING?

After it has been made to appear that there is no direct proof of the binding
authority of the Sabbath, the friends of that institution undertake to sustain
it in this indirect way. Of course, if the Decalogue is binding upon Christians,
and we know the Sabbath to have been a part of it, then we must be under law to
God to keep it.

1. It is first said that any other position than this frees the religious world
from all moral obligation.

If we are not under that law, then we may bear false witness, steal, commit
adul­tery, kill, dishonor our parents, covet, etc., etc. That being free from
this law, we would be at liberty to commit all the things which it forbade. This
always seemed to me a strange thing, that anyone could be found who would have
no more regard for logic. The only question is, does the New Testament condemn
these things? If it does, then no Christian is at liberty to do them. And
everyone at all acquainted with that volume knows that each one of these crimes
is condemned by the Master and by his apostles with greater clearness and force
than they were in the law given at Sinai. Jesus not only taught the other nine
commandments, but he gave to them features which they never had before. For the
sake of illustration, let us turn to Mat 5:27-32, and see how he treats the
question of adultery: “Ye have heard that it was said," etc., "but I say unto
you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed
adultery already with her in his heart." Then he shows them that whatever would
lead them into such lust, they must put away from them. Not only so, but he who
marries a woman not properly divorced, or divorced for any other cause than her
companion’s unfaithfulness, commits adultery.

Again, read Mat 5:33-37 of this same chapter, on the subject of profanity. "Ye
have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear
thyself..... But I say to you." Then follow directions, showing to them that
many were guilty of profanity who never suspected it by reading the law.

Read what he has said on killing, in Mat 5:21-26 :

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill.....
But I say to you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall
be in danger of the judgment." And the apostle John tells us that he who hates
his brother is a murderer.

If you want to see the Master’s way of condemning idolatry or presenting the
first commandment, read Mat 4:10; John 17:3; and if you would have a sample of
the way in which the apostles condemned this sin, read Acts 14:8-15; Eph 4:6;
Rev 4:10-11. The second command is sustained in Acts 15:28-29; Rom 8:3-4; I.
John 5:20-21; 1Th 1:9.

Profanity, the third thing prohibited in the Decalogue, is condemned in Mat
5:33-37, and in Jas 5:12. In Mat 19:18-19, Jesus sustains five commandments, in
the following order: Mat 19:7-9, Mat 19:5. In Rom 13:9, Paul presents five
commandments in this order: Rom 13:7, Rom 13:6, Rom 13:8-10.

While, therefore, the authors of the New Testament gave but little if any heed
to the order in which they occur in the Decalogue, they teach nine out of the
ten of these commandments. But while they teach and thus bind these nine upon
us, they do not do so because they were in that institution, but because they
were right. No man is able to mention any sin which is not condemned in the New
Testament.

2. It is affirmed that James teaches Christians to be in obedience to the
Decalogue, and calls it the Royal Law. The language referred to is found in Jas
2:8-13. But it is very far from teaching what they affirm it to teach. Let us
read it:

"If ye fulfil the royal law according to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself, thou shalt do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye
commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever 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. So speak
ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall
have judg­ment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth
against judgment."

Now we find no such thing in this passage as that which they affirm. When James
speaks of the royal law, or the perfect law of liberty, he mentions only those
things which Christ had endorsed and bound upon the disciples. And especially,
“Love thy neighbor as thyself," is not in the Decalogue, and yet he gives it as
the royal law, which if we fulfill we shall do well. And if we offend in anyone
feature of it—love to our neighbor —we are guilty. So now, though we are under a
system in which mercy rejoices against judgment, and are therefore to be judged
by the perfect law of liberty, yet we must so live as God has indicated in
giving to us this great law of love. No one doubts that this royal law is the
perfect law of liberty by which we are to be judged. Hence to know certainly
what is meant by it, we have only to stop and inquire as to the law under which
we shall be judged. A few texts of Scripture may therefore assist in determining
this matter.

John 5:22 : “The Father has committed all judgment unto the Son."

Acts 17:31 : “God has appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in
righteousness, by that man whom he hath ordained.... Of this he has given
assurance unto all men in that he hath raised him up again from the dead."

Rom 2:16 : “When God shall judge the secrets of men’s hearts by my gospel"—that
is, the gospel which he had preached and was even then writing to them.

2Ti 4:1 : Christ shall “judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and
kingdom."

Heb 10:30 : “The Lord shall judge his people."

1Pe 1:17 : This judgment will be by the Father, and yet as we have learned
already it is to be accomplished by the Son. All through the book of Revelation
Christ is represented as the judge. From Heb 10:28-29, we learn that those who
live under the light of the New Institution shall be judged by it, and if those
who disobeyed the “Old Law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses,
there will be still a sorer punishment awarded to those who shall have trampled
under foot the Son of God, and counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he
was sanctified an unholy thing, and thus done despite to the Spirit of grace."
The teaching of the whole of the New Testament on this sub­ject is that those
who lived under the law shall be judged by the law, and that those who lived
without law, are to be judged according to the light which they had. But those
who live under the New Testament shall be judged by it. Hence we know that the
perfect law of liberty is the New Testament.

3. Such texts as speak of the knowledge of sin coming by the law, are eagerly
seized upon as affording some aid and comfort for the doctrine of Adventism. The
mere fact that an apostle mentions the law is, by them, taken as proof that the
law was then in existence as a binding force in the minds of these inspired men.
When Paul says: I had not known sin but by the law, he speaks of his early
condition as a son of Jewish parents. Hence, like all other persons who were
trained and educated under the law, it was from that source that he had his
early training concerning right and wrong. But what this may have to do in
proving that, the law yet remains as a rule by which Christians should live, can
only be seen by someone who is bound to find proof of his doctrine and knows of
no other place to look for it. We know that the law of Christ condemns every sin
which men can commit; that it is much more thorough than the Law of Moses ever
was, in this respect. Hence we know that no man has to go to the Old Institution
to learn what sin is. Certainly Paul —as an apostle—did not have to go to that
law to become acquainted with sin. One who was inspired would be under no such
obligation. In the days of Paul, the Law of Moses was known to those to whom he
addressed his epistles, and there were judaizing teachers who were trying to
make them believe that they must keep that law. Hence Paul referred to it as an
instrument which was known. But he nowhere taught that Christians were under
obligations to keep it.

4. It is sometimes maintained that the long continuance promised to the law,
precludes the possibility of its removal. Moses says that “secret things belong
unto the Lord, but his revealed will belongs unto us and to our children
forever, that we may do all the words of this law." But this forever concerns
the rite of circumcision and sacri­fice as much as the Ten Commandments. And,
therefore, if their application of this and kindred passages be correct, the
whole institution is bound upon us. This is true in all those passages they
refer to with this supposed proof in it. Nay, more, it would prove that their
children would live forever. But if this expression shall be understood to mean
descendants, then how do they find that the law is the common property of all
the nations? The truth is, that the same, or even stronger terms are used
concerning circumcision alone. It was to be a mark between God and that people
forever. Does this mean that circum­cision is bound upon all people for all
time? To ask the question, is to receive from everyone a negative answer.

It is unreasonable, they tell us, that God should have given a law to man, and
then afterwards become ashamed of that law and torn it down.

And yet if I ask one of these men to be circumcised, he refuses. But why refuse?
Was not God the author of circum­cision? I ask him to offer two rams and a
bullock in order that he may be consecrated to the priesthood, but he says, no
indeed. But why so? Did not God give that law? But he says that all the
judiciary and ritual were done away. Where, then, is that argument? It was
founded on the fact that God had given that law and, therefore, it must remain
forever. But we have a large number of laws from God which he says has been done
away. Since then, he knows that God may have given law to last but for a given
time and to accom­plish a given purpose, the wonderful argument is gone.

The Decalogue was written on tables of stone, by the finger of God.

But what has that to do with its perpetuity? Was not any other law uttered by
Jehovah, either directly, or indirectly, of equal authority? Are the Ten
Commandments, any more the law of God after they were written on tables of stone
than when uttered by God from the summit of Mt. Sinai? What is there in the fact
that the Decalogue was written on tables of stone by the finger of God that
makes it more his law than anything else which he commanded that people?

They say that there were two laws, one from Moses and the other from God. Every
time they can find the word Moses to any part of the ancient revelation, then
that is of Moses, but the other refers to the Ten Commandments. Moses is the
author of one of these, while the other is God’s law. They claim that the Law of
Moses was done away, but the law of God remains forever. This makes Moses a
better law-giver than God himself. The lawyer that tempted the Master, wished to
know which was the great commandment of the law. Jesus told him that it was to
love the Lord with all his heart and soul and mind, and to love his neighbor as
himself. Neither of these is to be found in the Decalogue and yet they were
chief. That is not all, a man might observe everyone of the ten, and not keep
either one of these. Thus, in their mad haste, they will do away with the very
principles which are eternal, simply to make room for a hobby about keeping a
certain day !

Upon the basis which they urge, for two laws, it would be perfectly easy to find
that there are two Gods. They find that there are different things said about
the law, therefore there must be two laws. Just like it would be to find that
because God is spoken of as our Father, and also as a fierce lion, as a man of
war, therefore there must be two Gods. Christ says, I came not to judge the
world. And then again he says, that God hath committed all judgment to the Son.
Their logic will compel us to suppose from these statements that there are two
Christs. The whole blunder comes from having a hobby which finds no other means
of support than by a scrap system, that snatches texts out of their connection
simply to sustain a theory. In this way any doctrine may be sustained. Any
lawyer would be disbarred from the practice of law if he persisted in such a use
of our statute.

I want here to make a quotation from Alexander Campbell. I do this for two
reasons, (1) Mr. Campbell expresses our views very clearly, and (2) Advent
preachers are in the habit of saying that Mr. Campbell knew that the seventh day
was the day to keep; and toward the close of his life, indicated that it should
be done. While there could be nothing more false than this, still there are many
persons who are imposed upon by their statements.

I quote from Lectures on the Pentateuch, p. 271, 272:

"There remains another objection to this division of the law. It sets itself in
opposition to the skill of an apostle, and ulti­mately deters us from speaking
of the ten precepts as he did. Paul, according to the wisdom given to him,
denominated the ten precepts, the ministration of condemnation and of death. 2Co
3:7; 2Co 3:14. This we call the moral law. Whether he or we are to be esteemed
the most able ministers of Christ, it remains for you, my friends, to say. Paul,
having called the ten precepts the ministration of death, next affirmed that it
was to be done away,’ and that it `was done away.’ Now, the calling the ten
precepts ’ the moral law,’ is not only a violation of the use of the word; is
not only inconsistent in itself, and contra­dictory to truth; but greatly
obscures the doctrine taught by the apostle in 2Co 3:1-18, and in similar
passages, so as to render it almost, if not altogether, unin­telligible to us. "

I quote again from page 286:

“’ Sin,’ says the apostle, ’shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not
under the law, but under grace.’ In the sixth and seventh chapters to the
Romans, the apostle taught them that they were not under the law but under
grace; that they were freed from it—’ dead to it ’— ’ delivered from it.’ In the
eighth chapter, first verse, he draws the above conclusion. What a pity that
modern teachers should have added to, and clogged the words of inspiration by
such unauthorized sentences as the following: ’ Ye are not under the law as a
covenant of works, but as a rule of life.’ Whoever read one word of ’ the
covenant of works’ in the Bible, or of the Jewish law being a rule of life to
the disciples of Christ? Of these you hear no more from the Bible than of the ’
Solemn League’ or of ’ St. Giles’ day.’ "

Again, from page 288:

“But query: Is the Law of Moses a rule of life to Christians? An advocate of the
popular doctrine replies, Not all of it.’ Query again: ’What part of it? ‘The
Ten Commandments.’ Are these a rule of life to Christians? ’Yes.’ Should not,
then, Christians sanctify the seventh day? `No.’ Why so? ’Because Christ has not
enjoined it.’ Oh then, the law, or Ten Commandments, is not a rule of life to
Christians any further than it is enjoined by Christ; so that in reading the
precepts in Moses’ words, or hearing him utter them, does not oblige us to
observe them—it is only what Christ says we must observe. So that an advocate
for the popular doc­trine, when closely pressed, cannot maintain his ground."

There is no greater mistake than to suppose that a part of the law was left
binding, as a law, while the rest of it was taken away. Their division of it is
purely fanciful. The Bible knows nothing about it. Jesus treated the Ten
Commandments just as he did the rest of the law; it had served its purpose as a
consti­tution of a national religion. The government which was built upon it was
both political and religious. And as a whole sys­tem, the law had served its
purpose in preparing the people for the higher lessons of the Great Teacher.

7. But they sometimes ask, why would God take away the Ten Commandments in order
to get rid of one? Why not blot out the one and leave the other nine standing?

Whatever may be the impression such a question may make on the mind of a Bible
reader, we must treat it gravely, for they all ask it, supposing evidently that
it has some element of strength. Again we might ask if God removed all the law
but the Ten Commandments? To which they are bound to answer yes. We ask again if
many of the things now in the Christian Institution, were not in the Law of
Moses? Again they say yes. Then why were these things taken away? Why were they
not left standing, seeing they must be in the New Covenant as well as in the
Old? From this it will appear that they are just as much in need of showing why
God has first removed and then re-enacted as we are. Here is the simple truth in
the premises God has taught men as they have been capable of receiving
instruction. He has also made requirements of them as they had more light and
more responsibility. Many things in the Patriarchal system was put into Judaism.
That fact, however, did not leave the Jew under the Patriarchal religion, nor
under any part of it as having appeared there. He gave them a new law. Yet not
new in all its forms and principles; and yet they were bound only to observe
these things because they were in the Law of Moses, and not because they had
been given to the Patriarchs. So it was in the establishment of the covenant of
Christ, God gave a law as perfectly new, as if there had never been a law given
since the foundation of the world. But in this law of faith, this perfect law of
liberty, it pleased him to give us many things which had been in the Patriarchal
and Jewish systems, and they are now binding upon us, not because they were
there, but because they are here; not because they were of the fathers or of
Moses, but because they are of Christ.

Before our states came into the union as states, they had forms of territorial
government. When they were admitted as states, they came in with a constitution
on which could be based a code for the government of the people. In that code
there have been many things which had previously been in the terri­torial code.
And yet the law is as wholly independent of the territorial law as if no such
law had ever existed. So it was with the Law of Moses, it served its purpose,
and passed away, to make room for a universal religion. As Paul says: “He took
away the first that he might establish the second."—Heb 10:9.

8. An eighth argument by the friends of the Sabbath is that the Decalogue was
declared by the Lord to be perfect, and that God said of the rest of the law
that it was not good. In the first place, God never said that the Decalogue was
per­fect. It is said of the Law of the Lord, that it was perfect, con­verting
the soul (Psa 19:7). But it would be the law of love, not found in the
Decalogue, that would convert the soul. As to the perfection of that law, Jesus
shows very clearly that it was not. He added to it in the very things which he
retained. It was perfect, however, for the work which it was to perform. It was
only given as a pedagogue to lead that people during the days of their minority.

We should not be surprised to hear an infidel quote Eze 20:25, to prove that God
had purposely injured his people whom he had pledged himself to protect and
save. But when any class of professed believers make the same use of it, we are
ready to ask: “Where is thy faith? “But I will quote the text:

"I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would scatter
them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; because they
had not executed my judg­ments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted
my sab­baths, and their eyes were after their fathers’ idols. Wherefore I gave
them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not
live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass
through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate to
the end that they might know that I am the Lord."—Eze 20:23-26. Of course this
law can have nothing to do with the law given at Mt. Sinai, for it was after
that they had violated the very law that was there given. Indeed it was after
that they had intro­duced those gross forms of idolatry, such as burning their
chil­dren, in the service of their heathen deities. It was many years after they
had come into the Promised Land that they did such things as are here named.
Hence it follows that God ’simply permitted them to receive the reward of their
own doings that they might learn the results. And through the nations to which
he permitted them to be sold in bondage, they received those laws which were not
good. In this again is seen the usual weakness of the system which compels its
defenders into the work of scrapping the Scriptures and using the word of God
for its sound and not for its sense.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 27: 02.06.     THE SABBATH: THE LAW, OF WHICH THE SABBATH WAS A PART, WAS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI THE LAW, OF WHICH THE SABBATH WAS A PART, WAS DONE AWAY IN CHRIST I.
My first witness is Jer 31:31-34 :

"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 bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they break, although I was an
husband unto them saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will
make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my
law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and 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 the Lord: for they shall all
know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I
will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

Now when we read Heb 8:6-13, we have Paul quoting this and applying it to the
covenant of Christ. He shows by the quotation that the covenant made with the
fathers was old when Jeremiah wrote this language; not only that it was old, but
that it was ready to vanish away. Hence, according to the promise of God, it had
vanished away, and a new covenant had come to take its place. Between the
covenant made by Christ and that made with the fathers at Mount Sinai, there are
several dis­tinctions.

That was old and this is new.

This is not according to that.

That law was written on tables of stone and on papyri, but this is put into the
hearts of the people.

In that covenant there were many who did not know the Lord, but in this they all
know him, from the least to the greatest.

That was national but this is to be universal, and to be constituted of those
who have first heard and learned of the Lord.

In this covenant sins once forgiven are remembered no more; but in that, there
was a remembrance of sins once every year.

But they tell us that this covenant made with the fathers was the ritual and
judicial law, and not the law of the Ten Commandments. This, however, is only
assumed. God never divided the law, nor made any such distinctions in it as they
do.

Again they say that the covenant here spoken of was "made," and that the
covenant of the Ten Commandments was a covenant that was "commanded." This is a
distinction without a differ­ence. All covenants that have been given by the
Lord, have been commanded. When God gave the seed of Abraham the covenant of
circumcision, he gave it in the form of the impera­tive. So it was with all the
features of all the covenants which he has ever made with his creatures. On one
side of the con­tract, God has made certain promises, and on the other, he has
required certain duties. Then it has been left to men to say if they would
accept of the conditions or not. Hence, all their talk about covenants “made
“and covenants “commanded “darkens counsel by multiplying words.

Exo 34:10-11 : "And he said, Behold, I make a covenant: before all thy people I
will do marvels, such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation:
and all the people among which thou art shall see the work of the Lord: for it
is a terrible thing that I will do with thee. Observe thou that which I command
thee this day." This is the usual form: God makes his promises to them, on the
one hand, and commands their obedience to his will on the other.

Read Exo 34:27-28 and we will find the very word "made" employed in reference to
the Ten Commandments:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Write these words: for after the tenor of these
words I have made a cove­nant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with
the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water.
And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments."

Here the ten’ commandments are said especially to be the cov­enant which God
"made" with Moses and with Israel. We have already seen in Deu 4:8; Deu 5:3-15,
that this very covenant of Ten Commandments was included in the contract which
God made with his people. "Made" is the word which God himself selected by which
to indicate the giving of the Ten Commandments.

Still further, it is evident that the Decalogue is not supposed to be absent in
this reference of Jeremiah, for he puts in con­trast or antithesis, the writing
of the new covenant in the hearts of the people, and the writing of the old
covenant in some other way. This is so much like the reference to the same
subject in Paul’s second letter to the church at Corinth, in which the
antithetical writing was said to have been done on tables of stone, that it is
most natural to give it that meaning here. In every way, therefore, our first
witness stands secure. And he leaves us without doubt concerning the fact that
the law, as an entirety, was to be taken away in Christ, and that it was taken
away when he was crucified.

II. Paul, in his letter to the Hebrews, furnishes the testimony which we next
introduce:

Heb 7:11-12 : “If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for
under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another
priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the
order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a
change also of the law." Of course the defenders of the Sabbath feel that they
have done enough when they have denied that the law here referred to includes
the Ten Commandments. But this denial is utterly without reason. There are no
evidences to be found in the whole epistle that the apostle thought of such a
separation of the law as that which they make in order to sustain their theory.
He shows that the whole system has been changed, and that a change in one
respect made the change in every other, an abso­lute necessity.

Exo 24:4-8 : "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in
the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according
to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel,
which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the
Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the
blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read
in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will
we do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people,
and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words." In this law there was the Ten Commandments and an
amplifi­cation of them. To see just what this roll contained, we should turn and
read from the beginning of Exo 20:1-26. This dis­course contained the teaching
of God to that people as a funda­mental law, or a constitution for them in their
national organi­zation, and was what Moses wrote in a book and enjoined upon
them.

Now we turn to Heb 9:15-19 :

"And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of
death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the First
Testament (covenant), they which are called might receive the promise of eternal
inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death
of the testator (testament sacrifice). For a testament is of force after men are
dead: otherwise it hath no strength at all while the testator liveth. 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 and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament
which God hath enjoined unto you."

Here Paul can have reference only to that law spoken of in Exo 24:1-18. Hence he
has now very clearly before him the First and the Second Testaments: The one
given by Moses, and the New Covenant—of the Messiah. This First was the Ten
Commandments and a proper elaboration, showing their bearing upon all the
details of life. But now what is said to have been done with this old covenant,
this First Testament? Read right along till you reach the 9th verse of the 10th
chapter, where he shows that Christ became the sum of all divine authority, for
whose cove­nant the first was removed. This is what is said:

"Then said he: Lo, I come to do thy will, 0 God. He taketh away the first, that
he may establish the second." The only first and second of which the apostle has
spoken in this whole connection, are the two testaments, that given through
Moses, containing the Decalogue, and that given by the Christ. Hence, with these
facts clearly before us, when Paul says, “He taketh away the first, that he may
establish the second," he means, for there is nothing else that he can mean,
that he took away that old institution, Decalogue and all, that he might
establish the New Covenant, the covenant of Christ.

III. My third witness is Paul in his letter to the Ephesians.

Eph 2:14-15 “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down
the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the
enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in
himself of twain one new man, so making peace."

Here, as in his letter to the Hebrews, Paul shows that all that held that old
national organization together and made it distinctive, was removed, that in
Christ, both Jews and Gentiles might be united in one body, in which peace
should obtain IV. A fourth witness is the testimony of Paul to the brethren in
Galatia. In Gal 2:19, he says: “For I through the law am dead to the law, that I
might live unto God."

Gal 3:16-25 :

“Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I
say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law,
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should
make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no
more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth
the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to
whom the promise was made; and it was ordain­ed by angels in the hand of a
mediator. Now a mediator 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 have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of
Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were
kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be
justified by faith. But since that faith is come, we are no longer under a
schoolmaster."

Now if it is possible for human speech to contain the thought, this language
clearly announces the fact, that the law had served its purpose and had stepped
aside. In Gal 5:4, he says: “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever
of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."

Adventists satisfy themselves by saying that the ceremonial law is here meant.
No doubt that it is included, but it is not all that is referred to in the
language. The righteousness of the law speaketh on this wise: They that do these
things shall live by them. It was not therefore alone in the atonement of the
law that they were told not to trust, but in the deeds of the law.

Hence, the law as a whole is said to have served as a school­master, and, having
fulfilled the appointment, he was taken out of the way to make room for the law
of Christ. But as the Galatians were peculiarly troubled with Judaizing
teachers, Paul gave a great deal of space in this letter to this subject, that
they might know they were not under the law that was given their fathers at
Mount Sinai, but that they were under law to Christ. But I will conclude this
testimony by one more quotation from Gal 4:21-31 :

"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is
written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free
woman But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the
free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two
covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which
now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is
free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren
that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the
desolate hath many more children than she which hath a husband. Now we,
brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was
born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it
is now. Nevertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her
son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free
woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the
free." In this, as in the most the author has said in this epistle and in other
places, he makes no difference in the law, but puts all that was in the Sinaitic
covenant into one system and represents it by Hagar, and then puts the whole
system of redemption in Christ in the other, and represents it by Sarah. And
then he says that the bondwoman was to be cast out for she and her son should
not be heir with the free woman and her son. Hence, those disciples who were
disposed to mix Judaism and Chris­tianity were wrong; these two covenants could
not live together.

V. Paul’s indifference to the law, is our fifth witness.

1Co 9:20-21 :

"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that
are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the
law; to them that are without the law, as without the law, (being not without
law to God, but under the law to Christ), that I might gain them that are
without law." From this it is certain that if Paul was not a hypocrite, he was
perfectly indifferent as to keeping the law of the Old Testament. He regarded
doing these things as innocent enough, that he could conform to the regulations
and prejudices of any commu­nity, either to keep these things or let them alone.
As he did in the case of Timothy, in circumcising him because of the Jews in
those quarters, so he regarded the whole question. The only law he recognized
was the law of Christ. Through his law alone he was under law to God. No
Adventist could speak thus of himself. Nor would anyone of them ever cite Paul
as having made any such a statement as that. It shows that Pat. 1 could not have
been a Sabbatarian. If some keeper of the Sabbath had been serving as Paul’s
emanuensis he would have said, “Not so, brother Paul: you should say that you
are without law, except that you are under the Decalogue, as well as the
commandments of Jesus."

VI. Our sixth and last argument on the removal of the law, is founded on the
opinion of the apostles and elders and the whole church at Jerusalem, in the
council reported in Acts 15:1-41 chapter.

There were Judaizing teachers who taught the disciples that Gentiles could not
be saved unless they would be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. They went
even as far as to Antioch teaching this doctrine. Paul and others withstood
them, and finally it was carried up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders.
And, after a full discussion, and the induction of the facts of revelation on
the subject, they reached the unanimous opinion reported in Acts 15:22-31 :

"Then pleased it- the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen
men of their own company to Antioch, with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas
surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And wrote letters by
them after this manner, The apostles and elders, and brethren, send greeting
unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia:
Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled
you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep
the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being
assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved
Barnabas and Paul; Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you
the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to
lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from
meats offered to idols, and from, blood, and from things strangled, and from
fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered
the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read,
they rejoiced for the consolation." A Supreme Court decision on any disputed
point of law could not be clearer and more satisfactory than this. They
recognized only the law of Christ upon them. Even the burdens that seem to have
any features of the law in them relate to what Advent­ists call the ceremonial
law. And it is as evident as it can be that there is not a Sabbatarian in the
whole land who would have agreed with that council if he had been present. He
would have said: “Brethren, this is all wrong; while we are freed from the
ceremonial law by the body of Christ, we remain under the Ten Commandments, and
any decision which will not recog­nize that fact is heresy; not only so, but it
will ruin the world, for unless men keep the Sabbath they cannot be saved."


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 28: 02.07.     THE SABBATH: CONCLUSION OF PART ONE
========================================================================

CHAPTER VII THE CONCLUSION OF PART FIRST: THE LAW CONTAINING THE SABBATH HAVING
PASSED AWAY, THE SABBATH ITSELF HAS NO MORE CLAIM UPON CHRISTIANS THAN ANY OTHER
FEATURE OF THE LAW GIVEN TO ISRAEL AT MT. SINAI

It is evident to everyone, that if the law was done which con­tained the
Sabbath, the Sabbath went with it, and, unless it was re-enacted by the Savior,
is no more a law by which Christians should be governed than the law of
circumcision, which was given alone to the seed of Abraham, and to those bought
with their money. Hence it seems proper to continue the evidence upon the
question in hand, not because the Scriptures already quoted are insufficient,
but that we may add to them a few other statements, exhibiting the fact that in
at least half of the episto­lary communications, this doctrine of modern
Sabbatarianism was directly opposed by inspiration.

VII. As a seventh testimony on this subject I will quote Rom 7:17.

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them who know the law,) how that the law
hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a
husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if her
husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her 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 free 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 we should
bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins,
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.
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin,
but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet."

Here the teaching is plain: (1) These brethren had once been under the Law of
Moses—not a part of it, but the whole of it. (2) While that law was in existence
they were so related to it that service to any other system would have been
regarded as unfaithfulness in a wife to her husband. (3) But as a woman is free
from the law of her husband by his death, so they had been made free from the
requirements of the law by the body of Christ. (4) Being made free from the law
in which they had been held, it was right that they should be married to Christ,
and that in this new relation, they should bring forth fruit to God. (5) It is
also clear that the law referred to, con­tained the Decalogue, for the word
covet quoted by Paul, is only to be found in that part of the law. Hence, if it
is possible for a man to teach anything by the use of words, then has Paul
taught in this passage that we are not under the Law of Moses in any respect.

VIII. The eighth witness on this subject will be found by reading 2Co 3:5-14.

"But our sufficiency is of God; who also hath made us able ministers of the New
Testament; 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 in
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly
behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be
done away; how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as
Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not
steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished. But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading
of the Old Testament; which is done away in Christ."

It will be noticed that I do not use the word vail in the last verse. But as it
is wholly unwarranted, there being nothing in the original from which it comes,
I dismiss it. Our translators have put it in italic letters denoting that it was
supplied; but they should not have put it there at all. In this passage it is
said distinctly three several times that the Old Covenant "was done away" (1Co
3:11), “abolished “(2Co 3:13), and "done away in Christ" (2Co 3:14). Now
whatever that law was that is here put in antithesis with the gospel of Christ,
it had been done away when Paul wrote this epistle. Further, it is impossi­ble
that Paul should have had any other writing before his mind in indicating this
Scripture than the Decalogue. It was the ministration of death, written and
engraven in stones; the Old Testament, and was done away in Christ. A part of
this Old Institution was the Sabbath day, and went with the law of which it was
a part, the law having been removed it could not have been left standing. I have
never heard anything like an answer to this argument from the friends of the
Sabbath. I do not think there is any to be made. Indeed if I were directed to
write a statement that the law containing the Sabbath was removed, I could not
make it stronger than Paul has in the language just quoted, IX. A last witness
is taken from Paul’s letter to the brethren at Colosse; chapter 2:13-17.

“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 handwriting of ordi­nances that was against us, which was contrary to us,
and took it out of the way, nailing it to the 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: Which are a shadow of things to
come; but the body is of Christ."

Here it will be seen that I have chosen to leave off the italicized word days.
It is known to every reader that words of the Common Version found in italic
letters are without any authority in the Scriptures, and that they have only
been put into the body of the work because the compilers thought that the
passage would be better understood by their use. But, as in the added vail in
the Corinthian letter, they are positively in the way of the truth, and
therefore better left out

It is said that the ordinances of this passage belong to the ceremonial law and
not to the Decalogue, and hence Paul was not speaking of the removal of the Ten
Commandments.

It will be answer enough to this, to say that the word dogma, here translated
ordinance, occurs five times in the New Testa­ment, and in three of them it is
rendered decree.—Luk 2:1; Acts 16:4; Acts 17:7. The word does not indicate
ceremonies any more than any other edict of a sovereign.

Another attempt to explain away the meaning of the passage is that the word
Sabbath means, not the weekly rest-day, but feast days or stated festivals,
which belonged to the ceremonial law. The word, however, rendered holy day
(heortes), has just that meaning in it and covers all the ground they wish to
have the Sabbath occupy in the text. It is rendered literally correct in the
Emphatic Diaglott: "Let no one, therefore, rule you in food, or in drink, or in
respect of a festival, or of a new moon, or of Sabbaths."

It is therefore as plain as anything can be, that the word Sab­bath does not
refer to any of the Jewish feast days for they had already been spoken of. And
there was nothing else that the writer could have referred to but the Sabbath of
the Decalogue. A kind of last resort is to claim that the word sabbatoon is
plural, and hence it must be rendered Sabbaths or Sabbath days, and therefore it
cannot relate to the weekly Sabbath.

We have already seen that there were no other days that it could have meant, as
they were presented in the other words of the text, and there is no reason to
suppose that the Sabbatical year or the jubilee be intended. Hence there was
nothing else to which reference could have been made. As for the word Sabbath
being the plural, it signifies nothing, since the day occurred over and over
again, and might, there­fore, be spoken of in the plural number with great
propriety.

Still further, it is known to everyone who reads the Greek of the New Testament,
that the third declension plural—as in the case in hand—is used interchangeably
with the second declen­sion singular. And that it is therefore many times
rightly ren­dered by a noun in the singular number. I will refer to a few
occurrences of the word in question, that the reader may see just how it is
constantly used:

Mat 12:1 : "Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn."

Mat 12:11 : "And if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day."

"In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first (day) of the
week." Here the word week is from sabbatoon, neutral, plural, third declension,
the same as the word Sabbath.

Mark 1:21 : "On the Sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught."

Mark 11:23 : "He went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day."

Mark 11:24 : “Why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? "

Mark 3:4 : Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, or to do evil?"

Mark 16:2 : "And very early in the morning of the first (day) of the week."

Luk 4:16 : "He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up for to
read."

Luk 13:10 : "And he was teaching in one of the syna­gogues on the Sabbath."

Luk 24:1 : "Now upon the first (day) of the week."

John 20:1 : "The first (day) of the week."

John 20:19 : "Then the same day at evening, being the first (day) of the week."

Acts 20:7 : "And upon the first (day) of the week."

1Co 16:2 : "Upon the first (day) of the week."

From the foregoing induction, it is as certain as it can be, that there is no
sufficient reason for using the word days in Col 2:16, or for demanding that it
shall have a plural rendering. Many of the parallel passages of those we cited
are second declension singular, and those of the third declension plural, in
every case refer to the weekly Sabbath, except those cases in which it is
preceded by the adjective first, where it is always rendered week; the word day
being employed to fill the ellipsis. From all that is now before us in respect
to this passage we are compelled to say:

Paul did not use the word Sabbath in the sense of feast days, for he had just
spoken of them in the most appropriate terms possible, and would not repeat it
in the same sentence.

He speaks of the weekly Sabbath, there being nothing else to which he could have
spoken.

He classes it with other features of the law which had been removed by the cross
of Christ.

Christians being free from the law with all its demands, are not to be held
accountable for the keeping of any of it. As we shall not be judged by a law
under which we do not live, we are not to yield to the whims of those who would
bring us again into bondage in such matters.

Here I feel disposed to dismiss the case so far as the keeping of the Sabbath is
concerned. When Paul says, let no man judge you in respect of the Sabbath, I
stand upon that liberty, and do not propose that any man shall entangle me in
that service which was taken out of the way and nailed to the cross.

There have been many strange doctrines preached in the name of Christianity, but
how any man with ordinary judgment, and any faith at all in the inspiration of
the apostles, can claim that we must keep the seventh day of the week, by virtue
of the law that was given at Mt. Sinai, when nearly half of the argu­mentative
portion of the epistles was leveled directly against that very falsehood, is
exceedingly strange. In the minds of those who feel that we must have a "thou
shalt “for all acts of devotion, will feel that we have removed one of the great
props by which the world shall be made to respect the service of God. Their fear
is wholly unnecessary. We are not going to be injured in any way in following
the Scriptures. And we know that if they teach anything, they teach that we are
free from the law; that we are not under the law; that the law was done away in
Christ; that it only served as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ that we
might be justi­fied by faith, but that as faith has come, we are no longer under
the old schoolmaster. Nay, more, the conclusion is drawn for us; these things
being so, this law having been taken away, we are not to be judged by anything
which it contained: new moons, feast days, or the Sabbath.

Still it will be asked if the Sabbath to the Jew was not a foundation for the
Lord’s Day to be observed by the Christian

While it may be true that it is best for men to take one day out of every seven
for rest and devotion, we will see in the second proposition that the two days
are very unlike in many particu­lars. They were for different purposes and kept
for different reasons. The one called to mind the creation of the world and the
delivery of Israel from Egypt, while the other recalls the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus and his promise to come a second time without a sin offering to
salvation.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 29: 02.08.     THE LORD'S DAY: THE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE
========================================================================

CHAPTER I THE SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE

We have now seen that the New Testament gives no author­ity for the observance
of the seventh day of the week as a day of rest, any more than it warrants us in
keeping any other day. Hence, to observe it as a day of rest, will be simply as
keeping any other form of tradition or of the commandments of men, and in the
second chapter of Colossians it is so ranked by the Apostle Paul. But the
question now before us is, shall we observe any day? If so, which one of the
seven? and how shall we be able to determine?

We have two ways of knowing the will of the Lord: first, God has stated directly
many things he would have us do; and second, he has presented before us in the
lives of his inspired servants, examples for us to copy In all ages of the
church the best minds have ever agreed that to live, as did the early churches,
under the eye and sanc­tion of the apostles, will be pleasing and acceptable to
God. From which of these sources must we expect intelligence con­cerning the day
we are to keep? The Sabbatarian, regarding himself as under the Law of Moses,
has trained himself only to expect intelligence in a direct command, and to
regard nothing as sacred which does not come in that way.

God has taught the world as we teach our children, always regarding the age and
condition of those to be instructed. When, we instruct our children, we proceed
as God did in the patriarchal times, and in the Law of Moses; we state duties
without assigning the reasons for them, simply because those we are instructing
are incompetent to lay hold of the principles that are to guide them in their
conduct. But these were primary institutions, serving as man’s teachers,
preparing for Christ, the great teacher, under whose instructions we may
graduate for the heavens. The manner of teaching, therefore, that was proper
during the days of Moses, cannot be expected to be continued in the new
Institution. When we have reached our majority in Christ, in the new covenant,
we are treated as though we were competent to learn truth, not only by direct
statement, but by example become acquainted not only with facts, but with
principles that shall guide us in the service of the Lord. For these higher
lessons, God was preparing the world during the ages. Ills provisions and
revelations were upon the basis of man’s necessities. God revealed his will, his
love, and his power in those systems of relief and blessing which were temporal
in themselves, but which, in their typology, looked to him who is the perfect
Law-giver.

Man’s first want was that of knowledge, and to supply that want, God sent a
prophet, or a line of prophets, all of whom were anointed or christed. These
were the agents through whom the divine will was made known, and this want of
man supplied. Man’s second want was pardon. He knew himself to be guilty and,
therefore, suffered from a consciousness of sins and fearful looking for of
judgment and fiery indignation. To relieve man of this weakness, provision was
made for pardon in an atoning sacrifice offered by a priest, year by year, but
this priest, or these priests, must be anointed or christed before they could
serve.

Man’s third want was a guide, a governor, a protector. When the people of Israel
asked God to give them a king, the demand was a purely human one, and was made
from that felt necessity of someone to control them and protect them from their
enemies. But before a king could serve them, he must be anointed or christed.
So, while God supplied their then present wants, he was furnishing instructions
concerning the coming One who should, in himself, answer all human necessities,
being the prophet, the priest and king, teaching, governing and saving the
world.

We learn Christ’s will not only by what he said, but by what he did and the
things which he approved. Had he never said anything relative to marriage, his
presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, and remaining during the feast,
would show his approval of that relation. After teaching his apostles for more
than three years, there were many things that had not been told them; many
things which they could not understand; and when he went away, he gave them the
promise of another Com­forter, another Helper, who should guide them into all
truth; who should receive of him and deliver to them, and should bring to their
knowledge all things whatsoever he had said to them. So that in their teaching
and in their living they might mistake in no respect. What, therefore, these men
taught and what they did, both directly and indirectly, become to us a guide in
our Christian service.

Many things which the Savior taught the apostles were not reported in the
gospels. Many years after the Lord had ascended into the heavens, we hear Paul
mention a saying of the Master, which was commonly understood by all disciples
at that time: “It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35. This was
not only a teaching of the Lord, but it was one of those common sayings of his
of which everyone had heard. And yet no report of it had come down to them by
means of the writings of the evangelists. Not only many things were said by the
Lord during his earthly ministry that found no place in the four gospels, but he
did many things which were never reported by these writers. John supposes that
if they had given an itemized account of all that he did, that the world would
not contain the books.

Hence, it is evident to anyone who wishes to learn of God’s will concerning us,
that we must necessarily wait upon the apostles in order that we may know the
Lord’s will concerning the conduct of his disciples.

They try to find fault with this, sometimes, and urge that a covenant must all
have been put to record before the covenant-sealing act, and that after the
sacrifice by which it is sanctified, has been made, nothing can be added
thereto. In this calcula­tion they commit several blunders. I will name them in
the order in which they occur to me:

They take for granted that everything in connection with the sacrifice of Christ
must be in the precise order in which they have found covenants and sacrifices
at all other times. And yet the very first feature of this service is irregular.
The passover, which had always been regarded as a type of the offering of Christ
for us, required, first, the slaying of the lamb, and after that the covenant
meal. This had been the manner of ratifying covenants in all the ages, or of
renewing them. But Jesus ate the passover before he was crucified, indeed,
before the time for the eating of the passover had come. And in the conclusion
of that solemn service, he took bread and blessed and brake and gave unto them,
telling them, “This is my body," and then he took the cup, and said, “This is my
blood of the New Covenant, shed for many, for the remission of sins." And yet,
at that time, his body had not been bruised, nor had his blood been shed. Of
course, this is out of the order of all covenant making. But when we have the
facts recorded, and know that this was the order of that New Insti­tution, it is
better for us to accept it than to reject it because of something which we have
denominated an irregularity.

They take it for granted that all the teaching and require­ments of a covenant
must first be made known before it could be ratified by sacrifice or meal. This
is a great mistake. The covenant of Exodus was ratified by sacrifice and meal
when the people knew but little of the terms upon which they were to have their
liberty. They were not aware of the route over which they were to travel, of the
hunger and thirst which were to follow, nor of the law under which they were to
live in order to inherit the Promised Land. These features of the covenant were
to follow. Nor was the Levitical law given when it was ratified in covenant.
When Moses took the book and sprinkled it, as well as the people, in the
solemnization of the covenant which God then made with that people, it contained
nothing but the merest epitome of the law under which they were to live and to
which they then bound themselves. This covenant was forty years in its
completion. And yet it was as binding on them as if it had been given in one
day.

They urge that everything which Jesus had intended his disciples to do, had been
taught before his death. And yet he told them that there were many things which
he could not teach them then because they could not comprehend them. Hence, just
as it was in giving the Old Covenant to the Chil­dren of Israel, they received
the instruction as they became competent to understand it. The truth, in both
cases, was that they bound themselves to whatever God required them to do. And
yet they did not know all that would be imposed upon them. At the time that
Christ made and sealed his Covenant there was nothing written. It was many years
after this when the gospels made their appearance. And yet to deny that he made
a Covenant with his people is to deny the plain statement of the word of God.

And yet, for all we can know to the contrary, every feature of the New
Institution had been given to the apostles before Christ suffered on the cross.
Still they might need the further instruction of the Holy Spirit, to enable them
to com­prehend it and to teach it infallibly to others.

Hence, when they object to anything as belonging to the Covenant of Christ,
except those things which had been clearly stated as having been given before,
they do so without any scriptural reasons whatever. This leaves us not only to
the direct statements found in the gospels, but to the teachings found in the
Acts of the Apostles, and in the Epistolary communications of these inspired
men. But much of the teaching found in the Acts of the Apostles is in action. I
do not mean by this that these men made no mis­takes in their conduct. I do not
justify Peter in dissembling at Antioch, nor do I suppose that Paul and Barnabas
were both right in their opinions concerning the propriety of taking with them
John Mark on their proposed second missionary tour. What we mean is this, the
action of these men, and of the churches under their teaching, having the silent
approval of themselves and co-laborers, is a guide to us, as much as what they
commanded With those who are something more than mere quibblers, who have a
hobby to be sustained by mere technicalities, the question is, what would God
have me to do? And understand­ing what inspired men regarded as their duty and
the duty of the church at that time, we feel that, if we do the same things now,
we shall be doing the will of God. We may put this in the form of a syllogism,
thus.

Those men did the will of God.

That will has not been changed from that time to this.

Therefore, if we do the same things now, we will be doing the will of God.

With this rule before us, we will try to find just what they did and taught that
we may know just what God would have us to do now. If the church under the
teaching of the apostles kept the Sabbath, that will be sufficient reason why we
should keep it. If they did not keep it as a sacred day, and if they told us
that we are free from the law of which it was a part, and, therefore, that no
man has any right to judge us in any matter of this kind, we feel at liberty to
follow that teaching. We have seen this already. But we are now to see if they
regarded any day as sacred, and if so, which of the seven.

It will not be necessary for us to find them saying that the first day of the
week is a sacred day; if they so devoted the day it is enough.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 30: 02.09.     THE LORD'S DAY: THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL
========================================================================

CHAPTER II THE VIEW ENTERTAINED BY CHRISTIANS IN GENERAL

Adventists generally discard this as evidence. They tell us that these views
have been wrong, and that the whole question must be settled by the word of God
and by that alone. “And that to insist on any testimony from the religious
world, will be to lay the foundations for apostasy." By such evidence, they say,
"we could sustain infant baptism, or sprinkling, instead of the immersion which
Jesus taught, or any of the forms of merely human origin." And yet when they can
find the religious world blending the law and the gospel, and urging their
memberships to keep the Sabbath, they are not slow to remind us of the fact that
they hold the same opinion which the great men have always held, and, therefore,
there is strong reason for regarding their views in that respect, as being well
sustained. With them, it depends somewhat upon whose ox is being gored. If I
should do the same thing with this human testimony which they do, they should
not grumble.

It should be remembered, however, that while testimony of this kind can serve in
no sense to set aside the statements of the word of God, or to sustain customs
for which nothing was ever claimed by way of divine appointment, still,
respecting those questions in which men have examined the word of God and
founded their practice on what they have, in this way, come to regard as the
requirements of heaven; and, especially, in those matters where there has been
perfect unanimity of senti­ment, such views are worthy of the highest respect.

If our question related to a matter in which religious people are to be found
keeping a law or a custom under which they had been raised, the testimony would
certainly amount to but very little. All prejudices and customs are in favor of
those things with which we have been familiar. Such things might continue for
centuries, without anyone taking the trouble to investigate the question in any
way. It is easy to retain the customs of the past, but very difficult to remove
them. Hence, in any case where we find a large number of people ceasing from any
former religious custom, we may be pretty well assured of one or two things:
either the change is being made for convenience’s sake, to something which will
satisfy con­science, and yet is very much more easily practiced, than what was
formerly done, or they are making the change from con­viction of right.

Concerning the keeping of a day, there would be nothing to be gained in the way
of ease. It would be as difficult to observe the first day of the week as to
keep the seventh. Indeed, it would be much more difficult. They were surrounded
by Jews in the early times, and from these the change comes. To act in harmony
with their customs would be comparatively easy, while to change the custom in
this respect would be attended with a great deal of annoyance. Nor was this all:
their own prejudices were in the way. These early Christians had been Jews, and
would naturally feel inclined to retain as much of their old religion as
possible. Many of them had the idea that the Gentiles had no right to be saved.
And even when they became convinced that they were to be accepted as well as the
Jews, they thought that they must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, or
they could not be saved. The apostles knew better, but they met the prejudice of
the whole church at this point. Now, for this people to change from the seventh
to the first day of the week, declares that, in their minds, there were sound
scriptural reasons for doing so. And still further: the religious world has had
the prejudice of a mistaken interpretation to contend with upon this point
during all these centuries. At a very early period in the history of the church,
the desire was manifested to accommodate the religion of Christ to the tastes
and customs of the world. Rather than to offend the Jew who was zealous for the
law, they were ready- to yield to his demands, either in practice or in theory.
In this way they accommodated Christianity to the Gentile world. And many of the
forms and ceremonies of the Catholic Church to-day are nothing but baptized
heathenisms. Also, many other things are a mixture of Paganism and Judaism. And,
like many of the reformatory kings in Israel, who tried to remove idolatry
without removing the idols or stopping the worship in the high places, our
reformers have handed down to us a large number of customs and doctrines labeled
“Christianity" that were received from the Mother Church. Because of this desire
to accommodate the religion of Christ to the wish of the Jews, they have
entertained the idea that Christians are now keeping the Law of Moses. In this
way they talk and teach of baptism in the room of circumcision, and of keeping
the Sabbath when they are only keeping the first day of the week. But with this
feeling in the mind that we are under the law, there has been, during the ages,
all the pleading which has ever been made for a scriptural practice, to return
to the keeping of the seventh day of the week. Certainly nothing has kept them
from returning to that law in practice as well as in theory, but the fact that
they could not find that the apostles and early Chris­tians did so.

Then we find that this change has not only taken place, but that it has come in
opposition to all the prejudices of the people who made it and of those who have
continued it.

Indeed, we shall hereafter find that zealots for the law kept both days. They
regarded the seventh day because of the Decalogue, and observed the first day of
the week because of the practice of the apostles and the first Christians. The
Ebionites, as related by Theodoret, held this view and kept both days. Dr. Moses
Stuart, of Andover, says, referring to that statement of Theodoret: “This gives
a good historical view of the state of things in the early ages of the church.
The zealots for the law wished the Jewish Sabbath to be observed as well as the
Lord’s Day; for about the latter, there appears never to have been any question
among any class of Christians, so far as I have been able to discover. The early
Christians, one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred."
Does someone say that even so learned a man as Dr. Stuart might have been
mistaken? We do not claim infallibility for him And yet to say that he was as
familiar with all the customs of past ages, and especially with those which
related to the religion of Christ, as any man whose name is known to the reading
public, and that he would be as conscientious in stating these facts as any to
whom reference might be made, is only to state truth in a very feeble way. He
was a prince of scholars 1 a man of pains-taking, carefulness and accuracy in
all he said and wrote. Such testimony must have great weight with those who are
wishing for light respecting the views and practices of Christians from the very
first.

I am not aware that this statement of the Professor has ever been seriously
questioned by anyone. So far as I know, both parties accept his statement as
being, at least, substantially correct. This gives us the assistance of a strong
argument; one that is not to be lightly thrown aside.

We have as many quotations at hand as it would be possible to use in a work of
reasonable limits, showing that the unani­mous opinion of the whole church has
been, from the very first, that the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week,
should be observed as a sacred day by all Christians. But for the present, we
want to go a step further, and show the purpose had in view in meeting together.
It would be too much to say that all dis­ciples of Jesus have ever been agreed
in this purpose, for not all have studied the subject. But I shall quote the
opinions of those who are most entitled to consideration, showing that, in their
view of the matter, the chief purpose for these meetings on the first day of the
week was to break bread, or attend to the communion.

William King, Archbishop of Dublin, in a sermon concerning the “inventions of
men in the worship of God," says:

"It is manifest that if it be not our own faults, we may have an opportunity
every Lord’s Day when we meet together; and, therefore, that church is guilty of
laying aside the command, whose order and worship doth not require and provide
for this practice. Christ’s command seems to lead us directly to it: for, ’ Do
this in remembrance of me,’ implies that Christ was to leave them, that they
were to meet together after he was gone, and that he required them to remember
him at their meetings whilst he was absent. The very design of our public
meetings on the Lord’s Day, not on the Jewish Sabbath, is to remember and keep
in our minds a sense of what Christ did and suffered for us till he come again;
and this we are obliged to do, not in such a manner as our own inventions
suggest, but by such means as Christ himself has prescribed to us, that is, by
celebrating this holy ordinance

"It seems, then, probable, from the very institution of this ordinance, that our
Savior designed it should be a part of God’s service, in all the solemn
assemblies of Christians, as the pass-over was in the assemblies of the Jews. To
know, therefore, how often Christ requires us to celebrate this feast, we have
no more to do, but to inquire how often Christ requires us to meet together;
that is, at least every Lord’s Day."

Dr. Scott, in his commentary on Acts 20:7, says:

“Breaking of bread, or, commemorating the death of Christ in the euchar­ist, was
one chief end of their assembling; this ordinance seems to have been constantly
administered every Lord’s Day, and probably no professed Christians absented
themselves from it, after they had been admitted into the church; unless they
lay under some censure, or had some real hindrance."

Dr. Mason, in his “Lectures on Frequent Communion," Edinburgh edition, says

“Communion every Lord’s Day was universal, and was preserved in the Greek church
till the seventh century; and such as neglected three weeks together were
excommunicated."

John Wesley, in a letter to America, 1784, said:

“I, also, advise the elders to administer the supper of the Lord on every Lord’s
Day." In all the ages of the church there have been a large number of devout men
demanding that the church should return to what they denominate the practice of
the apostles respecting the communion, that of meeting together on every first
day of the week to remember the Lord’s death in that Institution, till he shall
come again.

Dr. Barnes makes this note on Acts 20:7 :

“And upon the first day of the week. Showing thus that this day was then
observed by Christians as holy time. Comp. 1Co 16:2; Rev 1:10. To break bread.
Evidently to celebrate the Lord’s Supper. Comp. chap. 2:46. So the Syriac
understands it, by translating it, ’ to break the eucharist’; that is the
eucharistic bread. It is probable that the apostles and early Christians
celebrated the Lord’s Supper on every Lord’s Day."

There is so much of candor in this that it is surely entitled to consideration.
The practice of the church to which Dr. Barnes belonged was in the way of this
clear acknowledgment. Still he makes it, because it seemed to him as the evident
teaching of the Scriptures on the subject. In the Encyclopedia Britannica, under
the head of "Eucharist," we have this statement: “With regard to the frequency
of Holy Communion, although it has been concluded with much probability from
Acts 2:46 that the earliest Christians, in the first fervor of their faith,
partook of the Eucharist daily, ap­pearances are rather in favor of a weekly
celebration on the Lord’s Day being the rule in the apostolic and primitive
church, It was on the ’ first day of the week’ that the Christians met for
breaking bread at Troas (Acts 20:7); and St. Paul’s direc­tion to the Corinthian
Christians to lay by for the poor on that day, may be reasonably associated with
the oblations at the time of celebration. Pliny tells us that it was on a `fixed
day, stato die, the Christians came together for prayer and commun­nion,’ and,
as we have seen, Justin Martyr speaks of Sunday by name Owe legomenee heliou
hemera as the day of celebration." From chapter fourteen of the “Teaching of the
Twelve Apos­tles" we have the following, as their instruction respecting the
communion:

"And every Lord’s Day, having gathered yourselves together, ye shall break bread
and give thanks, having moreover con­fessed your transgressions, in order that
your sacrifice may be pure."

It is not proper to make the claim that some have made for this manuscript, that
it was not more than fifty years on this side of the Apostle John. We do know,
however, that Justin taught as plainly as that, at still an earlier day, though
he used the Roman term “Sunday” instead of Lord’s Day, as found in this writing.
But it is safe to say that the manuscript was of very early date, and tells very
clearly how early Christians understood this service.

We are greatly tempted to give a number of such quotations from Christian
workers and thinkers during the ages, but we must not take the space to do so.
Rev. C. H. Spurgeon now communes on every recurring Lord’s Day, and in the minds
of the great host of Christian thinkers it was the primitive cus­tom. And there
remains no room for doubt that when the religious world shall come to look upon
apostolic precedent as a proper guide for all Christians in all time, the whole
church will return to this ancient custom.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 31: 02.10.     THE LORD'S DAY: UNFAIR METHODS OF ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF THE SABBATH AND OF OPPOSING ...
========================================================================

CHAPTER III UNFAIR METHODS OF ADVANCING THE CAUSE OF THE SABBATH, AND OF
OPPOSING THE LORD’S DAY

I. Adventists usually take advantage of the desire of the people for something
new. There are hundreds of Athenians yet in the world, who spend their time in
nothing else than to tell or hear of something new. Such persons are able to
find that many things which we now know to be true were once denied. The
conservative forces have many times been in the wrong. Hence, they jump to the
conclusion that, in all matters in which some new theory is opposed, the
opposition must necessarily be wrong, and the novel doctrine right. About all,
therefore, necessary to be done to carry any cause in the minds of such persons,
is to convince them that the doctrine in ques­tion is new; that it is feared and
avoided by many who are unwilling to accept any change, and they at once accept
the novel position as being correct. Of course such persons are not of much
account to them or anybody else; they will change that for something else as
soon as the tide shall run some other way. They are light clouds having no
water, and are, therefore, carried about with every wind of doctrine. But they
count. The piety of this class rarely becomes more than a hobby-riding zeal. But
there is an evidence of success in the addition of numbers. And in the newness
of zeal and in the enjoyment of the new fellowship, they are willing to be
tithed. While they do not sustain the cause in that locality, their
contribu­tions carry the work into some other community where there may be found
other people like themselves who are willing to assist for a time, and in that
way the cause is kept moving.

II. Advent preachers usually light upon some undefended community. They find
some place where the sectarianism of the times has so divided and weakened the
churches that no one party is able to have preaching but a small part of the
time, and this not by the ablest men. These communities are not in communication
with those who can defend the doctrine of the Scriptures respecting this
Institution, and they would not be able to obtain his service for the want of
means. Here the Adventists find a good field, and are able to get the people to
commit themselves in a covenant to keep the Sabbath before any defense of the
gospel can be had. A discussion, if one obtains at all, is usually after they
have succeeded in fastening the masses to their opinions, when it is not easy to
change the current after the recent shower. A mistake is generally committed,
too, by the friends of the truth, in saying: “Let them alone, they will come to
naught themselves." No doubt that the storm will pass by, and that a calm will
follow. But how much timber will be destroyed is another question. As the prick
of a needle in the spinal marrow of the child may make a hunch-back for life, so
by these views here lodged in the souls of the young of that com­munity, their
religion is maimed forever. If these men could always be met by the proper means
at the right time, they would never do any lasting damage to any people. But
from a false policy, a divided Christianity, or from indifference, the work of
ruin is not checked.

III. Everything is turned into persecution. They come into town and continue a
meeting for one or two months, during that time they challenge the people in one
way or another fifty times for an investigation. But if someone proposes to
inves­tigate, they raise the cry of persecution. They claim to have been
peaceably preaching what they believe, and that someone is disturbing them. They
learned this of the Mormons, from whom Mrs. White, their Prophetess, learned to
have revela­tions. This has been their mode of claiming the sympathy, and
begging the toleration of an injured people.

IV Many honest and intelligent people are deceived by the statements of history
which they have published. I know of no work more deserving of censure for
unfairness than “The History of the Sabbath," by J. N. Andrews. Scraps of
state­ments are taken out of their legitimate connections, and testimonies wrung
from authors who testified nothing in their favor. To call such procedure
pettifogging, is to apply a term entirely too feeble for the expression of the
true thought. He has not only quoted every erratic statement which could be so
applied as to favor his theory, but he finds history which other men cannot
find. In the second edition of the work the author acknowledges to have quoted
from an edition of Neander not now in use, and to have used a statement which
the historian did not put into his revised work. Many Sabbatarians have been
found in the different ages of the church. Of course these can be had to testify
in favor of that institution. After the year 585, the church of Rome combined
the Sabbath with the Lord’s Day, or taught that the Lord’s Day was given to take
the place of the Sabbath. Hence, since that time it has been common to speak of
the Lord’s Day as the Sabbath. Many writers have spoken of the Institution by
that term, and Sabbatarians commonly take advantage of the fact to make it
appear that the author was testifying to their institution, the seventh day.

V. It is common, I might say universal, to claim that Sunday had no existence
till the time of Constantine, or that it was never regarded as sacred till that
time, and then only by virtue of the edict of a king who was a heathen. If you
hear a lecture from one of them it will be clearly affirmed; if you read a
tract, it will be boldly stated, but if you have before you a work which is
expected to fall into the way of the critical world, you will find it only
hinted. After the patched work of quotations has been furnished, the author will
assume such to be the purport of what has been produced. As a sample of many
things which might be cited, I call attention to Mr. Andrews on the Sabbath, pp.
346-7:

"On the seventh day of March, (321,) Constantine published his edict commanding
the observance of that ancient festival of the heathen, the venerable day of the
sun. On the following day, March eighth, he issued a second decree in every
respect worthy of its heathen predecessor. The purport of it was this: ’ That if
any royal edifice should be struck by lightning, the ancient ceremonies of
propitiating the Deity should be prac­ticed, and the haruspices should be
consulted to learn the mean­ing of the awful portent. The haruspices were
soothsayers who foretold future events by examining the entrails of beasts
slaughtered in sacrifice to the gods. The statute of the seventh of March
enjoining the observance of the venerable day of the sun, and that of the eighth
of the same month commanding the consultation of the haruspices, constitute a
noble pair of well-matched heathen edicts. That Constantine, himself, was a
heathen at the time these edicts were issued, is shown not only by the nature of
the edicts themselves, but by the fact that his nominal conversion to
Christianity is placed by Mosheim two years after his Sunday law.’ This is the
manner of the argument. What is lacking in the testimony is to be made up by
telling the readers what is the sum or the purport of an edict. I have no
interest in defending Constantine. He exhibited many inconsistencies. He was s
politician, and, while he came eventually to regard Christianity as the only
religion which could be of any particular value to any person, and though we
could not say that he had reached that conclusion in the year 321, we must say,
if we have paid any attention to the edict itself, that it was his purpose to
set Christians at liberty to worship as they preferred. This, how­ever, was not
all; he extended the same rights to all his sub­jects. As to his requiring any
day to be kept as a day of heathen worship, there is not a particle of evidence
in its favor. History cannot even be distorted into such a thought. No Christian
understood it so, and if that had been the idea which attached to that edict,
Christians would not have submitted. They were yet ready to die for their faith
in Christ, and would not, under any circumstances, have submitted to a heathen
worship. But instead of that, they regarded it as a release for their religion
and a restoration of their liberties.

Nothing more than disgust can be excited for the shallow pretensions or utter
disregard for truth of a man who will say that Constantine wished to favor
heathenism by the so-called Sunday law of 321. From 313 he had been removing all
ob­structions to Christian worship, and those who were in slavery were released.
Those who had lost their lands had them restored to them again. He even went so
far as to urge his people to accept of this religion. Hence no man can find an
easier way of convincing all readers of history of his entire unworthiness as an
author than to make such statements respecting Constantine and his edicts as are
made by Mr. Andrews. In Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Am. ed.. under the
“Lord’s Day," I find the following very sensible view of the whole matter as it
relates to Constantine:

"4th. That Constantine then instituted Sunday for the first time as a religious
day for Christians.

"The fourth of these statements is absolutely refuted, both by the quotations
made above from writers of the second and third centuries, and by the terms of
the edict itself. It is evi­dent that Constantine, accepting as facts the
existence of the Solis Dies, and the reverence paid to it by someone or other,
does nothing more than make that reverence practically univer­sal. It is
venerabilis’ already. And it is probable that this most natural interpretation
would never have been disturbed, had not Sozomen asserted, without warrant from
either Justin­ian or Theodosian code, that Constantine did for the sixth day of
the week what the codes assert he did for the first

"It is a fact, that in the year A. D. 321, in a public edict which was to apply
to Christians as well as to Pagans, he put especial honor upon a day already
honored by the former, judicially calling it by a name which Christians had long
em­ployed without scruple, and to which, as it was in ordinary use, the Pagans
could scarcely object. What he did for it was to insist that worldly business,
whether by the functionaries of the law or by private citizens, should be
intermitted during its continuance. An exception indeed was made in favor of the
rural districts, avowedly from the necessity of the case, covert­ly, perhaps, to
prevent those districts, where Paganism (as the word Pagus would intimate) still
prevailed extensively, from feeling aggrieved by a sudden and stringent change.
It need only be added here that the readiness with which Christians acquiesced
in the interdiction of business on the Lord’s Day, affords no small presumption
that they had long considered it to be a day of rest, and that, so far as
circumstances admitted, they had made it so long before.

"Were any other testimony wanting to the existence of Sunday as a day of
Christian worship at this period, it might be supplied by the Council of Nicea,
A. D. 325. The fathers there and then assembled make no doubt of the obligation
of that day—do not ordain it—do not defend it. They assume it as an existing
fact, and only notice it incidentally in order to regulate an indifferent
matter, the posture of Christian worship on it.

"Richard Baxter has well summed up the history of the Lord’s Day at this point,
and his words may not be inaptly inserted here: That the first Christian
emperor, finding all Christians in the unanimous possession of the day, should
make a law (as our kings do) for the due observance of it, and that the
Christian Council should establish uniformity in the very gesture of worship on
that day, are strong confirmations of the matter of fact, that the churches
unanimously agreed in the holy use of it, as a separated day even from and in
the apostles days.’ Richard Baxter on the Divine Appointment of the Lord’s Day,
p. 41." This is rather a long quotation, but it is so directly to the point that
it seemed best to give it in its connection. I could quote from almost any
number of good authors, showing that the use made of the edict of Constantine by
Mr. Andrews is unjust and unreasonable. I do not know of any historian who will
agree with his use of that edict. It is not only unfair and unreasonable, but it
shows that the mind of the gentleman is greatly warped by his particular views
of theology. In Blackburn’s Church History, page 70, the author says.

"The edicts of Constantine from 312 to 325 show an ecclesias­tical spirit. They
refer largely to the building and repair of churches, and liberal gifts to them;
the restoration of property of Christians, who must be equally just to the
Pagans; mutual toleration of religions; the settlement of religious disputes;
the calling of local councils; the exemption of the clergy from civil offices
and taxes; the burning of Jews who should assail Christians; the emancipation of
slaves; the general observance of Sunday (solis dies); restoration of property
to the heirs of martyrs; careful provision for the poor; the release of
Chris­tians from the mines; the forbidding of images—even his own statue must
not be set up in the temples; severe penalties upon heathen diviners and priests
who should perform sacrifices in private houses, and practice magic; and the
earnest advice that all his subjects adopt Christianity."

Remark would seem to be unnecessary. It must be evident that if Mr. Andrews is
right in his use of the edict of Constan­tine there is nothing to be gained by
reading history.

Two very distinct views are entertained respecting Con­stantine. One is that he
was a saint. This comes from the services which he rendered the church, and the
extravagant views of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who baptized him, a short time
before his death. A truer judgment is, however, gener­ally indulged; that he was
an ambitious statesman, who had knowledge of the innocence of those Christians
who had suf­fered severely at the hands of the Pagans, and that he aimed to
redress them; that he knew that this religion was for the good of the nation,
and hence, that in rendering it any real service, he would advance his people in
the elements of refinement and prosperity; and that in using the solis dies he
only employed a term which was already in existence, and which was known to
refer to the first day of the week. That heathens may have observed this day,
has nothing to do with the edict, nor its pur­pose.

VI. Adventists insinuate that the Lord’s Day is a creation of the Catholic
Church; that it came into existence as many other customs of purely human
origin. That this position is quite antagonistic to the one just men­tioned,
namely, that it was of heathen origin, does not seem to disconcert them in the
least. I will cite one quotation as a sample of many which might be given.

Hist. Sab. Andrews, p. 228:

“The Lord’s Day of the Catholic Church can be traced no nearer to John than A.
D. 194, or perhaps, in strict truth, to A. D. 200, and those who then use the
name show plainly that they did not believe it to be the Lord’s Day by apostolic
appointment. To hide these fatal facts by seeming to trace the title back to
Ignatius, a disciple of John, and thus to identify Sunday with the Lord’s Day of
that apostle, a series of remarkable frauds have been committed which we have
had occasion to examine."

Now, this is the most remarkable statement that I ever saw in a religious book.
Indeed, the quotations he has made him­self, prove his statement perfectly
untrue. I know no way to account for such rash utterances but to suppose the man
to have been exceedingly mad against the first day of the week, and, therefore,
willing to go to any length to find something or make it, that would show the
Lord’s Day in a bad light.

I think some Catholic priest can be found somewhere who will claim that his
church changed that day. I think I remem­ber having seen that claim set up, and
Acts 20:7, referred to as proof. And yet every reader of history knows that from
the very days of the apostles the first day of the week has been observed as a
day of worship. It is known, too, that the church was quite free from anything
that would entitle it to such designations as Catholic, (in the sense of Roman
Catholic,) for several hundred years. To show how perfectly unreliable Mr. A. is
concerning facts, and consistency both, I will give the quotation he makes from
Mosheim, and that, too, on the very next page to that from which I have quoted
already. Let it be remembered that Mosheim is writing of the first century, and
telling of customs which existed before John was dead, indeed, before he was
cast away upon the Isle of Patmos.

"All Christians were unanimous in setting apart the first day of the week, on
which the triumphant Savior rose from the dead, for the solemn celebration of
public worship. This pious custom, which was derived from the example of the
church of Jerusalem, was founded upon the express appointment of the apostles,
who consecrated that day to the same sacred purpose, and was observed
universally throughout the Christian churches, as appears from the united
testimony of the most credible writers."

Now what can be said of the consistency, say nothing of the veracity, of a man
who, with this language staring him in the face, can muster the courage to say
that the Lord’s Day (which we know refers to the first day of the week, in the
language of the Catholics) cannot be traced nearer to John than A. D. 194. When
he was writing the statement he knew that the very best historical authority
which can be found traces that observance to the first century, and finds it
even before the death of that apostle. Nor is this all, Mr. A. has given the
statements of the most reliable historians to the effect that the first day of
the week, or Lord’s Day, or Sunday, was religiously observed all the way from
the apostles down to the time he says it may first be found. Why, then, he
chooses to fly in his own face and contradict himself, as well as all reliable
history, is a most difficult question. Does he mean to discredit history, and
simply quote those men to show what fools they have made of themselves? or does
his Judaism really interfere with his sanity?

VII. Adventists constantly play upon words. Find the an­cients observing Lord’s
Day, and so affirming, then it does not mean the first day of the week, but the
day of the Lord’s Judgment, or it must mean the Sabbath, which, in the Old
Testament, was regarded as “My holy day." There may be every evidence of the
sense in which the author em­ploys the term, but that must pass for nothing To
be able to quibble out of its evident import seems to be the only aim.

If Justin Martyr spoke of the first day of the week by the term Sunday, then it
must count for nothing: it is a heathen word. If the first day of the week is
spoken of as a day of Christian gathering, then it was for some other purpose
than the worship of God. If they are spoken of as meeting on that day for the
purpose of breaking bread, then it was an accident, or a mere incident, and can
have nothing to do with giving the practice of the people. And when they can
find nothing else to say, they demand that somewhere it ought to be found that
the Savior commanded his apostles to observe the first day of the week as a
sacred day. I presume if this could be found, it would be said: “Yes, it was a
sacred day, and so are all days sacred to the Lord."

If they find anywhere that the word "festival “has been used in connection with
the Lord’s Day or Sunday, then it is proof that it was only a day of recreation,
and in no sense a day of worship. Though it be found that they did act
unadvisedly in respect of festivities on that day, and some man can be found
saying that these Sunday festivities were only a human institu­tion, it must be
found that he means that Sunday is a human institution! Though if the language
was submitted to any class in rhetoric or logic in the country, the unanimous
decision would be that the author meant to say that it was the unscrip­tural use
of the day, and not the day itself, that was condemn­ed as a human institution,
still, as they can clip the quotation and retain a jingle of words suitable to
their purpose, they are willing to sacrifice the evident meaning of the
language, that a hobby may be sustained.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 32: 02.11.     THE LORD'S DAY: REGARDED AS SACRED IN ALL AGES OF CHURCH HISTORY
========================================================================

CHAPTER IV HISTORY SHOWS THAT THE LORD’S DAY, OR FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, HAS BEEN
REGARDED AS A SACRED DAY IN ALL AGES OF THE CHURCH

I begin with a statement of the opinion of the teachings of history on this
subject, by B. B. Edwards, in his “Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,"
published 1858, found on page 1, 040:

"We are informed by Eusebius that from the beginning the Christians assembled on
the first day of the week, called by them the Lord’s Day, for the purpose of
religious worship, to read the Scriptures, to preach and to celebrate the Lord’s
Supper."

Now, we are not ready to say that the author has misunder­stood his reading, nor
that Eusebius has been untrue to the facts in the case. And unless we may
impeach one or the other of these witnesses, the question is put to rest with
this state­ment.

Chamber’s Encyclopedia has the following on the subject of the Sabbath:

He has come to the edict of Constantine, and gives us some­thing on this side of
it: “A new era in the history of the Lord’s Day now commenced; tendencies toward
Sabbatarian­ism, or confusion of the Christian with the Jewish Institution
beginning to manifest themselves. These were slight till the end of the 5th
century, and are traceable chiefly to the evils of legislation."

Johnson’s Encyclopedia has this to say on the subject of the Sabbath:

"The resurrection of Christ and his subsequent appearances to his disciples till
his ascension, and the miraculous descent of the Holy Spirit on the first day of
the week, led to that being set apart for the special religious assemblies of
the Christians, and for the simple services of their faith. For a time the
Jewish converts observed both the seventh day, to which the name Sabbath
continued to be given exclusively, and the first day, which came to be called
Lord’s Day. Later, the Apostle Paul sought to relieve their consciences from the
obligations of keeping the Sabbath (Rom 14:5; Col 2:16).... Within a century
after the death of the last of the apostles we find the observance of the first
day of the week, under the name of the Lord’s Day, established as an universal
custom of the church, according to the unanimous testimony of Barnabas,
Ignatius, Pliny, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian. It was regarded not as a
continuation of the Jewish Sabbath (which was denounced together with
circumcision and other Jewish anti-Christian practices), but rather as a
substitute for it; and naturally its observance was based on the resurrection of
Christ rather than on the creation rest-day or the Sabbath of the Decalogue." As
to the origin of the word Sunday, there seems to be no settled view, but some
things are agreed to universally, that it was the first day of the week, and
that at an early date it came to be used as a synonym for Lord’s Day. With this
thought before us we are prepared to hear Mosheim as translated by Murdock, Vol.
1, p. 137, say of the practice of the second century:

“When the Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper, which they were accustomed to
do chiefly on Sundays, they consecrated a part of the bread and wine of the
oblations by certain prayers pronounced by the president, the bishop of the
congregation."

Same book, p. 278, sec. 5, Mosheim says:

“The first day of the week, (on which Christians were accustomed to meet for the
worship of God,) Constantine required, by a special law, to be observed more
sacredly than before."

Once more from the same work: Century II., Part II., Chap, 4:, section 8:

“The Christians assembled for the worship of God in private dwelling-houses, in
caves, and places where the dead were buried. They met on the first day of the
week; and here and there also on the seventh day, which was the Jewish Sabbath."

Then again, in Book I., Century I., Part II., Chap. 4:, Sec. 4:

“The Christians of this century assembled for the worship of God and for the
advancement of their own piety on the first day of the week, the day on which
Christ re-assumed his life; for that this day was set apart for religious
worship by the apostles themselves, and that, after the manner of the church at
Jerusalem, it was generally observed, we have unexceptionable testimony.
Moreover, those congregations which either lived intermingled with Jews, or were
composed in great measure of Jews, were accustomed to observe also the seventh
day of the week, as a sacred day: for doing which the other Christians taxed
them with no wrong."

Now, so far as history is concerned, we have traced the keep­ing of the first
day of the week, or Sunday, or Lord’s Day, back through the fourth century, the
third, the second, and away down into the first; right up to the apostles who
were at Jeru­salem. Not only so, but we have used their own author, or at least
the favored translation of Mosheim.

He finds those Judaizers there just as Paul and Silas did, only Mosheim notices
those who were less determined in their plans and methods of worship. Those of
whom Luke speaks taught that unless the Gentiles were circumcised and would keep
the law they could not be saved. But those our historian speaks of kept the
first day of the week and also the seventh. The other Christians only kept the
first day of the week.

It would seem unreasonable that we should quote another line of history, for if
what we have seen will not convince a man that Christians have kept the first
day of the week as a sacred day in all ages of the church, then to such a man
history can have but little influence. Still I am disposed to go further and let
other historians and commentators and critics have their say on the subject. I
do this for two reasons: first, because these witnesses have been badly dealt
with, and, secondly, because they throw light on the meaning of many Scriptures,
that are not understood by many persons, simply because the manner of speech
differs from ours.

J. N. Andrews, Hist. Sabbath, p. 229, 230, says:

“Now let us read what Neander, the most distinguished of church his­torians,
says of this apostolic authority for Sunday observance: ’ The festival of
Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was
far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command. in this
respect; far from them and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws
of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps at the end of the second century a false
application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to
have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin." This language Mr. Andrews cites to
rebut the testimony of Mosheim, whom we have already quoted, showing that the
first day of the week was observed from the very first as a day of worship. Now,
while this quotation was left out of Neander in its reproduction, I must say
that I see nothing damaging in it. If the author had before his mind the first
day of the week, and was trying to show that its observance was not apos­tolic,
still it would have been simply the opinion of that man as against ten thousand
men equally critical in exegesis. But he had before him a wrong use of that day
hi establishing a feast on that occasion. It was the festival of Sunday that he
condemned. And that is the same thing that Paul condemn­ed in the church at
Corinth: not the day on which they met, but the festival on that day. The author
further shows that the early Christians did not regard Sunday as being Sabbath.
This, again, is certainly correct. But Mr. Andrews relieves us of any further
trouble about the missing quotation. He says:

"It is true that in re-writing his work he omitted this sen­tence. But he
inserted nothing of a contrary character, and the general tenor of the revised
edition is in this place precisely the same as in that from which this
out-spoken statement is taken." And then to prove that Neander held the same
views in the later work he quotes from vol. 1, p. 295, Torrey’s translation:

“Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts, and by
the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a standing and not in
a kneeling posture, as Christ by his resurrection, has raised up fallen man
again to heaven."

Now, what is there in this that condemns Sunday observance? The historian only
shows that the early Christians met together on that day and were glad in view
of the resurrection of the Lord from the dead. While this may not, in any way,
conflict with the quotation which is now acknowledged to be missing, it would
antagonize it very strongly if the meaning of the former was that of condemning
the Sunday as not apostolic. Hence, we know that his wonderful quotation, with
which he sought to make Neander oppose Mosheim, had no such meaning as that
which he gave it. But I am not done yet with Neander. In his “Planting and
Training of the Christian Church," a work devoted exclusively to the first
century, page 159, he says:

"But since we are not authorized to make this assumption, unless a church
consisted for the most part of those who had been Jewish proselytes, we shall be
compelled to conclude that the religious observances of Sunday occasioned its
being con­sidered the first day of the week. It is also mentioned in Acts 20:7,
that the church at Troas assembled on Sunday and cele­brated the Lord’s Supper."

Again, same page:

"They rejected the Sabbath which the Jewish Christians celebrated, in order to
avoid the risk of mingling Judaism and Christianity, and because another event
associated more closely another day with their feelings. For, since the
sufferings and resurrection of Christ appeared as the central point of Christian
knowledge and practice; since his resurrection was viewed as the foundation of
all Christian joy and hope, it was natural that the day which was connected with
the remembrance of this event, should be specially devoted to Christian
commun­ion."

Now, if this does not show that Neander was of the opinion that the early
Christians regarded the first day of the week as a sacred day, then language
cannot be so constructed as to present that thought. But to turn to the very
volume from which Mr. Andrews makes his quotation, to show that Neander, in his
new work, agrees with his distortion of what he claimed to have found in a
former work, and on the same page, only a few sentences from the one to which
Mr. A. refers, we read: (See Vol. I., p. 295).

"The opposition to Judaism early led to the special observ­ance of Sunday in the
place of the Sabbath. The first intima­tion of this is in Acts 20:7, where we
find the church assem­bled on the first day of the week; a still later one is in
Rev 1:10, where, by the Lord’s Day can hardly be understood the day of judgment.
As the Sabbath was regarded as represeat­ing Judaism, Sunday was contemplated as
a symbol of the new life consecrated to the risen Christ and grounded in his
resur­rection. Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy." With all these facts
before me, and knowing that they were before Mr. Andrews, it is a strain on my
charity to not think of him as deliberately falsifying history. Neander uses the
three words, Sunday, first day, and Lord’s Day as expressive of the same
occasion: they all and severally mean the resurrection day, were so regarded by
early Christians, and the day was kept as a sacred day, a day in which
Christians were to meet, and engage in communion. Again on page 332 of this same
volume we have the following:

"As we have already remarked, celebration of the Lord’s Supper was still held to
constitute an essential part of divine worship on every Sunday, as appears from
Justin Martyr; and the whole church partook of the communion after they had
joined in the amen of the preceding prayer." So much for Neander. He teaches as
positively the opposite of what Mr. Andrews represents him as teaching as it
would-be possible for one man to differ from the teaching of another.

One more specimen of the unfairness of Mr. Andrews. He quotes from Tertullian,
who wrote towards the close of the second century. The first is from Tertullian
on Prayer, Chap. Xxiii:

"We, however, (just as we have received), only on the Lord’s Day of the
resurrection ought to guard, not only against kneel­ing, but every posture and
office of solicitude; deferring even our business, lest we give any place to the
devil. Similarly, too, in the period of Pentecost; which period we distinguish
by the same solemnity of exultation."

Next he quotes Tertullian on Idolatry, Chap. 14::

"O, better fidelity of the nations to their own sects, which claims no solemnity
of the Christians for itself. Not the Lord’s Day, not Pentecost, even if they
had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would fear lest they
should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive lest we should seem to be
heathens. If any indulgence is to be granted to the flesh, you have it. I will
not say your own days, but more too; for the heathens each festive day occurs
but once annually; you have a festive day every eighth day."

Mr. A. then concedes that this festive eighth day was the Lord’s Day just
mentioned. Then he quotes again, this time from Tertuliian’s Ad Natianes, Book
I., Chap. 13::

"As often as the anniversary comes around, we make offer­ings for the dead as
birth-day honors. We count fasting or kneeling on the Lord’s Day to be unlawful.
We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained
should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every
forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes
and shoes, when we hathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on
couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the
forehead the sign (of the cross)."

He closes his quotations from Tertullian by one from De Corona, sections 3, 4:

“If for these and other such rules you insist upon having positive Scripture
injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the
originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer.
That reason will support tradition, and custom and faith, you will either
yourself perceive, or learn from someone who has."

Now while Mr. A. cites the references to these garbled ex­tracts, he does so by
the use of a foot note, indicated by em­ploying figures. And he is probably
correct in supposing that not more than one out of a hundred will notice that
his last quotation has nothing to do in any way with the subject of the Lord’s
Day. There is not a word in the connection from which it is taken on that topic.
He has made four quotations from four different works of that author, on four
different subjects, and has thrown them together and then remarked upon them as
if they were so much testimony given respecting the Lord’s Day, or first day of
the week. And all to show that Tertullian did not regard the Lord’s Day of any
direct divine authority.

Suppose that I could find someone saying that the early Christians kept the
seventh day of the week, as did the Jews, and regarded themselves as under the
law which required its observance, and then I find some other work of that same
author, speaking of some things which they have come to practice by tradition
and not by direct Scripture command, which he says we don’t claim divine
authority for these things, and then argue that my authority confessed that what
they did was simply from custom, would not every man regard me as a falsifier of
history? I would be making the writer say that he had no authority for the
Sabbath when he was not talking on the subject in any way. And yet that is just
what Mr. A. does for Tertullian. He says, too, that he has given all that
Tertul­lian has said on the subject of the Lord’s Day but one mere reference.
Well, this is what Tertullian says in so many words:

“The Lord’s Day is the holy day of the Christian Church. We have nothing to do
with the Sabbath. The Lord’s Day is the Christian’s solemnity."

It is no pleasure to expose the tricks of unworthy men. I am ashamed that any
man can be found claiming to be a believer in Christ with no higher motive
before him. He suppresses the testimony of the men from whom he pretends to
quote; applies words written on one subject to another topic, and then draws
conclusions that are not even warranted by his patched deliver­ances. 1 will,
with this brief notice, dismiss Mr. Andrews, believing him to be unworthy of the
confidence of any reader.

Let us now hear from Justin Martyr, in his Apology to Antoninus, page 67, A. D.
140. This man had been raised in Palestine, and only writes a little on this
side of the apostle John. He says:

“On the day called Sunday all who live in cities, or in the country, gather in
one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are
read, as long as time permits, then the president verbally instructs and exhorts
to the imita­tion of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray; then
bread and wine and water are brought and the president offers prayers and
thanksgiving according to his ability, and the people say, amen. There is a
distribution to each, and a par­taking of that over which thanks have been
given, and a portion is sent by the deacons to those who are absent. The wealthy
among us help the needy; each gives what he thinks fit; and what is collected is
laid aside by the president who relieves the orphans and the widows, and those
who are sick or in want from any cause, those who are in bonds, and strangers
sojourn­ing among us; in a word, he takes care of all who are in need. We meet
on Sunday because it is the first day, when God created the world, and Jesus
Christ rose from the dead."

We have already seen that Sunday was a common term by which to speak of the
first day of the week, or Lord’s Day. Ter­tullian and some others call it the
“eighth day," that is, the next day after the seventh. The reason that Justin
here prefers the “Sunday “to any other, is that he would be understood by the
Emperor to whom he addressed the Apology, in so doing, whereas if he employed
the term Lord’s Day, he would fail of his purpose. The language of Pliny, the
Governor of Bithynia, to the Emperor Trajan, reveals this same custom. I quote
from Blackburn’s History, p. p. 25, 26:

“And this was the account which they gave of the nature of the religion they
once pro­fessed, whether it deserve the name of crime or error: That they were
accustomed to meet on a stated day, before, sunrise, and repeat among themselves
a hymn to Christ as to a God, and to bind themselves as with an oath not to
commit any wicked­ness, nor to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery, never
to deny a promise or break a pledge; after which it was their cus­tom to
separate, and to meet again at a promiscuous, harmless meal (doubtless the love
feast connected with the Lord’s Supper)." Our author thinks that this letter of
Pliny was written about the year 112. Most historical critics put it several
years sooner. At any rate it was but a few years after the death of the apostle
John. And as we have the united testimony of history and Scripture that the
disciples did observe the first day of the week, Sunday or Lord’s Day, as they
at any time chose to call it, this is beyond any reasonable question, the
meaning of this stated day, on which they met for the purpose of breaking bread.

I will now close the historical discussion of this question. We have seen that
many of the best authorities state as plainly as they can, that the early
Christians met on the first day of the week and give their reasons for doing so,
that it was the day on which the Lord rose from-the dead, and, on that day, the
apos­tles and those Christians taught by them, met to break bread and drink
wine, in memory of the bruised body and shed blood of the Lord Jesus. We have
seen, too, that at an early time there were Judaizing teachers trying to bring
the disciples back again under bondage to the Law of Moses. That some of these
were determined that they would keep the Sabbath, although they did not refuse
to observe the first day of the week as a sacred day, made so by the
resurrection of the Lord Jesus. Hence there were some who kept both days. But
history is as clear as it can be that, as they came to understand the nature of
the Gospel of Christ, they discontinued their devotions to the law, as such. And
against this, there is no opposing testimony. History cannot be tortured into
the support of the seventh day of the week. The most that the Advent historian
has tried to do was to cast some doubt on keeping the Lord’s Day. And we have
seen that even this cannot be done, only as history is falsified, and made to
depose upon subjects and speak language that the writers themselves never
thought of.

Usually when history is made to speak on the subject, the advocate of
seventh-day-ism says: “Well, there is nothing in it any way." Now, as we said in
the beginning of this part of our investigation, we do not regard it as an end
to the contro­versy, but that it is a testimony, to the extent of the candor and
critical ability of the whole church. Nay, more, they quit the Sabbath and began
to keep the Lord’s Day, and for this, there could have been no inducement or
producing cause, but the honest conviction that they were not under the law, but
were only to follow Christ and the apostles. And with the exception of a few
Judaizers here and there, who have not even been able to make spots in history,
there has never been any doubt on the correctness of observing the first day of
the week.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 33: 02.12.     THE LORD'S DAY: THE TEACHING OF SCRIPTURES ON THE DAY OF CHRISTIAN WORSHIP
========================================================================

CHAPTER V THE TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES RESPECTING THE DAY ON WHICH CHRISTIANS
SHOULD MEET FOR WORSHIP The Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and
practice. Just to the extent that they teach us on this subject we will feel
warranted in asking that the practice of the whole church shall agree. We know
that the early Christians did not keep the Sab­bath. We know that the apostles
taught them that they were free from the law by the body of Christ, and hence
that no one should be permitted to judge them in meat or drink, or in respect of
a new moon or of a Sabbath. We know, too, that the early Christians understood
that they were free from the law, and that they did not keep the seventh day,
except a few Judaizing persons, who also kept Lord’s Day. But the question which
now remains is what day should we keep? or should we keep any? Now, let it be
said in fairness that the Scriptures are not very abundant an this subject.
Happily, however, we are dealing now with believers, who will be satisfied with
one full statement of com­mand from Christ or anyone of the apostles, or any
clear and certain practice. Those to whom we now appeal do not suppose that a
great number of statements are necessary to make the Word of God true.

I. The first fact that seems to govern in the matter, in the primitive church,
was the resurrection of Christ on the first day of the week.

Let me cite a few verses in Luk 24:1-53, which I think will be sufficient to
prove that it was on the first day of the week that Jesus rose from the dead:

"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morn­ing, they came unto
the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others
with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre… And he said
unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one to another,
as ye walk, and are sad? And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering
said unto him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast not known the
things which are come to pass in these days? And he said unto them, What things?
And they said unto him, Concerning Jesus of Naza­reth, which was a prophet
mighty in deed and word before God and all the people: And how the chief priests
and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him.
But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: And beside
all this, to-day is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain
women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre;
And when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a
vision of angels, which said that he was alive."

There can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who believes this account to be
correct, that Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. This event
is of the greatest importance. It was his victory over death that was to be
celebrated to the end of time. It was great to speak a world from naught, but it
was greater to redeem. And no event so concerned the race as the resurrection;
overcoming the unseen; conquering the last enemy. Israel had been commanded to
keep the Sabbath because they had been delivered from the bondage of Egyptian
slavery, but while their Sabbath was a fitting rest from the toils and
hard­ships of the merciless lash of the taskmaster, the Christian’s first day is
a fitting symbol of that new life and new joy which we have in Christ; and while
their Passover might tell surely enough of that mercy which had spared them
while God admin­istered justice to Egypt, the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the earth, seen in the Lord’s supper, is the chosen mark of the purchase price
which redeems from sin and death.

It would seem most unreasonable that we, having come to the Antitype should now
return to the shadow.

Jesus appeared to His disciples several times that day in a way to enlighten
them upon the subject of the purpose had in view in his coming into the world.
He showed himself to them by many infallible proofs, to Mary, to other women, to
Peter, to two disciples as they walked into the country, and then again to the
ten as they sat at meat that evening. And at last He opened their minds that
they might understand the Scriptures, as He rehearsed to them what was said of
Him in the Law and in the Prophets and in the Psalms.

II. Christ met especially with His apostles on the first day of the week. See
John 20:19-29.

“Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors
were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus
and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when He had
so said, he shewed unto them His hands and His side. Then were the disciples
glad, when they saw the Lord. Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you:
as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he
breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whosesoever
sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they
are retained. But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them
when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the
Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in His hands the print of the
nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into
his side, I will not believe. And after eight days again his disciples were
within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood
in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither
thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust zt into
my side; and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered and said unto
him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen
me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have
believed." The first meeting of the Master with His apostles must have been of
the most joyous character. His breathing on them, and promising to them the Holy
Spirit; the commission which He gave them must have inspired them with new
thoughts and pur­poses. The recollections of the occasion would never depart
from them during their lives; and they would fill the first day of the week with
sacred and holy thought. They could not fail to see in it connections with the
new life in Christ.

It seems, too, that the Master was intending to impress this thought and feeling
on their hearts by appearing to them in a remarkable way on the next first day.
But when we speak of Jesus appearing to the disciples "after eight days," and
yet on the first day of the week, our Advent friends make quite a stir about our
assumption. They claim that the language cannot mean less than an intervention
of eight days, and that this second meeting was therefore near the middle of the
week.

It seems as nothing to them for us to say that the critics in all ages of the
church have regarded it as equal to saying, that on the next first day of the
week, Thomas being with them, Jesus came, etc., for the literal interpretation,
according to our way of computing time, will suit their theory better. I will
quote Dr. Barnes on this passage, as a sample of the whole number of
com­mentators. He says:

“And after eight days again—that is, on the return of the first day of the week.
From this it appears that they thus early set apart this day for assembling
together, and Jesus countenanced it by appearing twice with them. It was natural
that the apos­tles should observe this day, but not probable that they would do
it without the sanction of the Lord Jesus. His repeated presence gave such a
sanction, and the historical fact is indisput­able that from this time this day
was observed as the Christian Sabbath. See Acts 20:7; 1Co 16:2; Rev 1:10." From
this decision I know of no author of note who dissents. One would naturally
suppose that they have had some reasons for this unanimity of opinion. But as
our Sabbatarian friends are not willing to grant that these men have had any
reason for their conclusions, except the necessity of finding authority for an
un­scriptural service, it seems proper and right that we should turn aside for a
moment and ask upon what authority they all suppose that "after eight days"
means on the next first day of the week.

It seems to be known to everyone except Sabbatarians that the ancients were
accurate in the use of ordinals—first, second, third, etc.—but in the use of the
cardinals—one, two, three, etc. —they were quite inaccurate, as we decide
accuracy. It is on account of this looseness of speech that Mat 17:1—"six days
after "—is equal only to about "eight days after"—Luk 9:26.

Compare a few passages on the resurrection of Christ and it will be clear that
the cardinal eight days after is the eighth day, put in ordinals. In John 2:19 :
"Destroy this temple, and after three days I will raise it up again." With
Adventist count this would require three full days to intervene, counting the
day of crucifixion one, and the day of rising would be the fifth. And yet in Mat
27:63-64 the promise was made that He would rise again on the third day. Hence
their cardinal “after three days” was exactly equal to their ordinal, “on the
third day." Compare Mark 8:31 with Mat 16:21, and we have these two ways of
computing time fairly contrasted. Accord­ing to Mark, Jesus said “after three
days," but according to Matthew he said, "on the third day." Now the only way
these statements can be reconciled is by acknowledging the different modes of
counting time. That these were the exact equal of each other, no man who
believes the records dares to deny. And yet according to Advent calculation they
would differ two days. “After three days “would place three whole days be­tween
the death and the resurrection of the Savior; “on the third day" makes the
number two less. According to 1Ki 12:5-12, we read:

"And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And
the people departed. And king Reho­boam consulted with the old men that stood
before Solomon his father while he yet lived, and said, How do ye advise that I
may answer this people? And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a
servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and
speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants forever. But he forsook
the counsel of the old men, which they had given him, and consult­ed with the
young men that had grown up with him, and which stood before him: and he said
unto them, What counsel give ye that we may answer this people, who have spoken
to me, saying, Make the yoke which thy father did put upon us lighter? And the
young men that were grown up with him spake unto him, saying, Thus shalt thou
speak unto this people that spake unto thee, saying, Thy father made our yoke
heavy, but make thou it lighter unto us; thus shalt thou say unto them, My
little finger shall be thicker than my father’s loins. And now where­as my
father did lade you with a heavy yoke, I will add to your yoke: my father hath
chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions. So Jeroboam
and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed,
saying, Come to me again the third day."

Here again it is seen that “after three days “means the same in their style of
computation as “on the third day." And in Est 4:15; Est 5:1, the same manner is
preserved:

“Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer, Go, gather together all the
Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink
three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will
I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law; and if I perish, I
perish. Now it came to pass on the third day, that Esther put on her royal
apparel, and stood in the inner court of the king’s house, over against the
king’s house: and the king sat upon his royal throne in the royal house, over
against the gate of the house."

Mat 27:62-64 is a case in hand:

"Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests
and Pharisees came together unto Pilate, say­ing, Sir, we remember that that
deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his
disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is
risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first."

Now by every rule known to hermeneutics we are compelled to say that in their
manner the cardinal “after three days,’’ or “after eight days," was only equal
to their ordinal “on the third day," or “on the eighth day." Hence it is that
all the critics have regarded the language of John to mean on the eighth day
after, which could mean nothing else than on the next first day.

This, too, accounts for Tertullian making use of the eighth day for the
resurrection day. This language was common also to many others.

III. The Holy Spirit came, to remain on the earth, on the first day of the week.
For the present we take it for granted that the day of Pente­cost was the first
day, for we will argue that point in another and more proper place.

Jesus had promised them a new Helper or Comforter, one that would remain with
them forever, who would guide them into all truth, who would receive the things
of Christ and deliver them to the apostles, and bring all things to their
memories that he had taught them. This was the meaning of His command to them to
tarry in Jerusalem till they were endued with power from on high. This is not to
say that no mortal had ever received the Spirit before that in any way, though
it was said (John 7:39) that the Holy Spirit was not yet given. It must mean
therefore that He had not been given in the way and for the purpose con­tained
in the promise of Jesus to His apostles. On the day of Pentecost they were
baptized in that Spirit—put entirely under His control. Joel had seen this event
in connection with those appointments by which the world should be furnished
with the light of God that bringeth salvation to all men. (See Joe 2:28-29.)
This day was regarded by the apostles as their beginning of the new system of
religion in Christ. Peter, after he had been to the house of Cornelius, defended
himself for going in unto one who was uncircumcised, and especially for
admitting them to gospel privileges. His appeal was to the baptism of the
Spirit, which he says was like that which had been granted to the Jew­ish
brethren "at the beginning." We know then that they regarded this new state of
things, witnessed by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, as beginning on
the Pentecost, which we shall see was on the first day of the week. This leads
us to notice that it was on this occasion that the new law went forth. A law had
been given from Sinai, which had served as a schoolmaster, in preparing the
people for the acceptance of Christ that they might be justified by faith. But
all through the period of Israelitish prophets they were being informed that
there was a coming One, who should establish His throne with justice and
judgment, in whom the Gentiles would trust, and for whose law the isles of the
sea should wait; whose right it should be to rule, who would overturn and
over­turn till all things should be put under his authority. The very time,
place and circumstances of the going forth of this new law was seen by the
prophets. In Isa 2:1-5, we have an inspired view of this topic:

“The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it
shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall
be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the
hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say,
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God
of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for
out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And
he shall judge from among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they
shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks:
nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more. 0 house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord." To
the same effect, and in almost the same language, is the statement made by the
prophet Micah, (Mic 4:1-2):

"But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountains Of the house of
the Lord shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be
exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. And many nations shall
come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the
house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in
his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the Lord from
Jerusalem."

Let us note a few facts in these prophetic statements:

That this law should go forth from Zion and Jerusalem, or from Mt. Zion in
Jerusalem.

That the law should be first presented to the descendants of Jacob.

That it would go forth in the last days of Judah, as a people, and Jerusalem (as
a city of the Jews), or shortly before the ruin of that people.

At the time of this law going forth all nations should be represented.

These peoples shall have flown to Jerusalem to hear the word of the Lord.

The effect of this law will be to make peace, to subdue the brutal passions of
men, and cause wars to cease.

Now, as we know that the law of Christ is the last revelation of God to the
race,it follows that it was his law which was referred to. It was offered first
to the seed of Israel; it went forth from Zion; it was shortly before the fall
of Jerusalem and the dispersion of the Jewish people, and all nations were
present (by representa­tives) at that time. (See Acts 2:5). The gospel, the law
of Christ, which went forth on that occasion, is the law of peace; its justice
and mercy will remove cruelty and bloodshed. Indeed, every feature of these
predictions has its fulfillment in the occa­sion of the Pentecost. Not only so,
but the comment of the Master on these Scrip­tures fixes their meaning beyond a
peradventure. See Luk 24:44-49 :

“And he said unto them, These are the words that I spake unto you, while I was
yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the Law
of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he
their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures, and said unto
them, Thus.it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise
from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are
witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon
you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from
on high." When we search for the “thus it is written “for the condi­tions of
pardon being preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, we are taken
right back to the Scriptures which I have quoted from Isaiah and Micah. Hence we
have the com­ment of Jesus respecting those prophecies. This enduement for which
they were to wait had been prom­ised by the prophet Joel (2. 28, 29), and
reiterated by the Master (John 14:15-16; John 14:26; John 15:26; John 16:7-14).
All these promises were fulfilled on the Pentecost. Acts 2:3-4; Acts 2:14-18 :

"And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon
each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak
with other tongues, as the Spipt gave them utterance.... But Peter, standing up
with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and
all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
for these are not drunken’ as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the
day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to
pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh:
and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see
visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: and on my servants, and on my
handmaidens, I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall
prophesy."

Now, when an inspired apostle says, “This is that which was spoken of," etc., it
is not safe to say it was not. Hence we are bound to see in the events of the
Pentecost the fulfillment of Joel’s prediction, or deny the inspiration of
Peter. And that they understood this also to be the fulfillment of the promise
of the Lord to them, there can be no doubt. They now act under the commission in
preaching repentance and remissions of sins to the people. And afterward, when
like demonstration attended him at the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48; Acts
11:15-18), both Peter and the other apostles understood it to mean that to the
Gentiles were granted repentance to life. This question was settled by showing
that the same manifesta­tion was there which attended them “at the beginning."

There is, therefore, no other conclusion possible, but that the first Pentecost
after the ascension of Jesus was the time of the beginning of the gospel being
preached in its facts. See 1Co 15:1-4. This event was never lost sight of by the
apostles and early Christians. The new law of the newly coronated King now goes
forth. Hence it is the birth-day of the kingdom of Christ, the Church of Christ
on earth.

Jesus had said, "On this Rock I unli build my church," and now, the foundation
having been laid, the structure begins to rise, constituted of lively stones,
built up an spiritual house, as God’s dwelling place upon the earth. But someone
denies, perhaps, that the Pentecost came on the first day of the week. To this
let us devote a little attention, The institution of the Pentecost, or the feast
of weeks, shows that it always occurred on the first day of the week. See Lev
23:15-21 :

“And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day
that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven sabbaths shall be
complete: even unto the mor­row after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty
days; and ye shall offer a new meat-offering unto the LORD. Ye shall bring out
of your habitations two wave-loaves of two tenth-deals: they shall be of fine
flour, they shall be baken with leaven, they are the first-fruits unto the LORD.
And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year,
and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt-offering unto the
LORD, with their meat-offering, and their drink-offerings, even an offering made
by fire of sweet savour unto the LORD. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the
goats for a sin-offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of
peace-offerings. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the
first-fruits for a wave-offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall
be holy to the LORD for the priest. And ye shall proclaim on the self-same day,
that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work
therein. It shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your
generations." The meaning of Pentecost is fiftieth, and having numbered seven
Sabbaths, the day following, the fiftieth, would be the Pentecost, as seen in
the sixteenth verse. Hence the giving of the law of Christ, the beginning of the
gospel, the descent of the Spirit, the birth of the reign of Christ on the
earth, came on the first day of the week.

Indeed, the law from Mt. Sinai seems to have been given on the first day of the
week. Compare Exo 12:18; Exo 19:1; Exo 19:14-16, and the following facts appear:
the lamb was killed on the 14th of the first month; it was on the third day of
the third month that the law was given. “The self-same day “does not mean the
day of the month on which Israel started from Egypt, for there is no reference
to that event. It means the first day of the month. Add two to this, then thirty
for the previous month, then seventeen for the first month (for only thirteen
are to be subtracted, seeing that the lamb was slain on the 14th), and you have
the law given on the fiftieth, which, in itself, seems to be the origin of the
Pentecost


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 34: 02.13.     THE LORD'S DAY: HOW THE APOSTLES UNDERSTOOD THE SUBJECT
========================================================================

CHAPTER VI HOW THE APOSTLES UNDERSTOOD THE SUBJECT OF THE LORD’S DAY

We have seen already that they did not regard themselves under the law, and that
they did not keep the Sabbath; that there is no case on record where a company
of Christians only met together on the Sabbath day for any purpose And yet it is
probable that those Judaizing teachers who came down to Anti­och, and taught
that they must be circumcised and keep the law, or they could not be saved, kept
the Sabbath. But if it had been regarded as binding on Christians, we should
have had at least some account of its observance somewhere. We have seen, too,
that the apostles taught the disciples that they were free from the law, and
that no man had any right to judge them in respect of the Sabbath. We have seen,
too, that the Christian world has been a unit on the subject of the observance
of the Lord’s Day, or first day of the week. We have also seen many reasons why
they should have reached this conclusion, but we now come to examine more
closely into what the apostles have said concerning this matter, directly. From
Heb 10:25, we learn that they had a regular day or time of meeting together, for
it is inconceivable that they should be exhorted to not neglect the assembling
of themselves together, if there was no appointed time for such a gathering. No
one could be blamed for not being present, if there was no under­standing as to
the time and place of meeting. We learn, a little on this side of the apostles,
that they had a stated time, namely, on Sunday—the resurrection day—when they
met everywhere, in the villages and in the country localities, where they could
do so without being persecuted, and where they could do no better they met in
caves and fastnesses of the mountains. But the question which now engages our
attention is, What have the apostles said directly on the subject of keeping the
Lord’s Day, or first day of the week? This brings us to our ar­gument number

IV. The primitive church met together on the first day of the week to break
bread. This is the direct statement of Acts 20:7. A number of things are said in
answer to this, such as that such language does not declare a practice, but
simply records an occurrence. Once in the history of Christian work it happened
that they met on the first day of the week to break bread„ and that is nothing
more than an incident. And yet, if Sabbatarians could find somewhere in the New
Testament, a gathering of Christians for Christian worship, only, on the seventh
day, it would be regarded as a custom, and there­fore a guide to Christians at
the present time.

They try to tell us that there is no evidence that Paul regarded the day as
sacred, from the fact that he went on his journey the next morning, which,
according to their count, was still the first day of the week. Let us read the
connection, beginning with the fourth and closing with the eleventh verse:

“And there accompanied him into Asia, Sopater of Berea; and of the
Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus, and Gains of Derbe, and Timotheus; and
of Asia Tychicus and Trophimus. These going before, tarried for us at Troas. And
we sailed away from Philippi, after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto
them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon 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 continued his speech until midnight.
And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered
together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutycus, being
fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sunk down with
sleep, and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went
down, and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his
life is in him When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and
eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed."

Now from this we learn,

That they remained there at Troas seven days, and therefore passed a Sabbath in
that place. Hence, if there was any such observance as Sabbatarians contend for,
it is unaccountable that no mention is made of it.

The purpose of the Lord’s Day meeting will account for their remaining there the
seven days. We have no other custom which will indi­cate any sufficient reasons
for this delay.

"When the disciples were met together to break bread" is the manner of recording
a custom, not a mere occurrence. Hence, to read the passage sim­ply to find its
contents, leaves the conviction on all minds, as we have seen before, that they
met for the purpose of breaking bread, and that he might enjoy that communion
with them, Paul had remained that length of time with them.

But it is said that Paul went on his journey on that day; not only so, but he
went on foot, across the country. They forget that there is no reference to his
stopping any time during his whole ministry for the Sabbath, and that their
argument would ruin their doctrine of the Sabbath. Paul was in haste to reach
Jerusalem by the Pentecost, and if he should have gone forward on that day
rather than to take his chances of finding another opportunity to cross the
waters, there would be nothing strange about it. Still, they have to assume that
the first day of the week, on which they met together to break bread, and the
"morrow," on which he was ready to depart, were the same day. In the second
place, they assume that the journey spoken of in the thirteenth verse was on the
first day of the week. It is not so stated; neither is it a necessary inference.
And in the third place there would be nothing in it, if they should be able,
under the circumstances, to find Paul going on his way. What we do know is that
the disciples met together to break bread, and that this was the purpose for
which they met. It was therefore to them a day of sacred devotion in the service
of the Lord.

V. Paul’s directing the saints in their worship on the first day of the week,
both in Corinth and the churches in Galatia, shows that the day was everywhere
so employed. See 1Co 16:1-2.

It is sometimes said that this language does not indicate that the first day of
the week was regarded as a sacred day, for it was to be devoted to secular
purposes; they were to make it a day of money raising, or for the laying apart
of some of their income for the purpose of sending a present to the saints who
were in Judea.

We find that all bodies of Christians do, and ever have, provided on this day
for the temporal necessities of those for whom they are responsible. If they
have not done this wholly on the first day of the week, they have at least
largely accomplished that work on that day. Can we prove in that way or by that
fact that they have not regarded the day as sacred? To ask the ques­tion is
enough. Every man who will stop long enough to think, will acknowledge that
their providing for this benevolence can in no way interfere with the idea that
they regarded the day as sacred. Indeed it strengthens that thought. To make
such provisions for the needy, would be as religious an act as could be
performed on that or any other day.

Again, it is said that there is no evidence that they met together at all on the
first day of the week; that the only direction in the matter is that of laying
by in store such an amount of their earnings as they would be able to spare. But
the very purpose had in view in this request would be defeated in that way. Paul
thought he might be in great haste, and there would be no time for such
gathering of means after his arrival, and therefore he would have it all
provided in a place where it might be used at once; that if he should reach the
city in the evening and wish to depart in the morning, the contribution would be
ready, and that no time would be lost. But if this money should be at their
homes, the collection would yet have to be made. But why request them to lay by
them in store on the first day of the week? Why not say to them, Lay up all you
can till I come, so that the amount which I ought to take will be provided for?
It is not too much to say that such would have been his directions in the matter
if such had been his thought.

It is strange again, if they are correct in this view, that the whole Christian
world differs with them in reference to it. Almost everywhere it is cited as a
rule for raising the necessary expenses of church and missionary work. The
rendering of this passage by Benjamin Wilson in the Emphatic Diaglott brings out
the meaning more clearly than that of the Common Version:

“And concerning the collection which is for the saints;—as I directed the
congregation in Galatia, so also do you. Every first day of every week, let each
of you lay something by itself, depositing as he may be prospered, so that when
I come, collec­tions may not then be made."

Dr. Macknight takes a like view of the passage and renders it:

"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 be prospered, putting it into
the treasury, that when I come, there may be then no collections." The Doctor
takes the same view of the purpose of the collec­tion which has already been
mentioned, and therefore urges that the use of a treasury or chest was employed
by them for this purpose. He then says:

"From this passage it is evident that the Corinthian brethren were in use to
assemble on the first day of the week for the pur­pose of worshiping God. And as
the apostle gave the same order to the Galatians, they likewise must have held
their relig­ious assemblies on the first day of the week." The only rational way
of accounting for this order is the thought which has been generally, almost
unanimously, adopted —that Paul selected the day on which the congregation met
for worship, and ordered that at these regular meetings they should thus
participate in the contribution. This will account for the same demand being
made of the Corinthians that was made of the congregations in Galatia.

If we were looking for the one great purpose of the meeting on every Lord’s Day,
it would be the same as that of the church at Troas—"the breaking of bread," or
the communion. That this may appear to us as it was, let us turn and read 1Co
11:20-30 :

“When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s
supper. For in eating everyone taketh before other his own supper: and one is
hungry, and another is drunken. What have ye not houses to eat and to drink in?
or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say
to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the
Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus, the same night
in which he was be­trayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it,
and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you this do in
remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had
supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as
ye drink it, in re­membrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall
eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him
eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drink­eth
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s
body." The evident meaning of this severe reproof is that they should meet
together for the purpose of partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but by their abuse
of this holy appointment they were not really partaking of the supper at all.
They had turned it into a kind of club dinner, or a Sunday feast, and had left
the spiritual im­port of the beautiful, solemn service. It reveals the fact,
how­ever, that they should meet together for the purpose of breaking bread. The
time of their meeting is found in the first part of the sixteenth chapter,
which, as we have seen when clearly translated, was on every first day of the
week.

Thus it is seen that, like the church at Troas, so the churches at Corinth and
the churches in Galatia met every first day of the week to break bread. Hence
these meetings furnished an op­portunity for Paul’s benevolent
enterprise—raising money for the needy.

VI. Our sixth and last argument is founded on Rev 1:10 : “I was in the Spirit on
the Lord’s Day." On this passage Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible (American
edi­tion) has this to say:

"It has been questioned, though not seriously till of late years, what is the
meaning of the Greek phrase, he kuriake hentera, which occurs in one passage
only of the Holy Scripture, Rev 1:10, and is in our English version translated
’the Lord’s Day.’ The general consent, both of Christian antiquity and of modern
divines, has referred it to the weekly festival of our Lord’s resurrection, and
identified it with the first day of the week, on which he rose, with the
patristical ’ eighth day,’ or ’day which is both the first and the eighth,’ in
fact with the ha tou haliou hemera, Solis Dies, or Sunday, of every age of the
church.

"But the views antagonistic to this general conduct deserve at least a passing
notice. (1) Some have supposed St. John to be speaking, in the passage above
referred to, of the Sabbath, because that institution is called in Isa 58:13, by
the Almighty himself, ’ My holy day.’ To this it is replied, if St John had
intended to specify the Sabbath he would surely have used that word, which was
by no means obsolete, or even obso­lescent, at the time of his composing the
book of the Revela­tions. And it is added that if an apostle had set the example
of confounding the seventh and first days of the week, it would have been
strange indeed that every ecclesiastical writer for the first five centuries
should have avoided any approach to any such confusion. They do avoid it, for as
Sabbaton is never used by them for the first day, so kuriake is never used by
them for the seventh day." The writer then proceeds to show that other
interpretations were equally unsound, and that it must have the meaning
gener­ally agreed upon, namely, that of the first day of the week. Next the
author shows us that all men have ever understood the Lord’s Day to refer to the
day of the resurrection, or first day of the week. I have given a number of the
quotations which are given here, but I will notice a few which I have not
noticed be­fore, that you may see just how the fathers understood these words. I
quote Mr. Smith’s use of them. See Vol. II; pages 1676-1680:

“The epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas, which though certainly not written by
that Apostle, was in existence in the early part of the second century, has (c.
15) the following words: ’ We cele­brate the eighth day with joy, on which too
Jesus rose from the dead." The author then quotes Dionysius, bishop of Corinth,
as using language quite as strong and clear as that which is put to the account
of Barnabas. Then he quotes from Melito, bishop of Sardis, who had written a
work on the Lord’s Day. He then says:

“The next writer who may be quoted is Ireneus, bishop of Lions, A. D. 178. He
asserts that the Sabbath is abolished; but his evidence to the existence of the
Lord’s Day is clear and distinct. It is spoken of in one of the best known of
his frag­ments. Victor, bishop of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Ter_ tullian,
Origen, Minucius Felix, Cyprian and his colleagues, Commodian, Victorinus,
Peter, bishop of Alexandria. He in­troduces them all as holding the same views
and as using the same phraseology respecting the first day of the week. They
call it Lord’s Day, first day, eighth day, resurrection day, Sunday, but they
never call it Sabbath.’ " The only reason why these men never speak of
Christians meeting for worship on the Sabbath day—except a few Juda­izers who
kept both days—is because they did not meet on that day.

After Christ rose from the dead and was made both Lord and the anointed One—Acts
2:36—the word Lord constantly refers to him. Before this it was used of the
Father, and afterward, when a quotation from the Old Testament was employed
contain­ing such use. But after it was known that all authority in heaven and
earth had been given into his hands ( Mat 28:18-19,) the apostles employed this
term wholly of Christ.

We have already seen that Christians used the “Lord’s Day" of the first day of
the week. We have not found, and cannot find, that they ever spoke of the
seventh day of the week by that phrase. No more could it refer to the Sabbath of
the Decalogue, than "The Lord’s Supper" of 1Co 11:20 could have meant the Jewish
Passover. As it meant the supper, or breaking of bread in honor of Jesus, so
this day was the day of victory through his resurrection from the dead. “The
Lord’s Day “of Rev 1:10 not only refers to the first day of the week, but the
use of it there shows that the phrase was familiar to all the saints at that
time. To have employed an obscure term would have defeated his purpose entirely.
No other day than this would have been regarded as worthy of such honorable
distinction. It was the day of the Lord’s victory over death; the day on which
he appeared to his disciples by many infallible proofs; the day of the Spirit’s
descent; the day of the announcement of his kingdom, and the beginning of his
church; the day on which remission of sins was first offered to the world in his
name; the day on which his law went forth from Zion and his word from Jerusalem;
the day on which, from the very first, his disciples met to break bread, in
memory of his dying love. No wonder John “was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day."
While he was in exile for his devotion to Jesus; while he was maltreated by the
great enemy of the race, who had put his Master to death, the return of this day
would fill his heart with the thoughts of certain victory. lie knew that the
disciple, were then everywhere remembering the Lord’s death, were praying for
his exile, and for the Master’s intervention in his behalf. The disciples soon
learned that the first day of the week, being the Lord’s Day, was not their day;
it was not a day for secular pursuits, or social mirth, but a day of holy joy in
the solemn service of the Savior of men. A word to the reader, and I have done.
Let no man judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the
new moon, or of the Sabbath. The cross of Christ is of none effect to you, if
you are justified by the law. But no flesh is justified by the law in the sight
of God. We have seen that the whole law, Sabbath and all, was done away in
Christ, and that we are now only under law to Christ. And we now lay down the
challenge of Elijah, changed to our present subject: If Christ is our lawgiver,
serve him; if Moses is our lawgiver, serve him. The mixing of the law and the
gospel has been the great weak­ness of the church. I exhort you, therefore, to
use your freedom in Christ Jesus; to stand fast, therefore, in the liberty of a
Chris­tian, and be not entangled in the yoke of bondage.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 35: 03.00.1.  RUM AND RUIN
========================================================================

RUM AND RUIN: THE REMEDY FOUND. D.R. DUNGAN CENTRAL BOOK CONCERN:

OSKALOOSA, IOWA. CINCINNATI, OHIO.

Copyright by D.R. DUNGAN,

1879 STEREOTYPED BY CAMPBELL & Co.

174 Elm Street, CINCINNATI, 0.

2012 electronic edition (edited, corrected, and reformatted) is copyright 2012,
Bradley Cobb


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 36: 03.00.2.     INTRODUCTION.
========================================================================

INTRODUCTION. My thanks are due the public for having kindly appreciated my
former work, entitled "Prohibition vs. License," four published sermons and two
series of articles on the subject of temperance. If this work shall be as well
received as my former one, I shall have no cause of complaint, for fifteen years
I have been preaching, lecturing, debating and writing on this question. The
work before you contains my best views of the issues of the hour. I have read
Arthur’s work, Richardson’s lectures, Carpenter’s prize essay, Pitman’s Alcohol
and the State, Dr. Lee’s work, etc., etc., and have, no doubt, presented many
thoughts that I have received from them. I have culled from many sources the
testimony that I furnish, and hereby acknowledge my indebtedness for the patient
research of others by which I have been aided in preparing the present volume.
THE AUTHOR.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 37: 03.00.3.     CONTENTS.
========================================================================

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

About This Edition

Alcohol: a Physical and Mental Evil, The Physical, Mental and Moral Evil Does
the Bible Sanction the Use of Alcohol? The Cost of Alcohol.

How Shall We Remove the Evil? The Right to Prohibit.

Local Option Can the Liquor Traffic Be Restrained By a Prohibitory Law?

How Can We Secure and Enforce the Law We Need?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 38: 03.00.4.     ABOUT THIS EDITION
========================================================================

About This Edition This 2012 electronic edition of Rum and Ruin: The Remedy
Found has been created to give the interested reader a fully-searchable, fully
re-formatted copy of this classic of Temperance Literature. The following
changes have been made to produce this high-quality and improved edition.

1. The entire book has been re-proofread, and all known spelling and grammar
errors (most of them likely typos in the original) have been corrected.

2. The font size and style have been changed in order to make it easier to read.

3. In one instance, an archaic word has a definition inserted in [brackets]
after it so that the reader understands what is being said.

4. The word "suasion" appears frequently in the original edition. Because this
word has been replaced in the common English vocabulary with the word
"persuasion" (which has the same meaning), it was deemed appropriate to update
the word in this text as well. Therefore, the word "suasion" does not appear in
this edition, but where it did exist, you will read "persuasion."

5. Quotations have been indented in order to help them stand out to the reader.
This 2012 electronic copy of Rum and Ruin: The Remedy Found by David Roberts
Dungan was edited, formatted, and created by Bradley S. Cobb. It is freely
downloadable at http://www.GravelHillchurchofChrist.com


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 39: 03.01.     ALCOHOL: A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL EVIL,
========================================================================

Alcohol: a Physical and Mental Evil,

ALL the interests of humanity are endangered by the use of alcohol. From this
evil there is no certain release, except in total abstinence. To prove these
statements, and to show some tan­gible means of escape, are my objects in
writing. I begin these examinations with its results on man’s body. That alcohol
is an enemy to man’s body is clearly seen in the bloated forms and blistered
faces, and the hot, poisoned breath of those who drink. Physical blemishes and
premature deaths sufficiently attest that it is a blighting curse on the
physical power of those who use it. And yet, scarcely a score of years ago,
physicians were pre­scribing alcohol for many purposes. It was good in almost
any disease, and indispensable as a tonic. A failing appetite or feebleness had
to be rem­edied with whisky or brandy or wine, according to the tastes of the
physician and the patient. Whether the one or the other of these was
recommended, alcohol was that which was sought after.

We insert here a table showing the percentage of alcohol in certain liquors,
taken from a work by the celebrated French chemist, Thenard:

Scotch whisky

54.32%

Rum

53.68%

Brandy

53.33%

Gin

51.60%

Madeira

22.27%

Sherry

19.17%

Claret

15.10%

Burgundy

14.57%

Sauterne

14.22%

Champagne

12.61%

Hock

12.08%

Cider, the strongest

9.87%

Burton ale

8.88%

Brown stout

6.80%

Cider, the weakest

5.21%

London porter

4.20%

London bitter beer

1.28%

Lager beer

6.70%

It would be easy to follow out the list of Amer­ican drinks, and give the per
cent of alcohol in each, but for the fact that there is no regular­ity in
American manufacture. Scotch whisky is given at 54.32 percent But American
man­ufacture, in its best showing, will not rise above 44 percent

These drinks were valued as tonics and helps in proportion to the alcohol they
were supposed to contain. The physiologist and the chemist have been at work to
discover the facts. This work they have performed with a patience and energy
that remove their decision from the plane of mere guess-work. Such experiments
as the following lead the way. Dr. Figg relates the following ex­periment:

"To each of two bulldogs, six months old, five ounces of cold roast mutton, cut
into squares, were given, the meat being pressed into the esophagus without
contact with the teeth. An elastic catheter was then passed into the stomach of
one of them, and one ounce and a quarter of proof spirit injected. After some
hours had elapsed, both animals were killed. In the case where the meat had been
administered by itself, it had disappeared; in the other, the pieces were as
angular as when swallowed."

Again he says:

"If a pound of raw beef, cut square, be immersed for twelve hours in a pint of
proof spirit, it will be found, when weighed again, to have lost four ounces
three drachms. If the surface be examined with a micro­scope, it will be found
covered with pointed tufts of a coffee-brown color, and the whole structure
consider­ably condensed. This loss of substance, and this con­densation of
tissue, are attributable to the removal of water, and the brown deposit to the
caustic influence of the alcohol on the albuminous element of the beef." In a
given time the British troops in India have furnished a test. They were arranged
in three classes: Abstinent, temperate, and intemperate. Their mortalities were
as follows: Abstinent, eleven deaths for every one thousand; temper­ate, or
moderate drinkers, twenty-three to the thousand; intemperate, or those who would
get drunk, forty-four to the thousand. The next witness will be nearer home—the
late Samuel Miller, D.D., of Princeton, New Jersey. For sixteen years he had
followed the advice of his physicians, in drinking one or two glasses of sour
wine daily. "During all this time," he says, "my health was delicate. More than
six years ago, when approaching my sixtieth year, I broke off at once. The
experiment had not pro­ceeded more than a month before I became sat­isfied that
my abstinence was very strikingly beneficial. My appetite was more uniform, my
digestion improved, my strength increased, my sleep more comfortable, and all my
mental exercises more clear, pleasant; and successful."

Dr. Macnish, in his Anatomy of Drunkenness, relates the following experiment
made by Dr. Hunter upon two of his children of about the same age, both of them
having been previously unaccustomed to wine. To one he gave every day a full
glass of sherry; to the other he gave an orange. In the course of a week a very
marked difference was perceptible in the pulse, urine and evacuations from the
bowels of the two children. The pulse of the first child was raised, the urine
high colored, and the evacuations destitute of their usual quantity of bile. In
the other child no change whatever was produced. He then reversed the
experiment, giving to the first the orange, and to the second the wine, and the
results corresponded; the child who had the orange continued well, and the
system of the other got straightway into dis­order, as in the first experiment.

Prize fighters themselves, however intemperate some of them may habitually be,
when they pre­pare for a match and go into training, practice total abstinence.
A gentleman once said to Tom Sayers, the champion of England, "Well, Tom, of
course in training you must take a great deal of nourishment, such as beefsteak,
Barclay’s stout, or pale ale?" "I’ll tell you what it is, sir," an­swered
Sayers, "I’m no teetotaler, and in my time have drunk a great deal more than is
good for me; but when I’ve any business to do, there’s nothing like water and
the dumb-bells."

Such facts as these, being observed everywhere, have led to the most untiring
research after truth respecting the result of alcohol on the human system.

Professor Liebig was the first to discover the power of alcohol to displace the
natural and healthy water-constituent of all animal tissues. When these are
dipped into alcohol, more than one-half of the water is displaced. In the
bladder, for one volume of alcohol retained by it, three volumes of water have
been displaced.

It is an error to suppose that, after a good din­ner, a glass of spirits or beer
assists digestion, or that any liquor containing alcohol, or even bitter beer,
can in any way assist digestion. Mix some bread and meat with gastric juice,
place them in a phial, and keep the phial in a sand-bath at the slow heat of 98
degrees—which is the heat of the stomach—occasionally shaking briskly the
con­tents to imitate the motion of the stomach; you will find after six or eight
hours the whole con­tents blended in a mass as for a poultice. If to another
phial of food and gastric juice, treated in the same way, you add a glass of
pale ale or a quantity of alcohol, at the end of seven or eight hours, or even
some days, the food is scarcely acted upon at all. The explanation of this is
that alcohol has the peculiar power of chemically affect­ing or decomposing the
gastric juice by precip­itating one of its principal constituents, pepsine,
rendering its solvent properties much less effi­cacious. Hence, alcohol cannot
be considered either as a food or a solvent for food, for it refuses to act with
the gastric juice.

It is a remarkable fact, says Dr. Dundas Thomp­son, that alcohol, when added to
the digestive fluid, produces a white precipitate, so that the fluid is no
longer capable of digesting animal or vegetable matter. The use of alcoholic
stimu­lants, say Drs. Todd and Bowman, retards digestion by coagulating the
pepsine, an essential element of the gastric juice, and thereby interfering with
its action. Were it not that wine and spirits are rapidly absorbed, the
introduction of these into the stomach, in any quantity, would be a com­plete
bar to the digestion of food, as the pepsine would be precipitated from the
solution as quickly as it was formed by the stomach.

Some years ago, the Directors of the Scottish Temperance League, anxious to have
a work of high authority on the Medical View of the Temper­ance Question,
applied to Professor Miller, of the University of Edinburgh and Surgeon to the
Queen, to prepare a treatise on the subject. The learned Professor cordially
complied with their re­quest, and presented his manuscript as a gift to the
League, by which it was published. In 1873 the work had already gone through
nineteen editions in Scotland.

Some time before, a prize of one hundred guineas (about $500) had been awarded
to Pro­fessor Carpenter of the University of London, for his work on the Use and
Abuse of Alcoholic Liquors, as the best out of fifteen competing works on the
same subject. The award was made by a com­mittee of three of the most eminent
physicians of the day—they were Dr. Roupell, Physician to St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital, London; Dr. Guy, Professor of Forensic Medicine, King’s College,
London; and Dr. John Forbes, himself the author of a valuable little medical
treatise on intemper­ance, and Physician to the Queen’s Household, to Prince
Albert, and the Duke of Cambridge. In reading the work of Dr. W.B. Carpenter, it
should be remembered that he completed his work in 1849, now about thirty years
ago, and although the Professor was then far in advance of public practice
respecting the use of alcohol, yet his decisions are not as clear as those of
Drs. Rich­ardson and Condie, and the great majority of our more recent authors.
Dr. Carpenter recommended the use of alcohol as a medicine when properly
guarded, while most others discourage it; and many excellent physiologists and
chemists have declared that it is never received into the stomach either of a
sick man, or a well man, but with in­jurious results. It should be borne in
mind, too, that when Dr. Carpenter wrote his essay the poisoned liquors of today
were unknown. There­fore, when I quote the Doctor, I feel that I am quoting from
an authority to which no liquor man can object. In the author’s preface he tells
us to what con­clusions his investigations led him:

"In the first place—That from a scientific examin­ation of the modus operandi of
alcohol upon the human body, when taken in a poisonous dose, or to such an
ex­tent as to produce intoxication, we may fairly draw in­ferences with regard
to the specific effects which it is likely to produce, when repeatedly taken in
excess, but not to an immediately fatal amount.

Secondly—That the consequences of the excessive use of alcoholic liquors, as
proved by the experience of the medical profession, and universally admitted by
medical writers, being precisely such as the study of its effects in poisonous
and immediately-fatal doses would lead us to anticipate, we are further
justified in expect­ing that the habitual use of smaller quantities of these
liquors, if sufficiently prolonged, will ultimately be at­tended, in a large
proportion of cases, with conse­quences prejudicial to the human system—the
morbid actions thus engendered being likely rather to be chronic, than acute, in
their character.

Thirdly—That as such morbid actions are actually found to be among the most
common disorders of per­sons advanced in life, who have been in the habit of
taking ’a moderate’ allowance of alcoholic liquors, there is very strong ground
for regarding them as in a great degree dependent upon the asserted cause;
although the long postponement of their effects may render it impossible to
demonstrate the existence of such a connection.

Fourthly—That the preceding conclusion is fully borne out by the proved results
of the ’moderate’ use of alcoholic liquors, in producing a marked liability to
the acute forms of similar diseases in hot climates, where their action is
accelerated by other conditions; and also by the analogous facts now universally
admitted in re­gard to the remotely-injurious effects of slight excess in diet,
imperfect aeration of blood, insufficient repose, and other like violations of
the laws of health when habitually practiced through a long period of time.

Fifthly—That the capacity of the healthy human system to sustain as much bodily
or mental labor as it can be legitimately called upon to perform, and its power
of resisting the extremes of heat and cold, as well as other depressing
agencies, are not augmented by the use of alcoholic liquors; but that on the
other hand, their use, under such circumstances, tends positively to the
impairment of that capacity.

Sixthly—That where there is a deficiency of power on the part of the system to
carry on its normal actions with the energy and regularity, which constitute
health, such power can rarely be imparted by the habitual use of alcoholic
liquors; its deficiency being generally consequent upon some habitual departure
from the laws of health, for which the use of alcoholic liquors cannot
compensate; and the employment of such liquors, al­though with the temporary
effect of palliating the dis­order, having not merely a remotely-injurious
effect per se, but also tending to mask the action of other morbific causes, by
rendering the system more tolerant of them.

Seventhly—That, consequently, it is the duty of the medical practitioner to
discourage, as much as pos­sible, the habitual use of alcoholic liquors in
however ’moderate’ a quantity, by all persons in ordinary health, and to seek to
remedy those slight departures from health, which result from the ’wear and,
tear’ of active life, by the means which shall most directly remove or
antagonize their causes, instead of by such as simply palliate their effects.

Eighthly—That whilst the habitual use of alcoholic liquors, even in the most
moderate amount, is likely (except in a few rare instances) to be rather
injurious than beneficial, great benefit may be derived in the treatment of
disease from the medicinal use of alcohol in appropriate cases; but that the
same care should be employed in the discriminating selection of those cases as
would be taken by the conscientious practitioner in regard to the administration
of any other powerful remedy which is poisonous in large doses."

Now, if I understand the Professor’s conclu­sions, they are—

Because alcohol will produce Intoxication when taken in large doses, its effects
on the system will be injurious if taken repeatedly to excess.

The habitual, or beverage use of alcohol, though in smaller quantities, will be
pre­judicial to the system.

That the unhealthy conditions of persons having been in the habit of using
alcohol as a beverage, may be legitimately charged up to such habit.

The habitual use of alcohol will produce a marked liability to acute forms of
diseases.

That the power to endure fatigue, perform mental labor, or resist heat or cold,
is not augmented, but impaired, by the use of alcohol as a beverage.

In cases of debility, or want of strength, alcohol cannot be used with any
lasting results for good.

Consequently, it is the duty of the medical practitioner to discour­age the
habitual use of alcohol even in small quantities.

Alcohol may be used as a medi­cine, but should be prescribed by a competent and
conscientious physician.

It is very certain, from all this, that in the mind of Dr. Carpenter, alcohol is
not a food, and cannot be used as a beverage, except in very rare cases, without
evil results; and, while it may be used as a medicine, it must be managed with
great skill and caution.

Certain it is, if alcohol is a medicine, it is not a food. And it is just as
certain that no man ought ever to take so powerful a medicine except upon the
prescription of a physician,

who knows the exact condition of the patient;

who knows just what medicine the patient needs;

how much;

how often;

under what treat­ment the patient should be during the action of such remedy;

and who is thoroughly consci­entious, so that he would not make a prescription
just to please the patient.

It is clear, then, that no man should use alcohol as a beverage, nor should he
ever prescribe it for himself, nor for anyone else, unless he is a practicing
physician. It should be remembered, too, that the scientific decisions that
prove it to be unwise and unsafe to use alcohol as a food or a beverage not only
rule out the brandies, whiskies, and gin, but wine, ale, porter, beer, sherry,
champagne, cider, etc.; for these are mainly sought for the alcohol which they
contain. In the conclusion of his preface, Dr. Carpenter shows that the
scientific hosts were adopting his views; that "upward of two-thousand of whom,
in all grades and degrees—from the court physi­cians and leading metropolitan
surgeons, who are conversant with the wants of the upper ranks of society to the
humble country practitioner, who is familiar with the requirements of the
arti­san in his workshop and the laborer in the field—have signed the following
certificate We, the undersigned, are of the opinion:

1. That a very large proportion of human misery, including poverty, disease, and
crime, is induced by the use of alcoholic or fermented liquors as beverages.

2. That the most perfect health is compatible with total abstinence from all
such intoxicating beverages, whether in the form of ardent spirits, or as wine,
beer, ale, porter, cider, etc., etc.

3. That persons accustomed to such drinks may with perfect safety, discontinue
them entirely, either at once, or gradually, after a short time.

4. That total and universal abstinence from alcoholic beverages of all sorts
would greatly contribute to the health, the prosperity, the morality, and the
happi­ness of the human race."

Ninety-six physicians of Montreal, Canada, twenty-four of whom were professors
and demon­strators in medical schools, in February, 1873, signed the following
paper:

"Total abstinence from intoxicating liquors, whether fermented or distilled, is
consistent with, and conducive to, the highest degree of physical and mental
health and vigor." The National Medical Association of the United States, at
their Convention in Detroit, June, 1874, which was attended by more than four
hundred physicians, resolved:

"That in view of the alarming prevalence and ill-effects of intemperance, with
which none are so familiar as members of the medical profession, and which have
called forth from English physicians the voice of warn­ing to the people of
Great Britain concerning the use of alcoholic beverages, we, as members of the
medical profession of the United States, unite in the declaration that we
believe that alcohol should be classed with other powerful drugs; that when
prescribed medicinally, it should be done with conscientious caution, and a
sense of great responsibility.

"That we would welcome any change in public senti­ment that would confine the
use of intoxicating liquors to the uses of science, art, and medicine." The
substance of this has been adopted by one hundred and twenty-four physicians in
New York City and vicinity. Among them are such men as Dr. Willard Parker,
Alonzo Clark, Prof. E.R. Peaslee, Prof. Alford C. Post, Dr. Edward Dela­field;
John M. Cuyler, Medical Director in the United States Army; Stephen Smith,
President, and Elisha Harris, Secretary of the American Health Association.

Dr. Benjamin W. Richardson, in his "Cantor Lectures," says of alcohol that it
"is neither food nor drink suitable for his (man’s) natural de­mands." Its
application as an agent that shall enter the living organization is properly
limited by the learning and skill possessed by the physi­cian—a learning that in
itself admits of being re­cast and revised in many important details, and,
perhaps, in principles. In a still more recent work, "The Diseases of Modern
Life," he says of the physician that he "can find no place for alcohol as a
necessity of life.... In whatever direction he turns his attention to determine
the value of alcohol to man beyond the sphere of its value as a drug, which he
at times may prescribe, he sees nothing but a void; in whatever way he turns his
atten­tion to determine the persistent effects of alcohol, he sees nothing but
disease and death; mental dis­ease, mental death; physical disease, physical
death." (Pp. 209, 210.) From the report of the International Medical Congress,
held in Philadelphia, September, 1876, on the paper read by Dr. Hunt, on
"Alcohol in its therapeutic relations as a food and a medicine," I quote the
following:

"First—Alcohol is not shown to have a definite food-value by any of the usual
methods of chemical analysis or physiological investigation.

"Second—Its use as a medicine is chiefly as a car­diac stimulant, and often
admits of substitution.

"Third—As a medicine it is not well fitted for self-prescription by the laity,
and the medical profession is not accountable for such administration or for the
enor­mous evils resulting therefrom.

"Fourth—The purity of alcoholic liquors is, in gen­eral, not as well assured as
that of articles used for medicine should be. The various mixtures, when used as
a medicine, should have a definite and known compo­sition, and should not be
interchanged promiscuously."

Dr. Cartwright, of New Orleans, in 1853, thus writes to the Boston Medical
Journal:

"The yellow fever came down like a storm upon this devoted city, with 1,127
dram-shops, in one of the four parts into which it has been divided. It is not
the citi­zen proper, but the foreigners, with mistaken notions about the climate
and country, who are the chief sup­porters of these haunts of intemperance.
About five thousand of them died before the epidemic touched a single citizen or
a sober man, so far as I can get at the facts."

Thus it is evident that when a man uses alcohol as a beverage he does so in the
face of the scientific world. And even in its use as a medi­cine it probably
kills ten to where it ever cures one. In the yellow fever of 1878 it was
employed as a medicine (so far as reported) to the loss of every case. Let the
laity then, at least, keep their hands from this accursed poison.

Those who would have it appear that alcohol is a profitable stimulant make a
free use of the name of Dr. Periera, and yet he stated, in answer to a question
addressed to him concerning this very point, that "in my Materia Medica I have
char­acterized alcohol as a powerful, subtle, and corro­sive poison. If I had to
point out," he adds, "the injurious qualities of alcohol, I could soon prove
that, though it evolves heat in burning, it is an obnoxious and most expensive
fuel."

Dr. Lionel S. Beale, M.D., F.R.S., Physician to King’s College Hospital, says:
"Alcohol does not act as food, does not nourish tissue; nay, more," he adds, "it
cuts short the life of rapidly growing cells, or causes them to live more
slowly."

Dr. Markham, in the British Medical Journal, 1864, summed up the question as
follows:

"The chemical theories upon which the extensive use of alcohol has been based,
in disease and health, have at length been found untenable. Alcohol is not a
supporter of combustion. It does not pre­vent the wear and tear of tissues. Part
and prob­ably the whole of it escapes from the body, and none of it, so far as
we know, is assimilated or serves for the purpose of nutrition. It is,
there­fore, not a food in the eye of science."

Even Prof. Von Moleschott says:

"Alcohol does not effect and direct restitution. It does not de­serve the name
of an alimentary principle."

Dr. T.K. Chambers, in his "Clinical Lectures," says:

"It is clear that we must cease to regard alcohol as in any sense an aliment,
inasmuch as it goes out as it went in, and does not, as far as we know, leave
any of its substance behind it." The eminent French chemists, Lallemand, Perrin
and Duroy, in October, 1860, declared that "facts establish, from a
physiological point of view, a line of demarcation between alcohol and food."

Dr. Monroe, in a treatise upon the "Physiolog­ical effects of Alcohol," says:
"Every writer upon toxicology has classified alcohol as a narcotic or a
narcotico-acrid poison. For proof, I refer you to the works of Prof. Orfila, Dr.
Pereira, Prof. Christison, Dr. Taylor, and other eminent authorities. "Alcohol,"
he goes on to say, "is a power­ful narcotic poison, and if a large dose be taken
no antidote is known to its effect." He then goes on to prove that by its action
upon the saliva, the gastric juice, the chyme, the albumen, the pepsin, and the
blood, alcohol is always a "rank and deadly poison."

Dr. T.K. Chambers, physician to the Prince of Wales, says: "It is clear that we
must cease to regard alcohol as in any sense a food."

Dr. Markham says, in summing up certain lengthy and able discussions in the
British med­ical journals upon the question, "Is alcohol food or physic?" "we
are bound in conscience to boldly declare the logical and inevitable conclusion
that alcohol is not food; that if its imbibition be of service, it is so only to
man in an abnormal condition, and that ordinary social indulgence in alcoholic
drinks is, medically speaking, very un­physiological and prejudicial."

Prof. E.L. Youmans, in his essay entitled "Alcohol and the Constitution of Man,"
says:

"There is but one word in our language which describes the relation of alcohol
to the human system, and that word is poison." And near the close of his article
he declares that "there is no escape from the conclusion that alcohol, in
what­ever form or quantity, is a poison in all the common cases of its
employment."

Nearly all our modern physiologists tell us that alcohol cannot assist in the
digestion of food, neither can it be digested. Hence, at least as a food or a
beverage, it must always be not only useless but injurious. To show its power
over the body and mind of man, I will make one quotation from John B. Gough:

"For three days I endured more agony than pen could describe, even were it
guided by the hand of a Dante. Who can tell the horrors of that horrible
mal­ady, aggravated as it is by the almost ever-abiding con­sciousness that it
is self-sought? Hideous faces ap­peared on the walls and on the floors; foul
things crept along the bed-clothes, and glaring eyes peered into mine. I was at
one time surrounded by millions of monstrous spiders, which crawled slowly over
every limb; whilst beaded drops of perspiration would start to my brow, and my
limbs would shiver until the bed rat­tled again. Strange lights would dance
before my eyes, and then suddenly the very blackness of darkness would appall me
by its dense gloom. All at once, whilst gazing at a frightful creation of my
distempered mind, I seemed struck with sudden blindness. I knew a candle was
burning in the room, but I could not see it. All was so pitchy dark. I lost the
sense of feeling, too, for I en­deavored to grasp my arm in one hand, but
conscious­ness was gone. I put my hand to my side, my head, but felt nothing,
and still I knew my limbs and frame were there. And then the scene would change.
I was falling—falling swiftly as an arrow far down into some terrible abyss; and
so like reality was it, that as I fell, I could see the rocky sides of the
horrible shaft, where mocking, gibing, mowing, fiend-like forms were perched;
and I could feel the air rushing past me, making my hair stream out by the force
of the unwholesome blast. Then the paroxysm sometimes ceased for a few moments,
and I would sink back on my pallet drenched by perspira­tion, utterly exhausted,
and feeling a dreadful certainty of the renewal of my torments."

It is very common for the defenders of alcohol to say that all this is the abuse
rather than the use of alcohol. Be it so; but what cannot be used by such a man
as Gough without the abuse is not a thing to recommend for men in general, nor
is it safe to be used by them. Many a young man is heard to boast of his
self-control and conse­quent safety from the possibilities of drunkenness. He
says: "I can take a drink or I can let it alone."

Charles Lamb, in his "Confessions of a Drunk­ard," says:

"Is there no middle way betwixt total abstinence and the excess which kills you?
For your sake, gentle reader, and that you may never attain to my experience,
with pain I must utter the dreadful truth that there is none—none that I can
find."

There may be a time in life when this can be done. But if anyone continues to
drink intox­icants regularly, that time will pass away. There are two reasons
why this is so.

The power of habit. This is greater than most persons seem to realize. Let any
practice be con­tinued for a number of years, if it amounts to no more than the
silly habit of chewing gum, and strong resolution will be necessary to break
away from it. The mind as readily falls into ruts as the wheels of the carriage;
and will as certainly re­main in them unless lifted out by some extraor­dinary
means; and even then there will be a strong tendency to slue back into former
manners. The young man who says he can drink or refuse to drink, at pleasure,
has not considered the power of habit, by which a man may be controlled dur­ing
his whole life for good or evil.

Alcoholism. Many do not know, nor care to know, anything of this dreadful
disease. It is not the result alone of intoxication, but even the mod­erate use
of alcohol will gradually bring about that condition of the system.

Dr. Hutcheson, in the "Report of the Glasgow Lunatic Asylum," for 1844, writes
from close ob­servation respecting oinomania or wine mania, or an uncontrollable
thirst for intoxicating drinks. (See pp. 39-44 of the Report.) He says, "The
disease appears in three forms—the acute, the periodic, and the chronic." Of the
periodic form he says

"In some cases it occurs whenever the individual par­takes of stimulants. In
these, total abstinence is the only remedy. Like the form about to be mentioned,
it is frequently hereditary, derived from a parent disposed to insanity or
addicted to intemperance. In such cases the probability of cure is very small.
The individual thus affected abstains for weeks or months from all stim­ulants,
and frequently loathes them for the same period. But by degrees he becomes
uneasy, listless and de­pressed, feels incapable of application or restless, and
at last begins to drink till he is intoxicated. He awakes from a restless sleep,
seeks again a repetition of the in­toxicating dose, and continues the same
course for a week or longer."

Under the third form of this disease our author says:

"Of all the forms of oinomania the most common is the chronic. The causes of
this are injuries of the head, diseases of the heart, hereditary predisposition,
and in­temperance. This is by far the most incurable form of the malady. The
patient is incessantly under the most overwhelming desire for stimulants. He
will disregard every impediment, sacrifice comfort and reputation, withstand the
claims of affection, consign his family to misery and disgrace, and deny himself
the common necessaries of life to gratify his insane propensity. In the morning
morose and fretful, disgusted with himself, and dissatisfied with all around
him, weak and tremu­lous, incapable of any exertion either of mind or body, his
first feeling is a desire for stimulants, with every fresh dose of which he
recovers a certain degree of vigor, both of body and mind, till he feels
compar­atively comfortable.... And, unless absolutely secluded from all means of
gratifying his propensity, the patient continues the same course till he dies,
or becomes an imbecile." As alcohol is not digestible, it acts immediately upon
the blood, and through it influences the entire system, until the lungs, liver,
kidneys, nerves, brain, stomach, etc., etc., are diseased by this acrid poison.
He is an unwise person who will tamper with it. A man may thus become diseased
very gradually, and hardly realize his con­dition till all hope of his salvation
is gone. But few men ever come to know themselves as con­firmed drunkards.
Everyone else will know it first. He thinks that he has been a little unsteady
at times, and very sick at others, while the people have said: " He gets as
drunk as a brute at least once a week, and frequently has touches of de­lirium
tremens."

If there is any such thing as the use of alcohol as a beverage without its
abuse, it is safe to say that very few men ever attain to it. Of all the men who
have used it even "moderately," ninety-nine out of every one hundred have been
injured by it. Hence there remains no reason why it should be tolerated, seeing
that it is an evil and not a blessing. Or, if there are benefits to be derived
by its use, its evils counterbalance them a hundred times. It is idle to talk of
the "use and not the abuse," when it is clear that the wisest and most
determined men are unable to so control them­selves while using it. We cannot
judge of it by some imaginary use which we suppose might be made of it, but in
the light of the real facts in its history it is to be condemned. THE USE OF
ALCOHOL INDUCES INSANITY.

Dr. Hutcheson makes the following tabular re­port of the Asylum in Glasgow:

Year

Total No. of Patients

Cases Where the Disease was Hereditary, etc.

Cases Where the Cause was Unknown

Cases Where Intemperance was the Cause

Proportion Percentage of Intemperance to Other Causes

1840

149

3

34

20

13.4

1841

157

20

44

30

19.1

1842

199

54

20

46

23.1

1843

327

116

38

31

9.42

1844

390

77

41

53

18.2

1845

360

47

38

90

24.7

1846

414

49

62

105

25.3

Total

1900

366

277

375

19.73

In 1843 a large number of patients were intro­duced from Arran of whom no report
was made respecting the origin of their lunacy. These were either put into the
list of those coming from hereditary descent or the unknown. No doubt many of
these were from intemperance. Also those all the time marked unknown contain a
large percent who have lost the balance of mind be­cause of the use of alcohol.
I think, therefore, that it is not unreasonable to suppose that one-third of the
inmates of that institution had been thus lost to the world and themselves
either because of their own intemperance or that of their parents. An accurate
report from our American Asy­lums would exhibit the work of rum in a
fright­fully large number of cases. Not only insanity, but mental debility and
idiocy, are the result of the influence of alcohol. Dr. Car­penter, in his work
or. "Alcoholic Liquors," pp. 48, 49, thus writes of "Mental Debility in the
Offspring:"

"It is scarcely necessary to accumulate further proof in support of the
assertion, that of all the single cases of insanity, habitual intemperance is
the most potent, and that it aggravates the operation of other causes. We have
now to show that it has a special tendency to produce idiocy, insanity, or
mental debility, in the offspring. Looking to the decided tendency to hereditary
predisposition in the ordinary forms of insanity; look­ing also to the fact that
perverted or imperfect condi­tions of the nutritive functions established in the
parent are also liable to manifest themselves in the offspring (as shown in the
transmission of the gouty and tuber­cular diatheses), we should expect to find
that the offspring of habitual drunkards would share with those of lunatics in
the predisposition to insanity, and that they would, moreover, be especially
prone to intemperate habits. That such is the case is within the knowledge of
all who have enjoyed extensive opportunities of ob­servation; and the fact has
come down to us sanctioned by the experience of antiquity. Thus Plutarch says:
’One drunkard begets another;’ and Aristotle remarks that, ’Drunken women bring
forth children like unto themselves.’"

Dr. W.A.F. Browne, the resident physician of the Crichton Lunatic Asylum, at
Dumfries, makes the following statements:

"The drunkard not only injures and enfeebles his own nervous system, but entails
mental disease upon his family. His daughters are nervous and hysterical; his
sons are weak, wayward, eccentric, and sink insane under the pressure of
excitement, of some unforeseen exigency, or of the ordinary calls of duty. At
present I have two patients who appear to inherit a tendency to unhealthy action
of the brain from mothers addicted to drinking; and another, an idiot, whose
father was a drunkard." The author has learned from Dr. Hutcheson that the
results of his observations are precisely in accordance with the foregoing. On
this point, however, the most striking fact that the writer has met with is
contained in the "Report on Idiocy," lately made by Dr. Howe to the Legislature
of Massachusetts:

"The habits of the parents of three hundred of the idiots were learned; and one
hundred and forty-five, or nearly one-half, are reported as ’known to be
habitual drunkards.’ Such parents, it is affirmed, give a weak and lax
constitution to their children; who are, conse­quently, deficient in bodily and
vital energy, and pre­disposed, by their very organization, to have cravings for
alcoholic stimulants. Many of these children are feeble and live irregularly.
Having a lower vitality, they feel the want of some stimulation. If they pursue
the course of their fathers, which they have more temp­tation to follow, and
less power to avoid, than the chil­dren of the temperate, they add to their
hereditary weakness, and increase the tendency to idiocy in their constitution;
and this they leave to their children after them. The parents of case No. 62
were drunkards, and had seven idiotic children."

See, also, American Journal of Medical Sciences, April, 1849, page 437


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 40: 03.02.     THE PHYSICAL, MENTAL AND MORAL EVIL
========================================================================

The Physical, Mental and Moral Evil As seen in the preceding chapter, alcohol,
taken in any way, does not impart vitality to the system, but really depletes
it. Men cannot endure as much fatigue, neither can they resist the heat or the
cold as well, if they use alcohol, as they can if they do not use it. A very
common error is that alcohol will assist in withstanding extreme cold. The
Russian army furnishes positive proof to the contrary.

Also, it has been shown that the use of alcohol paves the way for any contagion
to take hold and perform its work of death. Cholera, yellow fever, or any
infectious disease whatever, marks the whisky and beer drinkers as a particular
prey. They are the first attacked, and are most easily slain. Of the great
number who have frozen to death on our frontiers, three-fourths, if not more,
have been partially under the influence of alcohol. I speak of this from
personal observation, having been on the frontier for twenty-six years. They are
more easily bewildered, less competent to endure fatigue, less able to resist
the cold, and on many other accounts are their dangers in­creased by the use of
intoxicating drinks. It has been noticed, too, that the cases of sun-stroke
follow the line of beer-drinkers very closely. But few men who are really
temperate are ever seri­ously injured in this way.

Life insurance has sufficiently proven that the use of alcohol as a beverage
shortens life and greatly increases the death-rate among men. I will again quote
from Dr. Carpenter’s work on "Alcohol" (pp. 71, 72), on the "General Effect of
the Excessive Use of Alcoholic Liquors on the Duration of Life:"

"69. We shall close this part of the inquiry by ex­amining into the general
tendency of the excessive use of alcoholic liquors to shorten life; either by
themselves giving rise to the diseases above enumerated, or by in­creasing the
susceptibility of the system to other mor­bific causes. That such a tendency
exists cannot for a moment be questioned. No life insurance office will accept
an insurance on an individual whose habits are known to be intemperate; and if
it be discovered after his death that he has been accustomed to the excessive
use of alcoholic liquors, contrary to his statement in his proposal for
insurance, the policy is declared void. And it is doubtless owing in part to the
superior sobriety of the great bulk of insurers over that of the average of the
population, that a lower rate of mortality presents itself among them than that
which might be expected accord­ing to the calculations founded on the entire
mortality of the country, to the great profit of the office. Thus, at the age of
40 years, the annual rate of mortality among the whole population of England is
about 13 per 1,000; whilst among the lives insured in the Life Offices it is
about 11 per 1,000; and in those insured in the Friendly Societies it is about
10 per 1,000. Now, the average mortality for all ages, between 15 and 70 years,
is about 20 per 1,000; whereas in the Temperance Provi­dent Institution, after
an experience of eight years, and with several lives above 70 years of age, the
average mortality has been only 6 per 1,000 up to the present season, in which
it has undergone a slight increase from the cholera epidemic. It is worthy of
remark, however, that although many of the insurers in this office are of the
poorer class, whose condition and employment ex­pose them much more than the
middling classes gener­ally to the epidemic causes of cholera, no more than 8
have died of this disease out of the total of about 3,500 insurers. As a means
of further comparison the following table may be subjoined, in which the
mortality of the insurers in the Temperance Provident Institution for the first
five years is compared with that of the insurers in other offices during the
corresponding period of their existence:

Company

Life Policies Issued

Deaths

Percentage

A

944

14

15%

B

1901

27

14%

C

838

11

13%

D

2470

65

26%

TPI

1596

12

7.5%

Here it is seen that the total abstainers in the T.P. I. (Temperance Provident
Institution) suf­fered less than half the mortality of the other companies—which
permitted what they denominated a moderate use of alcoholic liquors.

E. Vivian, M.A., read a paper before the British Association for the Advancement
of Science, at its annual meeting in 1875, from which I get the fol­lowing facts
respecting the mortality of total ab­stainers as compared with the death-rate of
the people generally:

"RATE OF MORTALITY DURING THE LAST NINE YEARS, ENDING 30TH DECEMBER, 1874. In
the Total Abstinence section:

Expected deaths549 Actual deaths411 ______________________________ Difference
138 Or 25 percent below the average." But someone will be ready to urge that we
are only comparing total abstinence with drunkenness, or the excessive use of
alcohol. It should be re­membered, however, that this is not true, for we have
given the difference between total abstinence and what the insurance companies
permit, and they do not allow it used to "excess," or to drunkenness.

Sir H. Thompson, a practitioner of very wide reputation, writes thus to the
Archbishop of Canterbury:

"I have long had the conviction that there is no greater cause of evil, moral or
physical, in the country, than the use of alcoholic beverages. I do not mean by
this that extreme indulgence which produces drunk­enness. The habitual use of
fermented liquors to an extent far short of what is necessary to produce that
condition, and such as is quite common in all ranks of society, injures the body
and diminishes the mental strength to an extent which, I think, few people are
aware of. Such, at all events, is the result of observation during more than
twenty years of professional life, devoted to hospital practice and to private
practice in every rank above it. Thus I have no hesitation in attributing a
large proportion of some of the most painful and dangerous maladies which come
under my notice, as well as those which every medical man has to treat, to the
ordinary and daily use of fermented drink taken in the quantity which is
conventionally deemed mod­erate."

We could quote at any length from the best scientific and medical authorities in
Europe and America, to show that alcohol, taken in any quan­tity, is an enemy to
the human system; that only in a few extreme cases of disease can it be
profitably used as a medicine; that even then there is danger of laying the
foundation of a worse malady than is likely to be cured by the remedy; that in
most cases it can be supplanted by other remedies that are not attended with its
evils, and that while it may possibly save a few lives, it is certain that it
destroys a thousand for every one it even tem­porarily heals.

We have seen, too, that one of the legitimate results of the habitual use of
alcoholic liquors is the mental derangement, not only of the drinker, but the
children, to the third and fourth gener­ation. Much of the insanity and idiocy
of our land are from this parent of evils. That it shortens the lives of those
who use it admits of no doubt. That even its moderate use increases the
death-rate is proven beyond dispute. Our life-lease is worth very much more
without it than with it. But look again at the host of those who are killed
outright by the use of intoxicating drinks. Many also die from disease, or
predisposition to sickness so remotely traceable to the use of alco­holic
liquors that it would be difficult to prove that such habit caused their death,
and yet very certainly attributable to that cause. The fighting, stabbing,
shooting, by which not only the drinkers, but many sober and useful men are
killed, are largely owing to the use of intoxicating drinks. Take a Chicago
daily and cut out all the deaths, murders, etc., justly chargeable to rum, and
you will find your paper badly injured. Then remem­ber that the work is being
prosecuted in all our large towns and in most of our villages through­out nearly
the whole country, and you will begin to form some idea of the work of death
wrought by the rum fiend in this beautiful land of ours. Deaths by murders,
deaths by disease, deaths by accidents, etc., etc., occasioned by intoxicating
liquors, in the United States of America, have been variously estimated at from
60,000 to 120,000 annually. I presume to say that we are safe in adopting the
first figures. A true account would be more likely to overrun than fall short of
that number. In view of these incontestable facts, we are sur­prised at the
indifference of the American people on this subject. But I am told that the
great mortality occasioned by the use of these liquors in this country is
largely due to the fact that they are poisoned. Perhaps it is true that, at the
present time, ALL LIQUORS ARE POISONED. But it should be remembered that the
medical decisions that we have quoted have been made respecting alcohol, and the
supposition has been that these liquors were what they claimed to be. Hence
these liquors are poisonous to the physical system. But now that they are
universally drugged, they are doubly so. Some five years ago, in Lin­coln,
Nebraska, the temperance men obtained twelve samples of liquors in that city and
sub­mitted them to Prof. Aughey, of the State Uni­versity, for an analysis. Here
is his report:

"LINCOLN, NEB., April 25, 1874. REPORT TO THE LINCOLN CITY TEMPERANCE SOCIETY.

"In accordance with your request, I have made a careful analysis of the liquors
brought me two weeks ago. The following is the result:

[Author’s note: I omit the analysis of these liquors. There was not one of the
samples that did not contain the most virulent poison, of various kinds, and in
large quantities.]

"This analysis is not exhaustive, as I did not sep­arate the sugar which some of
the liquors contained in the form of caramel, or the cayenne pepper which all
the whiskies contained, more or less. The poisonous substances, however, I
carefully separated. The abso­lute amount of sugar of lead, strychnine and
strontia, was remarkably large. The poisonous qualities of these substances are
so well-known that nothing here needs to be said about them.

"In many of these liquors there is strychnine enough in a quart to kill a man if
it were taken separate from any other mixture and at one dose; the same is true
of the sugar of lead.

"In good whisky, the amount of alcohol should be from 4o to so percent. But in
these liquors, it ranged only from is to 25 percent, the larger percentages
belonging to the brandies and gin.

"As good liquors as some of these whiskies could be profitably manufactured for
thirty cents a gallon; and none of these liquors are what they purport to be.

"If any one doubts that these poisons are found in common liquors, if such
doubter will come to the Uni­versity laboratory in the afternoon I will separate
and precipitate lead, strontia, etc., in his presence.

"Respectfully submitted, "SAM’L AUGHEY, " Prof. of Chemistry in University of
Nebraska." When this report was published there was "no small stir" in the city.
Some saloon-keepers declared that they did not know that they had been dealing
out such poisons. But the wholesale dealers, and some of the druggists were
involved. Some of the most interested denied the correct­ness of the analysis,
but they did not dare to put it to the proof.

We implead the rum trade in the name of our "wasted resources," of two billions
burned; in the name of a drunken Congress and an injured people; and we charge
it with rape, theft, prostitution; with the crushing of every diamond virtue,
and the cultivation of every vice. Let bleary-eyed, blackened, bloated, and
blistered humanity, testify as to the causes of their ruin; let the drunken dead
arise and state the temptations, the snares, and the slippery ground from which
they fell into the vortex of eternal ruin. Bring forward the three millions of
children, now withheld from our common schools because of rum and the pov­erty,
stupidity and disgrace that result from its use, who run the streets in rags,
who live from filthy gleanings and theft, many of whom have been cursed into
being by drunken brutes in human form, and permit them to tell the story of
woe-begone, and describe the scenes of incip­ient hell, so familiar to their
eyes. Awake, O Pot­ter’s Field, and tell of the slaughtered innocents thou hast
kindly hidden in thy bosom, that were murdered outright by the red hand of the
rum power. Thou gentle zephyrs, who sigh so plain­tively, tell us of the burden
of sorrow with which thou art freighted from all lands because of the vice and
wretchedness that have been occasioned by the sale of rum. Let all
intelligences, who know the sad results of intemperance, tell the story, and the
sum of evils in the world because of the rum trade, and all will acknowledge
that murder is a minor evil compared with the work of drunkard making, which is
the parent of nine-tenths of all crime, murder included.

I have no doubt of the average integrity of the Lincoln rum-sellers. The poisons
found in those liquors are to be found in them all over the coun­try; and he who
presumes to drink them must assume the responsibility of taking the rankest
poison in the dark.

BEER IS SUPPOSED TO BE A WHOLESOME DRINK.

It is thought to have been first manufactured by the ancient Egyptians, several
centuries before Christ; but from some cause its manufacture was discontinued
and forgotten, till it was introduced from France during the French invasion.
The Grecian poet Archilochus, 700 B.C., and the tra­gedians Aeschylus and
Sophocles, 400 B.C., speak of the wine of barley. The ancient Germans were quite
noted for beer, which was called cerevisia--from Ceres, the goddess of grain,
and vis, power, Whether the beer of those times was like that which is now in
use we have but little means of knowing. I suppose, however, it then, as now,
contained the power to intoxicate, and, because of that quality, that it was
sought after by the people.

It is argued that beer and ale, as now used, are healthful drinks; and
multitudes of men, and even women, drink it regularly, supposing it to be
nutritious and wholesome.

I DIFFER FROM THIS OPINION AND WILL TELL YOU WHY.

1. In the barley from which it is made there is nutritive aliment, but with
every change in the process of beer-making we lose those God-given qualities of
the grain that make it valuable to the consumer; and when the work is completed
there is but little left that can be beneficial to the human system.

2. There is a percent of alcohol in beer vary­ing from 2 to 9, which, taken as a
beverage, is always injurious. Whatever else we shall find in any kind of beer
the two facts named are sufficient to cause me to reject it as being inefficient
for any particular good, but competent to do much harm. THE PROCESSES IN BREWING
PROVE MY POSITION TO BE CORRECT.

1. The steeping or sprouting. The grain is cov­ered in water. In this condition
it remains for about two days. In this time the grain is sup­posed to germinate.
The grain now exhibits starch sugar qualities, but in the soaking it has lost
much of its original power—the same as our grain that sprouts in the stack or
germinates before being ground.

2. It is now taken out and thrown into a heap, and left to heat and further
complete the process of germination. Here it has to be changed from the inside
out several times that the growth may be evenly continued. In this acrospire it
is con­tinued for about fourteen days. By this time the germ is supposed to
reach the end or point of the grain and the sweetening process is done. But in
these two weeks of heating, stirring and cooling, much of the original strength
and power of the grain is exhumed.

3. The growth is now suddenly stopped by spreading the whole mass upon a kiln,
or a perforated floor, with a fire beneath. Here the life of the grain is
thoroughly destroyed. Again by the dampness and growing condition and now the
heating and drying process, the original qualities of the grain are still
further evaporated and made to disappear.

4. The barley is next to be crushed between rollers, and then mixed up with hot
water. Thus the starch sugar is dissolved, and we have as the result a sweet
liquor, called wort. We yet have the mucilage, starch, and sugar of the
grain—not all, but most of it. Hence, to prevent a putrefactive fermentation, it
is boiled. Here it passes another evaporating process. The mucilage is
co­agulated and gotten rid of. A portion of hops is added, which is thought to
add wholesome quali­ties, because the beer is made bitter. It is dis­agreeable
until the taste has become depraved.

5. After the worts are sufficiently boiled, they are poured out into coolers, in
which the mucilage is deposited. Here again is another depart­ure of properties
of barley.

6. The next, and last change that I notice, is the fermentation in vats, and the
addition of yeast. In this change the alcohol is produced, and the remaining
properties of the barley are now almost entirely dissipated.

What have we, then, in all this malting, sweet­ening, sprouting, germinating,
heating, sweating, spreading, cooling, cooking, drying, evaporating, crushing,
watering, mixing, dissolving, boiling, fermenting, hopping, yeasting, that is
competent to furnish anything that is fit for the stomach of a man?

Prof. Liebig declares it to be demonstrable that there is no more nutriment in
eight quarts of beer than there is in the amount of good wheat flour that can be
had to lie on the point of a table-knife.

Besides, lager beer not only contains nothing really advantageous to man, but it
is poisoned, just the same as all other liquors. There are three gallons of beer
sold to where the maltsters have received barley enough to make one. A farmer
adds a little sand to his timothy seed. He injures no one’s health, nor does he
destroy any one’s life; he only cheats a dealer out of four or five dollars. For
it, however, the State employs him at hard labor for ten years. What, then,
shall be done with the creatures that poison our sons? In 1866, four houses in
New York City palmed off two millions of these deadly compounds. They buy the
meanest whisky or spoiled cider, and "drug" it into the rarest wines in a few
hours. It not infrequently happens that a country seller drives in a few barrels
of his poorest drinks, sells it to a manufacturer, does his shopping, and in a
few hours drives back with a part of the same stuff "drugged" into wine or
brandy, for which he paid an advance of four or five gallons. A French­man,
pointing to a barrel, said: "Tell me what kind of wine or brandy you want, and
give me three hours, and I will draw it out of that barrel." The more costly the
liquor the more certain the fraud. The whole champagne district is only twenty
thousand acres, and produces only about 800,000 baskets per annum. Of this
Russia consumes 160,000 baskets, France 162,000, England 220,000, Germany
146,000; leaving for America and the rest of the world only 112,000. Yet
Yan­kees consume more than 1,000,000 baskets yearly. How dull it is in England
and Germany, and France and Russia, to imagine that they get any champagne when
they consume twenty-five percent more than is produced.

Only 30,000 barrels of wine are produced on the Island of Madeira. America buys
50,000 barrels, and the rest of the world has a full share.

Port wine is manufactured in Douro Valley, in Portugal. The valley is narrow,
and only sixty miles long. Yet all the world drinks from these vineyards. London
alone drinks more than twice as much port wine as is produced, both good and
bad. There is consumed annually more than one hundred times as much as is
produced. Follow a gallon of pure juice from the press on the banks of the
Douro. In the warehouse in Oporto, by the aid of beet whisky, elder-berry juice
and water, it is made into five gallons. In the London Dock warehouse, by the
aid of potato whisky, red saun­ders, and the like, it swells up into twenty
gallons. In New York it takes a dose of strychnine, bella­donna, and spoiled
cider, and puffs up into thirty gallons. In the wholesale house in Chicago, bad
whisky, stramonium, and drugs, enlarge it to forty gallons. In the retailer’s
back room it gets another dose, and comes out eighty gallons. We receive one
drop in eighty, and that is twenty-five percent better than the average. With
these facts before us, it would seem that nothing but the most uncompromising
perverseness, or the most uncontrollable ignorance, can account for the
stupidity necessary to continue the use of these drinks.

Already we have seen the depletion of the hu­man stock because of the poisons
received through alcoholic liquors. The body is weakened, the blood is poisoned,
the children are depraved—liable to insanity, idiocy, and vice of every
de­scription. Alcohol is the leech that draws away the virtuous blood of our
nation, corrupts the fountains of family and social life, blights our public
morals, and leaves us, to the extent of its influence, a community of plunderers
and crim­inals. It causes…

ALCOHOL, FOUR-FIFTHS OF THE CRIME OF THE NATION. The Annual Report of the Board
of Inspectors of the Massachusetts State Prison to the Legislature (of 1868) is
equally explicit against license. The Inspectors say, pp. 7, 8:

"Intemperance, as a most fruitful cause of crime, has been frequently referred
to in past reports of the warden and inspectors, and the general fact is
undeniable that a very large proportion of offenses against law which bring men
to prison for punishment are committed through the agency of intoxicating
liquors, and that their increased public sale adds to the number of crimes
committed and the number of persons convicted. We are not called upon to discuss
this matter separate from our observation as supervisors of the prison, and
there­fore simply call attention to the fact of the increased number of
commitments made during eight months of the present year, when the sale of
spiritous liquors has been almost wholly unrestrained, over those of the same
time in the preceding year, when the public sale was prohibited, and, to a great
extent, stopped."

Warden Haynes speaks as follows, in his "Pic­tures from Prison Life," p. 272:

"Since I have been connected with the prison, we have had twenty-one here for
killing their wives, two for killing their fathers, and one for killing his
mother. Of these twenty-four, all but one were not only habitual drunkards, but
actually drunk when they committed the crime. Not one of this number was born a
drunkard; not one but was once a temperate drinker; not one but what at some
period in his life would have been indignant had it been intimated that he might
become a drunkard, much less a murderer; not one but was as secure against
becoming a drunkard as any other man who is in the habit of drinking
occasionally.... I repeat, these were not bad men, except when under the
influence of liquor."

Even in 1670, Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Justice of England, said:

"The places of judicature I have long held in this kingdom have given me an
opportunity to observe the original cause of most of the enormities that have
been committed for the space of nearly twenty years; and, by due observation, I
have found that if the murders and manslaughters, the burglaries and robberies,
the riots and tumults, the adulteries, fornications, rapes, and other enormities
that have happened in that time, were divided into five parts, four of them have
been the issues and product of excessive drinking—of tavern or ale-house
drinking." The Irish Republic, a Roman Catholic journal of New York, recognizes
this fact, and accounts for the same precisely as do the official reports which
we have introduced. It says:

"The curse of intemperance has been the great cause of all our misfortunes as a
people. To it can be traced the loss of our independence at home, and the cause
of all our miseries abroad. It is the basis of all crime, and the man or men who
make our people temperate, will obliterate Irish crime. We assert and defy
contra­diction, that a sober Irishman scarcely ever commits a crime. There may
be exceptions, but they are of no consequence. It is whisky, then, that brings
shame into the Irish household, that whets the knife of the in­furiated madman,
that abuses the wife and sends the children adrift on the world. It fills the
prisons and poor-houses, and gives the enemies of our race a whip to lash us. It
is the duty, then, of all men to take measures to destroy this monster that has
destroyed our people.

"We have received the Annual Report of the New York Board of Police for the year
ending October 31st, 1868, and turning to the column of arrests, we find that
during the year 78,451 persons were arrested. Of this number, 25,957 were
Americans; 8,281 were Ger­mans; 37,014 were Irish.

"It is useless to attempt to shut out these figures; they have gone before the
world, and we must acknowl­edge that they are disgraceful to us as a people.
Every man of our race, no matter what his standing may be in society, the name
of our country and every principle in which our nation takes pride, is pressed
down to the level of the gutters by the strong arm of that demon which has
dragged thirty-seven thousand of our people to the watch-houses of New York, and
pilloried the de­graded wretches before the public gaze.

"We are sure that out of the 37,000 Irish arrested for the year, 35,000 were for
drunk and disorderly. It matters not, as far as public scandal is concerned,
whether they were arrested for drunkenness or for heavier crimes. The public
does not look behind the figures on the Police Board, and those figures convict
us of supplying almost one-half of the entire crime of New York!" On page 175,
the Board of Charities for Massa­chusetts, 1868, we read:

"The prison registers indicate that more than two-thirds of the criminals in the
State are the victims of intemperance; but the proportion of crime traceable to
this great vice must be set down, as heretofore, at not less than four-fifths.
Its effects are unusually apparent in almost every grade of crime. A noticeable
illus­tration appears in the number of commitments to the State Prison, which,
during eight months of the present year, in which the sale of intoxicating
liquors has been almost wholly unrestrained, was 136, against 65 during the
corresponding months of the preceding year. Similar results appear in nearly all
the prisons of the Common­wealth."

Lord Chief Justice Coleridge, of England, says:

"That his experience as a jurist has shown that crimes of violence almost
without exception were traceable to drunkenness."

Judge Patterson says:

"If it were not for drink, you and I would have nothing to do."

Judge Addison says:

"If all men could be per­suaded from the use of intoxicating drinks, the office
of judge would be a sinecure."

Chief Justice Davis, of New York, says:

"The saloons and groggeries have had full swing, and filled the city with a huge
amount of misery and crime.... More than seven-eighths of the crimes committed
in this country, which involve personal violence, are traceable to the use of
in­toxicating liquors."

Judge Garney says:

"Almost every crime has its origin more or less in drinking."

Judge Wrightman says:

"Three-fourths of the cases of crime have their origin in public houses and beer
houses."

Judge Coleridge says:

"But for the offenses brought on by the excessive use of intoxicating liquors,
the courts of justice might nearly be shut up."

J.P. Newman, in a sermon recently preached in New York, very correctly points
out the true course of vagrancy and crime, He says:

"Let us demand of the Legislature such a law as will strike at the fruitful
cause of more than two-thirds of all the vagrancy, pauperism and crime in our
city—that is, the license system. I hold that system responsible for the
following facts: Of the 9,000 adult paupers in this State who are permanently
dependent upon public charity, 6,000 are intemperate; 93,000 arrests in this
city in 1877--62,000 were for intoxication and disorderly con­duct; and much of
the insanity and idiocy came from the same cause. There are seventeen miles of
rum-shops in New York. Our city receives annually $300,000 for license fees, and
expends annually $8,000,000 —charge­able directly or indirectly to the liquor
traffic. We have a right to demand a legal deliverance from supporting the poor
whose poverty comes from intemperance." In a very interesting sketch of the
Albany Pen­itentiary and of the labors in connection therewith of Superintendent
Pillsbury, and of his father, the late General Pillsbury, by Wilbur Arliston
Wor­lock, Esq., it is stated that during the period of ten years ending with
1876, there have been incarcerated in that prison 13,413 prisoners. "Of that
number," it is added, "10,214 have admitted that they were of intemperate
habits, while 3,199 claimed to be temperate." Mr. Worlock thinks it "would prove
a hard task indeed to furnish a more damning evidence of the curse of
intemper­ance that so prodigally thrives within our midst," and that these
significant figures "furnish the true key with which to unlock and reveal the
scourge from which so large a portion of crime emanates." We fully concur in his
view, and also that it is a "disgrace to humanity, to a Christian people, that
public sentiment has become so blunted as to license crime in this direction "—a
guilt shared by the national, state, municipal, and local gov­ernments, and by
the voters of the country who create and perpetuate them.

Judge Davis, of New York, in sentencing Joseph P. Wall to fifteen years’
imprisonment for kick­ing his wife to death, said that the prisoner must have
been intoxicated when he bought the whisky which encouraged the crime, and says
the children thus doubly orphaned could bring suit against the liquor dealers
for damages sufficient to support them, and advised Wall to take the proper
steps for such action. In closing, Judge Davis said:

"I should rejoice to see such an example made, for, in my judgment, and I
believe in the eye of God as well as humanity, the consequences which fall so
ter­ribly on you, and vastly more on your children, are traceable to the
misconduct of men who, for the paltry, gain of a few glasses of liquor, deal it
to men whom they must know it will make still more drunk, and ex­pose to
terrible consequences." In our efforts to remove this enemy of morals we now
have the sympathy of the purest and best and most thoughtful men and women of
our nation. Here are some resolutions from a body of Congre­gationalists:

"Resolved, That we believe entire abstinence from the use of all intoxicating
beverages to be a Christian duty, alike necessary to a pious life and a
consistent example, and therefore binding upon all disciples of Jesus.

"Resolved, That we heartily approve all appropriate moral agencies to advance
the temperance cause, such as temperance sermons and lectures, the introduction
of the pledge into the Sabbath and public schools, as well as among adults, the
circulation of temperance lit­erature, the organization of temperance societies,
both for the young and old, and all other instrumentalities necessary to advance
the cause of total abstinence.

"Resolved, That since the traffic in intoxicating bev­erages of all kinds is
antagonistic both to the moral agencies used to promote the temperance reform
and to the means of grace employed by the Church to save men, we hereby record
our uncompromising hostility to said traffic, and pledge our support to its
legal pro­hibition." The following resolutions were unanimously adopted at a
Methodist Conference in Massa­chusetts:

"Resolved, That we recommend the employment of the pulpit and the press, and all
other means coming under the head of moral persuasion, for the promotion of the
cause of temperance.

"Resolved, That inasmuch as the prohibitory law of 1867 is a most efficient
instrument of moral persuasion, destructive alike to the opportunity of
indulgence and the temptation to it, we will do all we can to secure its
re-enactment and enforcement.

"Resolved, That the magnitude of the financial, moral and religious interests
imperiled by the beverage use and sale of intoxicating drinks, properly
introduces the whole question into the sphere of politics; and it be­comes our
duty, as Christian citizens, to demand of each political party that it shall
incorporate in its plat­form the principle of prohibition."

These speak for themselves, and show the conclusions to which God-fearing and
thinking people are coming.

Mr. John W. Ray’s reports of Indiana a little more than two years ago, furnish a
lesson for everyone:

Counties

Population Voters

Number of Saloons

Convicts

18

34,361

1179

475

65

154,342

968

238

9

22,366

0

31

It will be seen that in the eighteen counties where saloons prevailed they had
one resident in the penitentiary for every 72 ½ voters; in the nine counties
where there was no saloon they sent only one to this assembly of criminals for
every 721 ½ voters. So the criminal docket of the saloon coun­ties was ten times
that of the prohibitory coun­ties, in proportion to the whole number of voters
in each. Now, if you want drinking and gambling, debauchery and crime of every
shade and hue, license this thing, Both facts and reason show that these things
are to be had in that way. But if you prefer sobriety, prosperity, and
civilization, then prohibit this traffic:

"Licensed to make the strong man weak, Licensed to lay the strong man low;
Licensed the wife’s fond heart to break, And make the children’s tears to flow.

"Licensed to do thy neighbor harm, Licensed to kindle hate and strife; Licensed
to nerve the robber’s arm, Licensed to whet the murderer’s knife.

"Licensed thy neighbor’s purse to drain, And rob him of his very last; Licensed
to heat his feverish brain, Till madness crown thy work at last.

"Licensed, like spider for a fly, To spread thy nets for man, thy prey; To mock
his struggles, suck him dry, Then cast the shattered hulk away.

"Licensed, where peace and quiet dwell, To bring disease, and want, and woe;
Licensed to make this world a hell, And fit man for a hell below." This is what
the saloon-keeper is licensed to do. Nay, it is what you licensed him to do when
you voted for those whom you knew would license him. Nay, more: this work of
death and ruin, desolation and shame, is your work, if you sup­port the license
system, or the men who will sup­port it. What a man does by the hand of another,
he does as really as if he operated without the intervening agency. And I appeal
to the peace-loving, and especially the God-fearing, to stand clear of the blood
of this martyred host, sent to an untimely death by the rum power.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 41: 03.03.     DOES THE BIBLE SANCTION THE USE OF ALCOHOL?
========================================================================

Does the Bible Sanction the Use of Alcohol?

THERE are many men now pleading the Bible as authority for the use of alcohol as
a beverage. It is strange that any man who believes that God is the author of
that book would use it to estab­lish a habit which the science and medical skill
of the age agree in condemning. To me it seems the last extremity for the
rum-drinker or the rum-seller when he flies to the Bible for support. Be­fore
the courts of medicine, history, and popular opinion, he has lost his cause; and
now, as a dernier resort, he betakes himself to the Bible, in the vain hope of
finding something, under cover of which he may disappear from public
condem­nation. The argument is made upon the word wine, which, it is claimed,
contained alcohol. The word wine means "fermented juice of the grape," which
always contains alcohol. The Bible sanctions the use of it, and gives it a place
along with corn and oil among national blessings. Inspired men of old spoke of
it as making the heart glad, and referred to the time of its increase as an
occasion of great joy. God required a sacrifice of wine, a libation, which, if
it had been wrong for men to use, he would not have done, any more than he would
have directed the sprinkling of swine’s broth. These gentlemen rejoice at the
wedding in Cana of Galilee, and imagine themselves hilarious from the wine, made
by the Savior. Paul’s prescription to use a little wine is suited to their
"often infirm­ities," and agreeable to their stomachs. And they are certain that
the Savior sanctioned the use of alcoholic wine by the institution of the
Supper. Their argument, in logical form, stands thus:

Wine is sanctioned by the Bible.

Wine means the fermented juice of grapes, which al­ways contains alcohol.

Therefore alcohol is sanctioned by the Bible.

Now it is safe to say that if the word wine, in those passages in which it has
the divine sanction, contains alcohol, then there is good support for the use of
alcohol as a beverage. But I must now protest against the argument as a whole.
They argue that because wine was sanctioned, therefore we are at liberty to use,
with­out stint, all the miserable drinks now sold in the market. Now, it ought
to be known that wine, at the worst, was only supposed to contain a percent of
alcohol; but that it was entirely free from those poisons that now go to make up
the staple of other liquors. Alcohol is now being condemned by the entire
medical profession as a beverage, and very many of the most learned of the
present time deny that it can ever be used as medicine without injury. But
whatever may be said of the result of alcohol in the stomach, it ought to be
known that the whiskies, brandies, etc., etc., now imported and sold in the
market, contain a very small percent of alcohol. In its place, however, they
have a large percent of sugar of lead, strych­nine, strontia, potash, soda
carbonates, benzine, Brazil wood, logwood, etc., etc. These poisons are much
more destructive, both to reason and to life, than alcohol. Hence we now have
but very few old men, who are in the habit of getting drunk, from the simple
fact that in the use of these mod­ern liquors a man will not live to be old.

Hence, if we were to admit all they claim for the word wine in the Bible, it
would not justify the traffic which they seek to protect. Their conclusions are
not contained in their premises. Hence, the manifest unfairness of their whole
plan of argument. But I now call in question the meaning which they attach to
the word wine. I do not deny that sometimes the word has the meaning they give
to it; that many times in the Bible it means the fer­mented juice of grapes. I
will quote a few pas­sages in which the word contains this meaning. For it ought
to be known that the word wine in the Old Testament is a translation of twelve
differ­ent Hebrew words, only two of which mean wine in its common acceptation.
But here are the read­ings promised:

"And Noah awoke from his wine." Gen 9:24. The son of the Nazarite: "He shall
separate himself from wine and strong drink." Num 6:3.

Eli said to Hannah: "How long wilt thou be drunken? Put away thy wine from
thee." 1Sa 1:14.

"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, and whosoever is deceived thereby is
not wise." Pro 20:1.

"Who hath woe? who hath sorrow? who hath contentions? who hath babbling? who
hath wounds without cause? who hath redness of eyes? They that tarry long at the
wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is
red, when it giveth his color in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the
last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Pro 23:29-32.

"Woe unto them that rise up early in the morn­ing, that they may follow strong
drink; that con tinue until night, till wine inflame them! And the harp and the
viol, the tabret and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not
the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." Isa 5:11-12.

"Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty
is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are
overcome with wine!" Isa 28:1.

Again, in Isa 28:7, God continues to condemn Ephraim: "But they also have erred
through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the
prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are
out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in
judgment." In this sense Solomon uses the word in con­nection with the drinker:
"Be not among wine­bibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: for the drunkard and
the glutton shall come to poverty; and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags."
Pro 23:20-21.

There are many other occurrences of the word in the same sense, but not in a
single instance does the divine approbation certainly rest upon it. When wine is
required as an offering, or spoken of as a blessing, the word is tirosh, which
contained no intoxicating quality. There are instances in which the word wine
occurs in the common ver­sion when it should have been raisins, figs or dates.
Hence those who have an acquaintance with the original can but smile at the
parade of texts from the Old Testament in favor of the use of intoxicating wine.
The drink from grapes approved in the Old Testament, or even tolerated, does not
necessarily mean fermented juice of grapes. And when we listen to its ringing
denunciations of that which could intoxicate, we are in no mood to believe that
it also recommends the same things which it condemns. The use of intoxicating
wine was attended, then, with evil results, on account of which it was
con­demned.

"Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart." Hos 4:11.

"Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him,
and makest him drunken also." Hab 2:15.

"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 with stones, that he die: so shalt thou
put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear." Deu
21:20-21.

"Awake, ye drunkards, and weep; and howl, all ye drinkers of wine, because of
the new wine; for it is cut off from your mouth." Joe 1:5.

They "that drink wine in bowls, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments;
but they are not grieved for the affliction of Joseph. Therefore now shall they
go captive with the first that go captive, and the banquet of them that
stretched themselves shall be removed." Amo 6:6-7.

Let us turn from this condemnation to the sanc­tion of wine. In doing so,
however, we come to other words. Concerning most of them we know that alcohol
was not meant. I have space here only to quote a few of these passages:

"And Pharaoh’s cup was in my hand; and I took the grapes and pressed them into
Pharaoh’s cup, and I gave the cup into Pharaoh’s hand. And Joseph said unto him,
this is the interpre­tation of it: The three branches are three days: yet within
three days shall Pharaoh lift up thine head, and restore thee unto thy place,
and thou shalt deliver Pharaoh’s cup into his hand, after the former manner when
thou wast his butler." Gen 40:11-13.

"The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet,
until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding
his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the Choice vine, he washed his
garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes." Gen 49:10.

"Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of
Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the
pure blood of the grape." Deu 32:14.

It will be seen at a glance here that the newly expressed juice of the grape is
spoken of. So it was in the sacrifices of wine that the Lord demanded of his
people. When wine is spoken of that had power to intoxicate, its use was
con­demned. The Nazarites and Rechabites were blessed because of their purity,
arising from total abstinence., The drinks used by the Israelites, con­taining
the power to intoxicate, were employed as the symbols of scourge, and blight,
and ruin. From these facts it would seem unreasonable for any man to attempt to
find any authority for the use of intoxicating wine in the Old Testament.
Indeed, the strongest condemnation of the use of such drinks that can be found
anywhere are found there. Hence the Old Testament is clear, in not supporting
alcoholic beverages.

These men, who are just now establishing their cause by the word of God, have
recently become profoundly learned in the original of the New Testament. They
tell us that the oinos of the Greek meant fermented grape juice. And, therefore,
the Savior made intoxicating wine at the wedding in Cana of Galilee. My opinion
is that oinos does mean the fer­mented juice of the grape, but it also means the
unfermented juice, either the newly expressed, or the must, which had been
preserved from the at­mosphere, and therefore had not fermented.

Here are a few passages in which alcoholic wine is referred to in the New
Testament:

"And be not drunk with wine, wherein is ex­cess; but be filled with the Spirit."
Eph 5:18.

"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that
great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication." Rev 14:8. Again, in Rev 14:10 : "The same shall drink of the wine
of the wrath of God."

"And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations
fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup
of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath." Rev 16:19.

"With whom the kings of the earth have com­mitted fornication, and the
inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her
for­nication." Rev 17:2.

There are two other texts in which intoxicating wine is probably meant: 1Ti 3:8,
and Tit 2:3. A bishop, or presbyter should not be "given to much wine."

There are some occurrences of the word in which it is quite as clear that
fermented liquor is not in­tended. In Mat 9:17, it occurs three times; in Luk
5:37-38, the same statement is made, in which the word in question also is read
three times. In Mark 2:22, the substance of the same is found again, only oinos
occurs four times instead of three, as in the other places. "And no man putteth
new wine in old bottles, else the new wine doth burst the bot­tles, and the wine
is spilled, and the bottles will be marred; but new wine must be put into new
bottles." The bottles referred to were the skins of ani­mals. If they put new
wine into an old one, that had stretched all it could, and was brittle and hard
with age, the wine not yet having fermented, would be exposed to the atmosphere
in this old skin, and would pass through that condition, but in doing so there
would be an increased demand for space, which would result in the destruction of
the bottle, and the loss of the wine. This is, beyond doubt, the simple teaching
of these pas­sages on the word wine. Hence we have ten occurrences in which
unfermented grape juice is intended, and six in which intoxicating wine is
meant, and two in which alcoholic wine is prob­ably referred to. Wine-bibber is
found twice, in which it is quite evident that they meant to accuse the Savior
of drunkenness, as well as gluttony. See Mat 11:19. Luk 7:44.

Besides these, the word oinos occurs fifteen times, in which the meaning of the
word is more or less in dispute. Then we have once (1Pe 4:3), oinophlugia
rendered excess of wine, by which drunkenness is indicated.

Hence when men tell us that oinos in the New Testament always means alcoholic
wine, we know that they are not themselves informed in the matter, or are
intentionally trying to deceive us. When, therefore, the word wine occurs in the
New Testament, we are sure that the blood of the grape is meant; that whether in
a fermented or unfermented state, must be determined by the context, not by the
meaning of the word itself. On the day of Pentecost some men scoffingly said:
"These men are full of new wine." Acts 2:13. The word which they used is
gleukous, abbre­viated gleukus, sweet, and oinos, wine. It should be translated
sweet wine. Yet this word was com­monly used to mean the new juice of grapes, or
the must, or wine that had been kept from fer­mentation. Their being full of
sweet wine would not indicate that they were drunken, as they supposed—Acts
2:15. Hence, they said one thing, while they thought it would be understood as
meaning more than that. It is, however, by Peter’s reference to the matter,
rather than by the word itself, that we know just what they wished to be
understood as affirming.

Since the word wine, then, in the New Testa­ment, may mean either the fermented,
or the un­fermented juice of the grape, by what rule shall we be able to
determine which meaning to attach to it, in those passages yet in dispute? In
the Old Testament the words in the original helped us to the meaning of the word
wine. And we find in passing over that ground again, that when a word is used
that indicates the presence of alcohol, the curse of the Almighty rests upon it.
We find that when God requires a libation, or an offering of the fruit of the
vine, the newly ex­pressed juice is indicated, that a word is employed that
excludes the thought of alcohol. This is also true in those passages in which
wine is spoken of as a national blessing.

If this rule in the Old Testament shall guide us in the interpretation of the
New, then where we shall find wine spoken of favorably, we are to know that
must, or the new juice, is to be under­stood. This is a reasonable rule. Indeed,
we cannot suppose for a moment that God would thunder his anathemas, as he does,
against intoxicating wine, and then in the perfect law permit, and even
encourage its use.

Three New Testament Passages Given by Those Who Want to Drink Alcohol

There are only three passages in the New Test­ament in which wine-bibbers of the
present day seek refuge: the wine made at the wedding; the wine used in the
Lord’s Supper, and Paul’s recom­mendation to Timothy. We will give each of these
a passing notice. The Wedding Feast at Cana

We wilt first consider the wine produced mirac­ulously at the feast. To do this,
as we ought, we will read the account:

"And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the
purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto
them, Fill the water-pots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And
he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And
they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made
wine, and knew not whence it was (but the servants which drew the water knew),
the gov­ernor of the feast called the bridegroom, and saith unto him, Every man
at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then
that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now." John 2:6-10.

Usually there is a play made here on the word drunk, and it is forced to
indicate that the guests on that occasion were stupid from the free use of wine.
But this thought is in no way presented by the passage. The governor of the
feast makes no allusion to the condition of those then in attend­ance, but to
that which was customary on such occasions. Nor does the phrase "well drunk,"
indicate that it was customary for the guests to become drunken on such
occasions. The language simply means—when they have drunk enough to satisfy
them, so that they do not care for more wine. But whether or not they would be
intoxicated would depend on the character of the wine, and the amount that would
be necessary to satisfy them.

It is claimed that the wine made by the Savior was strong, or intoxicating,
because the governor pronounced it the good wine. This raises the ques­tion,
"What did they regard as good, or the best wine?" According to Pliny, Plutarch,
Horace, Theophrastus, and many others, they denominated the wine that would not
intoxicate, "the best wine," the "wholesome," "the innocent," "the moral wine,"
etc. Pliny expressly says that "good wine was destitute of spirit." Lib. iv. 13.
Judging the wine, therefore, by this rule, it was not intoxicating. But a last
effort is made to find complicity on the part of Jesus with intoxication, in the
quan­tity of wine that he made. So that if it was not alcoholic when made, yet
the condition in which it was left would secure to it the intoxicating qual­ity,
with the age that it attained before it would be used. But here it will be
noticed that our opponents take for granted just what needs to be proved, that
Jesus made all the water in those water-pots into wine. A second thought will
con­vince us that he made no more wine than was necessary for the occasion, and
that it was only that which was drawn out and borne to the gov­ernor that was
turned into wine. This would be a double miracle, and would better manifest his
glory. Hence there can be found no evidence in this account that Jesus produced
that upon which men could become intoxicated, or that he in any way recognized
the right or propriety of such drinks. The Lord’s Supper The "Lord’s Supper" is
appealed to with con­fidence in favor of the use of intoxicating wine, even in
an ordinance of the most sacred character. And while I speak a word upon this
point, I am oppressed with the indifference of the religious world on this
subject. This question has been raised in religious assemblies, and resolutions
re­lating to it have been tabled, as if it were a matter of no concern. I regret
this exceedingly, and yet I need not tell you what others have done in this
matter, for perhaps we are no more alive on this question than those to whom we
have referred. Did the Savior, then, leave an ordinance to be observed by his
people, in which alcohol was to be used? Both science and history have declared
it to be the greatest scourge to any people using it. In our own America it
numbers its victims at 60,000 per annum; it fills the land with corruption and
crime, with desolation and want; it is full of rape, and theft, and murder; it
stupefies, bloats, blackens, and blisters. It is now withholding mill­ions of
children from the common schools; it is filling the land with broken-hearted
widows and helpless orphans. Like a withering blight, it blasts all it touches.
Do you say that I am prejudicing the question? I deny it. I have only stated a
few facts of history. Did the Lord ask his disciples to drink of the cup that
has slain more than have ever fallen in battle? Does that narcotic poison, that
works only death to body and soul, represent that blood by which we are to be
saved from all sin? Did the Lord from heaven give his disciples alcoholic wine,
saying: "This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the
remission of sins?"

Some have been alarmed at the word wine, supposing that both our English word,
and that oinos in the Greek, indicate the presence of alcohol. But we have seen
from New Testament usage that it is not true; that oinos does occur in a number
of instances, in which such a meaning is absolutely impossible. Hence there can
be no need of sup­posing that alcoholic wine was used on that occasion. The word
wine does not occur in the New Test­ament in connection with the Lord’s Supper.
On this account some have maintained that the Lord did not use wine on this
occasion. This appears to me to be unsafe; for while it may not be abso­lutely
certain that wine was used on that occasion, yet we cannot deny that all the
probabilities are on that side of the question. The Lord said: "I will drink no
more of the fruit of the vine until that day that I shall drink it new in the
kingdom of God." Mark 14:25. Indeed, the word cup, used under those
circumstances, indicated wine as the contents. Paul says: "The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?" 1Co 10:16. This
seems a clear reference to the Passover, in which they partook of wine four
times. The third time the cup was passed it was called the cup of blessing." But
it should be remembered that if the Savior took that wine which was on the table
at that time to intro­duce this new ordinance, then he did not have
in­toxicating wine; for the wine used at the Passover was must, or the juice of
grapes that had not been permitted to ferment, mixed with an equal quan­tity of
warm water. Believing this to have been the contents of the cup used by the
Savior, the early Christians so observed the Lord’s Supper till the time of
Justin the Martyr. See his "Apol­ogy for Christianity." Vol. I. page 65.

"…use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake…" But Paul said to Timothy: "Drink no
longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often
infirmities." 1Ti 5:23. The original would indicate not that Paul would have
Timothy to drink no more water, but use wine in its place; not that, but that he
should put wine with the water which he used. The paraphrase of Dr. James
Macknight sets forth ate thought of the passage in great clearness. He says:

"Thy health being of great importance to the Church, no longer drink pure water,
but mix a little wine with it, on account of the disorder of thy stomach, and
thy many other bodily infirmities."

Let us note a few facts on the very surface of this passage:

Timothy was of delicate constitution, was a physical sufferer, and needed
medicine.

So far he had practiced total abstinence, in that he drank nothing but water.

Paul makes a medical prescription for his benefit.

He was so radical in his convictions on this subject that it required apostolic
authority to induce him to use any quantity of any kind of wine.

Paul does not reprove Timothy for his total abstinence convictions and habits.

Paul recommends only the use of a little wine, which would be a fearful comment
if it had been addressed to a great many ministers who have lived since then.

Paul would have that little mixed with water.

As it is not necessary to suppose that Paul meant alcoholic wine, and as Timothy
from his abstinence stand-point would certainly refuse fer­mented wine, as Paul
knows this, and as we know now that alcoholic wine would have been injurious, it
is quite evident that must, or the unfermented wine, was intended.

We find, then, that the word of God every­where condemns drunkenness, or the use
of that which is capable of intoxicating. The Lord will not only at last consign
the drunkard to eternal banishment from his presence, but those who keep his
company, that eat and drink with the drunken, shall have a portion with the
hypocrites, And the word of the Lord pronounces a woe against every man who
gives his neighbor drink, who puts the bottle to him and makes him drunken also
(Hab 2:15).


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 42: 03.04.     THE COST OF ALCOHOL.
========================================================================

The Cost of Alcohol. THE revenue derived from the liquor traffic is a strong
argument in its favor in the minds of many persons. There are those who claim
that it really increases business, and that it is, therefore, a finan­cial
benefit to the country. The license fees will help defray the expenses of the
city schools; it will assist in the construction of sidewalks, and pay for other
public improvements.

If all they claim in the respect of finances were granted, still the objections
to the licensing of saloons for the sale of intoxicating liquors would remain
insuperable. He who so far forgets the real needs and interests of humanity as
to put every physical, mental and moral question out of sight, and base his
calculation alone upon financial issues, is incompetent to give the subject that
in­vestigation which its importance demands.

Some have said that we must license this traffic or we will lose business and
impoverish the city; the men that we now have will go elsewhere, and the thrift
and energy of the place will be impaired. And, further, we now derive the
handsome revenue of $600, $200 from each beer saloon in the place. This wisdom
is wholly financial. It does not stop at the thought of building our sidewalks
in the blood of our brothers and sons; of educating our children from the tears
and wails of the broken­hearted! Let this mighty car of prosperity rush on. What
care these engineers if a thousand life­less forms bestrew the track behind
them! Peace may be taken from the earth, a thousand pale-faced, care-worn,
poverty-stricken women may pray them with uplifted hands to stop ere they crush
to powder all their hearts hold dear; the children may cry, "Father is on the
track, father is on the track!" but it is nothing to them. Give them money and
they are satisfied! But how is it possible that making, selling and drinking
alcoholic liquors can be of any financial advantage? The corn and rye and
barley, etc., that contain food are sprouted, malted, rotted, destroyed. What is
furnished in the place of it is incompetent to do any good. It is not food, and
it is even doubtful if it is medicine. How, then, can such employment be useful?
Nor can I see wherein is the financial gain of keeping saloons. Is it because
that every fifth man is induced to squander a portion of his means in drink that
cannot do him any good, and to neglect his business? Is it the charm that
pro­duces midnight orgies, houses of prostitution, fights, brawls, stabbing,
knocking down with bil­liard cues, that brings a hundred homes to squalid
poverty, and a thousand men and women to grief; that which causes corruption and
crime to fester and ripen until the very atmosphere is putrid, and is more
loathsome than a den of lepers? Is this the secret of its greatness and its
favor, that im­parts the tone of prosperity and makes it smack of financial
success? It must be! Now it requires a deep insight into the social economy of
the times to discover any advantage to the people from the rum trade.

It is evident to every person of observation that whatever corrupts the morals
of the people and depletes public and private virtue, must be a finan­cial curse
to the country. A sober man cares for his family, and plans and works for their
honor and happiness. But he who is induced to waste his money and time in drink
ceases to be careful for the welfare of any one. Hence his work is discontinued,
and his life is rendered worthless.

All accounts agree in representing great busi­ness depression and destitution in
England. Bank suspensions, failures, strikes and lock-outs are of daily
occurrence. One thing that will retard busi­ness revival is the vast drain made
by liquor upon the nation. The working people of England, from long custom,
regard beer as one of the essentials of life, and without it they imagine they
can neither work nor live. A careful estimate made last year puts, in round
numbers, the cost of intoxicating drinks annually drunk by the English people at
$700,000,000. This amounts to twenty dollars to every man, woman and child, and
is a gloomy basis upon which to found a returning prosperity. No nation under
such bondage, with such a drain of not only money in vast amounts, but, what is
far better, life and moral energy, can hope to hold the wheel that directs the
world’s commerce. The Glasgow City Bank lost $25,000,000 for its stockholders
when it suspended. Many of them are ruined. An appeal has been made to the
people of Scotland for a relief fund, raised by subscription, and a Scotch
official calls attention to the fact that the whole $25,000,000 is only half the
annual liquor bill of the Scotch people. Not only do the people suffer a direct
loss of more than $50,000,000, but the time spent in drinking, and damages done
because of intoxication, accidents and neglect of personal and public interest,
caused by the stupefying power of rum, which will equal double the sum of the
drink-bill.

It is almost impossible to be entirely correct respecting the cost of liquors.
If we base our cal­culations upon manufactures and importations we will be far
from the amount of liquors sold and drank; for very much, perhaps two-thirds, of
wines, ales, gins, brandies, beers, etc., never knew a grape, or grain of corn
or barley. The following statistics have been carefully compiled from the best
authorities, and are as nearly correct as they can be made:

Liquors consumed in the United States:

Spirituous Liquors - 69,572,062 gallons annually

Beer - 279,746,044

Imported Wines - 10,700,009

Liquors consumed in Great Britain:

Spirituous Liquors - 33,090,377 gallons annually.

Beer and Ale - 906,340,399

Foreign and British Wines - 17,144,539

Liquors consumed in Germany:

Beer - 146,000,000 gallons annually.

Wine - 121,000,000

Liquors consumed in France:

Spirituous Liquors - 27,000,000 gallons annually.

Beer - 51,800,000

Wine - 600,000,000

We estimate that the world consumes twice as much as these four nations:

Spirituous Liquors - 314,031,882 gallons annually.

Beer - 2,797,291,632

Wine - 1,482,239,914

Cost of liquors in the world in ten years, $64,405,042,231, or twice the value
of the United States of America. Allowing the average value of the world, per
square mile, to equal the United States, and every one hundred and twenty years
the actual cash value of the world is consumed in these drinks. The materials
used in the manufacture are an­nually as follows:

Country

Bushels of Grain

Bushels of Grapes

Value

United States

39,349,520

2,364,312

$42,895,984

Gr. Britain and Ireland

63,929,550

3,784,246

69,605,920

Germany

9,125,000

34,714,285

$61,196,428

France

9,237,500

171,428,571

$366,380,357

The World

242,971,145

4,634,261

$891,922,536

The cost in France and Germany would be modified by the cost of grapes, which
are much cheaper there.

Cost of the land, buildings, machinery, labor, etc., invested in the traffic is
about as follows:

Country

Acres

Buildings & Machinery

Labor

United States

903,414

$74,041,044

$9,405,104

Gr. Britain and Ireland

1,629,733

$92,116,883

$15,271,432

Germany

517,410

$46,120,535

$6,304,892

France

1,576,017

$190,967,633

$27,929,283

The World

9,253,228

$746,488,070

$117,821,020

Country

Value of Land

Total Investment

United Stated

$45,170,500

$128,616,848

Gr. Britain and Ireland

81,488,650

188,876,965

Germany

25,870,000

78,395,427

France

78,800,850

297,697,766

The World

462,660,400

1,326,969,492

Cost of alcoholic drinks in the United States annually:

Direct outlay for drink

$725,407,028

Seven percent on the $100,000,000,000 which the nation should possess, but has
been destroyed by the traffic.

$700,000,000

Direct loss of wages

$7,903,844

Ten percent on capital employed in the manufacture

$25,848,081

Ten percent on capital employed in saloons

$36,254,700

Charity bestowed on the poor

$14,000,000

Loss by sea and by land

$50,000,000

Court, police, hospital expenses, charity, litigation, Insurance

$207,266,550

Total

$111,866,642,203

This nation receives in return for this traffic:

500 murders, 500 suicides, 100,000 criminals, 200,000 paupers, 60,000 deaths
from drunkenness, 600,000 besotted drunkards, 600,000 moderate drinkers, who
will be sots ten years hence, 500,000 homes destroyed, 1,000,000 children worse
than orphaned. And if the country should be searched, from center to
circumference, it would be impossible to find any good resulting from this
traffic, or a single reason why it should exist longer. A competent committee, a
short time ago, ex­amined the reports from the counties of Iowa, from which they
furnish us the following:

Criminal costs from 86 counties, reported for 1877

$344,319.47

Rate for the other fourteen counties not reported

$56,051.94

Total criminal expense

$400,371.41

Nine-tenths of this occasioned by liquor.

$360,334.26

Cost of maintaining Insane Asylum

$230,260.76

Fifty-five percent of this due to liquor traffic

$129,943.41

Cost of the penitentiary.

$95,206.87

Nine-tenths due to liquor

$85,686.18

Pauperism caused by liquor, 1875—latest dates

175,179.00

Cost of feeble-minded orphans

$120,000.00

Expenses of the two reform schools

$18,826.48

Cost of the running expenses of the State for one year. (This to be paid by
direct taxes of the people)

$1,046,000.00

Take from this our liquor, criminal and pauper expenses. In short, the
incidental expenses of the liquor traffic, and they are reduced to

$68,201.99

During 1877 there were convictions for crime.

5,672

Of these, the number of saloon-keepers

874

Of other criminals by reason of liquor

718

This report was as accurate as the committee could make it, and shows that about
95 percent of the crime in our State was caused by the rum trade. The whole
drink bill, according to their report for 1877, lacked only a little of
$38,000,000. In Hardin County, alone, there were twenty-four criminal
convictions; fourteen of those convicted were saloon-keepers. Several others
came to their evil deeds from the influence of liquor.

The wholesale drink bill was

$74,880.00

Cost of criminal prosecutions

$1,491.61

Fines uncollected, and therefore lost

$2,605.23

Total

$78,976.84

Our equalized value of lands and town lots reaches

$3,011,443.00

Now, when we count our jail expenses, and all that result from the liquor
traffic in this county, we find ourselves paying three percent of our landed
worth for the inestimable privilege of rum. In absolute indifference to this
leakage of money and morals, we gravely discuss finance, complain of hard times,
write long articles on political econ­omy, the remonetization of silver, and the
circu­lating of greenbacks. But if any man shall uncap this sink-hole and show
where our money, as well as our honor and morality is disappearing it will be in
order to stand off and sneer learnedly at temperance fanaticism. BUT WE ARE
ASKED TO CONSIDER THE IMMENSE WEALTH IN THE COUNTRY THAT WOULD BE DESTROYED BY
ABOLISHING THIS TRADE. The United States has 903,414 acres of land em­ployed for
the whisky, beer and wine trade. This land, at $50 per acre, is worth
$45,170,700. That money, at ten percent, would be $4,517,070 as the annual
outlay in lands. In buildings and ma­chinery there is invested $74,041,044,
which, at ten percent, would yield $7,404,104.40 annually. In the manufactory of
alcohol, we perform $9,405,­104 worth of work per year. This is a heavy
in­vestment, I grant. But the land is capable of producing wheat, oats, corn and
potatoes. Hence, there is no capital in that which will be lost by prohibition.
The men who work at this business could easily find other and useful employment.
Nay, more, the tramps that have threatened to overrun the country are largely
the outgrowth of the whisky and beer business. But for alcohol and its
concomitants, tramps in this country had never been heard of. The buildings can
be used for some profitable purpose. In machinery, and in liquors on hand, there
would be a few millions loss. And yet, if all these buildings would burn up
tonight, and the lands be converted into rattle­snake dens, and the men become
paupers tomor­row, the country would be incalculably wealthier by the change.
The total costs of alcohol in this country, count­ing all percents, wastes, loss
of time, criminal expenses, give us an outlay for 1877 of $1,866,642,203. Who
would refuse the meager sacrifice necessary to save the country from this
financial ruin that weighs us to the very earth?


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 43: 03.05.     HOW SHALL WE REMOVE THE EVIL?
========================================================================

How Shall We Remove the Evil? This is the most difficult of all questions
relating to the evils of intemperance. Many answers are given by those who wish
the world to be saved from the demon. We have also many suggestions from the
enemy himself. Not unfrequently he at­tends our councils and tenders his advice.
Some­times we have been decoyed into covenant-making with him, and have found
always, when too late, that we had lost our virtue and power by our unrighteous
obeisance to him whose work it is to ruin our cause. Daily and hourly are the
workers in the cause of humanity enlightening each other respecting the best
methods of dealing with the monster of intemperance. Of course we will sus­pect
each other’s loyalty to the cause, or exercise an unpleasant amount of charity
for those who differ from us. This is because we are severally right on the
subject, and those who differ from us are either in favor of saloons or their
temperance education has been sadly neglected. When we are less infallible we
will understand one another better.

Moral persuasion is always a legitimate power to employ against money. Hence it
is evident that in every effort to pledge men against the use of that which can
intoxicate, every speech that is made in favor of total abstinence, every
article written and printed, every tract circulated in favor of the truth, every
organization by which this work may be carried forward, by which men may be
induced to return from drinking habits and others kept from falling into the
snares of the tempter, is in the right direction. All honor to all the Ribbon
Movements, to Good Templars, Sons of Temperance and Temple of Honor workers. Let
them work on; let the Father Mathew Societies be kept up; let the Bands of Hope
and Juvenile Templars bring up the rear of this great army. They are co-workers
in the mighty army. But some have thought that this is "ONLY A MORAL QUESTION."

He who holds this view says that no law can remove the appetite for drink, and
therefore this work must be accomplished by moral means. This was the profound
folly of ex-Governor Seymour, of New York, to say nothing of still wiser men.

Let me utter my logic as a match for this: "No persuasion can remove the
appetite for drink; therefore, men must be saved by prohibition, which will put
the drink, and the temptation to drink, out of the way." In the attempt at logic
made by my brother, one premise is assumed which is not true. It is that, in
order to remove drunkenness from the land, the appetite for drink must be
destroyed. It is also assumed, in an attempt at a second syllogism in the same
combination, that moral persuasion will re­move the appetite for drink. This
again is untrue. While my logic was not put into logical form, it will bear the
pressure.

To reform men, temptation to drink must be taken from them.

Prohibition will remove the temptation.

There­fore drunkenness can be removed by prohibition.

Hence my position is logically true, while that of my friend is logically
untrue. There is only one fault with the syllogism which I offered. My first
premise seems to deny that any man can be reformed in the presence of
temptation. I am will­ing to grant that some have been reformed and saved in the
presence of temptation. But the num­ber is very small, and with the moral
persuasion ap­pliances only, more than forty men are going down to one that is
coming back.

Hence when a man begins to talk to me of there being no other way to redeem the
world from drunkenness except by moral persuasion, I am impress­ed with the
feeling that he takes me for a simpleton.

There can be no doubt that, so far as the drinker is concerned, moral persuasion
can be employed legit­imately, and sometimes with good results. Many have been
turned back again from incipient drunkenness by the power of moral persuasion.
But when we look on and see that for every one of our men we disentangle from
the meshes of this abomin­ation, Satan inveigles forty-three more, we despair of
saving the world by moral persuasion alone.

Every question has its moral phase if it in any way relates to right and wrong.
All the crimes in the catalogue are to be dealt with by moral means—theft,
murder, fraud, infamy, are all moral questions and are to be dealt with by moral
persuasion. And there is as much reason to refuse pro­hibition respecting one of
these as another. Sup­pose I should say that no law can remove the propensity of
the thief; therefore law is not to be employed in the case. Suppose, then, that
having perpetrated this immense nonsense, I should make it the foundation of
another position and say, "Therefore, the only means by which theft is to be
removed is the use of moral persuasion!" I know this would be foolishness; and
yet it is exactly parallel with the moral persuasion-alone-argument on the
liquor question. A man who believes in moral persuasion alone usually persists
in misunderstanding prohibition­ists, and denies that they believe in any moral
persuasion at all in order to save men from drunken­ness. Yet I never saw a
prohibitionist that did not believe in the use of all the persuasion that can be
made effectual in removing the curse from the earth. Their position is moral
persuasion for the drinker, and legal persuasion for the rum seller. It is my
opinion that legal persuasion will have to be applied to the drinker. It is so
employed after a kind now. Indeed, the license form of this ques­tion is legal
persuasion for the drinker and moral persuasion for the rum-seller.

Moral means, as a rule, are ineffectual with the saloon-keeper. What he wants is
the money. Give him that and you may have all the morals. And while some who
have gotten into drinking habits may be persuaded to return to a temperate life,
many of them seem to have gone beyond the reach of hope; and the only persuasion
that will reach the case is that of the law. It is probable, there­fore, that
both drinking and selling that which can intoxicate will have to be punished by
law. And while many drinkers will have to be with­held from the crime of
drunkenness by the author­ity of law, there may be a few saloon-keepers who can
be influenced to quit their nefarious business by moral persuasion. I would,
therefore, try the soft words and the handfuls of turf, and, if successful in
that way, all right; but, if not, I would use stones without any compunction
whatever.

Just now there is a religious feature to the ques­tion that is both promising
and sad. In this new idea men persuade themselves that IT IS THE WORK OF GOD TO
REMOVE INTEMPERANCE.

Those who hold this view usually disparage the use of law. Mr. Murphy has
nothing but good will and kind words for saloon-keepers; and they hold him in
very high esteem. The great revival that he held in Pittsburg carried everything
before it; but its noise had hardly died out on the air when there were
seventy-two more saloons in the city than at the beginning of his great revival.
A few places, even in civilized Iowa, have suffered from this same religious
gush. Men have been taught that with sound conversion the Holy Ghost would
destroy all appetite for drink, extract the poison from their systems, and heal
up their ulcer­ated stomachs. In the midst of the whirl and ex­citement, men
have loudly professed this physical sanctification. But when the fervor of the
occa­sion has subsided, the sow returns to the mire; and, after a few months of
sobriety and industry, they have returned, to spend the money they have made
with the "noble saloon-keeper." I do not wish to call such performances a farce.
Many who engage in them are honest, severely honest. But it is only the part of
candor to confess that but little, if any good, has been accomplished that has
not been counter-balanced by the religious untruths that have been taught, and
the shilly-shally softness with which the whole question has been treated.

It is not enough to say to men who take God at his word that there is no promise
in the Bible that God will heal up a drunkard’s stomach any more than he will
put back on the hand that he has cut off in some drunken fit. Hence the frenzy
that has come from this false teaching cannot be otherwise than injurious. As
well might we expect men to fill and fatten on the east wind as to receive any
lasting benefit from such religious froth and pious nonsense.

We should use religious persuasion; we should bring every man to Christ that we
can; and we can assure them that God will help them if they continue to help
themselves. But any effort that leaves men so nearly unconverted as to be
satis­fied with the existence of saloons, can have but very little of promise in
it. In so far as this movement has called public attention to the sub­ject of
temperance, good has been the result. Agitation is the handmaid of truth. But to
the extent that men have been reconciled to the ex­istence of saloons,
unmitigated evil is the result.

I will help no man, nor movement, that helps the saloons; and to have a revival
of the kind I have described in the town where I live would be a real calamity.
I would pray for temperance; I would work for temperance; I would live for
tem­perance; I would vote for temperance. When I pray I must pray in faith; but
to pray in faith I must ask for what God has promised to give; also, I must
comply with the conditions upon which the blessing is to be enjoyed. Hence I
cannot pray to God to remove the curse of intemperance by doing what he has
never promised to do; and I must, to the utmost of my ability, answer my own
prayers.

There are many yet who say that the only law that can be of any benefit is a

LICENSE.

Every law should be judged, at least in part, by its object. And we are to
suppose some worthy object to have been before the minds of men when the idea of
licensing the sale of liquor was be­gotten. The end proposed was to remove the
disgrace, and curtail the injuries of the traffic.

I notice a fallacy in this system to begin with. It is that the sale of liquors
is not a crime in itself; hence, only the abuse needs to be pre­vented. This
idea has been duly prominent in all the license laws that have been made till
within the last ten or fifteen years. Men have been enlightened on the subject,
of late, till it is now regarded as an evil under any circumstances. And under
the direction of this advanced idea, those who have favored the license system
have done so on the ground that the evil could not be sup­pressed, and that all
we could do with it would be to hinder it from working the fearful ravages in
human society that it is likely to work unless con­trolled by law. This last
view is inconsistent with Christianity. If a thing is wrong, we do not dare to
legalize it, or give to it the sanction of law. To do so would be to throw
around a crime the protection and respectability of our government; and, to the
ex­tent of our protection, we become partakers of other men’s sins. If a thing
is right, then we have no more right to tax it in this way than we have to
impose a stamp act, and compel all commod­ities to pay duty, or, at least, all
luxuries to do so. Hence, logically, we have no right to license the liquor
traffic, whether right or wrong.

Now, if crime is to be regulated by law, espe­cially that of the sale of
alcohol, I cannot see why a man should not be required to take out a license to
drink it. This, too, might go to in­crease the school fund! And a man would then
have purchased the right to any kind of a debauch that might happen to suit his
peculiar taste. It would then be his right to squander his means with the
"gentlemen of good moral character and standing" who have been employed by the
people to corrupt their sons, impoverish the community, and ruin the country.
Having purchased this lib­erty with a great sum of money, he would then be free,
not only to drink whisky, but to commit whatever crimes it might prompt. And
whatever of infamy, of theft, of lust unbridled, of brutality, beastiality and
loathsomeness that would naturally follow his inebriety, would have all been
arranged and provided for by the prepaid indulgence! No man could then call in
question his right to beat his wife for not having dinner ready for her lord,
when there was nothing to make it of, and no fuel to cook it with; for this
would be one of the con­sequential privileges that he would have purchased in
obtaining his license! This would surely make it all right! No one could object
to a gentleman like that having the privilege of wrecking his man­hood,
impoverishing his family, and losing his own soul; especially if he would first
pay a sum of money into our school fund for such a pleasure and privilege!
Besides, it would not at all incon­venience him. He could as easily prove a good
character before the law as the saloon-keeper. Let the license law, then, be
made consistent with it­self, or let it be repealed.

I think I hear a murmuring objection, that this is not a fair statement of the
question; that the evils are upon us, and that they simply make choice between
them; that they only prefer the evils that will occur under a license system to
the greater evils that would occur in the absence of such a law; that this is
the only available means by which they can ever lessen the terrible results of
the existence and use of alcohol. The fallacy of this may be made to appear by
striking out "liquor traffic," and inserting "mur­der." Let me claim to believe
that, since the time that Cain murdered Abel, this crime has been repeated
annually, and almost hourly, under what­ever laws have been enacted against it.
There­fore, as law cannot remove the evil from the world, we must license it! I
am, therefore, justifiable in helping to sustain a "license-murder-law," as the
best thing that may be done under the cir­cumstances. Would I be regarded as
favoring the protection of the people? But I very distinctly tell you that I am
in favor of suppressing murder; but, until the people are better educated than
we find them at present, any effort to prohibit this crime by law will be a
failure, and that such at­tempts to control the people, without the ability to
succeed, will have the effect to render all law nugatory. Hence, I will license
murder, and make it legitimate and respectable, and thus educate the world to
abhor it to such an extent that we will be enabled to pass and execute a law
prohibiting it! To take such a position would demand a vast amount of dignity
and bustling pretension, to make me respectable in the minds of Christian men,
who are given to that mental movement called thought. My brethren, west of the
Mississippi especially, would not possess the mental acuteness to distinguish
between my course and aiding and abetting the murderer. Do you say that the
cases are not parallel? I know it. The murderer kills but a few men, while the
rum trade kills sixty thousand annually. Not only so, but the murderer leaves
their good name and their souls untouched, while the liquor traffic robs them,
kills them, and damns them; fills the land with heart-broken wives, mothers,
sisters, brothers, fathers, with orphaned children, desolate homes, squalid
poverty, and sows the land with seeds of shameless, nameless criminality, that
send their pestiferous roots downward till they have sapped the foundation of
every virtue, and raised their branches aloft, the very shade of which is
spiritual death and moral putridity. This argument is sometimes made for a
pro­tection at this point:

It is my duty to lessen the, crime of drunk­enness and drunkard-making all I
can.

The circumstances are such that I can get and operate no law except a stringent
license, which will at least do some good toward protection.

Therefore, it is my duty to employ the only law at my command by which I can
accomplish any good for the people.

This, however, is special pleading. It assumes the point in debate, that the
license law is all that he can get and operate; which, if all temperance men
were united, would not be true in a single State in the Union. Again, this
pleading is pre­sented in justification of the efforts made in favor of the
license system. If it could be proven to be our duty to quietly accept a license
under some peculiar circumstances, it would say nothing in favor of contending
for a license, when it is con­fessedly not the law that is wanted, when the law
we do want may possibly be obtained. The idea of voting and working for a law,
which, in the nature of things, is wrong, in order to accept something called
the lesser evil, is the doctrine condemned by Paul in the Roman letter: "Let us
do evil that good may come!"

But, again, some philosopher objects that we assume knowledge of the right and
wrong in mat­ters of law which is not granted. The right and wrong of law must
be determined by the con­dition of the people to whom such law is given. Hence,
we must judge of a law by its competency to prevent the wrong and assist the
right; to the extent of success in these things is the law valu­able. Moses gave
Israel a permit of divorcement, not because the law was the best in itself, but
be­cause it was the best for the times. The hardness of the hearts of the people
made him give them this law; it being the best that could then be enforced.

Observation will convince any thoughtful person, however, that the cases are not
at all similar. If you will read, and critically examine Deu 24:1-2, you will
find that the divorcement referred to by the Savior in Mat 19:1-30 contained
strong prohibitory features. It was less in keeping with the original purpose of
marriage than the teaching of the Master. But when we have gone to the utmost
limit of the words employed, we have, by Moses, a prohibitory law, not a license
law, to regulate, or, rather, to remove a social evil. This law, however, was
less complete in the prohibitory features than the one afterward given by the
Savior. Here, then, is the logic. Because of the hardness of the hearts of that
people Moses gave us a law less strict in its prohibitory features than the one
Jesus gave, therefore, in this enlight­ened day, when a majority of the people
want a prohibitory law, we are justified in licensing men to spread a snare for
the feet of the unsuspecting and unwary, to give their neighbor drink, to put
the bottle to him and make him drunken also! See Hab 2:15. It seems to me that
when Deu 24:1-2 is cited in favor of the right, under any circumstances, to
license the liquor trade, there has been wanting an exegesis of the passage, or
a willingness to have perfect justice done the sub­ject. Let no one hold me
accountable for this impression of mine. It is only my impression.

It might be pertinent here to ask, what benefits can be derived from a license
law of any kind? The thing can be done, no matter whatever it may be, as well
without a license as with it. In fact, just the same. So far as it is really a
license law, it has but one power, and that is to defend the thing licensed.
This defense by law of a crime renders it still more difficult to be met, since
now the law of the land is made to protect it, and give to it the tone of
respectability. The only ability in any license system to pre­vent vice and
crime is to be found in its prohib­itory features; such as, thou shalt not sell
to minors, men that are in a state of intoxication, to men who are in the habit
of becoming intox­icated, to any one on Sunday or on days of elec­tion; or, if
the man commits nuisance or permits gambling, or violates any of the conditions
of his license, his authority to sell may be taken away al­together, and in this
case be a total prohibition—where the people are sufficiently educated. Hence,
if a law was wholly license, it could not do any good, since it could not impart
any right to do that which would be beneficial, for that right ex­ists
independent of any license; while it might have the power to fasten upon even an
unwilling people untold and unending evils. I repeat it, then, with emphasis,
that, in the nature of things, merely a license law has but one power, and that
is to perpetuate the wrong. But I must notice the policy argument.

It is claimed that a license law is more accept­able to the masses of people,
that it is more easily enforced than a prohibitory law, and yet that it contains
features of prohibition that will go far to­ward removing the evils of
intemperance; indeed, much further than more ultra-prohibitory measures.

Here I am impressed with the evidence of a contradiction. It is tacitly
acknowledged in their argument that, (1) the rum trade is an evil; (2) the only
way to remove the evil is to prohibit the trade; (3) therefore we must permit
the trade or license it! Such is the logical nonsense of this argument. But
someone says we prefer to put it in this form: (1.) A mild form of prohibition
is the best way to remove the evil: (2.) A judicious license law furnishes that
form of prohibition. (3.) There­fore a license law is best calculated to remove
the evil. But I ask, Why license the sale of rum in any way? Whether its sale is
right or wrong, the traffic can be carried on just as well without the license
as with it; and if the law contains prohib­itory features, for which alone it is
valuable, why not incorporate those features into a law by them­selves, and
leave the rest out? Will our licensing a man to sell to one class of men enable
us the better to prohibit him from selling to another? Now, I am just impressed
with the idea that no man in his senses will say yes.

There remains, then, no reason why a law re­lating to this question should
contain any license features.

I hate a monopoly in anything, for it can only lead to tyranny—at least such is
its history. But why a monopoly should be allowed in rum-selling more than in
anything else, I do not know. As to its preventing bad men from selling, it is
the merest nonsense in existence. Scarcely will any other man seek for- or
obtain a license; for no man who has the cause of humanity at heart will,
un­derstandingly, engage in such a nefarious business. Hence it makes money the
standard of character necessary to engage in this traffic. Now, I think that any
poor wretch who may want to deal out poison by the ten cents’ worth, ought to
have the same right to take the life of his fellow-man for money that the rich
man has. As this is a free country, let him exercise his gift. The whisky that
he would sell would only make loafers, loungers, vagabonds; brutalize, debauch,
ruin, blunt all the finer sensibilities of the soul; cause poverty, destroy the
peace in the family and in society, de­throne the reason and wreck the manhood;
sow the seeds of degradation and death; bloat and blacken and blister and blight
the body; fill the country with helpless orphans and broken-hearted widows, and
cover the land with shame and dis­grace, just the same as that which is sold by
that more fortunate gentleman who is able to sport "a good moral character!" And
hence the injustice of our law must be apparent, as it refuses one of the
inalienable (?) rights to a poor, worthless crea­ture, for no other reason than
his want of money to buy license to kill men and be happy and respectable! But
there is sometimes a plea made for the license law like this: We must license
the sale of ruin, so that it may come legitimately under the control and
regulation of law. Such a plea, how­ever, is utterly void of any common sense.
We would here pay it no attention but for our respect for those who offer it.
There are many crimes of minor importance that our law deals with by
pro­hibiting them. If any man would argue that we must license theft, or
larceny, or fraud, in order to bring it under the control of law, it would only
excite contempt for the author. The argument itself is really based upon the
idea that selling whisky is not wrong in itself; but it is only when abused by
being conducted in an improper manner. This, however, we have already
considered, and have decided that the traffic in intoxicants is the most
withering, blighting curse than has ever befallen our country. Still further, it
is evident that when the saloon is raised in the scale of its degradation
looking toward decency, its power for evil is increased; that it then becomes
capable of deceiving many who would never be decoyed into one of those lower
haunts of vice. Hence, the saloon business is a crime against humanity, and,
like any other crime, cannot be regulated. That is not what law proposes to do
with crime. Sup­pose that we talk sentimentally about regulating murder by law?
Our logic would then only equal that of those who argue that we must regulate
the rum traffic by a license law!

1. All these laws, so far as known to the writer, have undertaken to legislate
against the drunkard. If a man is found in a state of intoxication, he may be
arrested by the city marshal, put into the cooler till morning, then fined by
the mayor five or ten dollars, and sent home to his family, penniless,
friendless, and hopeless. The money that might have furnished starving children
with food has been taken to satisfy the demands of law and political conscience;
but he by whose machina­tions, inducements and temptations this man has been
made a drunkard walks abroad without cen­sure. It was a silly fly to be caught
by the spider; but for that folly punishment has been meted out. The fly is a
simpleton, I grant, but the spider is the cold-blooded criminal. If the old fly
has fallen a prey to the tempter, should there be a law among insects that would
punish all the young at home; thus increasing the suffering consequent upon
parental vanity or folly, and at the same time license Mr. Spider to continue
his depreda­tions without let or stint? The man has made a fool of himself in
getting drunk, and the license law visits his folly upon the heads of the wife
and innocent and helpless chil­dren, while the man who, more than all others is
to blame in the matter, is petted and pampered, and protected by the law that
talks of justice!

2. A man may be dangerous to society while drunk--murder may be the probable
result of a single drink—but in the midst of temptation the drinker does not
realize his condition. The drink is sold, the brain is maddened, the murder is
committed, and the insane actor is punished with death or imprisonment for life,
while the real mur­derer walks in company with the respectable, and is to be
honored as a worthy citizen! True, the saloon-keeper may have had no quarrel
with the deceased. What he did was only for the money he got for the drink; and
yet, but for that drink the murder had not been committed. He may have been
wholly indifferent as to the results of that drink; and yet the two facts that
fasten crime are found in his history: 1. He knew its probable results; and, 2.
He sold the liquor in full view of such probabilities. Here, then, is the
injustice of all license law. It sentences one man, who was impelled by the
maddening power of drink, while the man who is more to blame than any other goes
free!

3. If one man should kill 60,000 men he would be the most notorious murderer of
this age. No matter how he might accomplish this destruction of life—whether he
poisoned the air or the water—the deed would be the same. Nor would it be any
amelioration to find that he had no personal ill-will against any of his
victims. And though we find that for this horrible deed he received one billion
in gold, even this temptation would not be accepted as an apology. But the
rum-trade kills that many annually, and yet we license it to con­tinue. When I
say rum-trade, I put the business in the place of the saloonists who prosecute
it. Hence these men are as guilty of murder as one man would be who would poison
the water or the atmosphere, or by some device decoy the unsuspecting multitudes
into a snare by which the same results would be reached. They cannot be
re­leased from this charge on the plea that the work has been divided among
160,000 men. Neither law nor justice can permit them to escape in that way. Does
someone say that it is not known in any one case that death has been the result
of the individual work of any one man? This statement, however, is not true. It
is known in hundreds of cases just where the liquor was obtained by which the
death was caused. And yet, if it could not be clearly and certainly shown who
shot the man last, they are all guilty of shooting to the extent of their
opportunities and ammunition. Does another say that these men have not severally
known the result of the liquor, beforehand, and therefore have not been guilty
of murder? I answer that they do know the probable consequences of the whole
trade; and hence, in the light of the facts, they drive their business in the
face of the murder that results therefrom. Let me illustrate: Five men ask a
license to shoot among a thousand. The license is granted. They shoot without
taking aim. Two men are killed. These were the prob­able results before
shooting, and are found to have been the consequence of the sport of these
game­sters. We may prove that neither one of these men could know that he killed
a man; but when all the facts are reported, these men would be convicted of
murder by any law except a license law. Such a law might clear them, for it is
par-deeps criminis. Hence, we say it boldly, that the average saloon-keeper
knows that he is destroying human life, but for the sake of the money gotten
from the trade he continues to kill, and is in every proper sense of the word a
murderer!

Therefore we emphasize the injustice of the law in that it discriminates between
criminals, and that it defeats the ends of justice thereby.

Sometimes it is argued that the saloon-keeper is not responsible for this
drunkenness; that he does not ask men to get drunk and butcher each other in
this fearful way: he does not sell without the consent of the men themselves.
Suppose this were all true, what then? Will the fact that men have been willing
to be duped into this loss of property, manhood, honor, and even life, lessen
the crime upon the part of these tempters and seducers? But for their work this
slaughter would never occur. They know this, and are therefore guilty in the
full meaning of the term.

Suppose that a man who is skilled in the black art should come into your town
exhibiting his attainments. He invites young men to come up and sit with him on
the platform, assuring them that he can pass his hand over their eyes and
de­ment them so that they will never know anything more. But a hundred young
men, full of con­fidence in themselves, deny his ability to injure them in that
way. Then follows the test. It is seen by the audience that the work has been
done. See the frantic mothers rushing upon the plat­form, each one calling to
her son, to bring back his mental powers. But all to no purpose. Reason has
fled; and now they are a set of idiots who stare at those who speak to them; but
they know not anything. The mothers rush upon the con­jurer in the wildness of
despair—"Bring my son to his right mind again." Watch that sneer on the
countenance of that hardened trickster, as he says: "Ladies, I have done with
your boys all that I proposed to do, and I cannot bring them back again. I did
not force them into this exper­iment; they undertook the matter of their own
accord. Hence, as I gave them fair warning, I am in no way responsible for the
results." Would your city fathers license him to continue his efforts to dement
the youth of your city? Will the fact that it was by their choice that the trial
was had, make his experiments any less injurious? Will the people excuse him on
that plea? He was more honorable than the rum-seller; he told just what he would
do. The saloon-keeper hides the results of his experiments. He says to young
men: "Come in and have a good time." They walk in, and he ruins them. Is he now
excusable on the ground of their willingness to take the risk? Suppose that he
advertised his goods as one man does in this State (Iowa): "NOSE PAINT;" "THE
ROAD TO HELL;" would even a correct advertisement make his work any less awful?
There would be a little infernal boldness in such performances; but nothing that
could wipe out the evil done, or make him less than a murderer when he kills
men. No matter if he should say on his sign: "I will take your money, waste your
time, make fools of you, rob you of your fortune, your honor and your manhood; I
will bloat your body and remove your reason; I will corrupt your morals and
dis­grace you in the eyes of all intelligent people; I will madden your brain,
and send you home to kill your wife and children or your neighbor; I will take
your life by inches, and damn you for­ever." This would of course be but a
partial advertisement; and yet it is true as far as it goes. But would that
correct advertisement make him anything less than a murderer? Though he
ac­knowledges that it is his legitimate business to empty the community of all
its morals, waste its energies and resources, and take the lives of its best
men; and though, after that fair warning, the people invite him to engage in his
work in their midst, he is still guilty, and should be punished according to the
magnitude of his crimes.

4. Our law prohibits incest, infamy, bigamy, theft, robbery, fraud,
manslaughter, murder, etc., and then licenses that which is the parent of all
these crimes. Nine-tenths of all the criminality in our land is caused by the
sale and use of intox­icating drinks. If we must license crime, let us license
the smaller evils and prohibit the greater ones. Let us license thieving,
infamy, murder, but not that which lies at the root of all the evils known to
men and demons.

If only our people could be made to realize their responsibility, that what we
do by the hands of another we do as really as if we acted inde­pendently of such
an agent; that when we make a law that permits crime to run riot at noonday, and
that when men are killed as the result of such a law, that we are guilty of the
blood of a brother, we might be still more aroused on the question than what we
are. Having witnessed the utter in­competency of the license system to bring us
any relief from the evils of intemperance; finding that it has failed, as it
must, of any practical good to those States that have tried it; seeing that it
is wrong, in the nature of things, to license that which is evil, and that the
sale of whisky is the greatest evil of the present time, we ask, Are we not
ready now to deal sensibly with this question? While men are ready to exercise
common sense in reference to all other crimes, we wonder how long it will be
before the crime of rum-selling may be dealt with in justice.

I will now state my objections to the license system numerically:

1. A LICENSE LAW CANNOT BE ENFORCED IN ANY RESPECT IN WHICH THE PEOPLE SHALL BE
BENEFITED.

If this proposition is too sweeping, it may be modified by easily, or not well.
What I want to affirm is, that a license law necessarily stands in opposition to
all effort to prevent the sale of rum. If the law contains prohibitory features,
then, in so far, it is prohibition and not license, and all its license features
are in antagonism to them. By the very fact that the law will license a certain
traffic, that traffic is defended from all forcible op­position. In throwing
around the business such a safeguard, the law has plainly said that it is legal
and right, and therefore not to be hindered.

Take into account the many opportunities of avoiding the law under a license
system, and they render the chances for the enforcement of its regu­lations very
small indeed. To begin with, the man that is thus permitted and indorsed to
drive his trade is a villain, and cares nothing for the law. I do not say that
all saloon-keepers are murderers and thieves, for some of them may be ignorant
of the results of their work. But most of them know what they are doing, and
thus engage in cold-blooded murder. This they do for money, knowing that their
money will make them respectable. It would be unrea­sonable to expect such men
to observe any law that would stand in the way of their business. The chances to
sell directly or indirectly to mi­nors, or men who are intoxicated, or those who
are in the habit of getting drunk, are only limited by the wish and the means of
his victims. If we were to enter all the saloons in the United States at one
time, say at 9 o’clock at night, we would unearth as many minors, or nearly as
many, as those who were of the age prescribed by the law, and we would get the
proof that saloon men care nothing for the law. Do you say, then, they are
liable to heavy punishment? How are you going to prove them guilty? They have
corrupted the community, until no law in that place can be en­forced against
them. In every way they are as­sisted in evading the law. They do everything in
the darkness and under the cover which the law provides. The law may license the
sale of wine, ale and beer, and prohibit the stronger drinks. But how are we to
know what he sells? A man who will go there, and get the one of these, will get
any other drink there just as well. And, respecting poisoned liquors, he has
every chance to drug them that would please his depravity; and, with­out a
constabulary, or some system that a license law never provides, there can be
found no means of knowing what he sells. All the chances for the evasion of any
law restricting his wishes in the matter are granted that he could wish. It is
no matter of wonder, then, that every saloon-keeper in the country favors
license and opposes pro­hibition.

2. There is no way to protect ourselves against the vilest men on the earth
under a license law. Do you say that they must have twelve men to go on their
bonds, certifying that they are men of good moral character and standing? But
who are these bondholders? Any men who may be freeholders. But a man who is low
enough in his morals to encourage a saloon does not care a fig whether the man
has any character or not. He knows, if he has common sense, that men of good
morals would not engage in the traffic. But that does not matter. He wishes the
saloon, and will go on any bond, and for any man, in order that the thing may
succeed. Here, then, is another feature in the license system that is deceptive.

3. The low tone of morals begotten by saloons will render any law regulating or
prohibiting in­temperance nugatory.

If the license law succeeded in making sa­loons decent and respectable then it
would ruin all the more. A young man does not begin to drink in those low, dirty
dens of debauchery. He pre­fers to be a respectable gentleman, who can take a
glass or let it alone; he wishes to move in re­spectable society, and will not,
therefore, go to one of those low-order-saloons. But those houses where no
drunkenness is permitted, and where honorable men go to pass a social hour, are
the places competent to decoy him from the path of rectitude. Hence, if the
license system could be made to accomplish its purpose, of making saloons
respectable, and removing from them the drunkenness, revelry and murder that
occur in them, it would only enable them the more certainly to de­ceive the
unsuspecting, and then lead them into those habits that will certainly ruin
them. The principle of license is wrong. And if it could be found that
prohibition will not pro­hibit, still, as we have seen, there is no power in a
license to prevent intemperance. When we give any man a legal permit to sell rum
for a sum of money we discriminate between the rich and the poor. A few men
being enabled to monopolize the rum-trade does not lessen the drinking and
drunk­enness, as they can all be supplied from a few saloons as well as from a
larger number. To license the rum traffic is to participate in its results. The
saloon-keeper is responsible for the murders committed under the influence of
the liquors he sells. The law is also responsible, which has licensed his
business. And every man who voted for the law, or for men who would vote for the
law, is responsible. No man, therefore, who fears God, can vote for a license
law or for any man who will vote for it, seeing that by so doing he becomes a
participant in the evils thus encouraged.

LICENSE HINDERS THE EDUCATION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE CRIME OF
DRUNKENNESS.

Men have said, we must have education before legislation. In a sense this is
true. And yet it is-true that we never can have the needed educa­tion under a
license system. There are many per­sons—I dare say the majority—who judge of the
right and wrong of this question by the light in which the law exhibits it. The
masses think second-hand, and will not be easily persuaded that the law-makers
would have licensed this evil if it were such an unmitigated nuisance as we
affirm it to be.

Again: the familiarity of this abomination par­alyzes all opposition against it—

"Vice is a monster of such hideous mien, That to be hated needs but to be seen;
But seen too oft, familiar with its face, We first endure, then pity, then
embrace." A season of cholera sends the country into a tremor of excitement. A
few thousands have been carried away in defiance of all medical skill. But the
rum-trade may kill sixty thousand per annum, and we pay but little attention to
it, be­cause we are accustomed to it. Hence the licens­ing of this traffic binds
upon us a custom that has an educating influence in the United States equal to
one hundred and sixty thousand schools kept in favor of those vices, out of
which we expect a few hundred men to bring the people by goodish lectures on the
evils of drunkenness. While we are trying to educate the people, on one hand, to
total abstinence and prohibition, on the other, we are employing a billion every
year to teach them just the opposite. The cost of all temperance effort in the
United States for 1877, including the work done by clergymen, was not more than
ten million dollars, while the wholesale cost of rum was nearly seven hundred
and fifty millions; or, for every dollar we expended to teach the people that
intemperance was wrong, we paid seventy-five to teach that the use of these
drinks, as a beverage, is right and legal. And yet, men of thought on other
matters will continue to talk of education before legislation! To me it is
inconsistent, not to say hypocritical, for a man to preach that the use of
alcohol as a beverage is wrong, and then to vote that it is right and lawful. It
is like pray­ing that all who profess faith in Christ may be one, and then
laboring to keep the divisions that now exist, or like confessing the Lord in
words and then denying him in works. If, then, we do really favor education, we
must employ the object les­sons of the law. On this subject, B. Gratz Brown, in
one of his speeches, presents my view so well that I can do no better than copy
it. He says:

"Of twenty-three murders in one year, in Phila­delphia, twenty came of drink. Of
75,692 arrests in New York City, 34,696 were for drunkenness and dis­order.

"In fact, all the annals of penitentiaries, houses of correction and jails, but
confirm what you see so patent in daily police reports, that intoxication and
crime go hand in hand down the slippery paths to perdition. And this moral
leprosy is contagious, constantly spreading, making its conscription younger
every generation. But the blunted moral sense which breeds dishonesties among
individuals, when brought into contact with the State, turns its employ into
rings of plunder and com­binations for spoils. Those who have witnessed the
growth, in late years, of the sentiment that robbery of the State is no robbery
unless discovered, will not need to be told that it finds its culmination in
that organized association known as the lobby, whose trade is corrup­tion; whose
appliance is human weakness, and whose Bible is the bottle.

"The effect, however, of this open traffic in intox­icating drinks is visible in
the morals of public thought long before it takes on any violent types of
depravity. What the State licenses, the community will persist in regarding as
right. Thus all reverence for law is under­mined in those who still believe it
wrong, and all faith in morals is shaken with such as stickle for the law; so
that obedience to authority, which constitutes good cit­izenship, finds itself
embarrassed either in accepting or repudiating legalized intoxication. Indeed,
it goes much further; for we have thus the State as a teacher of morals,
inculcating, by way of a first lesson, that the be­ginnings, whether of virtue
or vice, are, in its estimation, matters of indifference. How early the seeds of
dis­obedience are sown by such teaching may be well shown from reports of the
Boston public schools, where, by careful inquiry, it has been shown that ’among
the causes for truancy, that which so far transcends all others as to be
considered the cause of causes, is the early use of intoxicating drinks.’ Such
is the attesta­tion of Mr. Philbrick, for so many years superintendent. If to
this be added the educating influence of the dram shops, for they are the
rendezvous of riper profligates ambitious to encourage the young to emulate
their courses, some idea may be formed of the antagonism thus interposed to any
higher moral and physical de­velopment. Even if the great object of government,
then, was merely the suppression of crime, without other or nobler purposes,
does it not sap the very foundations of its strength and permanence by
sanctioning the license system? Is it not equally fatal, as a policy of State,
to the governing and the governed?

"And here I might properly rest this analysis, were it not that there is one
great element of society which re­volves in a sphere, of its own, and is
scarcely to be classified under either of these aspects. I mean the families of
the people—the centers of domestic rather than public life. The dram-shops law
is not merely a menace; it is a crime against the marriage ties.

"The State first licenses the sale of intoxicating liquors, and then declares
habitual intoxication cause for divorce. This is separation made easy; and
ninety-nine cases out of every hundred which occur in our courts rest on that
ground. It is not the question here whether drunkenness be sufficient cause; but
if it is, how can the government excuse itself for upholding and legalizing the
traffic which causes drunkenness? And where one family is thus dissolved by a
legal edict, how many thousands upon thousands die out, or are virtually
destroyed, which make no outward sign? It is in the heart of the mother and the
terror of the child that this dread visitant first finds recognition. It is over
ruined hopes, and broken promises, and lost respect, and wounded love, that
drunkenness invades the family, and when once there, it is only a question of
how long before every affection which binds that family together will be
trampled out of being. And the future of citi­zenship is thus accursed before it
is born into time." THE CIVIL DAMAGE CLAUSE The civil damage clause has some to
advocate its claims. This law would license the sale of intoxicants, and then
attempt to make the vender responsible for the damage that he shall do while in
the use of these legal liberties. On this idea we may license a man to steal,
but make him responsible in those cases in which he is caught. It would be far
better for mankind to license the horse-thief, for he is a far better man than
the saloon-keeper, and does much less harm. He makes property to change hands
without the owner’s consent, but he does not waste the time of two millions of
men, nor does he intoxicate or otherwise deprave the people. Of course we could
catch him in his tricks occasionally, and then the former owner would only lose
the time and work of his horse, and his own time in getting him. The civil
damage clause, with licensing the rum-trade, is inoperative. No one wishes to
file the complaint at the time that the damage is being done. It is when a man
is being initiated into the habit of drinking that the work of ruin takes place.
At such a time, however, if a saloon­keeper should be sued at law for damages,
he would have nothing to pay. The law protects him in his mischief till he has
ruined his victim. Then, the wife, or sister, or mother, when driven to the
verge of insanity and desperation, files the complaint. She has no means to
prosecute her cause, and no influence in the court. If, however, she should be
successful, only one or two thou­sand will be awarded. Is this the price of
blood? Is this what will satisfy the heart-broken wife?

We have certainly reached these conclusions:

That merely a license law cannot, in the nature of things, have any power to
remove the sin of intemperance.

To license the sale of rum protects the traffic.

If the law contains prohibitory features that might be of advantage, they are
antagonized and neutralized by the license itself.

If the traffic is right and proper, then it is unjust to refuse this natural
right to the poor man who has not the means necessary to pay the rev­enue
expenses.

If the traffic is wrong, no license can make it right, and no government has a
right to legalize and protect iniquity.

All are responsible for the injuries done under a license who aid, in any way,
in obtaining it.

No license law can be enforced, in any way, that will hinder drunkenness, for
all possible chances are extended to the saloon-keeper to evade the law.

A civil damage clause in a license law works no essential relief, but continues
all the oppor­tunities for drunkard-making, and, at best, offers money in the
place of fortunes wasted, men, and honor, and virtue, that have been stolen.

If a license law had the effect to make saloons respectable it would only
increase their power for evil.

The license system has an educating influ­ence that is very hard to overcome,
and is all on the side of drunkenness.

Any temperance effort that does not aim at prohibition, ultimately at least,
must be a failure.

Moral persuasion and religious persuasion should always be employed, when there
is even a possi­bility of saving anyone by their use; but neither has much power
over the rum-seller. Hence, in order to remove temptation from the young and
unsuspecting, saloons, with all that belong to them, must be abolished by law.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 44: 03.06.     THE RIGHT TO PROHIBIT.
========================================================================

The Right to Prohibit.

IT is said that a man has a right to eat and drink what he pleases; that a
prohibitory liquor law is a sumptuary law, and necessarily contravenes natural
right.

Sumptuary is from the Latin sumptus, which means expense, cost. Webster says:
"Relating to expense; regulating expense or expenditure. Sumptuary laws or
regulations, such as restrain or limit the expense of citizens, in apparel,
food, furniture, or the like."

Where, then, are the sumptuary features in a prohibitory liquor law? Does it
make any attempt to regulate the expenditures in house-keeping? It does not even
say what a man shall eat, what he shall wear, nor does it contain any features
of sumptuary regulations. It simply refuses the priv­ilege to men to sell that
which will impoverish and poison, and, in almost every sense, ruin all who shall
be deceived into its use.

They sometimes state their position as follows:

"A MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO DO WITH HIS OWN AS HE PLEASES." This statement would be
true with the following added: ONLY WHEN HE DOES NOT INJURE OTHERS THEREBY.

It is sometimes argued that a man has a right to do with his own as he pleases,
and therefore men and laws have no right to interfere with his busi­ness. If he
chooses to sell whisky, then it is his right to do so, since it is his property.
But if that argument is good, then the license system is wrong, since it may
debar some from this inalienable right, they not being able to pay the requisite
amount. But it is not true, in the absolute, that a man may do as he pleases
with his own; since, such a privilege granted to the unprincipled, would work
the insecurity of the person or property of another. By a wrong or vicious use
of his own, a man might do violence to other men, which he has no natural--and
should have no legal--right to do. Hence, a man may not burn down his own house,
since, if he does not endanger the houses of other men, or destroy the life of
someone within, yet he destroys the property of the/ commonwealth, and, by so
much, injures the community as he burns up its capital. A man may not ignite the
prairie grass on his own land, when, by so doing, he renders the property of
another unsafe. The land being his own makes no difference in the eyes of law
and justice. If a man should start a glue manufactory in the heart of our city,
though his work would be a profitable one in many respects, yet its fumes would
create an unhealthy and offensive atmos­phere. It would be dispensed with, and
no claims of a right to do as he pleases with his own would protect him in the
eyes of a refined and sensible community. To keep a hotel is right, to keep hogs
is well enough, to give them the offal [scraps, garbage] of the house is
judicious and economical; but where swine and slops become offensive to the
health and happiness of the people, neither the city fathers nor the citizens
listen to any claims of individual rights, but demand that the nuisance shall be
abated. A man might buy lots in this city and proceed to construct a powder
magazine thereon, under the pretense of a right to do as he pleases with his
own. But the people would be indignant at the idea. Nor would he be permitted to
continue in his business. This plea, then, must be so circum­scribed that when a
man does as he pleases with his own, he will not please to do that which will
injure other persons.

After all that has been said on the subject of a man’s right to eat and drink
what he pleases, the idea is not true, unless properly limited.

Man has some things in common with the ani­mal creation; such as flesh, blood,
bones, instinct, and intuition. He has also other mental qualities not possessed
by animals in general. Those declare that he is an animal, while these affirm
his superi­ority over all other earthly existences. When man gratifies his
appetite, or his lust, he yields to the demands of his inferior nature. The
instinct of animals is their guard against the violation of law. But man has
been left without such protection; for his superior powers of thought and reason
must be his guide. The demands of his lower, or animal nature, must be held in
abeyance to his superior intellectual endowment. His desire to accumulate
property is a much higher aspiration than the desire to pamper and pet, and
become the slave of his appetite; for it stands in the list of those qualities
that belong to his higher nature. Can we not argue, then, as it is man’s nature
to accumulate property, that he can therefore do so in that way that seems good
to him? But the law and the common sense of all men say, No! If a man shall
undertake to enhance the value of his property to the injury of his neighbor,
the whole civilized world stands ready with a veto. Our law is supposed to have
its foundation in justice when it refuses one man the privilege of taking
some­thing for nothing. Indeed this principle of justice underlies all the
enactments of our law with refer­ence to theft and fraud. This may be fixed
upon, then, as an axiom: A man has the natural and legal right to increase his
property in any way that he pleases, provided that he shall not interfere to the
injury of the rights, person, or property of anyone else. But if he may not
accumulate property, regardless of the consequences to anyone but himself, and
his desire to do so is a higher law than that of mere appetite, it is senseless
to argue that he may appease his appetite in any way he pleases, without regard
to the interests of other people. The question, then, comes to this: Can the
eat­ing and drinking of what one pleases interfere with the natural rights of
others? If we answer in the affirmative, then the boasted position of
liquor-dealers is gone.

If a man eats or drinks that which destroys his life, health, or his usefulness,
he thereby injures, to some extent, every other man. But especially is his
immediate community poorer in proportion to the amount of capital thus withdrawn
from its resources. But when we come to reckon the evils of whisky drinking,
they are so numerous, and of such fearful magnitude, that it is an absolute
strain upon our charity to regard any man as both sane and honest who will
contend for a minute that any man has any natural right to make a brute of
him­self in that way, It is now commonly known that to the account of
intoxicating drinks is charged nine-tenths of all the crimes brought into our
courts. Can any man in his senses believe that it is the right of any man to
drink that which will cause him to commit crime? Like all wrongs, these things
come by degrees. The man first drinks occasionally with a friend, then by
himself; then he neglects business to loaf around haunts of vice; his family is
impoverished; he becomes reckless, and, under the influence of the "narcotico
acrid poison," he commits murder or theft! Now, it may be difficult to determine
the exact time of his responsibility, but none will fail to charge up the crime,
along with his neglect of family and business, to the drink that has at last
brought him to ruin. Hence a man has no more right to drink that which will
cause him to commit a crime than to commit the crime itself. Again: it is
certain that a man has neither the right to drink, nor the right to sell
intoxicating beverages; for these are the acknowledged causes of nine-tenths of
all the crime of the country today.

I clip the following article from the National Prohibitionist for its good sense
and correct logic:

"QUARANTINE. —We are now having a very striking example of the power of law to
protect the people.

"Persons who have committed no crime, have broken no law, have injured no one,
are taken off railroad trains and steamboats, deprived of their liberty, and
held in durance on a mere suspicion, only that they have been exposed to an
infectious disease; and while few people die, as compared with other and worse
evils, forty millions of people in this free country submit to this without
protest, without murmur.

"Whole sections of the country are now cut off from intercourse with other
sections, commerce is paralyzed, business is stopped, mails are not delivered,
cities are patrolled, and, if a stranger is found, he is taken out and sent
adrift. In fact, one of the agents of the firm of Claflin, Allen & Co., of St.
Louis, reports that he was stopped near Cairo, Ill., held for a time, and then
taken away from his route of travel, miles and miles, and left on a lone,
desolate shore, uninhabited, with­out food or protection.

"This gentleman was pursuing his legitimate busi­ness and calling in a
legitimate way, molesting no one; but it was rumored that he might have been
exposed to a contagious disease, and the law steps in and says: ’To prevent
suffering you must submit, not only to be stopped and turned back, and put off
alone, but you must remain there for a certain length of time, for the good of
the people.’ That is, no matter how pressing your business may be, how important
that you reach your home; wife, children or friends may be sick, dying: all that
is nothing to the protection of the people. And so ’quarantine is enforced’ at
Cairo, at New Orleans, at Jackson, Miss., at Grenada, Miss., at Memphis, and at
various other points; and our mer­chants and manufacturers, and travelers, and
business men of all classes, not only submit, but they send money—thousands of
dollars to those who are afflicted in these cities.

"This action is, in all respects, worthy all praise. But the poison and
infection of yellow fever—the death and destruction by this scourge —is not to
be compared to the poison, and death, and destruction, resulting from the
legalized liquor traffic!

"A person dying of yellow fever dies honorably, is mourned for, lamented, and
his death can be spoken of with affectionate regard in all after time.

"Is it so with the drunkard?

"What shames, and crimes, and debauchery—what reproach and beastliness dog his
steps, from his first loss of control and respect, on and on, down the long,
shameful career, until the rotten hulk of a diseased body and a wrecked soul is
covered deep with such an infamy as forbids even mention of the name or
circum­stance of death, except with shame and regret

"We ’quarantine,’ and submit to such restraints as would justify armed
resistance to this lesser, and tem­porary, and local danger. [Mean]while the
horrid evils, the crimes, and murders, and miseries, and poverty, and disease,
and death, from the legalized liquor traffic, this greater evil, continuous and
as wide-spread as the con­tinent, grows apace, numbering its victims by tens and
hundreds, where the yellow fever strikes one. If we have a right to quarantine
for a fever, we have an equal right to ’quarantine’ to prevent the limitless
crime, and curse, and poverty, and death, from drunk­enness! Have we not?

"If you admit we have, then you are a Prohibitionist." Our railroad managers are
finding that they must prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors. In the last
report of the Railroad Commissioner for Wis­consin, we find that this question
was asked all of the railway companies operating roads in that State: Has your
company any rules governing con­ductors, engineers, and trainmen, concerning the
use of intoxicating liquors?" The answer of the Chicago and Northwestern
officials was as follows:

"The rules of this company absolutely prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors
by the conductors, engineers, and trainmen; and they are strictly enforced." The
Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Company made this answer:

"It is a rule of the road not to employ or retain in service men who make an
immoderate use of intoxicating liquors, and this rule is enforced."

"Perfect sobriety required, and no liquors al­lowed on the property," is the
answer given by the Chippewa Falls and Western.

"Employees not allowed to use intoxicating liquors," says the Green Bay and
Minnesota Company.

Milwaukee, Lake Shore and Western:

"The use of intoxicating liquors on or about the premises of the company is
strictly prohibited, and any em­ployee appearing on duty in a state of
intoxication is forthwith discharged. Those who totally abstain will receive the
preference in promotion and employment. These rules are strictly enforced."

Western Union:

"Our rules provide for the dis­charge of any employee who uses liquor to
excess."

West Wisconsin, now Chicago, St. Paul and Minneapolis:

"The use of intoxicating liquors in­volves instant dismissal."

Wisconsin Central:

"The use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage will be considered just cause for
dismissal from the service of the company."

Wisconsin Valley:

"Total abstinence."

Many more of our Western Roads have, and are adopting similar regulations. They
find that they must do this or lose the patronage of the traveling public. This
is prohibition enforced by companies; and yet no one doubts their right in the
matter. IS PROHIBITION CONSTITUTIONAL?

Some years ago it was commonly said, in oppo­sition to prohibition, that it was
unconstitutional. In so grave an assembly as the Nebraska Legisla­ture, only a
few years ago, it was regarded by leading men as unconstitutional; and, though
most peo­ple at the present time know better, yet it may not be wholly out of
place, even in these chapters, to give a few decisions on this subject. For the
ben­efit of such as may have an interest in such things, I will quote from the
fifth volume of Howard’s Reports of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Justice Carton said:

"If the State has power of restraint by license to any extent, she may go to the
length of prohibiting sales altogether." [Page 61 I.] Hon. Justice Daniels said
of imports, when cleared, of all duty and subject to the owner:

"They are like all other property of the citizens, and should be equally the
subjects of domestic regulation and taxation, whether owned by an im­porter or
vender." [Page 614.] And in reply to the argument that the importer purchases
the right to sell when he pays duties to the Government, the Judge says:

"No such right as the one supposed is purchased by the importer. He has not
purchased, and cannot purchase from the Government, that which could not insure
to him a sale, independent of the law and Policy of the States." [Page 617.]
Hon. Justice Grier says:

"It is not necessary to array the appalling statistics of misery, pauperism, and
crime, which have their or­igin in the use and abuse of ardent spirits. The
policy power, which is exclusively in the State, is competent to the correction
of these great evils, and all measures of restraint or prohibition necessary to
effect that pur­pose are within the scope of that authority; and if a loss of
revenue should accrue to the United States from a diminished consumption of
ardent spirits, she will be a gainer a thousand-fold in the health, wealth, and
hap­piness of the people." [Page 632.] Does someone say that the Hon. Justice
was a little prejudiced in favor of the temperance cause? I have only to answer
that it does not appear in the decision. He has only said what his sound
judgment and thorough acquaintance with law de­manded of him. Hon. Justice
McLean has also rendered several decisions. Among the many good things that he
has said, I quote the following:

"A license to sell is a matter of policy and rev­enue within the power of the
State." [Page 589.] "If the foreign article be injurious to the health and
morals of the community, a State may prohibit the sale of it." [Page 565.] Again
he says: "No one can claim a license to retail spirits as a matter of right."
[Page 597.] Mr. Justice Woodbury said:

"After articles have come within the territorial limits of States, whether on
land or water, the destruction itself of what constitutes disease and death, and
the longer continuance of such articles within their limits, or the terms and
conditions of their continuance, when conflicting with their legitimate police,
or with their power over internal commerce, or with their right of taxation over
all persons and property within their juris­diction, seems one of the first
principles of State sover­eignty, and indispensable to public safety." [Page
63o.] Chief Justice Taney said:

"If any State deems the retail and internal traffic of ardent spirits injurious
to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice, or debauchery, I see
nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating
or restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks
proper." [Page 577.]

Let these suffice upon this subject. When any man shall say that a State has not
the constitu­tional right to prohibit the sale of alcohol within the limits of
its jurisdiction, he will array himself in opposition to the best legal mind of
the nation.

Many have argued that a government license to sell whisky, etc., will override
the prohibition of the State. But this is plainly untrue, according to the
decisions which we have already quoted, and with which all the great
interpreters of law have ever decided. "Let a man," says Black­stone, "be ever
so abandoned in his principles, or vicious in his practice, provided he keeps
his wickedness to himself, and does not offend against the rules of public
decency, he is out of reach of human laws. But if he makes his vices public,
though they be such as seem principally to affect himself (as drunkenness or the
like), they then be­come, by the bad example they set, of pernicious effect to
society; and therefore it is then the busi­ness of human laws to correct
them."—I. 124. On these principles, our own commentator on American law says:

"The Government may, by general regulations, in­terdict such uses of property as
would create nuisances, and become dangerous to the lives, or health, or peace,
or comfort of the citizens. Unwholesome trades, slaugh­ter-houses, operations
offensive to the senses, the de­posit of powder, the building with combustible
materials, and, the, burial of the dead, may be interdicted by law, in the midst
of dense masses of population, on the gen­eral and rational principle that every
person ought so to use his property as not to injure his neighbors, and that
private interest must be made subservient to the general interest of the
community." Kent, 340.

Now we have convicted the business of selling rum of being injurious to health,
destructive of wealth, opposed to education, in antagonism to the religion of
Christ, and being a moral nuisance. It is the direct cause of nine-tenths of all
the crimes in the land, and the fruitful source of much of the misery and most
of the degradation and depravity now known to the world. If there can be found a
reason for prohibiting anything known to law, that reason will hold good in
legislating against the sale of intoxicating beverages.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 45: 03.07.     LOCAL OPTION
========================================================================

Local Option

WE are told of the great need of the education of the people before undertaking
to enact or en­force a prohibitory law; and it has been thought that a local
option law would favor this work of public instruction, as it would cause the
ground to be canvassed anew once every year. The power of a right education can
scarcely be overestimated; and by no man who loves the cause of temperance can
it be overlooked. In a community that favors the rum-trade no law pro­hibiting
such traffic is likely to be regarded. You may file your complaint, bring your
witnesses, prove your charges, but that jury will have one man that will hang
the case with the "not guilty." The police judge and the marshal have been
elected by the rum vote, and wish to be elected again; hence the empaneling of
the jury, and the instructions are all in favor of the violator of law going
free. If the enforcement of law is left to the community, the officers will do
about as the party that elected them wishes them to do; or, rather, they will be
obedient to the ring-masters.

If these men have the rum politics of the place where they live, and they are
generally below the level on this question, they will present men of their own
kind for office; and hence the law will not be well executed. In reason, then,
we must say that an education is a necessity, in order to enforce the law.

Some have seen these things plainly, and be­cause there are difficulties in the
way of prohibi­tion, they have thought that a license law would do better. But
will a license law be any better observed than a prohibitory law? As we have
already seen, in so far as it is merely a license law, it makes no difference
whether it is obeyed or not, seeing that it simply extends to men the privilege
of doing as they wish. Can it be, then, that the prohibitory measures of a
license law will be re­garded, by having a place in a legal system, which, in
principle, stands against them?

Because there are difficulties in the way of one system of law is not proof that
some other would work better. When any one wishes to argue in favor of a license
law, let him not suppose that he has gained his point when he has found some
hin­drances to a prohibitory law. If he be a man of honor, and really given to
logic, he will endeavor to show you wherein a license law may be enforced in a
way that will protect the people from the evils of intemperance, in which a
prohibitory law cannot. Up to this time I have seen no such an attempt. Hence,
so far as I am competent to judge, those who talk of a "judicious license
system," wholly fail to argue the real question. If we ask any one of them, or
all of them, to tell us of a single power, belonging to a license law, to hinder
drunkenness that does not attach to a prohibitory law, we will have our work for
nothing. They seem to think that they have done enough when they have re­ferred
to some difficulties lying in the way of pro­hibition.

I do not understand local optionists to oppose prohibition, but to favor it, but
think that this is the best way to obtain and enforce a prohibitory law. In
justice, however, we ought to know just what is meant by local OPTION. What
things have we to choose from? Is free whisky to prevail where the county or
city does not vote for prohibition? or does the nuisance stand prohibited until
the community shall demand that saloons be licensed? or is some form of license
to exist unless the people shall demand a severer treatment of the evil? A local
option that puts the temperance cause on the offensive gives the advantage to
the whisky party. If prohibition is to be the law till repealed by a majority
vote in favor of whisky, the condition of things is vastly changed.

I do not believe, however, that a local option is what we want. I will state my
reasons numerically:

Local option implies the right of free whisky or a local license law. We have
seen that neither one of these can be right. Hence this law would impose an evil
upon the people.

It reduces a question of principle, a question of right and wrong, to the plane
of policy; and in this way hinders the quickening of the public mind respecting
the sin of the rum trade.

If by this law saloons should be prohibited in one county and licensed in an
adjoining one, the evil would only be partially removed. The oppor­tunities to
obtain intoxicants would not be as good as before; still the distance is not
great enough to prevent the drinkers in the prohibitory county from getting
drunk as often as their means would permit, and their poisoned systems and
depraved appetites would require. And yet, when you have banished the tempter
from your county or city, you have made the drink a little less convenient for
the man who wishes to continue his beastly habit, and you have improved the
chances for rescuing those who may wish to do better, by the removal of
temptation a little further from them.

In the State of Iowa we have prohibition of all intoxicating liquors except ale,
beer, and wine, manufactured in the State. Even these may be prohibited in towns
that are incorporated. Yet when we drive them from our city limits, they can go
two miles away and start up. Some have thought that an option so local cannot be
of any benefit. But this is not true. We can greatly discourage the
drunkard-making business in this way. And by actual experiment we know that the
young men who would otherwise be induced to frequent saloons for company and
mirth, and thus be led step by step into drinking habits, will not go off two or
three miles to hunt them up. Also the fact that the people of the town have
voted the traffic a nuisance, serves to elevate the sentiment of young men on
the subject.

I am not ready to denounce local option as wholly worthless. It is better than
no option. But its failure to remove the evil far enough prevents its success;
hence it is faulty. It is not the law that we want, unless it shall first be
apparent that it is the only one we can get.

An insuperable objection against local option is found in the fact that the
question is never set­tled. With every change of law there is a weak­ness, and a
failure in enforcement.

Because men are unacquainted with it; that the people are to be educated to the
observance of the new sys­tem.

There is an overawing prejudice in favor of the old arrangements that has to be
subdued before the new will be right loyally observed. This changing by one
Legislature what was done by a previous one has been the bane of temper­ance
legislation in nearly all the States where our authorities have attempted to
deal with the sub­ject. Here, then, is one of the great weaknesses of local
option: The question is fixed only for a year at a time. During this period the
opponents busy themselves in making the law as offensive as possible. Lacking
fixedness, it lacks authority and the respect of those it was intended to
govern. In the minds of the people, the question of pro­hibition is not settled;
hence vacillation and oscil­lation, weakness and general frailty, is the certain
result of this system.

LOCAL OPTION FAILS IN AN EDUCATIONAL POINT OF VIEW.

The power of education supposed to be in the law is, with most of its friends,
its principal charm. It is thought that the frequency of voting on this question
will insure such full and oft-repeated con­siderations of the subject that the
education of the people will, in that way, be secured. I am sure, however, that
philosophy and the facts contradict this position. When we say that the
rum-trade should be licensed in communities where it is de­sired, we present the
whole matter before the world as a question of policy, and, so far as the
educational influence of the law is concerned, the truth is not taught the
people. The facts in connection with local option are far from satisfactory to
those who have been long in the temperance work. Where local option pre­vails it
is voted on, in nearly all cases, in connec­tion with the men who are to hold
the offices for the ensuing year. These are nominated by party leaders and
political tricksters, so that the masses have but little opportunity to vote on
the ques­tion, and, in the canvass, temperance men are usually whipped into the
harness and made to vote with the favorite party, while the rum-men break ranks
from moneyed interests and depraved lives. The result is that whisky prevails in
the contest, though the majority of the people do not favor it. Hence the
education afforded by local option amounts to little or nothing that can be of
any service to the cause of temperance.

Local option furnishes protection to those who have but little need of it, but
to the commun­ities who are most in need of assistance it offers no help. This
is so self-evident that it needs no argument. A county or city that carries
prohi­bition in the face of all the political wire-working of party leaders and
whisky rings has less need of the law than those places where the people are
compelled to have this demon rule over them.

A LOCAL OPTION LAW IS DIFFICULT TO OPERATE.

This statement is in direct antagonism to all that the friends of the law have
been wont to say of it. The usual argument in its favor is that it is the only
law that can be enforced. Somebody must be mistaken.

I have already shown that there will never be the necessary respect for any law,
the principles of which are not regarded as settled. Hence the very fact of the
changeableness of pol­icy under this regime prevents that loyalty and respect
necessary to the obedience of law.

A local option never provides the means by which obedience may be compelled. In
communities where the license sentiment prevails no such pro­visions would be
demanded. Hence, in State enact­ments there is no system of enforcing
prohibitory measures such as are needed.

A large por­tion of the State is left out, and, of course, have no assistance of
law, not being able to vote prohibi­tion.

By reason of contiguity, men have every opportunity of evading the law by going
to the neighboring town or city.

MY LAST CHARGE AGAINST LOCAL OPTION IS THAT IT TENDS TO DISUNION.

The question of State rights has not yet been forgotten. It was argued by the
ablest minds in this country that if a State might withdraw from the Union a
county might withdraw from the State, a town from the county, a colony from a
town, and an individual from the colony; hence, that the State rights plea meant
simply the abandonment of government. But this is the very position on the
whisky question taken by local optionists. They will turn our counties and towns
loose to do as seems to them good in this matter. While this strikes a blow at
the existence and power of law, it also tends toward those differences of
sentiment and feeling that will eventually section­alize and localize the
country in its friendships and trade.

We have found by a very sad experience in this country that local option on the
subject of slavery, or even an attempt, by the General Government, to limit it
to a portion of the country, was a poor governmental policy. In the nature of
things, we would have to practice slavery throughout the Government or dismiss
it altogether. And yet, whatever there were of wrong, and corruption, and power
in slavery, it was a white infant com­pared to the question that we are now
consider­ing. I am not an alarmist. I do not mean to say that disunion will
certainly come of it. We may avert the danger. But the tendency of the system is
clearly what I have declared it to be.

Local option was born of political and legislative cowardice. Politicians found
their constituency hopelessly divided on the question. Afraid to do what was
right in the premises, and supposing, on the other hand, that it would not do to
favor license out and out, they have adopted this plan, so that they might
conciliate the people in different localities. Like the boy, when he went to
shoot at the deer, not being sure if it were not a calf, he took such aim, or
tried to, that if it should be a deer, he would hit, or if a calf, he would
miss. Such has been the twilight uncertainty and legislative charlatanry with
which this cause has been managed. I don’t wonder at office-seekers for this
dodge of the issue; but it taxes my patience, and charity too, to think that
good Christian men can be hoodwinked into pleading for the system. I will accept
local option when I can’t do any better. Though I know it is not what we want,
still it is better than no option at all.

I am indebted to the Chicago Journal, of Decem­ber 5, 1878, for the following
official statement, which shows both the worth and the weakness of local option:

"The Clerk of the Circuit Court in Edwards County, in this State, submits the
following interesting facts:

"There has not been a licensed saloon in this county for over twenty-five years.
During that time our jail has not averaged an occupant. This county never sent
but one person to the penitentiary, and that man was sent up for killing his
wife, while drunk, on whisky obtained from a licensed saloon in an adjoining
county. We have but very few paupers in our poor-house, sometimes only three or
four. Our taxes are 32 percent lower than they are in adjoining counties, where
saloons are licensed. Our people are prosperous, peace­able and sober; there
being very little drinking, except Pear Grayville, a licensed town of White
County, near our border. The different terms of our Circuit Court occupy three
or four days each year, and then the dockets are cleared. Our people are so well
satisfied with the present state Of things that a very large majority of them
would bitterly oppose any effort made in favor of license, under any
circumstances.

"The temperance people and organizations of Macon County are sending circulars
over the State, asking for signatures to a petition to be submitted to the
coming Legislature for an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating drinks within the jurisdiction of the
State."

ONLY A COMPLETE LAW CAN EVER BE FULLY ENFORCED.

Sometimes I hear men say we have more law now than is observed, and if we cannot
enforce the law we now have, a severe law would be null. This reminds me of the
story someone tells on Paddy. He had never slept on feathers, but had often
heard that they made a very pleasant bed. One night being compelled to sleep
out-doors, he found a feather, put it on a rock, and took it for his pillow. His
opinion was not favorable to the use of feathers, since he was not able to sleep
on one with any comfort. Most people think that if Paddy had had feathers enough
he would have enjoyed the pillow very much better. The trouble is, just where we
need law we have none. A license law makes no provision for the enforcement of
prohibitory measures, and, in itself, proposes nothing by which the evil can be
removed. If we now had such a law respecting murder we would find ourselves
unable to make the law respectable or cause it to be obeyed, and could as
reasonably argue that we should not legislate against that crime until we had
morally persuaded the people up to the enforcement of the law already in
existence.

Some think we must bring men up to the level of prohibition by degrees, and that
the German element, at least, in this country, while they may be reached by
moral persuasion, would be thrown off entirely, if we should announce to them
the real facts in the case, that we intend eventually to soft-soap them into a
willingness to approve of prohibition. This, however, is contrary to all I know
of Germans in this country. It is true that they are largely represented in our
Western States, but they are only a respectable minority. And we are no more to
provide for the privilege of Germans, to practice in this country as they have
been accustomed to in the Fatherland, than we are to provide for the Chinese. We
ought to say to our German neighbors, You are welcome here if you can live under
such laws as are thought best for our people. And we may say the same to other
lands, as well as to Germany, but you are not at liberty to institute
arrangements here by which our sons are to be decoyed into evil.

I know that politicians court the German vote, and permit 40,000 Germans to rule
200,000 of our American born citizens. I like the Germans for their industry and
frugality, but rather than that our nights are to be made hideous with drunken
revelry, and our streets disgraced with midnight orgies, I would have them all
return in peace. And, so far as any German having to be won by moral persuasion,
and little by little, to the ground of prohibition, there is nothing in it. Our
moral persuasion is having no effect on him whatever. The sober German is one of
our most intelligent and useful citizens, and is as approachable by logic and
financial calculations as any man in the nation, and I would sooner undertake to
direct his vote on this question than the average American born citizen, for he
is a little more likely to be true to his principles. He is not the soft kind of
creature that some of our men have taken him to be. And, so far as the drinking
German is concerned, if he can be reached at all, it is by the logic of facts.
He can be much more easily approached by facts and figures, and be gotten to
vote and act with his financial interests, than he can be won from his company
and beer-garden frolic by moral persuasion. BUT THERE ARE SOME LOCALITIES THAT
WOULD NOT SUBMIT TO PROHIBITION.

If that were true, still it would not justify an unrighteous law on the subject.
When God was thundering from the smoking summit of the quak­ing Sinai, "Thou
shalt have no other gods before me," just down in the valley Aaron was fixing up
a calf for the people to worship, and that, too, by their request. If God had
reasoned as men do now on this temperance question he would have licensed the
calf, and Aaron as its keeper, and then given them a little moral persuasion. If
the same line of policy had been observed by Jehovah, that men now contend for
on the whisky question, we would have had no Decalogue yet. Law is a teacher,
and must be in advance of the moral sen­timent of those it is intended to
govern. Hence, if we could know that there are cities in which a prohibitory law
would be disregarded, it would be no argument against the law itself.

Let me ask how the people have gotten so low in some of these cities that they
will not observe a righteous law on the subject? For fifty years, in these same
cities, we have licensed the rum-seller to sell his stuff and then we have
"morally­ persuaded" the people not to buy. And now, at the end of half a
century, the people are so debased that they won’t bear a prohibitory law! Let
me say, neighbor, if fifty years of license and moral persuasion have so utterly
failed as that, in the name of common sense we have had enough of such pitiable
performances!

I find no fault with moral persuasion. It is all right. But the license undoes
all that can, in that way, be accomplished. But there are no communities that
cannot be conquered, in two years’ time, under a prohib­itory law, with proper
provisions for its enforce­ment. By the appointment of State officers over their
work, in two years’ time, the State constables of Massachusetts were enabled to
report that there was not left a single open bar to tell the story. In this way
the power of the whole people may be brought to bear on this question, and the
cities that have not the stamina in them for the enforce­ment of the law would
be helped to its observance by the State at large.

There is no philosophic reason why men may not be restrained from selling and
drinking whisky as well as prevented from any other crime against themselves or
the community in which they live. Our law does not propose to license or permit
infamy. It is based upon the presumption that, though the law may not be
perfectly regarded, yet it can be, to some extent, at least, executed. And yet
there are many reasons why a law prohibiting that nameless crime can never be
perfectly enforced that do not exist as obstacles in the way of the enforcement
of a prohibitory liquor law. The appetite for intoxicants is not natural, and
the disposition to sell it comes only from the love of money, without the
necessary conscience to determine the right course by which the end shall be
reached. And there can be found no reason, in the nature of things, why that
crime may not be restrained as well as others. But if the law, by prohibiting
the crime of which we speak, could not be any better enforced than the law
against adultery, still it would be a shame against our common humanity not to
prohibit it. It ought, at least, to free itself from the charge of conniving at
the crime. The law can, at least, make it disreputable to engage in the
business. But just what makes it necessary for us to reach prohibition by local
option or license no man can tell. Why not approach the suppression of every
other crime in the same way as well as that of intemperance? Suppose that our
Legislature, in undertaking to prevent the lottery stealing arrangements of the
sons of Belial, should give us local option on that subject? And what would we
think of, the head and heart of the man who would claim that such a law cannot
be executed in all commu­nities, and, therefore, should only exist in those
places where the people have been sufficiently educated on the subject? We might
suppose that he had some kind of interest in the business him­self, or that he
felt himself in need of the patron­age of those who had! If a man should argue
that a law against murder will be violated and dis­respected in some localities,
and, therefore, that that crime should be dealt with by license and local
option, you would not regard him a fit per­son for the, next Legislature.

If I were a wholesale dealer in liquors and wished to monopolize the business,
and were sit­uated. in a city of the first or second class, and felt sure that
license would carry in that place, then I would favor local option, since it
would give me the trade that might otherwise be divided among a great many small
dealers in rum.

If I were a politician of the first or second class—a mere politician, and felt
that I must have office; that I could not live without office; and that, in
order to get it, I must do something that would quiet the "temperance fanatics,"
and yet not to any particular extent injure the business of my whisky friends,
to whom I would have to look for the money to conduct the campaigns, then I
might favor it; seeing that in that way I could "become all things to all men,
that at least, by all means, I might gain some" votes. But why any man, with
common sense, untrammeled with business or political aspirations, should favor a
"local option" law to a full and complete pro­hibition, I cannot understand. Of
what we have said, then, this is the sum:

License is wrong and inoperative, and wholly incompetent to do good.

The traffic in intoxicants is an unmitigated evil, and no just law can tolerate
it.

There is but one thing that law can do with it, and that is to prohibit it, and
attach such pen­alties to the violation of the law as the magnitude of the crime
deserves. It is the only way that men of legal sense have proposed to treat
crime.

We have seen that local option is neither fully wise nor just, and though it is
better than license, still it is not what we need. It would be as reasonable to
make lotteries, gambling, thiev­ing, infamy, and murder, questions of local
option as the whisky business.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 46: 03.08.     CAN THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC BE RESTRAINED BY A PROHIBITORY LAW?
========================================================================

Can the Liquor Traffic Be Restrained By a Prohibitory Law?

I MUST notice the arguments in the negative. Unreasonable as they may seem to
us, there are those who regard them as being of importance.

1. Humanity will do about so much wrong any way; and if the waywardness were not
in the way of drinking, it would be in opium-eating, or some other indulgence
quite as injurious. Hence, if we could suppress the traffic, no particular good.
would thereby be accomplished. Our answer to this is that there is no such a law
in human nature as that which has been assumed. Humanity is not bound by any law
to commit a given amount of folly and crime. Hence, removing one sin does not
simply make room for another. But, on the other hand, every evil that fastens to
us and fixes itself in our lives, renders us weaker and less able to stand
against any other temptation to do wrong. The argument, then, is very unsound in
its philosophy. Still further, it has been proven by undeniable facts, that sins
and vices of all kinds disappear in the ratio of the diminution of liquor
drinking. The following sta­tistics reveal the average facts: In 1837, the cases
of murder and assault, with evil intent, in Ireland, amounted to 12,096. In the
following year there were 11,058. In 1839, the number only reached 1,097. But,
in 1840, the number of cases was reduced to 173. Why? During this time Father
Mathew had induced 250,000 to sign the pledge of total abstinence.

Thus it appears that there was, with total absti­nence, only one case of crime
to seventy without it. And yet the people were not all on the list. This would
charge about ninety-eight percent of all their outrages up to the account of
strong drink. There is, then, every reason why the traffic in alcoholic liquors
should be abolished.

2. It is sometimes argued that no law prohibit­ing the sale of alcoholic liquors
will ever be obeyed. But, we will see that it is as well-observed as any other
law. Perhaps no law is perfectly kept, and yet there can be found no reason
against the law on that account.

3. IN THE FACE OF ALL THE FACTS, MEN SOME­TIMES SAY THAT MORE LIQUOR WILL BE
SOLD AND DRUNK UNDER A PROHIBITORY, THAN UNDER A LICENSE LAW!

I confess to a sense of shame when I realize that it is my duty to notice this
nonsense. It is both unreasonable and diametrically opposed to all the facts in
the case.

Everywhere, both in the Old World and in the New, where prohibition has had
anything like a fair trial, it has worked well.

I presume that liquor men understand their interests in this matter. They are
men of busi­ness shrewdness, and have no moral questions to occupy their
attention. They give themselves wholly to the money phase of the question. If
they could sell more liquor under a prohibitory, than under a license law, they
would, every one of them, be in favor of prohibition. But what are the facts? Do
they favor prohi­bition? Not a man of them. Why? But men say that the liquor,
under prohibition, will not be sold by saloon keepers, but is smug­gled in, and
that these men fight prohibition because it keeps them from doing, in a proper
way, what the people will do any way. But the wholesale dealers would suffer
nothing from a pro­hibitory law, for whoever ordered the liquors, they would be
the merchants. And yet these wholesale liquor men are as bitterly opposed to
prohibition as the saloon-keepers. The speeches made, papers read, and
resolutions passed at the Brewers’ Congress, exhibit this very clearly. If,
then, prohibition does not hinder the rum-trade, rum sellers are deplorably
ignorant of the facts. I still hear, now and then, a second-rate simpleton
mouthing over that superlative nonsense. Some of these may be thoughtless enough
not to know any better, and are entitled to our pity, but it would be base
flattery in most cases to call them fools.

We are authoritatively informed that the drink bill for Maine, 1877, was less
than one-half mil­lion, whereas her quota of expenses would have been about
twenty-seven millions. Before the pas­sage of the prohibitory law Maine drank
more than her full share. Hence, it is a fact that pro­hibition is worth to
Maine twenty-six millions per annum, without calculating any of the secondary
expenses, of waste of time, mistakes in business, by reason of intoxication,
criminal costs, pauper expenses, penitentiary pets, police force, etc., etc.,
which would multiply those figures by three. This is why Maine has suffered so
little from the depres­sion in the money market. But they say, "You are not now
to deal with Maine, but with Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, etc." I
ask pardon, but I don’t see the point. Was Maine more easily managed than these?
Why will not the same system that succeeded there suc­ceed here? I imagine that
if the Maine law had been a failure that no man on that side would have made the
discovery that a law, on this question, adapted to the wants of the people in
that State, would not do in the West. Before the law was passed in Maine her
people drank their full share of liquors. Now they only get about
one-fifty-fourth of that amount. Are the people there more easily controlled
than we are out here?

Maine has not many large towns, and on that account has less perverse humanity
to deal with in the lump than Massachusetts, or even the West­ern States
mentioned already. But her northern latitude more than makes up for this, as the
people in the North are much more inclined to the use of alcoholic stimulants
than those in the South. All observing travelers and statisticians are agreed in
this. Besides, the employment of a great number of her men was in the forests
and in lumbering. Those acquainted with the lumbering regions will agree with me
that men in that business are most difficult to control, with respect to strong
drink. We have no classes of men in the West as hard to manage as they. And yet
the work has been accomplished in a quarter of a century, by pro­hibition, that
two centuries of moral persuasion and license law would not have done. About the
efficiency of the Maine law, then, there remains no doubt. When it began its
career, it was, in this country, only a philosophy, but now it is an absolute
demonstration. Listen to Neal Dow, while he tells how it succeeded:

"MAINE A CRUCIAL TEST.—Eleven clergymen of the city of Portland, representing
seven distinct denom­inations, appended their names, in 1872, to a declara­tion,
as follows: We say, without hesitation, that the trade in intoxicating liquors
has been greatly reduced by it—the Maine law.

"In this city the quantity sold now is but a small fraction of what we remember
the sales to have been, and we believe the results are the same, or nearly so,
throughout the State. If the trade exists at all here, it is carried on with
secrecy and caution, as other unlaw­ful practices are. All our people must agree
that the benefits of this state of things are obvious and very great.

"The venerable Enoch Pond, Professor in the Bangor Theological Seminary,
expresses his concurrence with the certificate heretofore given from the
officials of that city.

"The pastors of Free Baptist churches in various parts of Maine, assembled at a
Denominational Convention in Portland, in 1872, unanimously agreed to a
declaration, ’That the liquor traffic is very greatly diminished under the
representative power of the Maine law. It cannot be one tithe of what it was.’

"The census of 1870 gives us another glimpse at what the progressive enforcement
of this law has done for Maine. Thus the number of persons convicted of crime in
1860, is given as 1,215, while, in 1870, the number had fallen to 431. So the
number of paupers in 1860 was 8,946; in 1870, only 4,619.

"And the Overseers of the Poor in Portland, in 1872, united in the declaration:
’The favorable effect of this policy is very evident, particularly in the
department of pauperism and crime. While the population of the city increases,
pauperism and crime diminish, and in the department of police the number of
arrests and com­mitments is very much less than formerly.’

"The editor of the Chicago Advance, the leading Congregational paper of the
West, in 1874 wrote to prominent citizens of Maine for ’their opinion of the
efficacy of the prohibitory law, formed from their per­sonal observation of its
working.’ In publishing their replies in full, the Advance remarked: ’Their
testimony is shaded according to individual acquaintance with the operations of
the law, but will be found to agree for the most part in the main points of
interest.’

"Most of the letters were from public men, whose testimony we have given. The
most discouraging one is from the Rev. John O. Fiske, D.D., one of the most
’conservative’ of men, residing in Bath. This is a sea-faring community.
According to this account, the law at that time had lax enforcement. He says:
’In the leading hotels the free sale of intoxicating liquor is notorious, at the
same time that the proprietor of one of them has given his bond not to sell any.
I often meet with drunken men in the streets, and there is no doubt that
drinking alcoholic liquors in places of public sale, as well as private houses,
is very common. What is true of Bath is true of many other places of equal
importance in the State.’"

Yet, he goes on to say:

"The law is all that the best friends of temperance can desire; only there is
wanting in many places the needed public sentiment properly to enforce it. In
many small country places almost no liquor at all is sold by the glass; and this
happy condition of things is attributed, whether with justice or not I cannot
say, to the force of the prohibitory law.

"It seems to me to be very well and right to brand by law, as illegal and
criminal, a traffic which is actually disgraceful and exceedingly dangerous. It
is well at any rate to have good laws, and to prohibit what is so obviously and
largely detrimental to the public interests, even if we cannot hope by such
legal prohibition actu­ally and entirely to suppress it. I am inclined to think
that the influence of the law, on the whole, is decidedly beneficial in helping
to maintain a proper tone of public sentiment. The sale of liquors is kept out
of sight as an illegal business, and probably less liquor is sold than would be
if our system of prohibitory legislation was repealed.

"The testimony of clergymen has special significance only so far as they are
accustomed to that kind of re­ligious work, which brings them to the homes of
all their people. We close our evidence, therefore, with a letter from the
rector of St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church in Portland. It is evident that he
knows whereof he affirms:

"PORTLAND, MAINE, June 4, 1872. " ’My Dear General:

"I was surprised to learn from you that the cause of temperance is damaged in
England by an impression that it has been retarded here from the Maine law and
similar enactments. That the contrary is true I feel sure, and am certain that
it is, within the sphere of my observation for the past fifteen years. Many, in
the humble classes of society particularly, have correct views, and form good
resolutions, which they carry out successfully when not solicited to drink by
the open bar. Many wives have assured me of the improved condition of their
families through the greater restraints put upon their husbands. Families whose
homes are in drinking neighborhoods, or in streets where formerly were many
drunken brawls, have gratefully acknowl­edged the happy change wrought by the
due adminis­tration of the law suppressing tippling-shops. To make° this law a
still greater blessing all that is needed is to enforce it as faithfully in the
future as at the present time. Yours, truly, "A. DALTON.

"To Hon. Neal Dow."

UNITED STATES OFFICIAL STATISTICS. The United States Census Report for 1870, and
the last Internal Revenue Report which I have at hand (1875), supply proof of a
different kind, tending to the same result. Let us compare Maine with two other
States under license laws, one in New England and the other in the Middle
States, and selected not as the worst of their class, but as nearly related in
population:

Maine, population, 626,915; distilleries, 1; brew­eries, 3; retailers, 842;
liquor revenue, $49,237.77.

Connecticut, population, 537,454; distilleries, 68; breweries, 23; retailers,
3,353; liquor revenue, $336,743.49.

Maryland, population, 780,894; distilleries, 43; breweries, 65; retailers,
4,285; liquor revenue, $1,285,700.15. The number of retailers in Maine, of
course, includes the town agencies.

These sums are the aggregate liquor revenue of all revenue collections on
spirits and fermented liquors, as given in Report for 1874, pp. 78, 79. To all
this weight of evidence of various kinds, I should have said, until recently,
that Mr. Mur­ray, the British Consul, stands opposed. For he has been annually
writing to his Government upon the strength of the police reports of Portland,
which, as it is a seaport town, where the law has been variously and
spasmodically enforced, show a considerable, number of arrests for drunk­enness,
that "the Maine law is a failure." But I learn from an English paper that his
report for 1875 contains this important admission: "As regards the town and
village, there can be no manner of doubt that the law has been nearly
successful."

Well, if that were all, the towns and villages, the homes of the major part of
the people, and the nurseries of all that is ultimately great and powerful in
the cities, were well worth the saving. But we have seen that the law is not
without beneficent action in the cities. In view of what has been accomplished
since the testimony above given was obtained, and of the recent action under the
more stringent penal­ties of the law of 1877, it will seem to our friends in
Maine proper to make an under-statement of their present condition. From the
testimony we have now adduced, it would seem that the ’Committee on the
Judiciary’ of the House of Representatives of the United States were justified
in saying in their Report upon the Commission of Inquiry, made in January, 1874,
through their chairman, Judge Poland, as follows:

"For a considerable number of years the general opinion of those most interested
to break up and sup­press the use of intoxicating drinks has been that the only
sure and effectual mode was by prohibiting their manufacture and sale, and thus
cut off the means of supply of those disposed to drink. In many of the States
such laws have been passed, and more or less, rigidly enforced. That they have
ever been, or ever will be, enforced so strictly that no intoxicating liquors
will be used, probably no one believes or expects; but that their effect has
been greatly to lessen the consump­tion in all the States having such laws, the
committee believes will be conceded by every candid man living in such States.
It is often asserted that the use of liquor has increased in such States; but
the allegation is uni­formly found to come from persons who are hostile to a
prohibitory law."

Someone says that it is also a fact that the Maine law has not succeeded in
other States. The only reason is, that it has not been adopted and kept before
the people. It has only been adopted in part in other States, and then usually
without provision for its enforcement. But just to the extent that prohibition
has had a real place in any code, the drunkard-making traffic has disappeared.
We have no right to argue that, because a feeble law on the subject has not put
down the rum-power in any given State, there is, therefore, no power in a
sensible law, with proper measures for its enforcement.

I will just call attention, then, to the "revenue on spirits in 1873:"

Population

Revenue ($)

Massachusetts under Prohibition

1,231,360

1,674,460.07

Ohio under License

1,339,511

10,887,498.53

Illinois under License

1,711,951

3,727,790.43

Indiana under License

1,350,428

5,065,229.03

Maine under Prohibition

628,297

81,114.50

Maryland under License

687,049

1,084,396.40

New Hampshire under Prohibition

326,173

79,679.63

New Jersey under License

572,037

773,188.44

Now, let it be remembered that the prohibitory laws of Massachusetts and New
Hampshire are a long ways from perfection, and then we will begin to see what
the effect of such laws are. Let us balance two States, Maine and Maryland.
Mary­land had by a few thousand the larger population, and paid in revenue
$1,084,396.40 under license, while Maine, under prohibition, with almost the
same population, paid $81,114.80, or about one-thirteenth of the amount,
according to her num­bers, that was paid by Maryland.

Ordinary common sense ought to be sufficient to teach any man that a prohibitory
law with any power of enforcement at all, would prevent, to a very great extent,
the sale and use of intoxicating beverages. Rum-sellers themselves know this;
and hence they use every possible means to prevent the enactment of such laws.
And I am fully convinced that the facts will bear me out in this mild statement,
that even imperfect as such laws have been, and as feebly as they have been
enforced, they have reduced the sale and use of intoxicants, where they have
been tried, seventy-five per cent: below what has obtained in those States where
the traffic has been licensed, and that crime in general has been abated in the
same ratio.

I. SOME STATES HAVE RETURNED FROM PROHIBITION TO LICENSE. The people of
Massachusetts are frequently cited as favoring license, after having found by
experiment that prohibition in that State could not be enforced. That a man in
favor of the rum-trade should present this as containing something akin to an
argument is not strange, but that any temperance man should suffer himself to be
deluded by such false logic and false statements is unreasonable.

If the people of Massachusetts ever did vote for a license, that would not prove
that the license was better adapted to remove drunkenness than prohibition, for
two reasons: first, the people may have preferred the opportunities for
intemperance, and voted for license in order to secure them; second, if they
wanted temperance and voted for license, it may have been because of an error in
judgment. Hence, if it could be proven that the people of that State voted to
return to license, and that they did it with the view of promoting the interests
of the temperance cause, as they have not yet been proven to be infallible in
judg­ment, there could be nothing gained except the merest shadow of an
argument. Every fluctuation on any political question could as well be employed
as an argument as this. And yet it is not a fact that the people of
Mas­sachusetts voted for license after having tried pro­hibition. The people
voted with their parties in the election of a Legislature. Those favoring rum
voted with the party most favorable to their wishes. But the temperance men, as
usual, suffered them­selves to be driven into their old party lines, and in this
way the rum-power elected a license Legis­lature, which repealed the law. If we
find that State in an unsettled condition, it says nothing as to the
profitableness of prohibition; that must be learned from proper statistics. We
must then appeal to the records, and not to a change in pol­itics, or the
fickleness of a people, to know which of these systems of law has succeeded the
better in preventing drunkenness and the crime conse­quent thereupon. I will
quote a little authority on that subject. The law was first enacted in 1852 It
was subject to many changes; sometimes it was strong, at other times it had less
vital power, till 1865, when the State police regulation was enacted. This was a
feature of efficiency that threatened the rum-trade with sudden extermination.
The constable of the Commonwealth made this report:

"Up to the 6th of November, 1867, there was not an open bar known in the entire
State, and the open retail liquor traffic had almost entirely ceased. The
traffic, as such, had generally secluded itself to such an extent that it was no
longer a public, open offense, and no longer an inviting temptation to the
passer-by."

Dr. James B. Dunn gives his observations as follows:

"During the year 1867 we made several thorough examinations of Boston to see how
the law worked. In North Street we counted fifty-six closed stores, with the
significant words, ’To let,’ on the shutters, while in the other places where
liquor had formerly been sold, honest and lawful business was carried on. In
those dark and narrow streets of ’The North End,’ once crowded with throngs of
thieves, harlots, and the most degraded wretches—where the dram-shops, dancing
saloons and houses of prostitution pushed their nefarious trade—now quietness
and sobriety reigned. In one night, during the month of May, we visited, between
the hours of nine and twelve, many of the liquor, dancing and gambling saloons
on Brattle, North, Commercial, Hanover, Union, Portland, Sudbury, Court, Howard,
Fleet, Clark and Friend Streets, and in no place was there seen, nor could there
be openly bought, one glass of intoxicating drink.

"On another occasion, we visited, in the evening, principal hotels - such as
Parker’s, Tremont, Amer­ican and Young’s, and there found the same state of
things to exist—bar-rooms empty, some of them closed—and where they were open,
this significant notice was hung up, ’No liquors sold over this bar.’ "

But, in the fall of 1867, the election came off which resulted in favor of the
liquor interest, and in the next four months there were 2,779 new liquor shops
opened. In 1869 prohibition carried again in the Legislature, but the law was
feeble till 1873. This law was again defeated by the election in the fall of
1874. But of the results of that year, while they had prohibition, Louis Shade,
the Special Agent of the Brewers’ Congress, says:

"Had our friends in Massachusetts been free to carry on their business, and had
not the State authorities con­stantly interfered, there is no doubt that,
instead of showing a decrease of 116,585 barrels in one year, they would have
increased at the same rate as they did the preceding year."

Testimony may be had to any amount that the prohibitory law in Massachusetts was
enforced as well as any other law on her statutes. Sometimes, as we have said,
the form of it was very weak, and its enforcement was attended with very meager
results; but when it had its proper form it suc­ceeded in reducing the sale of
liquors to a mere nominal amount, and removed about seven-tenths of the crime.

What, then, if the law has been several times repealed, and as many times
re-enacted? We know that the law was holy and good, and was attended with the
very best of results. Of course the num­ber of large towns in that State, and
the immense numbers of foreigners of the lowest order, make it one of the most
difficult States to manage, on the liquor question, in the Union. Legislators
are bought and sold by the wholesale liquor men, when they can find them on the
market, and they employ every advantage that money will procure by which license
shall be caused to prevail. So far, then, as Massachusetts testifies on this
subject, prohibition is both desirable and possible. Is it said that the State
derived a revenue from the license law? The State Auditor reports the revenue
thus: Liquor licenses, $118,200; tax on sales of liquors, $15,773.05;
confiscated liquors, $3,858.92. Total, $137,831.97. A paltry amount! This money
will not pay the current expenses of the courts in the State, which were, in
1868, $193,569.38. It is only one-third the amount of the State "charitable"
expenses in 1868, as reported by the Auditor—$426,459.82—"four-­fifths" of
which, as we have seen, was occasioned by intemperance. Four fifths of
$426,459.82 is $321,167.84. More than double the amount of the revenue! And this
is but one item. We can find hundreds of families in the State, neither one of
whom would accept that paltry revenue in lieu’ of the prosperity and happiness
with which they parted under the effects of the license law!

INFLUENCE OF BOSTON To appreciate the influence of Boston, we must see what
Boston is. She was doubly cursed by the license law. For the last quarter of
1868, the Chief of Police reported—

Number of Arrests5,596 Number of Lodgers7,617 Total13,213 For the corresponding
quarter of 1867, the year of enforced prohibition, the Chief reported—

Number of Arrests1,530 Number of Lodgers2,617 Total4,147

Over nine thousand more, in a single quarter, under license than under
prohibition! Or, deduct­ing 617 arrests and lodgers in Roxbury, which was
annexed to Boston in 1867, there is a net increase of 8,449 persons under
license. Lodgers are counted by police officers as the victims of the liquor
traffic.

Comparing the preceding quarter of 1868 (from July 1st to October 1st), with the
corresponding quarter of 1867, with reference to those offenses which are the
direct results of rum-selling, and we have the following:

1867

1868

Increase under License

Drunkenness

1,728

1,918

190

Disturbing the Peace

257

397

140

Disorderly Conduct

300

658

358

Lodgers

3,216

4,387

1,171

Assault and battery

368

478

110

In whatever way we compare statistics, the result, is a decided rebuke to
license. Nor should one fact be overlooked. In 1867, when the State police were
enforcing the prohibitory law in Boston, the city police were engaged in
arresting every person who was at all disguised with liquor, in order to
increase the number of arrests for drunkenness, and make it appear that
prohibition increased intemperance. On the other hand, in 1868, under license,
the city police made no special effort to increase the number of arrests for
drunkenness; nor could they arrest a drunken person without a warrant, under
license, while they could under the prohibitory law. This fact shows how much
more vigilant the city police were in 1867 than in 1868; and yet the Chief’s own
figures, notwithstanding this conniving and effort against prohibition, show
remarkable results in favor of it! The Chief reported 2,052 liquor shops in
Bos­ton in 1868, with their usual accompaniment of gambling hells and houses of
ill-fame. Of the latter he reports—

Number of houses123 Assignation only49 Houses keeping girls73

All of these existing in defiance of law, with four hundred commissioned
policemen standing power­less in their presence, and reporting their
inefficiency to the Commonwealth by announcing the number of these dens of
infamy which they know exist! Gambling and prostitution usually increase with
grog-shops. With rum-selling, they consti­tute that infernal trio of corruption
on which Satan depends for the management of great cities.

Rev. George P. Wilson, of Lawrence, who has been a very successful city
missionary for twelve years, says, in his report of April 4th, 1869:

"The city of Lawrence has never been so entirely given over to this demon of
drink as during the last year. This I confidently assert from personal
obser­vation, in the street, at the homes of the poor, and in the prison. Every
one can see the increase of tippling shops in the most conspicuous places,
boldly, as never before, advertising their nefarious traffic. And, secondly,
never have there been seen in the same length of time so many drunken persons on
our public streets. Thirdly, never were so many young people learning the
soul-destroying habit of moderate drinking. This can be seen by anyone who will
notice the public saloons. This we consider the worst feature of the new order
of things; this making of drunkards by the increased temptations furnished by
the multitudes of open bars, showing our children what has not been seen in
Law­rence before for over sixteen years. Fourth, never in any year have we heard
so many complaints from wives and mothers of the ruin of their homes through
intemperance. Fifth, never have we seen so much neglect of husbands toward their
wives, wives and parents toward their children. Many of the stories of cruelty
and suffering have pained my heart more than I can express. Oh, these poor
sufferers, have they no claim upon us? I speak for those who cannot speak for
themselves, the poor, helpless, hungry, naked chil­dren, the heart-broken wives
and mothers, the poor slaves of the cup who would break away, but cannot, amid
the fearful and wicked temptations now shielded by law."

Rev. Horatio Wood, of Lowell, who retired from missionary work in that city,
January 1, 1869, after his long and faithful service of twenty-four years,
speaks thus in his last report:

"I said last year that I could not but regard the attempt to revive among us the
discarded license law as ’the coming of a dark day for the interests and
pros­pects of the suffering and perishing classes.’ The fore­thought proved
correct. The enactment of the law caused at once a large increase of the sale
and drinking of intoxicating liquors. In September it was reported on good
authority that the last year there were 873 engaged in the liquor traffic in
Suffolk County; this year 2,300. At the House of Correction, in East Cam­bridge,
the increase of inmates has been as follows. There were committed for
drunkenness —

1867

1868

In July, 30

In July, 47

In August, 37

In August, 55

In September, 35

In September 45

Total, 102

Total, 147

"In Lowell, it is well known that liquor shops have multiplied in our streets,
and are more freely visited; that more come out of them staggering, or helped
along to places of privacy; and that our young men, our hope, are the most
frequent victims of unprincipled and cruel mammon. I know that many among the
poor drink twice where they drank once, and some five times where once; that the
earnings in many a poor family go more for drink, to line the pockets of men of
prey, or to uphold others in laziness and rioting, while the families are more
than ever screwed out of a living, and prevented from a decent appearance in
society. I know that many wives have worse husbands, and many hus­bands worse
wives this year than last; many children more cruel fathers and more indifferent
mothers, estrang­ing them to their ruin. I know—but why need I declare further?
All know enough to convince them, if they will but think and reflect, that a
mighty evil is increas­ing among us." That the burden of taxation increases with
the growth of pauperism and crime is evident from the following fact: The town
of Vineland, New Jersey, was incorporated and built up as a temper­ance town. No
land can be sold except in small lots, and to actual settlers, and the purchaser
for­feits his land by the sale of liquor on it. The overseer of the poor, T.T.
Curtis, Esq., says in his last report:

"Though we have a population of ten thousand peo­ple, for the period of six
months no settler or citizen of Vineland has required relief at my hands, as
overseer of the poor. Within seventy days there has only been one case among
what we call the floating population, at the expense of $4.

"During the entire year there has only been one indictment, and that a trifling
case of assault and bat­tery among our colored population.

"So few are the fires in Vineland that we have no need of a fire department.
There has only been one house burnt down in a year, and two slight fires, which
were soon put out.

"We practically have no debt, and our taxes are only one percent on the
valuation.

"The police expenses of Vineland amount to $75 per year, the sum paid to me; and
our poor expenses a mere trifle.

"I ascribe this remarkable state of things, so nearly approaching the golden
age, to the industry of our people and the absence of King Alcohol.

"Let me give you, in contrast to this, the state of things in the town from
which I came, in New England. The population of the town was nine thousand five
hun­dred a little less than that of Vineland. It maintained forty liquor-shops.
These kept busy a police judge, city marshal, assistant marshal, four night
watchmen, and six policemen. Fires were almost continual. That small place
maintained a paid fire department of four com­panies, of forty men each, at an
expense of $3,000 per annum. I belonged to this department for six years, and
the fires averaged about one every two weeks, and mostly incendiary. The support
of the poor cost $2,500 per annum. The debt of the township was $120,000. The
condition of things in this New England town is as favorable in that country as
that of many other places where liquor is sold."

Governor Washburn, in his annual message to the Legislature in 1874, said:

"Some honest reformers may urge the fact that the present law is not thoroughly
enforced in our large cities as a reason for its repeal and the substitution of
a license law in its stead. But shall we repeal the laws against gambling,
prostitution, pocket-picking, and burglary, simply because they cannot be
thoroughly enforced in densely populated localities? This would be equivalent to
saying that we will not have any laws that are unpalatable to the worst classes
in our cities. It would be sacrificing the State to the city; it would be
leveling downward rather than upward. Furthermore, the idea that a license law
would be efficiently admin­istered through local agencies is a delusion and a
snare. The experiment has been tried again and again. But did the authorities of
these same large cities ever show any greater anxiety to enforce a license law
than they now do to enforce the existing prohibitory statute? The friends of
this statute may safely challenge its opponents to the record."

Hon. Thomas Talbot, in his message vetoing the Liquor License Bill, in January,
1874, said:

"The history of the struggle with the evils of intem­perance is most
instructive. The earliest attempts to check the use of intoxicating liquors were
in the direc­tion of license and regulation. These attempts continued in the
Commonwealth for more than two hundred years, with a constantly increasing
stringency, which can only be explained on the ground that mild measures were
found to be insufficient, until, in 1855, the experiment was determined upon of
adopting prohibition, as the only logical and effective method of dealing with
the matter. Without asserting that this has proved so suc­cessful in overcoming
the evils it was meant to remedy as was hoped by those who initiated and those
who sustain the prohibitory policy, I am fully of the opinion that more progress
has been made toward the desired end than was ever before made in the same
period under any other system. In considering what has been accomplished, we
must recognize the great changes that have taken place since this system was
inaugurated.

"I am aware that it is said intemperance increases under our prohibitory law
that the sale of intoxicants is as great as it would be under a license law. But
I call your attention to the absence here of the flaunting and attractive
bar-rooms, that spread their snares to capture the thoughtless and
easily-tempted in cities where licenses prevail; to the constantly growing sense
of disfavor with which the liquor traffic is regarded by the country generally;
and to the powerful, systematic, and unrelenting activity of those interested in
it to break down the law and the officers who try to enforce it. Here is an
evidence that the statute does impose an active and crippling restraint, from
which relief is sought in the elastic and easily-evolved providence of license."

George Marston, district attorney for the South­ern District, said:

"There can be no doubt that the enforcement of the law decreases crime. No other
logical result can be reached. As intoxication is the cause of a large majority
of the crimes that are committed, it follows, of course, when the sale of
intoxicating liquor can be suppressed or repressed, crime will decrease.
Experience shows that practical result; when the law is most fully enforced
crime has decreased."

John B. Goodrich, district attorney for Middle­sex County, said:

"Generally, the strict enforce­ment of the law largely reduces the business of
the courts."

Major Jones, formerly Chief of State Police, said:

"The law is as well enforced generally through the State as any other law; but
in Boston the liquor sellers and dealers spend money freely, and are well
organized. There are about three hundred and sixty towns, and in three hundred
of them the law is well enforced, and it exercises an influence upon the
others."

General B.F. Butler said:

"This law was en­forced in all the cities and towns, with the excep­tion of a
few of the larger cities, as much and as generally as the laws against larceny."
The city marshal of Worcester testifies that drunkenness decreased forty percent
in that city in one year under the prohibitory law.

Oliver Ames & Sons, North Easton, say:

"We have over four hundred men in our works here. We find that the present
license law has a very bad effect among our employees.

"We find on comparing our production in May and June of this year (1868) with
that of the corresponding months of last year (1867), that in 1867, with 375
men, we produced eight percent more goods than we did in the same months in 1868
with 400 men. We attribute this falling-off entirely to the repeal of the
prohibitory law, and the great increase in the use of intoxicating liquors among
our men in consequence."

I have been thus particular in furnishing evi­dence respecting the work of
prohibition in Mas­sachusetts because, since the last return to license, those
who favor the traffic in alcoholic liquors have paraded the lapse as an evidence
of the in­utility of the law in that State. The fact of the success in Maine is
generally admitted. But they would find that it is because Maine has no large
towns, and but little of the foreign beer element recently imported into the
country. Hence, though Maine may be benefited by the law, there is no evidence
that other States, containing an entirely different element, would be improved
by such a law. But we have now seen from every possible source that
Massachusetts, when she was under a proper law, with proper provisions for the
enforce­ment of the law, was as thoroughly controlled as was Maine. This was the
cause of the effort to repeal the law, which, by the aid of the political
machinery of which we have spoken, succeeded; not because the people desired the
repeal, but be­cause temperance men held to their parties; thus giving the
balance of power to the liquor interest.

I quote the following from "Prohibition Does Prohibit," by J.N. Stearns,
respecting:

VERMONT Governor Peck, Judge of the Supreme Court, said:

"In some parts of the State there has been a laxity in enforcing it, but in
other parts of the State it has been thoroughly enforced, and there it has
driven the traffic out. I think the influence of the law has been salutary in
diminishing drunkenness and disorders arising there­from, and also crimes
generally. You cannot change the habits of a people momentarily. The law has had
an effect upon our customs, and has done away with that of treating and
promiscuous drinking. The law has been aided by moral means, but moral means
have also been wonderfully strengthened by the law.

"I think the law is educating the people, and that a much larger number now
support it than when it was adopted; in fact, the opposition is dying out. All
the changes in the law have been in the direction of greater stringency. In
attending court for ten years I do not remember to have seen a drunken man."

Governor Conyers said:

"The prohibitory law has been in force about twenty-two years. The enforcement
has been uniform in the State since its enactment, and I consider it a very
desirable law. I think the law itself educates and advances public sentiment in
favor of temperance. There is no question about the decrease in the consumption
of liquor. I speak from personal knowledge, having always lived in the State. I
live in Woodstock, sixty miles from here, and there no man, having the least
regard for himself, would admit selling rum, even though no penalty at­tached to
it."

W.B. Arcourt, Associate Justice for Washing­ton County, said:

"Public sentiment is growing stronger in favor of the law every year."

CONNECTICUT Has had some experience in prohibition. Her Legislature adopted a
prohibitory law in 1854 by a large majority. The next October Governor Dutton
said:

"The law has been thoroughly executed, with much less difficulty and opposition
than was expected. In no instance has a seizure produced any general excitement.
Resistance to the law would be unpopular, and it has been found in vain to set
it at defiance." In his Message in 1855, he said:

"There is scarcely an open grog-shop in the State, the jails are fast becoming
tenantless, and a delightful air of security is everywhere enjoyed."

Governor Miller, in 1856, said:

"From my own knowledge and from information from all parts of the State, I have
reason to believe that the law has been enforced, and the daily traffic in
liquors has been broken up and abolished."

Rev. W.G. Jones, of Hartford, in 1854, said:

"Crime has diminished at least seventy-five percent"

Rev. Mr. Bush, of Norwich, said:

"The jails and almshouses are almost empty."

Rev. David Hawley, city missionary of Hart­ford, said:

"That since the prohibitory law went into effect his mission school had
increased more than one-third in number. The little children that used to run
and hide from their fathers when they came home drunk are now well dressed and
run out to meet them."

Mr. Alfred Andrews, of New Britain, said:

"This law is to us above all price or valuation. Vice, crime, rowdyism, and
idleness are greatly diminished, while virtue, morality, and religion are
greatly pro­moted."

Rev. R.H. Main, of Meriden, Chaplain of the Reform School, testified that "crime
had dimin­ished seventy-five percent" In New London County the prison was empty
and the jailers out of business. In New Haven the commitments to the city prison
for crimes arising from intemperance, in July, 1854, under a license law, were
50; while in August, under prohibition, there were only 15. In the city
workhouse there were 73 in July to 15 in August; making a balance of 92 in both
institutions in one month in favor of prohibition.

Similar testimonies were received from all the principal towns in the State,
giving the most unqualified approval of the law and admiration of its happy
results.

Rev. Dr. Bacon, of New Haven, after the law had been in operation one year,
said:

"The operation of the prohibitory law for one year is a matter of observation to
all the inhabitants. Its effect in promoting peace, order, quiet, and general
prosperity, no man can deny. Never for twenty years has our city been so quiet
as under its action. It is no longer simply a question of temperance, but a
govern­mental question—one of legislative foresight and mo­rality." The
Legislature of 1873 repealed the law, how­ever, substituting license, and the
official records show that crime increased 50 percent in one year under license.
At a public hearing before the Legislative Com­mittee, in 1875, Rev. Mr. Walker,
of Hartford, presented official returns showing that crime had increased four
hundred percent in the city of Hartford since the prohibitory law was repealed.
The report of the Secretary of State shows that there was a greater increase of
crime in one year under license than in seven years under prohi­bition. The
report says:

"The whole number of persons committed to jail during the year is 4,481, being
1,496 more than in the preceding year.

"The two counties most clamorous for license in 1872 show the greatest increase
of the crime of drunk­enness in 1874. Hartford County has an increase of
commitments for drunkenness of 115 percent, and New Haven County 141 percent.
That is, Hartford County shows 215 commitments for drunkenness this year for
every 100 made two years ago, and New Haven County shows 241 for every 100 of
two years ago." Does someone say that Connecticut has repealed her prohibitory
law and returned to license? She did; and again the same scheming by political
managers, and the same blind adherence to party by temperance people has been
exhibited that has everywhere been the bane of the cause of pro­hibition. In no
State has the prohibitory liquor law been repealed because of inefficiency. But,
on the con­trary, the liquor men have fought and continue to fight it because it
does succeed in putting down their traffic. That these men have succeeded in
carrying their purposes is attributable, not to any righteousness in their
cause, nor to any failure in the law where it has had any provision for its
en­forcement, but to their money and the corruption in political circles.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 47: 03.09.     HOW CAN WE SECURE AND ENFORCE THE LAW WE NEED?
========================================================================

How Can We Secure and Enforce the Law We Need?

THOSE who have just entered the temperance work, generally know how to remove
the evil of intemperance; but those who have been in the field twenty years, as
has the writer of this, have had plenty of opportunities to witness their own
folly, and plenty of time to reconsider many of their positions. It is no time
for lovers of the cause to bandy words or fling insinuations respect­ing motives
that are sinister. And yet with shame we are compelled to confess the weakness
mani­fested among ourselves, from which we have more to fear than from all other
causes combined. Our enemies are doing much to prevent the enactment and
enforcement of wholesome laws in relation to the traffic in intoxicants. But our
pre­tended friends are doing much more. This has always been true; it is the
history of all reform­ations. The battle has to be fought by a few cour­ageous
men and women, who have to meet an organized and united enemy, and also to
arrange for their own invalids, who never have any ability to resist the enemy.
If they were only dead they would be out of their own misery and our way. But
no, they will neither live nor die for the good of the country. Whisky men can
give three mill­ions to influence our general election; but if we were to ask a
large class of so-called temperance men to make any reasonable expenditure of
means for any such purpose they would absolutely look at us a second time. Up to
this time we have not made any effort that is worthy of the cause we plead.

Liquor men have been united and consistent; they have paid their money freely,
and have evi­dently influenced legislators, judges, jurors, and officers of
every grade and rank by their free dis­tribution of mammon. True, we have
provoked this liberality by endangering their craft. But we speak of facts, and
not of moral qualities. To call these men liberal because they have given great
sums of money for the purpose of having the priv­ilege of continuing in their
work of ruin, is to com­mit a serious blunder. But though there has not been one
noble impulse in all they have done, yet we are not to be blinded to the fact
that what they have done and are now doing have a potency to in­fluence our
law-making and law-executing powers in their favor. And though, for the good of
man­kind, the little that we have done for the cause of temperance is many
hundred times the amount ever performed by rum-sellers, except for selfish ends,
yet we are frank to confess that we have manifested but little of that good
sense and liberal effort that the world had a right to expect of us. We have
been wont to expect too much from the justness of our cause, without the proper
means of bringing it before the people.

Again: Our professional men have been unwill­ing to take any certain position on
the subject. Editor, doctor, lawyer, and politician of every grade and rank, for
fear of losing patronage, cus­tom, or votes, either indirectly favor
rum-sellers, or do so little as to be almost wholly worthless to the cause which
they pretend to love. Many of these would be glad to work in the interests of
the temperance cause if they were only sure that it would immediately triumph.
Now the man who will rent a building for saloon purposes, who will sign a
license bond, publish a whisky advertise­ment in the columns of his paper, or
manage a case in court for a saloon-keeper, vote for a license law, or for a
party that supports it, in all or any of these ways assists the cause of the
drunkard-maker, and, in so far, helps to ruin the country.

Even preachers have trimmed their sails before the popular breeze. They have
feared that the church coffers would be empty, that their popu­larity would be
endangered, and their audiences diminished, if their pulpits should give any
certain sound in opposition to the death-dealing traffic. Many of them are
entirely too religious for any such worldly considerations.

I do not speak of all preachers, nor all of any other class, for many of these
are men of prin­ciple and common sense; have love for God and love for men, and
are not too religious or too political to do their duty; but I speak of many in
all these classes, who, by reason of their selfish unwillingness to assume just
responsibilities, are a standing disgrace and an immense clog to the temperance
reformation. The present political parties are a hindrance of fearful
proportions to any effective legislation against the whisky business.

They occupy no position on this question. A man may be just as good a
Re­publican or Democrat either, when drunk as when sober; and, I am sorry to say
it, about as apt to have the support of the leaders of these parties for any
office that he wishes, if he is in the habit of drinking as if he were a sober
man. Both of these bodies are hopelessly divided on the ques­tion. Hence neither
can take any definite stand on the subject and live. It is impossible,
there­fore, that either of these parties as a national organization should give
us any effective legis­lation in the matter. Up to the present time they have
indicated their worldly wisdom, in satisfying the temperance element, by
enacting a law that, on the surface, shows a willingness to suppress the liquor
traffic, but inwardly is wanting in every element of vital energy. Thus they
have aimed to quiet all, giving to one class a law, and assuring the other that
the law is impracticable, and there­fore impotent to hinder their trade. This is
espe­cially true with every license law that has been enacted; and, up to this
time, we can hardly say that prohibition has been fairly tried in a single State
except Maine. Not that these legislatures are wanting in the ability to frame a
just and effect­ive law, but they have had to save their parties. Not only so,
but the executive offices are filled by these same parties. And whatever may be
the individual desires of the men elected, they are made to know that they are
the representatives of a party whose policy is to have no position, and take no
action, looking to the suppression of the liquor traffic. Of course we now and
then get a man elected by one of these parties who will be true to his
convictions, whether he pleases his po­litical masters or not. But such a man is
doomed to a short political career. The wire-workers of the party will not favor
his second nomination. Most men, knowing these things to be so, and hoping for a
continuation in office, will do as little as they can, for fear of offending one
wing or the other of the party that elected them. Hence the condition of the
political powers that now are, will probably continue, as in the past, to
prevent both the enactment of righteous laws on the sub­ject, and their
enforcement when enacted.

I do not now stop to ask what kind of a law we want, and pass over the ground of
stringent license or local option. Here, again, I must take it for granted as,
having already been established, that we want a total prohibition of, the
manufacture, importation, and sale of anything that can intox­icate, except as
alcohol may be needed, or thought to be needed, for medicinal or mechanical
pur­poses, and that such prohibition should be in the Constitution, so that it
will remain. The only question that is now before me is, How can such a
prohibitory law be obtained? If this law can be obtained without the creation of
a new political party, I should favor it, because it would save time, labor, and
much expense. But if not, then we must inaugurate new measures. At this point we
are kindly reminded of all the difficulties attending such an effort. In behalf
of my ears, however, let me beg to be excused. I know what these difficulties
are. I know they are numerous and great; but that is not the issue. Can we
secure the desired law by the parties now in existence? If we cannot, then the
questions of ease and preference are out of order. There is but one other course
left, and that is the inaugu­ration of a new party. Do you say that we are not
even then sure of success? That may be, but we will not know till we have done
all we can in that direction. Hence the effort will as surely be made as that we
are in earnest on this subject. And it will as surely succeed as that
prohibition­ists love humanity and the prosperity of their country more than
they do their present political parties. If the present organizations are to be
used, I would recommend the following course:

Organize a club in every voting precinct, in the party of which you are a
member, whose duty it shall be to secure a prohibitory plank in the, platform of
the party; attend the primary caucuses and conventions, and see that none are
nominated but sound temperance men.

When the Legislature convenes, let every county petition its members in the
House to work for a strict and full prohibitory law, sending copies of said
petitions to the members of the Senate in whom these counties have a direct
interest. The common mode of petitioning is almost valueless. A petition to the
Legislature or Senate may have forty thousand names, but no man will regard it a
particle unless it contains a majority of the voters of the party to which he
belongs in the county or district which he represents. The average Amer­ican
office-holder expects to be elected again—the next time to a higher position—and
hence is the servant of those to whom he looks for the next election. What your
constituents may want re­specting such a law is not his concern. But let him
know that his own supporters demand this at his hands and he will act.

And yet, if we determine to vote with our parties, right or wrong, our petitions
will have but little effect. The office-seeker cares less for the wish of his
people than for his own relation. If you could assure him that two-thirds of the
voters that put him into office wish a prohibitory law, and yet that they will
remain in the party and vote with it, whether their wish is met or not, but that
the other third want license, and will bolt the party unless their wish is
carried out, he will vote for license and in opposition to the petition of
two-thirds of his constituents. There are hon­orable exceptions, but the rule is
as I have stated. At first thought, however, it would seem that he would look to
the two-thirds for the nomination. But, if you will notice, the nominations come
from the ring-masters of the party which, as a rule, is on the license side of
the question. Knowing that he must retain their good will or fail of the
nomi­nation, without which his election would be im­possible; and knowing, too,
that if he should offend the temperance people he will only suffer
inconveniences, but not suffer the loss of any votes, he will work according to
the directions of the masters for whom he must work, or lose his position.
Hence, to me, it is idle to hope for success as long as we are pledged to stand
by our parties, right or wrong. In using the party, I would, therefore, demand
that it hear the prayer of the people, and give us prohibition, or do with­out
my support. If the dominant party knew that temperance men would absolutely
break ranks on every license man, there would be but few of them presented for
the suffrage of the people. But it is otherwise, as yet, and these men find
nothing in our movements to fear, and as long as we are ready to stand by the
party, whether our interests are considered or not, they will continue to
despise us and mistreat us just as they have done. In view of these facts I
cannot recommend any working or voting with the parties beyond our interests.

The effort has ever been made by scheming politicians to make it appear that the
only safety of the people is in remaining in full communion with the party.
Generally, the dear people are to be defended by the good old party, and if the
party should fail, the country would run to ruin. Ordinarily this has its
desired effect, and temper­ance men go to the polls to "choose between evils."
Having befooled us year after year in this way, they feel confident of future
success on the same plan. The saloon men and the brewers stand by their business
and vote for no man who will not legislate to suit them. Their spirit may be
seen in the following quotations, which I have clipped from the most reliable
sources. As they have appeared in many of the papers throughout the country,
they will not be denied. The Abend Post, their organ, says:

"The compulsory Sunday weighs like an Alps upon our good city of Detroit. All
citizens who are not in the ranks of the fanatics and hypocrites look with envy
to other places (as St. Louis, Chicago, Cincinnati, and Milwaukee), where Sunday
is a day of recreation to the laboring classes; a day on which the workman,
resting from his every-day task, goes out a pleasure-walking with his family, or
visits a hall to refresh himself with a cheering draught, to listen to the sound
of music, and to gossip pleasantly with friends. But this, so beneficial and
reasonable a method of spending the day, is for­bidden the people of Detroit,
through a law prepared by fools and distorted visionaries.... To shake down this
Alps is the endeavor of the German citizens, but there is little prospect of
success.... The Supreme Court construes the law in harmony with the views of the
hypocrites; and the municipal govern­ment, notwithstanding the popular
expression, is not authorized to concede the open Sunday saloon—that provision
having been stricken from the law by the last Legislature.

"Under such circumstances, what is to be done? The Agitation Union has given a
short, energetic answer: Direct’ opposition against this outrageous law! and a
test case to be made by holding a picnic at Arbeiter Hall next Sunday!

"We cannot say we think this will reach the desired end. Free-thinking Americans
want the necessary cour­age in the matter, and but little can be expected of
them; and since the whole English press inclines to the side of the temperance
hypocrites, our opponents will have occasion to denounce the movement as
exclusively a German one; thus rousing the prejudice of nationality." The picnic
was held, and several arrests were made, and a mob, headed by two attorneys,
tried to force the release of the prisoners, but failed. The ringleaders of this
picnic and the mob were convicted of conspiracy. The Brewers’ Congress in
Cleveland, Ohio, passed the following resolution:

"Resolved, We are against all laws which infringe on the natural rights of man,
such as temperance, Sunday, and other prohibitory laws, since they are unworthy
of a free people."

Brewers’ Congress of Buffalo, New York:

"Resolved, That this Congress now protest against the action taken in opposition
to the malt liquor interest, by temperance agitators and prejudiced legislators.

" Resolved, That we regard the invitation to vote for a temperance fanatic as an
insult.

"Resolved, That sooner than cast our votes for any of those apostles of bigotry
and intolerance, we will war with all political predilections." At the Brewers’
Congress in Cincinnati, in June, 1875, the following was passed:

"Resolved, That when restriction and prohibitory enactments exist, every
possible measure be taken to oppose, resist, and repeal them.

"Resolved, That politicians favoring prohibitory en­actments, who offer
themselves as candidates for office, be strenuously opposed." The Brewers’
Congress in Chicago, and other places, have passed similar resolutions. A few
weeks ago the temperance work was begun in Wheatland, Iowa, and the beer men
be­coming enraged, organized a League, and adopted the following as their basis
of action:

"We, the undersigned, citizens of Wheatland and vicinity, hereby organize
ourselves into a club for the purpose of working against the most fanatic Blue
Rib­bon prosecution, and to labor to repeal the Maine liquor law now in force.

"SECTION I. Only through our representatives in Des Moines is it possible to
change the law; therefore, be it

"Resolved, That we pledge ourselves to vote only for candidates who have
courage, and are willing to ener­getically further our interests.

"SEC. 2. Resolved, That we stand and act together on all important public
questions, irrespective of party, without regard to nationality, and that we
discard all jealousy.

"SEC. 3. Resolved, That for the purpose of reducing the expense account to the
State, through the many liquor prosecutions, we agree to be careful in the
selec­tion of our county officers, namely, clerk, sheriff, supervisors, and
township trustees; especially to charge trustees to be careful in the selection
of men to serve as grand jurors.

"SEC. 4. Resolved, That we will work against any temperance prosecution, and
that we, in the transaction of business, will give preference to members and
friends of our association." The saloon-keepers of Chicago held their annual
meeting last year (April, 1878), at Aurora, Turner’s Hall, John Feldkamp in the
chair, and adopted the following pledge, which they should require candidates
for city offices to sign before giving them their support:

"The undersigned hereby declares that he is opposed to all so-called temperance,
and that if elected to the Common Council he will not vote for any ordinance
prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sundays, or to minors, or at any time between
the hours of 5 o’clock, A.M., and 12 o’clock at night, or for any ordinance
which is calculated to injure the legitimate traffic in intoxicating liquors."

Selling on Sunday and to minors is what they call legitimate traffic. The
threats of these men are something more than idle bluster. Their money is in the
issue, and they will vote as they resolve. Knowing this, politicians will not
legislate contrary to their wish, unless it shall be demanded in the same way by
a number superior to the rum power. Hence a blind marriage to either of the
parties now before the people is certain defeat to the cause of prohibition.

If we remain in the present parties, I recom­mend that we give them to
understand, at the outset, that unsoundness in any candidate on the question of
prohibition, will cause us to remove his name from the ticket. If we would do
this, and stand by it, we would find relief.

Someone will say: "You will break up our party." That may be, but the party that
stands in the way of a righteous law ought to be broken up.

I am told, again, that we have gained nothing yet by the inauguration of a new
party.

This, however, is only partly true. In the States where the new party movement
has been pushed with any reasonable determination, concessions have been gained,
and in the municipal elections in our cities we have had all our gains by the
new party movement. Hence, I can see no reason for any alarm at any want of
success in this way; for where it has been tried with any sort of thorough­ness
it has succeeded. Now, when we can carry a majority of our towns for
prohibition, it would be easy to carry the whole country for it, since
seven-tenths of the farmers in all our Western States demand that the traffic in
rum shall be dis­continued. It is only by political trickery that the license
system is bound upon our people.

More than twenty years ago, the people of the State of Iowa voted for a
prohibitory law of the strictest kind, and would adopt it again, by an
overwhelming majority, if the opportunity was granted. Free this question from
the possibilities of affecting the parties of the day, and prohibition would
carry in any State in the Union. In any one of the Northwestern States it would
receive, at the lowest calculation, three votes out of every five, if not two
out of every three. Thus we can see what our parties are worth to us at this
hour. They are simply furnishing the machinery by which a very inconsiderate
minority are binding the dead carcass of licensed robbery upon the honest
yeomanry of our country. We are now at liberty to make our choice, either to
remain the cowardly, cringing slaves of political demagogues, or rise up in the
strength of our God-given man­hood, and in the use of our sovereignty, cause the
business of drunkard-making to be driven from the land.

One of the modern tricks of political manipu­lators is to work up a large
mass-meeting for tem­perance, at which (either by having managed to have none
present who cannot be controlled to their liking, or by running in a large
amount of picked material), they can secure the adoption of some resolution to
the effect that the temper­ance question can only be dealt with by moral means.
Then they can use this as whitewash for the party through another campaign,
while they truckle to the whisky interest.

They sometimes insult us by saying: "Our party stands upon its record." There is
no party, as such, that has any definite record on the sub­ject of prohibition.
The temperance workers in Maine and Vermont succeeded through the Re­publican
party. And yet that party in the State of Iowa has dared to sell out for the
German vote. The first thing, almost, that the party did when it came into power
was to repeal the prohibitory law that had been offered the people by the
Dem­ocratic Legislature. If a man in Maine should say that he stood by the
record of the Republican party in that State, I would understand him to mean
that he favored prohibition. But when he says I will stand by the record of the
party in Iowa, I understand him to favor the licensing of saloons for the sale
of ale, beer, wine, and what­ever else may be smuggled through, under the
pretense of selling these commodities. In my opinion the time has come for an
advance all along the line. Any delay will be a weakness and an injury. In many
counties the temperance element is strong enough to control the dominant party,
and elect the representative and senator over the loss of all the rum votes that
will be given to the opposite candidate. In such counties we may work with the
parties if we prefer. There are other counties in which we must bring out a
separate ticket, as neither party will give us a true prohibitionist to vote
for. In such cases we may defeat the Republican party and elect a Democrat. Be
it so. If that party shall persist in selling out the interest of the State for
a few beer votes, it ought to be defeated. We have petitioned these leaders
every year for ten years to give us just one chance to vote on this subject, and
our entreaties have been answered by repeated injuries. Hence, it seems to me,
that it is time for us to rise from slavery to a party that dares to insult our
inno­cence longer. But whether the time has come to introduce an independent
party or not, or whether it is better to work in the old party lines, we must
not be so wedded to any party as to support any man for office who will not vote
and work for the prohibition of the liquor traffic. No music must decoy us, and
no lash drive us from this work of removing drunkard-making from our land. No
temperance effort that leaves the people under its influence, satisfied with the
existence of saloons, can be of any permanent benefit to the cause. And no
political party that persists in sell­ing out our sobriety and civilization, for
a few thou­sand rum votes, can be anything else than a curse to the country.
Here is my creed:

Total absti­nence from anything that can intoxicate.

Total prohibition of the manufacture, importation, or sale of anything that will
intoxicate.

All temper­ance effort must aim at these two objects.

I will support no man for office who will not work and vote for prohibition.

Just law must annex penalties for the commission of crime, equal to the
magnitude of the wrong committed.

I am reminded that Hon. Neal Dow says that the Republican party has always had
in its plat­form the policy of prohibition. Here is just what he says about the
party and the law:

"At first it required some courage, persistence, and fidelity to duty, on the
part of municipal authorities, to carry through this law, regarded then as so
extraor­dinary and revolutionary. Large pecuniary interests were destroyed by
it, a most lucrative trade was over­thrown, and many influential men of sensual
habits were touched and offended by it. And the politicians generally, of high
and low degree, the ward caucus-men, and the county-convention men and grog-shop
orators, felt themselves wronged and insulted by it.

"By all these people who generally run the political machine, who set up
statesmen and pull them down at will, it was thought an intolerable wrong that
they should be summarily set aside, and that a law should be passed without
consulting them, and only in the general interests, and with no reference to the
will of party hack politicians or to the interests of any party. These men
generally assumed an attitude of active and bitter hostility to the new law of
prohibition; and it was only after many crushing defeats by the people at the
ballot-boxes that these men abandoned their opposition, and came into the new
movement as prohibitionists par ex­cellence, and assumed to lead it; precisely
as the pro-slavery politicians came into the triumphant anti-slavery movement,
as its special friends and leaders, carrying off all the honors and fruits of
the victory they did not help to win.

"Now the Maine law in Maine is executed as easily and as promptly as any of our
other criminal laws, and with no more friction in our courts or elsewhere than
with our laws punishing smaller offenses against the general good; namely,
robbery, house-burning, outrages of whatever sort against property or persons.
The re­sult of this policy of prohibition has been to drive out of the liquor
trade every man with any claim to a decent character, leaving it entirely in the
hands of a few of the lowest and vilest of our foreign population, who carry it
on secretly, on a very small scale, and only in our larger towns and cities. The
men in Maine now engaged in this great crime against society are literally of
the dregs of the people. I do not think it is doing them any wrong to say that
they would as readily rob, burn, or murder for money, or for passion, if the
penalties on detection were no greater. As the result of the Maine law, the
liquor traffic is absolutely driven out of more than three-fourths of the
territory of the State. It is entirely unknown in all the rural districts, in
all the smaller towns and villages, and exists only on a very small scale in the
larger towns, and only in the low, bad parts of them.

"The Republican party in Maine has always had in its platform the policy of
prohibition and the vigorous enforcement of laws to that end, as its most
prominent feature. This party owes its ascendency in Maine chiefly to the hearty
endorsement of that policy, and a with­drawal from it would be instantly
followed by its over­throw. No considerations of State or National policy, aside
from the question of supreme importance, would be sufficient to induce the
temperance men of Maine to support or countenance any political party which
should oppose or ignore the great question of prohibition of, and annihilation
to, the liquor traffic." The following is the present plank in the Re­publican
platform for the State of Maine on the subject:

"Temperance among the people may be greatly pro­moted by wise prohibitory
legislation, as well as by all those moral agencies which have secured us
beneficent results; and it is a source of congratulation that the principle of
prohibition, which has always been upheld by Republicans, is now concurred in by
so large a ma­jority of the people, that it is no longer a party question, the
Democrats having for several years declined to con­test it." From this it
appears that prohibition is no more a Republican policy in Maine at the present
time than it is a Democratic policy. And when Mr. Dow says it has always had the
policy of prohi­bition, it should be remembered that Maine had a prohibitory
liquor law some four or five years before the Republican party was born.
Repub­licans in Maine who have held to prohibition have been successful in
controlling their party. It does not follow, however, that the Republican party
everywhere can be so directed. The party man­agers will evidently look in the
future, as they have done in the past, to the probabilities of success, just as
they did in Maine when they favored pro­hibition. In some of our Western States
they may have to be defeated before they will know that temperance men will not
suffer themselves to be insulted longer.

Mr. Dow writes to the National Prohibitionist, of recent date, the history of
the movement in his State. He says:

"As some of your able contributors to the National Prohibitionist differ on
Modes of Action, a few words upon Maine Modes of Action’ by which we were
successful in our endeavor to prohibit the liquor traffic and drive it from the
State, may help to solve this question. One of our ’modes of action’ will be
found necessary everywhere. The people must be thoroughly instructed and
convinced that the liquor traffic is in deadly hos­tility to every public and
private interest. The watch­word must be ’No compromise’ with wrong, and accept
nothing short of entire prohibition of this crime of crimes.

"We have driven the open dram-shops out of Maine. To accomplish this, meetings
were systematically held all over the State; in small towns, villages, and rural
districts, as well as in the larger towns, and occasionally large, central,
open-air meetings, at some convenient spot. At all these, the point was to prove
to the people, by a thousand illustrations of the fact, that the grog-shops were
inconsistent with the general good; that more mischief, misery and ruin come
from them than from all other sources of evil combined; at the same time that no
possible good of any sort can come from them to the State or people.

"In doing this, some persons with no pay, not even of their expenses, traveled
everywhere over the State, furnishing their own transportation, and the people
came out in great numbers, and of all parties, to hear them. Short, condensed
tracts were prepared, and these were scattered freely everywhere by these
travel­ing missionaries. The people were taught that there was no possible way
by which the liquor traffic could be over­thrown, except by an absolute refusal
to vote for any man or any party who would not respond to the popular demand for
protection from the grog-shops.

"Our people were so well indoctrinated in this re­spect, that old politicians,
who believed themselves to have a prescriptive right to any elective office they
might desire, were voted down and turned out ignominiously, though belonging to
the party with a large, regular majority.

"One of these gentlemen, of high position and char­acter, was so badly beaten
(by 20,000, though he con­fidently expected a majority of that figure), that he
immediately left the State and never returned.

"I am confident that in all our Northern States, and in many of our Western,
Middle, and Southern States, the temperance men are numerous enough to command
success even now, if unitedly they will resolve not to vote for any man or any
party that will not respond to their wishes in this matter. Such a policy, if
adopted, must be pursued with an inflexible determination to accept no
compromise short of the entire prohibition of the liquor traffic."

It is probable that we will have to pass through the same experience in all the
States before we reach a prohibitory law and the means of enforcing it. And any
adherence to party that will cause a neglect of this one question will be so
much of a hindrance to our cause. So far as I can now see, it will be necessary
in most of the Western States to form a new party. The parties now in existence,
made up of both elements, feeling unwilling to take a definite stand in the
matter, will delay the nomination of can­didates till it will be too late for
prohibitionists to do anything by way of an independent movement. In the
meantime it is understood between the party leaders and the beer men that no
harm shall come to the rum-trade from their party. And after these late
nominations temperance men have noth­ing to do but to submit to the rum-policy.

We must not pledge ourselves beforehand to the support of either party, unless
that party shall first pledge, by platform resolution, to sup­port the cause of
prohibition.

We are sometimes given to despondency. But when we think of the lethargy and
thoughtless indifference on this subject a few years ago, and compare the public
sentiment of those times with the activity and energy manifested in the matter
today, we have reason to thank God and take courage. And yet we do not expect
that time alone will remove the evil. We are fully convinced that, while we are
gaining ground, we must con­tinue to fight until the last saloon is closed and
the last distillery ceases its operations.

Public sentiment has already decided, and all men know that the sale of alcohol
is an abomin­able business. Once our taverns had bars--they all had them;
indeed, tavern and whisky were nearly synonymous terms. Every public gather­ing
had to be disgraced with rum. A man could not harvest without whisky. It was
thought to be indispensable, in wet weather, to keep a man dry; in dry weather
to prevent him from being too dry; in hot weather to cool him, and in cool
weather to warm him! For wounds, bruises, and snake-bites, it was the only
panacea. But the world advances. Alcohol has been convicted of all the crimes
known to history. It has been dis­missed from the harvest and the public
gathering; in the respectable hotel it has no longer a place. It has been
crowded out of the public walks and elbowed out of decent society. If it exists
in con­nection with the hotel, it is put off down in the cellar, or out of the
hearing of respectable guests. If a man opens a saloon on the street, he puts a
screen in the door for the simple reason that it has become so disreputable to
attend such places that young men would not go there unless there was something
to protect them from the public gaze. On the other hand, temperance is becoming
popular. Almost all men now claim to be tem­perance men. If the saloon-keepers
of the nation were to come together in council, the first reso­lution that they
would likely pass would be that they are in favor of temperance. They would only
claim that they differed from other men in the manner of promoting the good
cause.

Long years of warfare may yet intervene be­tween us and victory. The enemy is
crafty and powerful; he is entrenched behind several billions of money now
invested in the rum business, and has the assistance of the depravity and
infidelity of the age. We have many weaklings among us. They are no account to
us. Their counsel is al­ways for compromise, which to us is ruin. But with all
these disadvantages we will succeed. The cause is God’s, and must go forward. I
believe that the child is now born that will see the de­thronement of the
rum-king, when husbands will be sober, when wives will be happy, when chil­dren
will be cared for; when our penitentiaries will be empty; the fountain of
idiocy, insanity, outrage and moral impurity will be dried up; when the highways
of sin and folly shall be brought low, and the rough and uncultured ways of
humanity shall be made smooth; when those living in the valleys of poverty and
despondency shall be lifted up to the enjoyment of the glad day of sobriety,
industry, virtue and peace. When that day has come, then shall there be one
grand song of joy. On the morning of the beginning of the year of Jubilee,
ancient Israel stationed her trumpeters within hearing distance of each other
all over the land. The sound of the first blast from Jerusalem announced that
all servants were free. These notes of freedom swept from hill-top to hill-top
till the whole land was full of the bugle notes of liberty. So it will be when
our enemy shall be deposed. The shout of joy will pass round the earth, and we
will hear it said that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of
our God and his Anointed. THE END


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/writings-of-d-r-dungan/
========================================================================