EH NEBUCHIN
TEACHER OF THE PERPLEXED
An Exposition of Pad's
Esistk to the Roeuhis .

01

0

DIVINITY SCHOOL
TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY

REV. W. S. ARMISTEAD.

MOREH NEBUCHIN,

Teacher of the Perplexed;

An Exposition of Paul's Epistle
to the Romans.

Argument Between the Apostle and a Jewish Rabbi :
Style of Discussion Modernized.
Authorities :
Moses and the Prophets Relied on by Disputants.

REV. W. S. ARMISTEAD, ...
OF THE SOUTH GEORGIA CONFERENCE,
Author of "Baptizmos," "The Identity of the Church in All the Ages,'
and "The Causes of the War Between the States
and of Southern Defeat."

Mutual Publishing Co.,
atlanta, ga.
1904.

Entered According to Act of Congress, in the Year 1898,
By W. S. ARMISTEAD,
In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PART I.
Preface.
Introduction.
¦Chapter I. — Teaching and Method of Jesus Christ.
Chapter II. — Teaching and Method of Jesus Christ. — Con
tinued.
Chapter III. — Teaching and Method of the Disciples.
Chapter IV.— .-Teaching and Method of Paul in his Sermons
and other Epistles.
Chapter V. — Teaching and Method of Paul. — Continued.

PREFACE

To expose heresy and teach truth has been the one aim and
constant effort of all men sent by God. Patriarch and
Prophet have engaged in deadly grapple with apostate angel
and ruler of the darkness of this world. The Prince of Peace
¦and the Prince of Darkness — the real leaders in this great
conflict — for the forty centuries antedating the Advent, mar
shalled their forces and led them in desperate battle. Every
moment of time throughout that period did the storm of that
mighty carnage pour its flood of tears and blood from pole
to circumference of earth. The leaders in the Christian
army, contending as they have ever done against tremendous
•odds, have exhibited a daring rarely equalled, a valor never
excelled, achieved unspeakable glory, won imperishable re
nown, and, with few exceptions, worn a martyr's crown.
Passing to the era of the Advent, and subsequently, we find
the same great powers in embattled rank. Everywhere can
3>e seen charging legions, everywhere heard the shout of
battle, the groans of the wounded, the agonizing cries of the
-dying, the mourning of the orphan, the wailing of the widow.
Tn no age of the world was the battle of the centuries more
fierce than in the first century after the Advent. At this very
period, too, the Christian army was, with a single exception
(Noah's day), the weakest. It could scarcely muster a cor
poral's guard. A Joseph and a Mary, a Simeon and an Anna,
a Zacharias and an Elizabeth, a Joseph of Aramathea and a
Nathaniel constituted alike the rank and file even among the
-chosen people.
In Noah's day it was imperative that God manifest His
presence and His power in arrest of evil ; for the punishment
¦of teachers of heresy with their wicked endorsers and follow
ers; in defense of truth, the restoration of the remnant of

8 Preface.
His people, and the existence and perpetuity of His kingdom..
The same imperative necessitated His presence and demanded
the display of His resistless power, some nineteen centuries
ago, if He would not acknowledge His defeat and concede the
conquest of the world by the Devil. The time had come for
Christ to assume command in person; reorganize and reani
mate the remnant of His army, order and direct its move
ments, and lead it against the stronghold of the Archfiend.
But upon what plan was this battle of the centuries to be
renewed? How was the campaign to be conducted? With
what arms were His soldiers to be outfitted? What instruc
tions were they to be given? What commands were they tc-
be directed to execute? Was plan, order, or instruction to
be altered? Certainly not, nothing was changed. The war
was to be continued on precisely the same plan. His subor
dinates were given the same instructions, and sent to execute
the same commands. His personal presence substituted His,.
for the most part, invisible leadership, throughout the ages
antedating His Advent. That was all. There must be no-
change. For innovation would argue imperfection in plan,
outfit and instruction. That is to say, dropping the figure,
Jesus must conform in precept and example to Moses and the
Prophets. In all the ages had the patriarchs and prophets
led on as He commanded, taught as He instructed, executed
as He planned, and followed His method of indoctrinating,
whether in exposing heresy or in teaching truth.
But reasoning aside. The deliverance of Christ in His
Olivet sermon places beyond the pale of controversy the ques
tion of innovation. Hear Him : "Think not that I am come
to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to de-
story, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven
and earth pass, one jot or one 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 who-

Preface. 9
•soever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great
in the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. 5:17, 18, 19.)
From which we learn: 1. That innovation' on the teaching
of Moses and the Prophets was no part of the scope or de
sign of His mission ; 2. That He came to do and to teach
alone what was taught in their writings; 3. That what they
taught was to stand till judgment day; 4. That to be saved
one must observe and teach others to observe what they
taught; 5. That all who did otherwise should be damned.
By such declarations Christ obligated Himself to observe all
whatsover was found in Moses and the Prophets, and to
teach His disciples or apostles, Paul included, to do likewise.
Did He do so? His life — His acts, what He taught, what
He commanded — is contained in the Gospels. One has but
to study them attentively — after examination had of the Old
Testament — to see that He taught exclusively from the Old
Bible, and that His every act was in rigid conformity to what
is therein commanded. And so Christ must teach and act.
And for several reasons. And 1. As High Priest, He must
teach legal observance both by precept and example, for such
was one of the functions of that office; 2. As we shall see in
the course of our examination of this epistle to the Bomans,
Jesus Christ was "a minister of the (Church of) circumcis
ion for the truth of God and to confirm the promises made
unto the fathers;" and being such, was officially bound to
teach her laws and practice her ritual, all of which were found
in Moses and the prophets; 3. Jesus must so do and teach,
for had He violated the least of the laws therein found, He
would have been a sinner, and have needed redemption Him
self; 4. He must so conform practice and teaching, or place
Himself in the category of those He denounced as hypocrites
— those that say and do not; 5. He was so constrained, since
according to His own teaching in the scripture above quoted,
His own salvation depended upon it; 6. Coming as a re
former, He must set the example of observing all things
found in the Old Testament, for such a mission necessitates
their observance — precluded the possibility of innovation; 7.

10 Preface.
He must so act, for as a circumcised man He was "a debtor
to do the whole law."
But did He so teach others — did He command them to go
by Moses and the Prophets?
And 1. His Own Disciples.
Hear Him: "What I tell you in darkness (in private),,
that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that
preach ye upon the housetops." (Matt. 10 :27.) But did He
teach them to go by Moses and the prophets? We read:
"Then spake Jesus to the multitude and to His disciples,.
saying, 'The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat (are.
the successors of Moses). All, therefore, whatsoever (every
jot and tittle), they bid you observe, that observe and do,.
etc." (Matt. 23: 1, 2, 3.) After this manner taught Christ
up to His crucifixion. Did He, after HEs resurrection, give-
His disciples any new command? Did He then authorize
their teaching or practicing otherwise than before His death ?
He did not. His language is: "Go 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 (every jot and tittle) I have commanded you,
etc." (Matt. 28: 19, 20.) And what had He commanded
them? "All whatsoever the Scribes and Pharisees bid you.
observe that observe and do, for they sit in Moses' seat."
And 2. Paul of Tarsus.
The Apostle tells us in his Corinthian Epistle that he was.
taken up to the third heavens, whether in the spirit or in the
body he did not know; and there had a personal interview
with Christ. In the Epistle to Galatians he writes: ''Paul,
an apostle, (not of men, neither by man,- but by Jesus Christ.
and God the Father who raised Him from the dead:) * * *
"And when it pleased God who separated me from my moth
er's womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in
me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; imme
diately I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither went I

Preface. 11
up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but
I went into Arabia, and returned again tp Damascus : Then
after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, etc."
(Gal. 1 : 1, 15-18.) Further. Speaking of that and a subse
quent -meeting with the apostles, f ourteeen years thereafter,
he saith: * * * "and they who seemed to be somewhat
,( Peter and the rest) in conference added nothing to me."
(Gal. 2:6.) That is, as had taught the apostles, so had He.
From which quotation we learn : 1. That Christ in that in
terview in the third heaven, ordained and taught Paul in per
son; 2. That He taught Paul precisely as He had taught Pe
ter and the other apostles; for, "in conference they added
nothing" to what Paul had been preaching and practicing for
seventeen years.
From this discussion showing the impossibility of innova
tion by Christ, we reach the following conclusion, to-wit:
that a careful examination of the gospels will reveal the fact
that they constitute a key: 1. To Moses and the Prophets;
2. To what His immediate disciples taught; 3. To what Paul
wrote in all his Epistles ; and, of course, a key to the Epistle
to the Eomans — the epistle before us ; 4. And that a profound
and exhaustive study of the Gospels, of the sermons and epis
tles of the Disciples, and of the sermons and other epistles
of Paul, is an indispensable preliminary work that must be
done ere a correct, positive understanding of the Epistle to
the Eomans ean be attained. What Christ taught His disci
ples, He taught Paul, in the interview of the third heaven,
as we have before proven. He commanded His disciples,
Paul included: "Go and teach all whatsoever I have com
manded you." i. e., Moses and the Prophets. An examination
of the sermons and Epistles of Peter and the rest, as well as
the sermons and other Epistles of Paul, will enable us to see :
1. That the disciples taught in all things as Christ com
manded them ; 2. That Paul did the same ; 3. And, therefore,
Paul taught in the Epistle to the Eomans just what he taught
in his sermons and other epistles ; for nothing is more certain
than that Paul obeyed Christ in all things, taught as His

%iCZ ii^iC^ *T "

12 Preface.
Master did, taught as did the other disciples — taught in Eo
mans what he had taught in his other epistles and sermons,
seeing that it is absolutely certain that he did not teach in
Eomans different from what he had taught in his other writ
ings, and for the very good reason that he had no authority
to teach otherwise.
Our readers will see from the above discussion what will
be the outline and order that we shall pursue in Moreh Ne-
buchin. That is to say, the book will consist of two parts :
Paet I. and Paet II.
Part I will consist of an elaborate examination of: 1.
The teaching of Christ as set forth in the Gospels; 2. Of the
teaching of Peter, John, James and the rest as set forth in
their sermons and epistles; 3. Of the teaching of Paul of
Tarsus in his sermons and his other epistles; 4. And the
method pursued by Christ, by the disciples, and by Paul,
whether in exposing heresy or teaching truth.
From such an elaborate review c-f the New Testament, we
shall find abundant light to guide us in our examination of
Paul's Epistle to the Eomans, and every necessary aid in its
complete and perfect mastery.
Part II — Will consist in First.
An introductory chapter, setting forth: 1. The peculiari
ties of the Author's style; 2. His singular method of argu
mentation; 3. The designs with which Paul wrote the Epis
tle; 4. The difficulty of reproducing an argument from an
other designed to refute it; 5. The defects in the translation,
both in punctuation and in rendering the classics ; 6. The two
leading propositions he is discussing; 7. What moved the
apostle to write it; 8. What induced him to address it to the
Church at Eome ; 9. Presenting the great cardinals of the
two great systems of religion, at that day: 1. Judaism; 2.
Christianity; 10. Why the review of the Epistle is presented
in the form of a controversy between Paul on the one hand,
and a Jewish Eabbi on the other.

Preface. 13
Second — Argument.
An elaborate review and exposition of the Epistle chapter
by chapter; an epistle in many respects the most finished
and exhaustive of all that Paul ever wrote. Author.
Atlanta, Ga., September, 1898.

INTRODUCTION.

The Apostle Peter, speaking of Paul's Epistles, declares
there "are some things hard to be understood, which they
that are unlearned and unstable, wrest, as they do also, the
other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." With equal
propriety might he have included the scholarly in his ar
raignment, as parties that attempting an exposition, partic
ularly of Paul's Epistle to the Eomans, "have darkened
counsel by words without knowledge," have given exposi
tions of it that, differing widely, concur in but little. We
search the writings of the ancients or the fathers so-called,
in vain, for concurrence in view. What is true of the an
cients is no less so of the moderns. Dr. Clarke, who to a
great extent endorsed the view of Dr. Taylor of Scotland,
Drs. Watson and Benson, Mr. Henry, Mr. Wesley, and,
more recently, Canon Farrar of England, the scholarly Tho-
luch of Germany, Dr. Wheedon and others of America,
have written at length in its explanation; but without
agreement as to its exposition. For this diversity of opinion
there can be but one reason assigned, to-wit, their disregard
of precedent as set by the Master, and everywhere observed
by the Apostles, that of appealing the settlement of all the
ological questions to inspired writers alone. Had they ex
amined the Bible, they would have seen that Christ, the
greatest of Scripture expositors, never in one single in
stance, appealed to uninspired authors for the settlement of
any question of morals or religion submitted to His adju
dication. Learned in Eabbinical lore, well versed in the
writings of Hillel, Shammai, Gamaliel, indeed of all the
sages of the past, He makes no allusions to their writings
while posing as teacher or expounder, or at any other time.
He appeals alone to Moses and the Prophets, whether pre-

Introduction. 15
senting truth or exposing heresy. He everywhere, and on
all occasions, left us the same example.
But not alone Christ. Every New Testament writer pur
sues the same course. Every subject upon which they write
or discourse is presented in the light of inspiration. Tal
mud and Mishna are alike discarded. Teaching the same
great truths, relying upon the same authorities, Christ and
His apostles concur, as might have been expected, in their
expositions of the word of God, not only in the subject mat
ter, but also, in their methods. Christ, His harbinger, and
every apostle and evangelist pursues the same plan of ex
posing heresy in creed or practice and then teaching the
truth. In the light of these facts do we see the wisdom of the
Master in commanding: "Search the Scriptures." To im
prove upon the course of Christ and His apostles is impos
sible, to vary from it is criminal. Not emulating His ex
ample and that of His apostles will ever result in confound
ing rather than expounding "things hard to be understood,"
will surely eventuate in "wresting the Scriptures to the de
struction" of the would-be expositor, and to that of those
who may read, and reading accept, his perversions of the
Word of God.
To this want of concurrence in Scripture exposition
among the great scholars of the ages, may be traced the
ignorance everywhere prevalent of what the Scriptures teach.
The masses plead this diversity of exposition by the schol
ars, in extenuation of their ignorance of the Bible. "If,"
say they, "the great divines cannot agree as to what the
Bible teaches, how can we be expected to understand it?
And if we cannot understand what we read, how are we
to be benefited by obeying the command: 'Search the
Scriptures ?' " How deplorable is such a consequence of
diversity of exposition! Disobedience and ignorance! Ei
ther sufficient to work the destruction, both certain to do
so, of the great masses of the people.
But this is by no means the only dire consequence of

16 Introduction.
disobedience on the part of expositors, and the diversity of
exposition in consequence. Growing out of the ignorance
of the masses as to what God's Word teaches, divers creeds
and practices everywhere obtain. Unscrupulous sectarian
bigots have filled the world with heresies. Schism — divis
ion — everywhere is sect arrayed against sect to the desola
tion of the Kingdom of our Lord. "Every kingdom di
vided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house
against a house falleth," taught Christ. He came to es
tablish a kingdom of Love. Sectarianism begets strife, and
strife begets hatred. Instead of there being love for one
another, there exists everywhere enmity — ill feeling. The
two great divisions of the constitution of the universe are:
1. Love to God supreme; 2. Love for one another. The
plan of salvation has no other design than that of making
man a loyal subject of God's government. Sectarianism de
feats that plan. It leads to a violation of both of the divi
sions of the code universal. "If a man hates his brother he
is a murderer," saith John. "If a man say, I love God, and
hateth his brother, he is a liar for he that loveth not his broth
er whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath
not seen?" asks that same apostle. So sectarianism voids
the plan of salvation — makes mec rebels against the govern
ment of God. And to whom is all justly chargeable? Pri
marily to the Doctors of Divinity that have filled the earth
with opposing expositions. When endeavoring to get the
ignorant masses to accept their heretical holdings, sectarian
bigots always appeal to the Eabbins of the ages.
And what is astonishing is that such a state of things as
sectarian prevalence is not only tolerated, and unchallenged,
but is actually pleaded for — taught as a right — on the ground,
that so many sects give parties who wish to identify them
selves with the church, great liberty — freedom of choice.
Who dare urge such a plea ? Who does not do it ? The pres
ent condition of the world shows that such a belief, such an
endorsement of sectarianism is well nigh universally preva-

Introduction. V?
lent. Who cares for the teaching of the Savior as tb the
kingdom — the house divided against itself? No one. Who
regards his prediction as to a rent Kingdom — a divided
house ? No one. The work of the destroyers of the kingdom
of Christ goes steadily on. His professed friends take the
lead in the desolation of His kingdom.
Looking at the fearful state of the world religiously — its
rent, dismembered condition, and knowing that it is due to
false expositions of the word of God — and especially, of this
Epistle to the Eomans — the author earnestly desiring the
peace of the world, a peace that has been so much and so
long disturbed by clashing theories, has written Moreh Nebu-
chin. That it has its defects he is plainly aware. A gen
erous public will know how to make due allowances.
In conclusion, the author requests his readers to study
carefully Part I. He has quoted largely from the Lord
Jesus Christ, from His disciples, and from Paul. Indeed,
Part I. is largely made up of quotations from the New Tes
tament. So many quotations were made, that our readers
might see just what the above parties taught. Seeing what
they taught would enable them to understand our position
in regard to what Paul is writing about in Eomans — why he
wrote the Epistle.
Again, When Part II. is reached, it will very much assist
the reader in following the elaborated argument of the author,
if he (or she) will read over the chapter he is examining,
several times, before reading the argument.
The work has been the labor of years. It has been written
alone in the interest of peace. To the extent to which it
shall contribute to the promotion of harmony religiously, will
the author's heart be gladdened. He sends it forth to the
world as an olive branch. May Moreh Nebuchin be a wel
come visitor to thousands of homes — and may it be, indeed,
an olive that will not only illumine by its oil, but delight,
nourish and bless by its fruit.
AUTHOE.

CHAPTEE I.

That Christ taught as did Moses and the Prophets in all
things, we have assumed, and given cogent reasons for so
holding. We do not propose to rest our postulate on such
reasoning. We ask the attention of our readers to its ab
solute demonstration. Our position is that the Gospels con
stitute a Key to Eomans. Hence the importance of their
examination, if we would understand the Epistle.
The Scriptures foretell Christ as : 1. A Prophet.
God speaking through Moses saith : "I will raise them up
a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and
I will put my word in His mouth ; and He shall speak unto
them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to
pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which
He shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." (Deut.
18:18.) And 2. As a Priest.
"And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought forth bread and
wine; and he was the priest of the Most High God." (Gen.
14:18.) "The Lord hath sworn, and will hot repent, Thou
art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." (Ps.
110:4.) "And 3. As a Shepherd.
"He shall feed His flock like a Shepherd." (Isa. 40 :11.)
"And I will set up One Shepherd over them, and He shall
feed them, even my servant David; (Christ) He shall feed
them, and He shall be their Shepherd." (Ezek. 34:23; 37:-
24.)

What Christ Taught. 19
And 4. Hie is spoken of as a Servant.
"Behold my servant whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom
my soul delighteth." (Isa. 42 :1.) "And He said, It is a light
thing that thou shouldest be my Servant to raise up the tribes
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel." (Isa. 49:6.)
"Behold my Servant shall deal prudently." (Isa. 52:13-
15; 53: 11.)
And 5. He is foretold as a Messenger.
"And the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to His
temple, even the Messenger of the covenant whom ye delight
in." (Mai. 3:1.) "For the priest's lips should keep know
ledge and they should seek the law at His mouth; for He is
the Messenger of the Lord of hosts. (Mai. 2:7.)
Now what are we taught by these prophecies as to Christ?
Why, certainly, that he had no legislative authority. As a
Prophet, he was to speak as God commanded Him. As a
Messenger, he was to deliver a message.' As a Priest, he
was to teach the laws of God. As a servant, He was to re
store the preserved of Israel — be God's salvation to the end
of the world — a light to the Gentiles. As a Shepherd, he
was to feed the flock of God. We search the prophecies in
vain for an intimation as to His being empowered to legislate
— to change the laws of God found in Moses and the pro
phets — in a single particular. As no prophet foretells legisla
tion as a part of the work Christ was to do when He came,
we conclude, in the absence of other proof, that He had no
legislative authority. No prophet, no priest ever was given
any such power. The prophet and the priest, on the con
trary, were especially commissioned to teach God's word.
No servant was ever sent to make laws. A messenger is sent
to deliver a message.
But that Christ was not sent in the capacity of a lawgiver
is certain. For what saith God ? "I am the Lord, I change
not." (Mai. 3:6.) "All My commandments are sure: They

20 What Christ Taught.
stand fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and up
rightness." (Ps. 111:7, 8.) "The grass withereth, the
flower fadeth but the word of our God shall stand forever."
(Isa. 40:8.) From the above quotations it is plain that God
did not send Christ as an innovator. He could not have sent
Him on any such mission, without impeaching His veracity
and divesting Himself of His attribute of Immutablity.
What then ? He was sent to teach Moses and the Phophets.
The claims of God so required Him.
But Christ was no innovator. His own testimony is
proof. Hear Him : "Think not that I am come to destroy
the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfill, etc." (Mat. 5:17-19.)
We need no further testimony. He did not come to
change jot or tittle of what was found in Moses and the
Prophets. 6. But Christ was foretold as a Reformer.
"Behold He (Christ) shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
But who may abide the day of His coming? And who shall
stand when He appeareth? For He is like a refiner's fire,
and like a fuller's sope. And He shall sit as a refiner and
purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and
purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the
Lord an offering in righteousness. Then shall the offering
of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in
the days of old, and as in the former years. And I will
come near to you to judgment, and I will be a swift witness
against the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against
false swearers, and against those that oppress the hireling
in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and that turn
aside the stranger from his right, and that fear not Me,
saith the Lord of Hosts." (Mai. 3:1-5.) Christ Himself
is a witness that such was His Mission. Matthew says,
"From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, 'Eepent;
for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand." (Matt. 4:17.)

What Christ Taught. 21
(See Luke 4 : 16-21 :) To preach repentance is to do the work
of a reformer. He did not preach repentance and practice
innovation, certainly.
From this review of prophecy we see that Christ was not
to come in the role of a legislator, or innovator, in anything
found in Moses and the Prophets. Like them he was sent:
1. To expose Judiasm; 2. To teach that system of religion
that God had authorized to be promulgated from the foun
dation of the world, a system that came to be known, after
the Advent, as Christianity. That it may be seen just what
Jesus taught, and that we are right in our assumption, we
will now exhaustively examine the Gospels, and the Acts' of
the Apostles.
And first: Christ taught against the Jewish heresy of
Gentile Reprobacy.
And 1st. The Gospels.
And (1) we read: "And I say unto you, that many shall
come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom of Heaven."
(Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:29.) "Therefore. I say unto you the
Kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." (Matt. 21:43.)
"And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all
the world for a witness unto all nations," etc. (Matt. 24:14.)
"For God so loved the world," etc. (Jno. 3:14.) "And they
shall be all taught of God." (Jno. 6:45.) "And I, if I be
lifted up, will draw all men unto me." (Jno. 12:32.) "And
when He, the Holy Spirit is come, He will reprove the world
of sin," etc. (John 16 :8.) "And Thou hast given Him pow
er over all flesh, etc." (Jno. 17:2.) "For this is my blood
of the New Testament which is shed for many (all) for the
remission of sins." (Matt. 26:27, 28.)
And (2.) The parables of Christ: "Then saith he to his
servants: The wedding is ready, but those which were bid
were not worthy : Go ye, therefore, into the highway and as
many as ye find, bid them to the marriage." (Matt. 22 :8-10.

22 What Christ Taught.
Luke 14:23.) So, too, the parable of the vineyard (Matt.
21 :33^43) shows that the Gentiles were to be restored to the
favor of God.
(3.) So, too, the miracles of Christ teach. His healing
of the centurion's servant (Matt. 8:5-10.) of Syro-Pheni-
cian woman's daughter (Matt. 15 :21-28) ; and of the Samar
itan leper (Luke 17:17,18) ; — all show, that He was as much
the Savior of the Gentiles as the Jews. He heals one and
the other.
(4) The invitations of Christ so teach : "Come unto Me,
all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest." (Matt. 11.28.) "If any man thirst, let him come unto
me and drink." (Jno. 7:37.)
(5) The commissions of Christ so teach. And (a), the
general commission: "Go ye, therefore, and teach all na
tions, baptizing them in the name, of the Father, Son and
Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28:19.)
(b) His commission to Peter: "Behold three men seek
thee. Arise, therefore, and get thee down, and go with
them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them." (Acts 10:
19, 20.) Peter is here sent by Christ to Gentiles.
(c) His commission to Paul: "Depart; for I will send
rthee far hence unto the Gentiles." (Acts 22:21.)
And (6.) His instructions to His disciples on Ascension
morn so teach : "But ye shall receive power after that the
Holy Ghost is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses
mnto me, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (Acts. 1:8.)
The declarations of Christ, His parables, His miracles, His
invitations, His commissions and His instructions all show
that He taught against Gentile reprobacy by decree — all
show that He taught as did Moses and the Prophets, as we
shall hereafter see.
And Second. Christ taught against the heresy of uncondi
tional Jewish election to salvation.

What Christ Taught. 23
And (1) His declarations so prove: "And I say unto you,
That many shall come from the east and the west and shall
sit down with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of
heaven; but the children of the kingdom (the Jews) shall
be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and
gnashing of teeth." (Matt. 8:11, 12; Luke 13:28.) "There
fore, I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from
you." (Matt. 21:43.) "All the righteous blood shed upon
the earth from Abel to Zacharias, shall come upon you
(Jews)." (Matt. 23:35.) "Behold, your house is left unto
you desolate." (Matt. 23:38.) "I am not come of Myself,
but He that sent me is true, Whom ye know not." (Jno.
7:28.) "Then said Jesus unto them, I go my way, ye shall
seek me, and shall die in your sins; whither I go, ye cannot
come." (Jno. 8:21.)' "I am from above; ye are of this
world; I am not of this world. I said, therefore, unto you,
that ye shall die in your sins." (Jno. 8:23, 24.) "Ye are of
your father the Devil; and the lust of your father ye will do.
He that is of God, heareth God's words; Ye, therefore, hear
them not; because ye are not of God." (Jno. 8 :44, 47.)
(2) But aside from the declarations of Christ, His acts are
in evidence that He did not hold to Jewish election to sal
vation by decree. He sends his disciples to preach to the-
Jews, commanding them to go to the lost sheep of Israel
only. At another time He ordained seventy others and sends-
them, two by two, into all the cities of Palestine. Having-
done this, we read : "And it came to pass, when Jesus had
made an end of commanding His twelve disciples, He de
parted thence to teach and to preach in their (the Jews')
cities." (Matt. 11 :1 ; Mark 1 :15 ; 6 :6 ; Luke 4 :20-22, 31, 43,
44; 8:6; 9:2, 6; 10:1.) Consulting these references we find
that Jesus went in person everywhere preaching to Jews
only. The first sermon Jesus ever preached begins with
exhorting to repentance. He preached it wherever He
went. His disciples, taught of Him, do the same. Why
should Christ make such efforts for the salvation of the Jews

24 What Christ Taught.
if He believed in their heresy of unconditional election?
Why endeavor to save the elect? Why preach repentance to
a people that needed no repentance? Why should a phy
sician attend a well man? Why should He call the right
eous to repentance ? Why should He not only treat the Jews
as vile sinners; but, on all occasions, teach that they were
reprobate in the sight of God? That they were awful sin
ners, who scrupled not to violate any and all of God's laws ?
This conduct on the part of Christ is conclusive against the
Jewish claims of unconditional election to salvation. For
if so elected, then why seek to reform them?
(3.) And Jesus' reproofs so declare: Hear Him: "Then
began He to upbraid the cities wherein most of His mighty
works were done, because they repented not : Woe unto thee
Chorazin! Woe unto thee Bethsaida! for if the mighty
works which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and
Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and
ashes. But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable for
Tyre and Sidon, at the day of judgment, than for you. And
thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be
brought down to hell; for, if the mighty works which have
been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have
remained unto this day. But I say unto you, That it shall
be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judg
ment than for thee." (Matt. 11 :20-24; Matt. 12:41-42; Luke
11:31-32.) And (4) His warnings are in proof.
"Then Jesus said unto them : 'Take heed and beware of
the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees, which is
hypocrisy." (Matt. 16 :6, 12 ; Luke 12:11.) Then in the au
dience of all the people, He said unto His disciples, "Beware
of the Scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love
greetings in the market, and the highest seats in the syna
gogues, and the chief rooms at feasts ; which devour widows'
houses, and for a show make long prayers; the same shall
receive greater damnation." (Luke 20:45-47.)

What Christ Taught. 25
And (5). The parables of Christ so teach: with the rea
sons assigned by Him for so teaching.
"And the disciples came, and said unto Him, "Why
speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and
said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the
mysteries of heaven, but unto them it is not given. There
fore speak I unto them in parables; because they seeing, see
not; and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand.
And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias." (Matt. 13 :
10-16.) The case of the barren fig tree, which Jesus cursed,
and that withered away presently, pointed to the Jews, and
their rejection at an early day, because they bore no fruit.
(Matt. 21:19, 20.) So, too, the parable of the vineyard and
the husbandmen. They were destroyed, because they not
only had stoned and killed the owner of the vineyard's ser
vants, but his Son. This parable foretold alike His death
at the hands of the Jews, and their destruction in conse
quence. (Matt. 21:33-41; Mark 12:1-9.) Again, The para
ble of the rejected stone, which became the head of the cor
ner — a stone that falling upon one would "grind him to
powder." (Matt. 21:42-44) — foretells the doom of the Jews
and the terrible punishment that would overtake them in
consequence of their rejecting Him. Again, the parable of
the marriage supper of the King, and the guests that, though
invited, would not come, and were destroyed in consequence,
condemns the Jews, and devotes them to destruction. (Matt.
22:2-7; Luke 14:16-24.)
And (6) The denunciations of the Scribes, Pharisees, the
Sadducees, and the Lawyers, by Jesus, teach against this
doctrine of unconditional Jewish election.
How fearful are the evils denounced against them ! How
withering His anathemas ! "0 generation of vipers, how can
ye, being evil, speak good things ? For out of the abundance
of the heart, the mouth speaketh. A good man, out of the
good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good things; and,

26 What Christ Taught.
an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil
things." (Matt. 12 :34-35.) "Your inward part is full of
ravening and wickedness, ye tithe mint, and rue, and all
manner of herbs; and pass over judgment and the love of
God; ye love the uppermost rooms at feasts, etc." (Luke
11:39-52.) "How can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
(Matt. 23 .1-36.) "But I know that you have not the love of
God in you." (John 5 :42.) No one can fail to see from the
declarations of Christ, Has reproofs, His warnings, His para
bles, and the woes that He denounced against the Jews —
leaders and people — that He taught no such doctrine as Un
conditional Jewish Election. This will be more evident when
we come to examine what He further taught.
And Third. Jesus taught conditional salvation for Jews
and Gentiles.
Hear Him: "And whosoever shall not receive you, and
hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or that
city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily, I say unto you,
it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Go
morrah, in the day of judgment, than for that city." (Matt.
10:14, 15.) "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before
men, him will I confess before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also
deny before my Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 10:32—
33.) "He that findeth his life shall lose it; and he that
loseth his life for my sake shall find it." (Matt. 10 :39; Luke
17 :33.) "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men
shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of
judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified and by
thy words thou shalt be condemned." (Matt. 12:36, 37.)
"For the Son of Man shall come in the glory of His Father,
with His angels; and then shall He reward every man ac
cording to his works." (Matt. 16:27.) Verily, I say unto
you, except ye be converted and- become as little children, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven." (Matt. 18:3.)

What Christ Taught. 27
"So likewise shall My Heavenly Father do also unto you, if
ye from your hearts, forgive not every one his brother his
trespasses." (Matt. 18:34, 35.) "Good Master, what good
thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" And He said
unto Him. "If thou will enter into life, keep the command
ments of God." (Matt. 19:16-21; Luke 18:18-26; Mark
10:17-21; Mark 4:25.) "Thou shalt love God with all thy
heart and thy fellow as thyself." (Mark 12:28-34.) "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; and he that
believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16.) "And, be
hold, a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying
'Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?' He said
unto him, " What is written in the law f How readest
thou V And he answered and said : Thou shalt love the Lord
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all
thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And He said unto
him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live."
(Luke 10:25-28; Luke 7:47.) "Strive to enter in at the
straight gate." (Luke 13:24.) "He that forsaketh not all
that he hath, he can not be My disciple." (Luke 14:33;
Luke 15:10.) "Marvel not at this, for the time is coming,
in which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, and
shall come forth; they that have done good unto the resur
rection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resur
rection of damnation." (Jno. 5:28, 29.) "If any man eat
of this bread, he shall live forever." (John 6:50.) "Verily,
verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of
Man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso
eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life, and
I will raise him up at at the last day." (Jno. 6 :53, 54. Jno.
6 :58. Jno. 7 .17.) "I am the light of the world; he that fol-
loweth Me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light
of life." (Jno. 8:12.) "If ye believe not that I am He, ye
shall die in your sins." (Jno. 8:24.) "Jesus saith unto
him, I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh
unto the Father but by me." (Jno. 14:6.) "Verily, verily,

28 What Christ Taught.
I say unto you, except a man be born of water and the spirit,
he cannot enter the kingdom of God." (Jno. 3:3-5. Jno.
4:14; Jno. 7:37, 38.) "If a man keep My sayings he shall
never taste of death." (Jno. 8:51.) "I am the door; by
me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved; and shall go in
and out, and find pasture." (Jno. 10:9; Jno. 12:26.)
"Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so
shall ye be My disciples." (Jno. 15:8.) "If ye keep My
commandments, ye shall abide in My love." (Jno. 15:10.)
"Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you."
(Jno. 15:14.)
But the following parables set forth conditional salvation.
The parable of the sower makes salvation to depend on the
ground's producing thirty, sixty, or an hundred fold. (Matt.
13:3-9, 18-23.) See the parable of the good seed and the
tares (Matt. 13:24-43) ; that of the merchantman that sold
all that he had and bought the pearl of great price ; that of
the man that found treasure in a field, and sold all that he
had and bought it; that of the net cast into the sea; that of
the two sons that the father commanded to go and work in
his vineyard; that of the ten virgins; and of the servants
given the talents — all teach conditional salvation.
But the preaching of Christ, and what he required His
disciples to preach, so witness. Hie comes crying : "Eepent ;
for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." "If ye believe not
that I am He, ye shall die in your sins." You must be pure
in spirit, meek, have a clean heart, hunger and thirst after
righteousness, be a peacemaker and keep all God's com
mandments. The righteous shall be saved, but the wicked
shall be damned.
His exhortations teach conditional salvation: "Strive to
enter in at the straight gate; for many I say unto you, will
seek to enter in and will not be able." (Luke 13:24-27.)
"Watch, therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord
doth come." (Matt. 24:42.)
His denunciations so teach. He denounced those who

What Christ Taught. 29
said and did not, as "hyeropites — wolves in sheep's clothing,
that should not escape the damnation of hell." (Matt.23:
2-39.) We need not press this point further. The teachings,
doctrines, parables, exhortations, and anathemas of Christ all
show that He taught salvation conditional — dependent on re
pentance, faith, baptism with water and the Holy Ghost,
holiness of life, and consecration to the service of God. So
taught Moses and the Prophets.

CHAPTEE II.

From our review of the Gospels thus far, we have found
that Jesus taught not only against Gentile reprobacy and-
Jewish election; but that he also taught conditional election
for Jew and Gentile. We will now notice the grounds upon
which he predicated election conditional.
And Fourth — Justification by Faith.
We read of a Eoman officer who sent to Christ requesting
that He would, heal his servant. Speaking of this centu
rion's faith, Jesus said : "I have not found so great faith, no,
not in Israel." (Matt. 8:5-13.) "And Jesus seeing their
faith, etc." (Matt. 9:1-8.) "For John came unto you in
the way of righteousness,, and ye believed him not, etc."
(Matt. 21:32.) "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus
came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the Kingdom, and
saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is
at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel." (Mark 1:14,
15.) "If thou canst believe, etc." (Mark 9:23.) "Have
faith in God." (Mark 11 :22.) "He that believeth and is
baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be
damned." (Mark 16:16.) "And he said unto her, Thy
sins are forgiven. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace."
(Luke 7:47-50; Jno. 3:14, 15, 16; 5:24, 38.) "Jesus an
swered and said unto them, This is the work of God,
that ye believe on him whom He hath sent." (John 6:29.)
"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one who
seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting
life, and I will raise him up at the last day." (Jno. 6 :40.
Jno. 8 :24.) "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" (Jno.
9:35-38.) "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe
the works ; that ye may know and believe that the Father is

Grounds of Conditionaii Election. 31
in me, and I in Him." (Jno. 10:38.) "I am the resurrec
tion and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were
dead, yet shall he live." (Jno. 11:25.) "While ye have
light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of the
light." (Jno. 12:36; John 12:44; John 12:46.) "As ye
would that men should do unto you, do ye also to them."
(John 14:11.) "Of sin, because they believe not in Me.'"
(John 16:9.)
And Fifth — Jesus taught against Justification by Works.
"But which of you having a servant plowing or feeding
cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from
the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather
say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup and gird
thyself and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken, and af
terward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that ser
vant because he did the things that were commanded him?
1 trow not. So likewise ye, when ye have done all things,
which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable ser
vants ; we have done that which was our duty to do." (Luke
17:7-10; John 4:23.) "What shall we do," that we might
work the works of God ? Jesus answered and said unto them,
This is the work of God that ye believe on Him Whom He
hath sent." (John 6:28-29.)
And Sixth — Jesus taught holiness of life, as indispensa
ble to salvation.
"Blessed are the pure in heart; for they shall see God."
(Matt. 5:8.) "Let your light so shine before men, that they
may see your good works, and glorify your Father which
is in heaven." (Matt. 5 :16; Matt. 5 :37.) "Be ye, therefore,
perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."
(Matt. 5 :48.) "Enter ye in at the straight gate; for wide is
the gate and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction,
and many there be which go in thereat; Because straight is
the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life, and

32 Grounds of Conditional Election.
few there be that find it." (Matt. 7:13-14.) "Even so
every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree ean not bring forth
evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."
(Matt. 7:17, 20; Luke 6:43.) "Either make the tree good,
and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his
fruit corrupt; for the tree is known by his fruit. 0 genera
tion of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things?
For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth
forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treas
ure bringeth forth evil things." ( Matt. 12 :33-35. ) "Whoso
ever shall do the will of my Father, is my brother, sister
and mother." (Mark 3:35;Luke 8:21; Mark 9:43-48.)
"And likewise. (Luke 6:31; Luke 6:32-36.) "And why
call ye Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"
(Luke 6:46.) "But one thing is needful." (Luke 10:42;)
"The whole body must be full of light." (Luke 11 :36 ; 11 :
42; 12:31;) "Every one that is perfect shall be as his Mas
ter." (Luke 6:40.) "Behold thou art made whole: Sin no
more, lest a worse thing come unto thee." (Jno. 5:14.)
"Which of you convinceth me of sin?" (John 10:46.) "And
Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin
no more." (John 8:4.) "Verily, verily, I say unto you,
whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (John 14:
15.) "He that hath My commandments and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth Me." (John 14 :21.) The parable of the
vine and the branches (John 15:1-6.) "Sanctify them
through thy truth; thy word is truth." (John 17:17.)
And Seventh — Jesus taught legal observances in all things
— obeying jot and title, the teaching of Moses and the Pro
phets. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Moses'
writings), or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but
to fulfill, etc." (Matt. 5 :17-19.) "Not every one that 'saith

Grounds of Conditional Election. 33.
unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven •
but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven,"
(Matt, 7:20.) "Therefore, whosoever heareth these sayings
of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man
which built his house upon a rock, etc." (Matt. 7:24-27.)
"But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
(Matt. 19 :17; Matt. 23 :l-3.) "And one of the scribes came,
and asked Him, which is the first commandment of all?
And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments
is: Hear, 0 Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord: And
thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy. heart, and
with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
strength: this is the first commandment. And the second
is like, namely, this : Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy
self. There is none other commandments greater than
these." (Mark 12:28-33; Luke 8:21; 10:25-28.) "And it
is easier for heaven and earth to pass than one tittle of the
law (Moses' writings) to fail." (Luke 16:17. See also Luke
18 :23; Jno. 8 :39.) "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall
abide in my love ; even as I have kept my Father's command
ments, and abide in His love." (John 15:10.)
And Eighth — Jesus taught against condemning others and
doing the same things.
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judg
ment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure
you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why be-
holdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye? Thou
hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye and
then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy
brother's eye." (Matt. 7:1-5.) The woman caught in adul
tery is in point. Her accusers were all adulterers ; for when
Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her." They all left. (Jno 8 -.1-11.) They
were condemning the woman, when they were themselves
guilty of the same crime. In condemning her, they condemn
ed themselves.

34 Grounds of Conditional Election.
And Ninth— Jesus taught that the Church should be en
larged by Gentile accession.
The parable of the grain of mustard seed is in point.
(Mark 4:30-32.) "And other sheep I have which are not of
this fold; them also I must bring and they shall hear my
voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." (John
10:16.) And Tenth — Jesus taught that Jew and Gentile should
be taken into the same church. (See John 10:16.)
And Eleventh — Jesus taught that the great body of the
Jewish nation should be turned out of the Church; and the
Gentiles taken into it.
"Therefore say I unto you (Jews), the Kingdom of God
shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth
the fruits thereof." (Matt. 21:43.)
And Twelfth — Jesus taught that eating did not contam
inate or defile.
"And He called the multitude and said unto them, Hear,
and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth de-
fileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this
defileth a man. Then came his disciples, and said unto
Him: Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended after
they heard this saying. But he answered and said, Every,
plant which My heavenly Father hath not planted shall be
rooted up. Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the
blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into
the ditch. Then answered Peter, and said unto Him, De
clare unto us this parable. And Jesus said, Are ye also yet
without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that
whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly
and is cast into the draught? But those things which pro
ceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart ; and they
defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,

Grounds of Conditional Election. 35
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blas
phemies: These are the things which defile a man; but to
eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matt. 15 ;
10-20.) And Thirteenth — Jesus taught submission to the author
ities that be.
"Tell us, therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to
give tribute to Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their
wickedness, and said. Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites?
Show Me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him
a penny. And He said unto them, Whose is this image
and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then
saith He unto them, Bender, therefore, unto Caesar th»
things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which
are God's." (Matt. 22:17-22.) "And when they were come
to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Pe
ter and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? He saith,
yes. And when He was come into the house, Jesus pre
vented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom
do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of the
children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto Him, of strang
ers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Not
withstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea,
and cast in thy hook, and take up the fish that cometh
up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find
a piece of money; that take and give unto them for thee
and Me." (Matt. 17:24-27.)
And Fourteenth — Jesus taught against sins of the flesh —
that the children of flesh are not the children of God.
And Fifteenth — Jesus taught against Lineage as a ground
of Election.
It is well known that the Jews — leaders and people prid
ed themselves on being the people of God, because of their
lineage — their descent from Abraham. But what saith Je-

36 Grounds of Conditional Election.
sus? "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of Heaven."
(Matt. 5:20.) Again, "Beware ye of the leaven of the
Pharisees which is hypocrisy." (Luke 12:1.) "Then said
Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in
My word, then are ye My disciples indeed ; and ye shall know
the truth, and the truth shall make you free." They an
swered Him, "We be Abraham's seed, and were never in
bondage to any man; how sayest Thou, ye shall be made
free?" Jesus answered them, "Verily, verily, I say unto
you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And
the servant abideth not in the house forever; but the Son
abideth ever. If the Son, therefore, shall make you free,
ye shall be free indeed. I know that you are Abraham's
seed, but ye seek to kill Me, because My word hath no place
in you. I speak that which I have seen with My Father;
and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. They
answered and said unto Him, Abraham is our father. Je
sus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye
would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill
Me, a Man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard
of God, this did not Abraham. Ye do the deeds of your
father. Then said they unto Him, We be not born of for
nication; we have one father, even God. Jesus said unto
them, If God were your Father, ye would love Me; for I
proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of My
self; but He sent Me." (Jno. 8:31-47; Matt. 15:18-20;
Mark 7 :14-23 ; MaTk 7 :1-13.)
And 2nd. The Acts of the Apostles. In speaking of the
commission of Christ, we referred to what He taught on
ascension day; and His commissions to Paul and Peter. We
need not repeat them here. Christ taught many other
things that were in conflict with Judaism, that we need not
now refer to. The following is a brief :
And (1) Christ taught from the first to the last against

Grounds of Conditional Election. 37
•Gentile reprobacy by decree; (2) He taught against Jewish
election by decree; (3) He taught conditional election for
Jew and Gentile — those conditions being faith and obed
ience; (4) He taught justification by faith in His blood for
remission of sins; (5) He taught against justification by
deeds of the law; (6) He taught holiness of life — legal obe
dience in all things ; (7) He taught enlargement of the church
by Gentile accession; (8) Submission to the authorities that
be; (9) That eating did not defile ; (10) Against judging oth
ers and doing the same things; (11) That not the hearers
of the law are just before God; but the doers of the law;
(12) That to be Abraham's children, the Jews must have
the faith and do the works of Abraham — that election is not
a matter of descent ; but of faith and obedience.
Few people in reading the four Gospels get a connected
idea of the system of religion presented by Christ. Still
fewer see the false system of religion He was constantly at
tacking and exposing. Few people understand why the
Scribes and Pharisees, the Sadducees and Herodians, ever
•entertained for Christ such relentless hatred. This is due
to the fact that they are ignorant of the false system those
sects advocated; and, also, of the teaching of Christ, which
so strongly condemns those false systems. We must know
the heresies entertained, at that day, by the Eabbins of the
different sects, and also, what Moses and the Prophets
taught, to appreciate — to understand — the point in the
teaching of the Master. With the teaching of Christ and the
Old Testament before them, our readers have only to exam
ine them to see: (1) Christ did not teach a new system of
religion; (2) But the old; (3) That, in a word, He taught
conditional salvation — salvation dependent on repentance,
faith and obedience in all things; (4) And that His entire
teaching was directed to an exposure of Judiasm and the
advocacy of the true religion. As, therefore, Christ's teach
ing, whether by word or deed, is directed solely to preaching
Christianity, and exposing the Jew's religion — as these two

38 Grounds of Conditional Election.
subjects engaged His constant attention, and exercised His
every power of body and mind for three years and a half,
we conclude, that in all he wrote, Paul emulated the exam
ple of Christ, Indeed, it is absolutely certain that these
very subjects constantly exercised him; for did not Christ
in person teach Paul? We have seen that He did. The
apostle expressly declares that He did. (Gal. 1.) Did He
teach him a system of religion different from that of Moses
and the Prophets? Different from that He Himself taught,
from Olivet to Calvary? Certainly not. We have abund
antly so shown.
To His immediate disciples Christ's positive orders ever
were, as we have seen, teach Moses and the Prophets. Did
He send Paul with a different commission? We know that
He did not. What then? This. Paul in Eomans is ex
posing Judaism and advocating the Christian religion. Such
are the two leading propositions. Paul was given the same
commission with the other disciples. He was, therefore,
obliged to expose the heresies of Judaism and teach the
truths of Christianity. The example of Christ was, also,
before him. He had Christ's orders, "Follow Me."
EEMAEKS.
From this review of the Gospels, our readers will see
what He taught. They will have no difficulty in seeing
that Christ taught against the entire Jewish theory. Again.
They will see that Judaism, alias Augustinism, alias Calvin
ism is the same system; and as Jesus condemned Judaism
then did He condemn both Augustinism or Eomanism, and
Calvinism, as heretical. Further. They will see that Je
sus commissioned His disciples to expose Judaism, and there
fore those systems.
In the following chapters in Part I, we shall see with what
faithfulness they, one and all, did the work Christ sent them
to do.

CHAPTEE III.

Since Jesus sent the apostles and evangelists out under
the great commission, with positive instructions to teach all
whatsoever He had commanded them, an examination of
what they taught, should we find them exposing Judaism
and teaching Christianity, appealing to Moses and the Pro
phets, for the truth of what they taught, will still further
serve to force conviction, that Paul, who went out under
the same commission, is doing the same in Eomans. We
invite attention to what was taught by,
(1) Peter. He begins his sermon on Pentecost day by
a quotation from Joel: "And it shall come to pass in the
last days, saith God, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh."
(Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17.) "And it shall come to pass, that
whosover shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
(Joel 2:32; Acts 2:21.) "For the promise is unto you, and
to your children, and to all that are afar off (Gentiles), even
as many as God shall call." (Acts 2:36-39.) Again. "Ye are
the children of the Prophets, and of the covenant which God
made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy
seed (Christ) shall all the kindreds (nations) of the earth
be blessed. Unto you first, God, having raised up His Son,
Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one
of you from his iniquities." (Acts 3:25, 26.) "This is the
stone that was set at naught of you builders, which is be
come the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in
any other; for there is none other name under heaven given
among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:10-12;
Acts 5:29-32.) Again, in the tenth chapter of the Acts, we
have an account of Christ sending Peter to preach to the
Gentiles — Cornelius, his kinsmen and friends. In this ser
mon, Peter saith: "Of a truth, I perceive that God is no

40 What Peter Taught.
respecter of persons; but in every nation, he that feareth
Him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him. The
word which God sent unto the Children of Israel, preaching.
peace by Jesus Christ: (He is Lord of all). To Him
(Christ) give all the prophets witness, that through His
name whosoever believeth on Him, shall receive remission
of sins. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost
fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the cir
cumcision which believed, were astonished, as many as came
with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured
out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them
speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered
Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as
we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name
of the Lord." (Acts 10:34-48.) Arraigned by the church
at Jerusalem, Peter "rehearsed the matter from the beginning
and expounded it by order unto them, saying, As I began
to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, the Gentiles, as on
us in the beginning. Then remembered I the word of
the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift, as He did
to us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I
that I could withstand God? When they heard these words
they held their peace, and glorified God saying, Then hath
God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life."
(Acts 11:1-18.) At the first apostolic council, when the
question under discussion was "Shall we circumcise the
Gentiles?" we readr "And when there had been much dis
puting, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among
us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of
the Gospel, and believe. And God which knoweth the hearts
bear them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He
did unto us. And put no difference between us and them, pur-

What Peter Taught. 41
ifying their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why tempt ye
God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which
neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we
believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we
shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 15:6-11.) Such were
Peter's sermons.
As bearing further on what Jesus sent him to teach, we
will now briefly notice his epistles.
It will be noticed that his epistles are addressed to the
Gentiles. He saith: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to
the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappa-
docia, Asia and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowl
edge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit
unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."
(1 Peter 1:1, 2.) " But ye are a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should
show forth the praises of Him, who hath called you out of
darkness into his marvelous light; which in time past were
not a people, but are now the people of God; which had not
obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." (1 Peter
2:9, 10.) "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus
Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with
us through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus
Christ." (2 Peter 1:1.) These scriptures show, further,
that Peter taught against Gentile reprobacy by decree. So
far from it, he declares the Gentile to be the "elect according
to the foreknowledge of God."
But Peter taught Justification by Faith.
In addition to the scriptures already cited, we read: "To
Him (Christ) give all the Prophets witness, that through
His name, whosoever believeth on Him shall receive remis
sion of sins." (Acts 10:43.) "Of which salvation the proph
ets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied
of the grace which should come unto you: Searching what
or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ, which was in

42 What Peter Taught.
them, did signify, when it testified beforehand the suffering
of Christ, and the glory which should follow." (1 Peter 1:
10-12.) He writes to these strangers (Gentiles) as those,
"Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto sal
vation ready to be revealed in the last time." (1 Peter: 3-9,
7, 8.) But the word of God endureth forever. And this
is the word which by the gospel (salvation through faith in
Christ) is preached unto you." (I Peter 1:25.) "Wherefore,
also, it is contained in scripture: Behold, I lay in Zion a
chief corner stone, elect, precious; and he that believeth in
Him (Christ) shall not be confounded." (I Peter 2:6.) "The
gospel was preached to them that are dead, that they might
be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to
God in the Spirit." (1 Peter 4:6.)
Again, Peter taught Holiness of Life.
He exhorts : "Be as obedient children, not fashioning your
selves according to the former lusts in your ignorance; but
as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all
manner of conversation: because it is written, Be ye holy,
for I am holy." (1 Peter 1 :1*-16.) "Wherefore laying aside
all guile, and all malice, and hypocricies and envies, and all
evil speakings, As new-born babes, desire the sincere milk
of the word, that ye may grow thereby." (1 Peter 2:1-2.)
"Dearly beloved, I beseech you, as strangers and pilgrims,
abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul."
(I Peter 2 :11.) "For he that will love life, and see good days,
let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they
speak no guile, let him eschew evil and do good ; let him seek
peace and ensue it." (1 Peter 3:10, 11.) "And besides this,
giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue,
knowledge; and to knowledge, temperance; and to
temperance, patience; and to patience, godliness; and
to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kind
ness, charity. (II Peter 1:5-7.) "Forasmuch then as
Christ hath suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with

What Peter Taught. 43
the same mind; for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath
ceased from sin; that he should no longer live the rest of
his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of
God." (1 Peter 4:1, 2.)
He taught: God is ,/Vo Respecter of Persons.
"And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of
persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time
of your sojourning here in fear." (I Peter 1 :17.) "Of a
truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons," etc.
(Acts 10:34.)
He taught: Submission to the Authorities that be.
"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the
Lord's sake; whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto
governors; Honor the king." (I Peter 2:13-17.) But
enough. By this examination of Peter's sermons and epistles, we
get a perfect idea of what he taught. He was opposed to
(1) Gentile reprobacy; (2) Jewish election by decree, or
descent; (3) Justification by the deeds of the law; (4) To
the doctrine of sins of the flesh; (5) Enlargement of the
church by Judaizing Gentiles — He taught against the Jews'
religion — against all of the cardinals. He advocated (1)
Conditional salvation for Jew and Gentile — the conditions be
ing repentance, faith in the blood of Christ for remission of
sins, baptism in His name, with water, Holy Ghost baptism,
and holiness of life; (2) He taught justification by faith;
(3) That God is no respecter of persons; (4) That he ren
ders unto every one according to his deeds; (5) Holiness of
life; (6) Election to sanctification through obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Christ; (7) Enlargement of the
church by converting the Gentiles to Christianity; (8)
Against circumcising Gentiles (Acts 15.)

44 What James Taught.
And (2) JAMES.
(1) He, with all the apostolic council, taught enlargement
of the church by converting the Gentiles to Christianity.
Hear him: "Simeon (Peter) hath declared unto you how
God, at the first, did visit the Gentiles to take out of them
a people for His name. And to this agree the words of
the prophet as it is written: After this I will return and
I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will
set it up; that the residue of men might seek after the
Lord, and all the Gentiles upon whom My name is called
saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." (Acts 15:13-
18.) (2) He taught against justification by the deeds of the law.
The council to which reference was just had, decided against
, circumcising the Gentile. In this decision James concur
red (We have seen that it was the law to circumcise the
Gentile in the days of Abraham and Moses. But under
what circumstances? When the Gentile was bought with
a Jew's money, or was born of parents that were so bought;
or when dwelling among the Jews, he would partake of the
Passover. Under no other circumstances.)
(3) Justification by Faith. "And the scripture was fulfill
ed which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed
unto him for righteousness." (Jas. 2:23.)
(4) God is no respecter of persons. "My brethren have
not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory,
with respect of persons," etc. (James 2:1.)
(5) Salvation conditional. — Dependent on faith and obe
dience. "Even so, faith, if it have not works is dead," etc.
(Jas. 2:17-22.)
(6) Holiness of life. "But be ye doers of the word, and
not hearers, deceiving yourselves." (Jas. 1:22-27.) "Cleanse
your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double
minded." (Jas. 4:8.)
(7) "Judge not." "Speak not evil, one of another, breth-

What John Taught. 45
ren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his
brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law."
Such were, in the main, what James taught. He, too, was
certainly teaching against Judaism. He taught the religion
of Moses and the Prophets, Christ, and Peter.
And (3) John (Evangelist.)
(1) He taught that salvation was for Jew and Gentile
alike. "There was a man sent from God, whose name was
John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the
Light, that all men through him might believe." (Jno. 1 :6,
7.) "Christ is the propitiation for the sins of the whole
world. ' (1 Jno. 2 :2.) "The Father sent the Son to be the
Savior of the world." (1 Jno. 4:14.)
(2) Salvation conditional — dependent on faith. "He
came unto His own, and they received Him not. But as
many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the
sons of God, even to them that believe in His name."-
(Jno. 1:11, 12.) "But these things are written, that ye might
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that
believing, ye might have life through His name." (Jno. 20 :
31; Jno. 3:23.)
(3) He taught against salvation by descent. "Which
were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of
the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13; I John 2:29.)
"You must be born again." (Jno. 3.)
(4) He taught Holiness of Life. "If we say that we have
fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do
not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of
Jesus Christ His Son, cleanseth us from all sin." (I John
1:6, 7.) "My little children, these things write I unto you,
that ye sin not." (I John 2:1-2:28.) "If ye know
that He is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth right
eousness is born of Him." (1 Jno. 2:29.) "Whosoever
abideth in Him sinneth not ; whosoever sinneth hath not seen
Him, neither known Him. Little children, let no man de-

46 What John the Baptist et al. Taught.-
ceive you, he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he
is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the
devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose was
the Son of God manifested, that He might destroy the works
of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit
sin ; for His seed remaineth in Him ; and He cannot sin, be
cause he is born of God. In this the children of God are
manifest, and the children of the devil; whosoever doeth
not righteousness is not of God; neither he that loveth not
his brother." (1 Jno. 3 :6-10.) "We know that whosoever is
born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God,
keepeth himself, and that the wicked toucheth him not."
(1 Jno. 5:18.) "Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but
that which is good. He that doeth good is of God; but he
that doeth evil hath not seen God." (3 Jno. 11.)
(5) He taught justification by faith and not by the deeds
of the law. (See Jno. 20:31.) "And this is His command
ment, That we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus
Christ and love one another as He gave us commandment."
(1 Jno. 3:23.) So much for what John taught. It is easy
to see that he, as Peter, James and others, taught what Jesus
did. Before coming to the teachings of Paul, as found in his
sermons, and in his other epistles, we will now notice what
Zacharias, Simeon, John the Baptist, and Caiaphas taught.
And (4) Zacharias (John the Baptist's father.)
"Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for He hath visited
and redeemed His people, and hath raised up a horn of sal
vation for us in the house of His servant David: As He
spake by the mouth of His holy Prophets, which have been
since the world began." (Luke 1:68-70.) Speaking to his
son John, then an infant, he saith: "And thou, child, shalt
be called the prophet of the Highest; for thou shalt go
before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give
knowledge of salvation unto His people (the Jews) by the

What John the Baptist et al. Taught.- 47
remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our
Lord; whereby the Dayspring from on high hath visited
us, to give light to them that sit in darkness (Gentiles) and
in the shadow of death, to guide our feet in the way of
peace." (Lukel: 76-79.) Again. "The oath which he
swear to our father Abraham, That He would grant unto us,
that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might
serve HKm without fear, in holiness and righteousness before
Him, all the days of our life." (Luke 1:73-75.) These
scriptures show: (1) Zacharias taught salvation for Jew and
Gentile; (2) Eemission of sins through Christ; (3) Holi
ness of life ; (4) And that these things were taught by all the
prophets since the world began — i. e., he was teaching no
new religion; (5) He taught against justification by deeds of
the law.
(5) Simeon. Of him we read: "Then took he Him
(Christ) up in his arms, and blessed God, and said; Lord,
now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to
Thy word; For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which
Thou hast prepared before the face of all people, a light to
lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel."
(Luke 2:28-32.) Simeon taught salvation through Christ
for Gentile and Jew; and that the church would be enlarged
by Gentile accession ; also, against Gentile reprobacy and Jew
ish election, etc.
(6) John the Baptist. He preached (1) Conditional sal
vation; (a) Eepentance (Matt. 3:2); (b) Confession of sin
(Matt. 3 :6) ; (e) Justification by faith in the blood of Christ
(John 3:36; Acts 19:4) ; (d) Holiness of life (Matt. 3:10) ;
(e) Water baptism by affusion (Matt 3:11) ; (f) Baptism of
the Holy Ghost by affusion (Matt. 3:11) ; (g) The wrath of
God against all -ungodliness (Matt. 3:7); (h) He preached
the Judgment and its terrors against all sinners (Matt. 3 :
12) ; (i) He denounced the teachers of Judaism, as a gen
eration of vipers (Matt. 3 :7) ; (2) He preached against elec
tion to salvation by descent (Matt. 3:9); (3) He preached,

48 What John the Baptist et al. Taught.-
"Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the
world." (Jno. 1:29.) (That is, he preached salvation
through Christ for the whole world.)
(7) Caiaphas said: "Ye know nothing at all, nor consider
that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this
he spake not of himself; but being high priest that year,
he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation ; And not
for that nation only; but that also he should gather togeth
er in one, the children of God that were scattered abroad."
(John 11 :49-52.)
From this review of the sermons and Epistles of Peter,
of James, of John the Evangelist, of John the Baptist, of
Zacharias, of Simeon and the others, we see what was the
system of religion taught, and what the system that was
exposed by them, one and all. Without exception, do they
antagonize the Jews' religion, denounce its teachers with
burning anathema; and teach what Moses and the Proph
ets taught in all the ages before the Advent. We see how
the Apostles understood the commission: "Go, and teach all
nations." We see, also, that they followed the example of
Christ in matter and method — teaching what He taught,
and in the manner He taught.
Now our readers will remember that we have all along
held, that Jesus Christ was not sent at the Advent era as
a legislator — that He did not come to set aside the teaching
of Moses and the Prophets — that He taught what they taught
and nothing else. He commanded His disciples to teach
whatsoever He had taught. It will be seen from the review
of what they one and all taught, with what strictness, we re
peat, they did as He ordered. In a word, they: 1. Exposed
all the cardinals of Judaism ; 2. And followed Moses and the
Prophets as did their Master, Jesus Christ; 3. Taught the
Christian theory of religion.

CHAPTEE IV.

We have seen what Peter, James, John and the rest taught.
We pass now to an examination of what Paul taught. To
this end, we will pass in review his eventful life, the ser
mons he preached, and his other epistles, deferring till we
reach Part II. our notice of what he taught in the Epistle
to the Eomans. We have already drawn attention to the fact
that Paul had an interview with Christ, when taken up to
the third heavens ; and that in that heavenly meeting, he was
taught by Christ in person.
The history of the apostle shows that up to his conversion
under the walls of Damascus, he was the boldest of the
champions of Judaism. Having been miraculously con
verted, Christ appeared to Ananias, and sent him to Paul,
saying, "He is a chosen vessel unto Me, to bear My name
before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel."
(Acts 9:15.) From this statement by Christ we have the
scope of Paul's mission — in a word, his commission. Here
we have in a single sentence set forth: 1. A repudiation of
the doctrine of Gentile reprobacy; 2. Unconditional Jewish
election scouted: 3. Conditional Jewish salvation, through
faith in the name of Christ, for remission of sins, taught;
4. that Paul is sent to expose Judaism and to teach the
Christian religion. For if Gentiles were reprobated and the
Jews elected by decree, then there was no necessity for a
minister for either Jew or Gentile. Again, if justification
were by the deeds of the law, there was not the least sense
in sending Paul and others to preach Christianity.
But to return. What did Paul preach? "And straight
way he preached Christ in the synagogues, that He is the
Son of God." (Acts 9:19.) After three years in Arabia, he
returned to Jerusalem. Arriving there we read: "And he

50 What Paul Taught.
spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed
against the Grecians." (Acts 9:29.) The next thing we
hear of Paul, he is in Antioch in Pisidia. He there, in a
Jewish synagogue, preached to a mixed multitude of Jews
and Gentiles. Having proven by the Old Scriptures, that
Jesus is the Messiah of prophecy, he preached justification
by faith in His name, saying : "Be it known unto you, there
fore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached
unto you forgiveness of sins: And by Him all that believe
are justified from all things, from which ye could not be
justified by the law of Moses." (Acts 13:14-43.) Here, it
will be seen, Paul is directly antagonizing the Jewish heresy
of justification by the deeds of the law — justification by
observing the requirements of the sacrificial system; and
in the plainest way teaching the Old Testament doctrine
of justification by faith in the atoning merits of the blood of
Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. A more offensive doctrine
to Jews could not have been preached. That they should
have antagonized it, and sought in every way to ar
rest its promulgation, is not to be wondered at. For
it struck at the very foundation of their system of religion.
When they saw the whole city turning out to hear Paul,
the Jews "spake against those things which were spoken by
Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Bar
nabas waxed bold, and said: "It was necessary that the
word of God should first be spoken to you; but seeing ye
put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of ever
lasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. For so hath God
commanded us, saying, I have set Thee (Christ) for a light
to the Gentiles, that Thou (Christ), shouldest be my salva
tion to the ends of the earth. And when the Gentiles heard
this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord;
and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts
13:44-48.) "Thereupon the Jews raised a great persecu
tion against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of
their coasts." (Acts 13:50.)

What Paul Taught. 51
Leaving Antioch we next hear of them in Iconium.
"And it came to pass in Iconium, that they went both to
gether into the synagogue of the Jews, and so spake, that
a great multitude of the Jews and also of the Greeks be
lieved." (Acts 14:1.) Here again, they meet with persecu
tion by the unbelieving Jews. Thereupon, they leave and
repair to Lystra and Derbe in Lycaonia, and there, again,
preach the Gospel. While at Lystra, the masses, urged
on by unbelieving Jews from Antioch and Iconium, stoned
Paul, leaving him for dead. Pursuing their journey, they
finally returned to Antioch in Syria. Arriving there "they
gather the church together and rehearse all that God had
done with them, and how He had opened the door of faith
unto the Gentiles." (Acts 14:27.)
While at Antioch, there came down from Judea, certain
men, who taught the brethren, "Except ye be circumcised
after the manner of Moses, ye can not be saved." (Acts 15 :
1.) To this false teaching Paul and Barnabas demurred,
holding that it was not in accordance with the law of God
that the Gentiles should be circumcised. After much dis
puting the question was referred to the apostles at Jerusa
lem. The council, having assembled, decided that Paul was
right. James, the organ of the council, shows by the old
scriptures that the church in the last days, was to be en
larged by Gentile accession (Acts 15:2-29) without cir
cumcision. Having ended his visit to the churches he had established
in Asia Minor, Paul passed over into Europe. Beaching
Philippi, he preached, and Lydia and household are conver
ted. Casting a devil out of a damsel possessed of a spirit
of divination, her masters, seeing their hope of gain gone,
seized Paul and Silas, and carried them before the magis
trates, charging them with being disturbers of the peace,
and teachers of customs, which were not lawful for them to
observe, being Eomans. They are therefore severely beat
en, and thrown into prison. Praising God at midnight,

52 What Paul Taught.
they are miraculously answered, by an earthquake, which
opens the prison's doors and knocks off their and their
fellow prisoners' chains. The Jailer, alarmed, repairs to
the jail. He finds it open. Supposing that his prisoners had
escaped, he was about to commit suicide. This Paul pre
vents, telling him that they were all there. The Jailer there
upon falls down at the feet of Paul and Silas, asking : "What
must I do to be saved?" Whereupon Paul and Silas say:
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved
and thy house." (Acts 16 :l-34.)
We next hear of them at Thessalonica. Here we read
"Paul, as his maimer was, went in unto them (the Jews in
their synagogue), and three Sabbath days reasoned with
them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that
Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the
dead ; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you is Christ.
And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and
Silas and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of
the chief women not a few." (Acts 17:1-4.) Here again
the unbelieving Jews raised a great persecution against them.
(Acts 17:5-9.)
Paul leaves and goes to Berea. Here Paul preached so
that a great multitude of Greeks believed. Persecuted again
by the unbelieving Jews, he repairs to Athens. Here he
preaches on Mars' Hill, salvation through Christ. He is
rejected by the Athenians. He then repairs to Corinth.
Here we read: "And he reasoned in the synagogue every
Sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." He is
rejected for the most part by the Jews. Leaving there he
goes to Ephesus in Syria. After preaching there he hastens
on to Jerusalem to the feast that was to be held there. (Acts
18:1-23.) Paul, the feast over, returns to Ephesus. We read : "And
he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space
of three months, disputing and persuading the things con-
concerning the Kingdom of God." (Acts 19:8.) Here Paul

What Paul Taught. 53
continued for two years; so that all they which were in
Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and
Greeks." (Acts 19:10.) At last a roiv is raised against
Paul by one Demetrius, a silver smith. (Acts 19:24-41.)
The uproar over, Paul leaves Ephesus, and passes over again
to Europe. Ending his pastorial visit, Paul repairs to Je
rusalem that he might be there on Pentecost. (Acts 20:1-
38.) Leaving Ephesus, Paul journeys to Jerusalem. Beach
ing there, he finds the whole city in an uproar, because of
a lie that had been circulated against him, by enemies of
his. Having greeted the brethren, they tell him of the slan
derous report; and advise him to repair to the temple and
observe its service; that all might see and know that the
charges against him were false. This Paul proceeds to do.
When the days of his purification were nearly ended, he
was arrested, dragged out of the temple, and would have
been murdered, but for the intervention of the Eoman
guard. The charge was that "he was teaching all the Jews
which are among the Gentiles; not 'to circumcise their
children, to forsake Moses, and not to walk after the cus
toms." (Acts 21:21.)
Allowed to make his defence, he gives his history as the
advocate of Judaism up to the time of his miraculous con
version under the walls of Damascus. He gives an ac
count of that conversion, and of his being sent by Christ
to preach the gospel to all men — Jews and Gentiles. The
crowd gave him audience up to that point; then they be
gan to cry out: "Away with such a fellow from the earth,
for it is not fit that he should live." (Acts 22:1-23.)
The next day the Chief Captain assembled a grand coun
cil of the Jews, and set Paul before them, with a view to
ascertaining, if possible, what they had against him. There
upon Paul declares himself to be a Pharisee, and that he
was called in question, simply because of the hope and resur
rection of the dead. Upon this a great row is raised be-

54 What Paul Taught.
tween the Pharisees and Sadducees, the Pharisees siding
with Paul. The Eoman guard interpose, and rescue Paul.
The Chief Captain learning that there was a number of
Jews lying in wait to kill Paul, sends him off to Cesarea to
Felix. (Acts 23.)
In a few days his enemies follow him. He is falsely
arraigned before Felix. Permitted to make his defense, he
denies all and singular, the charges preferred. Proceed
ing, he says: "But this I confess, that after the way which
they call heresy, (teaching the Christian religion and expos
ing Judaism,) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing
all things which are written in the law (Moses' writings),
and in the prophets." (Acts 24:1-23.) While in prison
awaiting a new trial, "Felix sent for Paul and heard him con
cerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of right
eousness, temperance and judgment to come, Felix trem
bled, etc." (Acts 24:24-25.)
Festus succeeds Felix in office. Paul is again brought
to trial. Defending himself, he says. "Neither against
the laws of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet
against Caesar, have I offended anything at all." (Acts 28 :
8.) King Agrippa visiting Festus, Paul is again brought
out, and given a hearing. Thereupon he makes his de
fence. He declares that he was a strict Pharisee;
that he was judged for the hope of the promise made of
Govd unto his fathers; that the twelve tribes, serving God,
hoped to come unto that promise; that it should not be re
garded as incredible that God should raise the dead; that he
had done many things against Jesus of Nazareth, putting
to death the saints; and this he had continued up to his
conversion near Damascus. He then gives an account of
that conversion, and of seeing Christ, and the commission he
gave him to preach the gospel to Jews and Gentiles; that
this he had done, and it was for this cause that the Jews
sought to kill him. Proceeding he says: "Having therefore

What Paul Taught. 55
obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing
both to small and great, saying none other things than those
which the prophets and Moses did say should come; that
Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that
should rise from the dead, and should show mercy unto the
people and to the Gentiles." (Acts 26 :22-23.)
Sent to Eome, Paul after a disastrous voyage, finally
arrives there. At an appointed time, the Jews came to
gether to hear Paul preach. Whereupon we read: "He
expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading
them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and
out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some
believed the things which were spoken, and some believed
not. And when they agreed not among themselves, they
departed, after that Paul had spoken one word. "Well
spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our
fathers, saying: Go unto this people and say, hearing ye
shall hear and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall
see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed
gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they
have closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear
with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should
be converted, and I should heal them. Be it known there
fore unto you that the salvation of God is sent unto the
Gentiles and they will hear it." (Acts 28: 23-28.) Such
are the sermons of Paul as reported in the Acts of the
Apostles. We come now to his Epistles.
In these epistles, Paul follows the course of Christ. He
avoids elaborate argumentation — contents himself with
stating his positions, and sustaining them by quotations
from Moses and the Prophets. An examination of these
epistles will show that the apostle is exercised throughout
with the very subject that engrossed his attention in his
sermons — the subject that the other apostles, Christ and

56 What Paul Taught.
the Old Testament writers were all concerned about. But
to the Epistles.
And 1 Gentile reprobacy by decree.
The following facts witness that Paul did not endorse
this part of Judaism:
And (1) Out of the ten Epistles addressed to the church
es, nine are to Gentile churches. Why write epistles of
instruction in godliness to Gentiles, if reprobated by
decree? (2) By agreement with the college of apostles,
Paul went unto the heathen, while they went unto the
circumcision. His labors were directed for the most part
to Gentile evangelization. (3) Paul's addresses of Gentile
converts show that he repudiated such a theory: "Unto
the church of God (Gentiles) which is at Corinth; to them
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with
all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ
our Lord, both theirs and ours." (I Cor. 1:2.) "Paul, unto
the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints
which are in all Achaia." (II. Cor. 1:1.) And so of others
and the rest; (4) His exhortations in his epistle to Timothy
are in point : "I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplica
tions, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made
for all men, for this is good and acceptable in the sight of
God our Savior: "Who will have all men to be saved,
and to eome unto the knowledge of the truth." (I Tim. 2:
1-3-4.) Again, "For there is one God, and one Mediator
between God and men, the man Christ _ Jesus, who gave
himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time."
(I Tim. 2:5-6.) "For therefore, we both labor and suffer
reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the
Savior of all men especially of those that believe." (I. Tim.
4:10;) (5) Paul made himself very obnoxious to the Jews
wherever he went. This was due to his preaching salva
tion to and for the Gentiles. But why argue this point?
Paul's sermons, his commission, his addresses, his in-

What Paul Taught. 57
structions to Timothy, his positive declarations, that salva
tion is for all men; God's willingness that all men should
be saved, coupled with the fact that nine out of ten of his
Epistles are addressed to Gentile churches, make it abso
lutely certain that Paul did not endorse this tenet of Juda
ism — make it plain that Gentile salvation was a matter
dear to his heart, uppermost in his mind, and one that well-
nigh engrossed his attention.
And (2) Jewish election by decree or descent.
Ahd (1) Paul did not believe this Jewish heresy; for, if
he did, why did he preach repentance toward God, and faith
in the blood of Christ to the Jews ? The elect would have no
need of either repentance or justification. The climax of
his grand argument at Antioch was salvation through
Christ for Jews as well as Gentiles. (Acts 13:38-39.)
In his epistle to Corinthians, he writes: "For the Jews
require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom; but we
preach Christ crucified unto the Jews a stumbling block,
and unto the Greeks foolishness. But unto them which are
called both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God." (I Cor. 1:22-24.) If he believed in
Jewish election, he would never have written: "Beware
of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
(The Jews.) (Phil. 3:2.) That he repudiated salvation by
descent is evident from the following language: "Though I
might also, have confidence in the flesh. If any other man
thinketh he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh. I
more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel,
of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, as
touching the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting
the church; touching the righteousness which is in the
law, blameless." (Phil. 3:2-6.)
Many other scriptures could be cited in proof, that Jew
ish election by decree or descent was no part of the apos
tle's creed.

58 What Paul Taught.
And (3) Justification by faith.
As we have seen, while examinating Paul's sermons, faith
and not works was the text of his discourse. So it is in
his epistles. We read: "For after that in the wisdom of
God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save those that believe."
(I Cor. 1 :21.) "That your faith should not stand in the wis
dom of men, but in the power of God." (I Cor. 2:5.) "By
which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I
preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." (I Cor.
15:2.) "Not that we have dominion over your faith; but
are helpers of your joy; for by faith ye stand." (II Cor.
1:24.) (In II Cor. 4:4-13,) again: "Knowing that man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of
Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that
we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by
the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified." (Gal. 2:16-21.) "0 foolish Galatians,
* * * This only would I learn of /ou; received ye the
Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to
him for righteousness. Know ye, therefore, that they
which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
And the scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the
heathen through faith preached, before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."
(Gal. 3 :2-8.) "For ye are all the children of God by faith in
Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26.) "If ye be Christ's then are ye
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal.
3:29.) "In whom ye also trusted after that ye heard the
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also,
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit
of promise." (Ephes. 1:13.) In whom we have boldness
and access with confidence by the faith of him." (Eph. 3:
12.) "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith."
(Eph. 3:17.) "Till we all, Jews and Gentiles, come in the

What Paul Taught. 59
unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God,
unto a perfect man." (Eph. 4:13.) "And be found in him,
not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but
that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith." (Phil. 3:9. See Phil. 1:29.)
"Since we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of
the love which ye have to all the saints." (Col. 1:4. See
Col. 1:20.) "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye
are risen with him through faith of the operation of God,
who hath raised him from the dead." (Col. 2:12. See I
Thess. 1:3-8; 2:13; II Thess. 1:10-11.) "Not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to His
mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration and the
renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He shed on us abun
dantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified
by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the
hope of eternal life." (Titus 3:5-7.) In chapter eleventh of
Hebrews, Paul teaches justification by faith from Abel to
Christ. (Hebrew 11.) Again, "for as many as are of the
works of the law are under the curse; for it is written:
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which
are written in the book of the law to do them. . But that no
man is justified by the law in the sight of God it is evi
dent, for the just shall live by faith." And the law is not
of faith; but the man that doeth them shall live in them."
(Gal. 3:10-13.) "For by grace are ye saved, through faith;
and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of
works, lest any man should host." (Eph. 2:8-9.)

CHAPTEE V.

From our review thus far, we have seen that Paul reject
ed the two great cardinals of Judaism, to-wit: Gentile
reprobacy and Jewish election by decree — that he taught
faith and not works as a ground of justification. To con
tinue, Paul taught:
(4.) Conditional salvation for Jew and Gentile. In proof:
"Eye hath not seen nor ear heard the things which God
hath prepared for those that love Him." (I Cor. 2:9.)
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels
and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass and
a tinkling cymbal." (I Cor. 13:1-3.) "And you who were
sometime alienated, and enemies in your minds by wicked
works, yet now hath He reconciled, in the body of His
flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable,
and unreprovable in His sight. If ye continue in the faith
grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the
hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was
preached to every creature which is under heaven." (Col.
1:21-23.) "God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the
truth." (II Thes. 2:13.) "If they continue in faith and
charity, and holiness with sobriety." (I Tim. 2 :15.) Al
luding to the unbelief and disobedience of the Jews in the
wilderness, Paul exhorts: "Take heed, brethren lest there
be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in departing from
the living God. And to whom swear He that they should not
enter into His rest, but to them that believeth not. So we
see they could not enter in, because of unbelief." (Heb. 3 :
12-19.) (See Heb. 4:3-13.) "Let us hold fast the possession
of our faith without wavering; for he is faithful that promis
ed. And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and

What Paul Taught. 61
to good works." (Heb. 10:23-29. See Heb. 11:1-40.) The
scriptures cited suffice. They show that Paul taught that
salvation was conditional. Eepentance, faith in the blood
of Christ for remission of sins, obedience in all things, bap
tism into Christ by the Holy Ghost, baptism with water,
and above all charity, which is love. We come now to
(5) Holiness of life.
The Jews held to sins of the flesh — that their unrighteous
ness commended the righteousness of God — that the more
sin they committed, the more glory God had in saving
them. That Christ and His apostles should denounce such
a fearful heresy was to be expected. This we have seen
they did. That Paul should have anathemized such diabol
ism, sent as he was on a work of reformation to Jew and
Gentile, does not surprise us. In all his writings, we find
that he mercilessly attacks this Jewish holding, proving by
the scriptures, that it was absolutely false. But let us
hear him : "If any man defile the temple of God, him will
God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple
ye are." (1 Cor. 3:17.) "Purge out therefore, the old leav
en. Therefore let us keep the feast not with old leaven, neither
with the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the un-
leaven bread of sincerity and truth." (1 Cor. 5:7-8.) "As
sociate not with the wicked." (1 Cor. 5:6-11.) "The unright
eous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9,
10.) "Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ?
Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them
members of a harlot? God forbid. Flee fornication. Every
sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that com-
mitteth fornication, sinneth against his own body. What!
Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are
not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore
glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are
God's." (1 Cor. 6 :15-20.) "Be ye followers of me, even as

62 What Paul Taught.
I also am of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1.) "Awake to righteous
ness and sin not." (1 Cor. 15:34.) "Always, abound in the
work of the Lord." (1 Cor. 15:58.) "Watch ye, stand fast
in the faith, quit you like men, be strong." (1 Cor. 16:13.)
"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers;
for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteous
ness? And what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part
hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agree
ment hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in
them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they
shall be My people. Wherefore, come out from among them,
and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the
unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father
unto you, and ye shall be My sons and daughters, saith
the Lord Almighty." (II Cor. 6:14-18.) "Cleanse your
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting
holiness in the fear of the Lord." (II Cor. 7 :1.) "And I pray
God that ye do no evil." (II Cor. 13:7.) "Finally, brethren,
farewell. Be perfect." (II Cor. 13:11.) "Walk in the spirit
and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh." (Gal. 5:
16.) Enumerating the works of the flesh the apostle pro
ceeds : "Of the which I tell you before, as I have also told
you in the time past, that they which do such things shall
not inherit the Kingdom of God. If we live in the Spirit, let
us also walk in the Spirit." (Gal. 5:19-25.) "Be not de
ceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his fleBh
shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the
Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor un-
circumcision ; but a new creature." (Gal. 6:7, 8, 15.) Ac
cording as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame be
fore Him in love." (Eph. 1:4.) "I therefore, the prisoner

What Paul Taught. 63
of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the voca
tion wherewith ye are called. Till we all come in the unity
of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto
a perfect man, unto the measure of the statue of the fullness
of Christ." (Gal. 4:1-32.) "For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph. 2:10.)
After speaking of whoremongering, covetousness, which is
idolatry, etc., Paul proceeds: "Let no man deceive you with
vain words ; for because of these things the wrath of God com
eth upon the children of disobedience." (Eph. 5 :3-6.) "Awake
thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall
give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as
fools, but as wise, redeeming the time, because the days are
evil." (Eph. 5:14-16.) "And this I pray, that your love
may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all
judgment; that ye may approve the things that are excel
lent ; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day
of Christ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which
are by Jesus Christ unto the glory and praise of God." (Phil.
1 :9-ll.) "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling,
that ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God
without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse na-
ton, among whom ye shine as lights in the world." (Phil.
2:12-15.) (See Phil. 4:8.) "As ye have therefore received
Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in Him." (Col. 2:6, 7;
3:1-11.) "Put on, therefore, as the elect of God, holy and
beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind,
meekness, longsuffering. And above all these put on charity,
which is the bond of perfeetness." (Col. 3:12-17.) "That
ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto His
kingdom and glory." (I Thess. 2:12. (See I Thess. 3:12,
13.) "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification."
(I Thess. 5-22.) "Now our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, and
God even our Father, comfort your hearts, and stablish you
in every good word and work." (II Thess. 2:16, 17.)

64 What Paul Taught.
"Associate not with a brother that walketh disorderly."
(II Thess. 3:6.) "Now the end of the commandments is
charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and
of faith unfeigned." (I Tim. 1 :5 ;) "Be thou an example of
the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit,
in faith, in purity." (I Tim. 4:12.) "But thou, 0 man of
God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godli
ness, faith, love, patience, meekness." (I Tim. 6:11.) "And
let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from
iniquity. Flee also youthful lusts; but follow righteousness,
faith, charity, peace with them that call on the Lord out of a
pure heart." (II Tim. 2:19-22.) "For the grace of God
that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men. Christ,
who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all
iniquity, and purity unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous
of good works." (Titus 2:11-14.) "Without holiness no
man shall see the Lord." (Heb. 12:14.) Such passages de
clare Paul's repudiation of the heresy of sins of the flesh — a
heresy so wide-spread, and far-reaching among the Jews — a
heresy that he so fondly cherished, zealously defended, while
deluded with "The Jew's religion."
(6) Judge not.
This Paul condemned. It was a custom among the Jews
to judge and denounce the Gentiles as reprobates. And this
they did, while doing the same things that the Gentiles did.
On this subject Paul writes : "But with me, it is a very
small thing that I should be judged of you (Gentiles) or of
man's judgment; yea, I judge not mine own self. He that
judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore judge nothing before the
time till the Lord come." (I Cor. 4:3-5.)
(7) Christ judge of quick and dead.
"And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now
commandeth all men everywhere to repent; because He hath
appointed a day in which He will judge the world in right-

What Paul Taught. 65
eousness, by that Man (Christ) whom He hath ordained."
(Acts 17:30, 31.)
(8) God is no respecter of persons. He will render to
every man according to his deeds.
"Every one shall receive for the wrong that he hath done ;.
there is no respect of persons with God." (Col. 3 :25.) "For
we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that
every one may receive the things done in the body according
to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." (II Cor.
6:15.) (9) Circumcision of the flesh.
"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing;.
but the keeping of the commandments of God." (I Cor.
7:19.) "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
anything, nor uncircumcision; but a new creature." (GaL
6-15.) (10) Circumcision is of the heart.
"In whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcis
ion made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." (Col. 2:11.)
"For we are the circumcision that worship God in the Spirit,
and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the
flesh." (Phil. 3:3.)
(11) Salvation is of Grace — not Works.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of
yourselves ; it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man
should boast." (Eph. 2:8, 9.) "Having predestinated us un
to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself, ac
cording to the good pleasure of His will. To the praise of
the glory of His grace wherein He hath made us accepted in
the beloved, in whom we have redemption through His blood,.
according to the riches of His grace." (Eph. 1:5-7.) "I
3

66 What Paul Taught.
marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him that called
you into the grace of Christ, unto another Gospel." (Gal.
1:6.) "Who hath saved us with an holy calling, not ac
cording to our works ; but according to His own purpose and
.grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world
hegan." (II Tim. 1:9, 10.)
(12) Not the hearers of the law are just; but the doers of
the law.
"For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that
he is a debtor to do the whole law." (Gal. 5 :3.) "For nei
ther they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but
•desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your
flesh." (Gal. 6:13.)
(13) All under sin — Jews as well as Gentiles.
"But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the
promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them
that believe." (Gal. 3:22.)
(14) Eeconciliation through Christ.
"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us by
Jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation,
to-wit: that God was in Christ reconciling the world unto
Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them. For He
hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we
might be made the righteousness of God in Him." (II Cor.
5 : 18-21.) "Wherefore, in all things it behooved Him to be
made like unto His brethren, that He might be a merciful
and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to
make reconciliation for the sins of the people." (Heb. 2 :17.)
"And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to Him
self by Jesus Christ." (II Cor. 5:18.) "And having made
peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all
things unto Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be things
on earth or things in heaven." (Col. 1 :20.)

What Paul Taught. OT
(15) Church enlarged by Gentile accession.
"Wherefore, remember, that ye being in time past Gen
tiles in the flesh, who are called uncircumcision, by that which
is called circumcision in the flesh made by hands ; that at that
time, ye were without Christ, being alien from the common
wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,
having no hope and without God in the world: But now in.
Christ Jesus, ye who were some time afar off, are made nigh
by the blood of Christ. 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 (the sac
rificial system), for to make in Himself of twain, one new
man, so making peace." (Eph. 2:11-12.) "That the Gentiles.
should be fellow heirs, and of the same body and partakers
of His promise in Christ by the Gospel." (Eph. 3 :6.) "Even
the mystery which hath been hid from ages, and from gen
erations, but now is made manifest to His saints : To whom
God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this
mystery among the Gentiles ; which is Christ in you the hope
of glory." (Col. 1:26-28.)
(16) Damnation for unbelievers — for the ungodly.
"In flaming fire, taking vengeance upon them that know
not God. and that obey not the Gospel of our Lord Jesus
Christ." ' (II Thess. 1 :8.) "That they all might be damned
who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous
ness." (II Thess. 2:12.)
(17) Resurrection.
(See Acts 13:30, 35; 17:3, 18, 31; 24:21; 26:8.) "And
that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day,
according to tlie Scriptures." (I Cor. 15:4.) "Which He
wrought in Christ when He raised Him from the dead.""
(Eph. ] :20.) "That I may know Him and the power of

68 What Paul Taught.
His resurrection." (Phil. 3:10.) "Who, concerning the
truth, hath erred, saying, that' the resurrection is past already
and overthrow the faith of some." (II Tim. 2:18.)
(18) Meat commendeth us not to God.
(See I Cor. 8:8; 10:25, 26.) "No sin in eating
anything." (Gal. 2:12-21.) "Let no man judge you in
meat or drink." (Col. 2:16.) Forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meat which God hath created to
be received with thanksgiving of them which believe, and
know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and noth
ing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving." (I
Thess. 4:3-5.)
(19) Must be subject to the powers that be.
"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and pow
ers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work," etc.
(Titus 3:1.)
Our design having been, from the beginning, to confine at
tention to those subjects that the apostle is discussing in the
-epistle before us, we will close our examination of his other
¦epistles at this point. The following is a brief of our argu
ment in proof of the correctness of our postulates :
We first passed in review the teaching of Christ. We found
(1) That He taught what Moses and the Prophets taught —
nothing more, nothing less; (2) That He, in the most posi
tive manner, required His disciples to observe and do all
whatsover the Scribes and Pharisees bade them ; for they sat
in Moses' seat (Matt. 23) : (3) That He commissioned them
to teach whatsoever He had commanded them (Matt. 28).
Hence, we conclude, as Paul was taught of Christ, and com
missioned by Him as were the other disciples, that he taught
what Christ taught, he having no authority to teach anything
-else — "teach all things whatsover I have commanded you,"
being his commission.
We then examined Peter, James and John. We found that

What Paul Taught. 69
they taught, in all things, as did Christ. That they were
constrained to teach as they did, such being the command
and commission of Christ. Our conclusion again was that
Paul taught what they did, his commission and their's being
the same.
We then had Zacharias, John the Baptist, Simeon, and
Caiaphas depose. We found that they taught as did Christ
and his apostles. Again, our conclusion was, Paul taught the
same on all occasions.
Finally, we took up the apostle's sermons, and other epis
tles. Their review showed that Paul was discussing the same
subjects in all his sermons and other epistles. From this
discussion our readers must conclude with us, that he wrote
Romans in advocacy of Christianity and in exposure of
Judaism. What he discusses in his other epistles was certainly what
he was writing about in Romans.
This discussion constitutes our apology for presuming to
differ with men of such acknowledged ability as have written
in exposition of this epistle. By it, too, we designed to pre
pare our readers for an intelligent examination of the epistle.
We have endeavored, not simply to place before them the de
signs with which the apostle wrote, but the propositions he
discusses and the authorities upon which he relied for
proofs of their correctness. With such light, we doubt
not that they will be enabled to see clearly what the apostle
intended to teach in this epistle.
It will doubtless be objected, as already remarked, that this
discussion is taken up with subjects about which there is
now no dispute. Are election and reprobation by decree be
yond the pale of controversy? Are there not sects by the
dozen that teach unconditional reprobacy? Election by de
cree? The line is not drawn between Jew and Gentile, it is
true. It is now, as remarked before, Calvinistic and anti-
Calvinistic. The subjects, then, passed in review, are by no means

70 What Paul Taught.
obsolete. Again. Is not the ground of justification still
in controversy? Are there not sects that teach justifica
tion by works ? Are there not others that hold to sins of the-
flesh ? Are there not other sects that hold that they are the1
people of God, that are living in daily violation of His laws ?
Are there not others that hold that it is right to do evil?
That the more sin they commit the more is God glorified,, in
their salvation? The heresies of Judaism are taught all over
the lands, boldly, defiantly. Is the question of holiness-1—
perfect devotion to the service of God — a sinless service — a
settled one? Is it not a fact that the so-called churches of
this and . European countries are filled with a membership
who practically repudiate holiness? Who attend theatres,
balls, dances, and engage in all the fashionable follies andi
vices of the age ? Are there not sects who teach in every part
of Europe and America that sin is an unavoidable necessity?
That their unrighteousness commends the righteousness of
God? And do not these sects teach these Heresies without
challenge, or rebuke? But conditional salvation — a salvation
dependent on repentance, faith and positive obedience — holi
ness ? Who teaches it ? Shall I be told that many sects do ?'
I deny it. There are men who preach it; but they don't
practice what they teach — the vast majority do not; and
neither do they require their members to do it. If their prac
tice controverts their preaching, then is their preaching neu
tralized — rendered worse than nothing. It is just as if they
had never preached it. Aye, worse. Again. Is it not a
received opinion now, that Christ set up a new church, with
new doctrines, ritual, laws, and institutions? Are there not
sects who teach it? To show that He did no such thing is-
certainly a live subject ; and one that needs to be thoroughly
ventilated. It is held that all the sects of this and European
countries are branches of the true church; and that, too,
while they are each teaching doctrines that are as opposed
as the poles of the earth. Where is there scriptural ground
for any such a holding? The word of God teaches: "One

What Paul Taught. 71
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, — one
system of religon in all the ages — as appears from the teach
ing of Christ, the disciples, Paul and others. Is opposi
tion to sectarianism unscriptural ? We have seen what Christ
taught as to a divided kingdom or house. Is it not as true of
His Kingdom or house, as any other house or kingdom?
There is no subject that Christ and His apostles touched
npon, but what is a vital one — just as much so at this day as
when He and they lived on the earth. Great is the pity
that they do not now exercise the world. May God grant that
they may again stir the world from center to circumference
and that in the near future !
So much for Part I., and designs with which it was writ
ten.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAET II.
Introduction. Chapter I. — Gentile Reprobacy: Arguments pro and con
as to whether God ever revealed Himself to the Gentiles :
Bom. I.
Chapter II. — Gentile Reprobacy: Argument continued,
showing that the Gentiles knew God : Eom. I.
Chapter III. — Gentile Reprobacy: Arguments pro and con
as to whether the Gentiles were ever given the laws of
God: Eom. I. -
Chapter IV. — Gentile Reprobacy: Argument continued,
showing that the Gentiles were given the laws of God —
understood what were the principles of his government.
To reward the good and punish the evil : Eom. I.
Chapter V. — Gentile Reprobacy : Argument pro and con as
to whether God ever required the Gentiles to be circum
cised in the flesh, etc. : Rom. I.
Chapter VI. — Israelitish Reprobacy: Tables turned; Ar
gument showing that if Gentiles were reprobated so were
the Jews, God being no respecter of persons: Eom. I.
Chapter VII. — Jewish Election: Argument showing that
the goodness and mercy of God or the possession of God's
laws, do not evidence Jewish election: Rom. 2.
Chapter VIII — Jewish Election: Arguments showing that
being set to the task of evangelizing the world, or being
circumcised, or lineage, or descent from Abraham, do
not evidence Jewish election : Eom. 2.

Table of Contents. 73
Chapter IX.— Election: Covenant, whether with Abraham
or Moses, Conditional: Eom. 3.
Chapter X. — Election: Conditional (continued) : Eom. 3.
Chapter XI. — Election: Conditional (continued): Eom. 3.
Chapter XII. — Justification: By faith and not by works.
Eom. 3.
Chapter XIII. — Justification: By faith and not by works.
Eom. 4.
Chapter XIV. — Justification : The theory shown to be the
true one by experience. Argument showing that Adam
and descendants had the laws of God. Loss in Adam
more than paralleled by gain in Christ: Eom. 5.
Chapter XV. — Loss and gain: Gains in Christ greater
than loss in Adam: Eom. 5.
Chapter XVI. — Holiness: Arguments showing that a
Christian should not sin, that grace may abound:
Eom. 6.
Chapter XVII. — Marriage : Husband dead, remarriage not
adultery. Experience of one living under Jewish theory
shows its falsity: Eom. 7.
Chapter XVIII. — Contrast: Of the theories of Christian
ity and Judaism showing the excellences of the former
and the contrary of the latter: Eom. 8.
Chapter XIX. — Lineage: Argument showing all are not
Israel that are of Israel: Eom. 9.
Chapter XX. — Gentile Reprobacy: Argument resumed.
Pharaoh text examined, argument pro and con : Eom. 9.
Chapter XXI. — Justification : Argument resumed, showing
it to be by faith and not works : Rom. 10.

74 Table of Contents.
Chapter XXII. — Church Enlarged: By Gentile accept
ance and Jewish rejection. This shows alike the falsity
of Jewish theory as to Gentile Reprobacy and Jewish
Election: Rom. 11.
Chapter XXIII. — Godliness: Holiness how evidenced,
showing the falsity of Jewish theory as to the daily walk
of God's Elect: Rom. 12,
Chapter XXIV. — Practical Godliness: Shown in submis
sion to the powers that be: Rom. 13.
Chapter XXV. — Practical Godliness: As to Sumptuary
law, Sabbath, etc. : Rom. 14.
Chapter XXVI. — Church Enlarged : By Gentile accession :
Eom. 15.
Chapter XXVII. — Salutations: Mystery of the age ex
plained, Gentile taken into the same church with the
Jews.

INTRODUCTION

Part I. has been written with the design of preparing the
minds of our readers for an intelligent examination of the
Epistle to the Eomans. From the discussion had, we ascer
tained, that Christ, His disciples, and Paul in his sermons
and other epistles were all teaching: 1. Judaism is heresy;
2. Christianity is the religion of the Fathers; 3. With an ap
peal to Moses and the Prophets in support of their postulates.
From which we advanced to the further postulate that Paul
was discussing the same general propositions in the Epistle
to the Eomans, and relying upon the same authorities for
his proof. For the truth of this postulate our readers are
referred to the exposition of the epistle. Before passing to
its examination we ask attention to :
First — Pauline Peculiarities.
And (1) the style of the author: At times he is concise as
a Livy or a Tacitus. Then, again, he will devote much space
to word, phrase, and even sentence elaboration. Again, he is
elliptical — leaving to his readers the supply of historical and
other data necessary to the threads of his arguments. Writing
a letter and not a book, accounts, to some extent, for the
author's style.
2. His method of argumentation. Instead of taking up
a single proposition, and proceeding to its exhaustive dis
cussion, he passes from one of his General Propositions to
the other, carrying along two distinct lines of argument,
introducing from time to time, a number of subordinate prop
ositions, under each of his general postulates, requiring close
attention to see where he drops, and where he resumes their
discussion. And (3) Designs. We have already in Part I abundantly

76 Introduction.
shown that the Epistle was written: 1. To expose heresy;
2. To teach truth.
And (4.) The Propositions. To determine with positive
certainty what they were, was Part I written. We deemed
such an elaborate discussion necessary and for the following
reasons: 1. Men of great learning and acknowledged ability
have written in exposition of this Epistle and each have dif
fered in opinion from all others as to what Paul was writing
about — no two agreeing as to the propositions he was dis
cussing. For entertaining a different opinion modesty sug
gested the setting forth of ample reasons; 2. Unless there is
a clear conception of the propositions to be demonstrated, it
is simply impossible that the reader or hearer be edified by
their discussion. What the propositions are has been stated
several times, and we need not repeat.
And (5) That Paul is laboring to refute the positions of
an opponent, all who are competent to an examination of
the Epistle are agreed. The positions of that opponent are
not in many instances, stated in so many words. He leaves
to his readers the supply of not only his opponent's postu
late, but the argument brought forward in its support. To
supply not only the proposition, but the argument in its
proof, from another argument designed to refute it, is an
undertaking of great difficulty and one that only the most
gifted — the most scholarly of the ages — have attempted with
success. Second. But beside Pauline peculiarities, the translation
has contributed in no small degree to the misunderstanding
of the epistle. Sectarianism has ever operated to prevent
translators from giving an impartial rendering of the Scrip
tures. It seems to be well nigh impossible for men to so far
divest themselves of creedal prejudice, as to give a perfectly
correct version. The King James' translators were no excep
tion. In the days of James the First of England, the church
endorsed without dissent nearly, the views of Augustine and
Calvin. It requires but little attention to see in their ren-

Introduction. 77
dering of many passages, a labored effort to give the epistle a
translation in harmony with the views- of the English church
of that day. Now the theory of religion that Paul is present
ing in Eomans is, as we have before remarked, anything else
than that advocated by a Calvin or an Augustine. When,
therefore, the translators gave the epistle a rendering colored
to suit their creed, they very greatly enhanced the difficulty
of its understanding and are justly chargeable with a great
part of the blame for the absurd and utterly erroneous views
that are everywhere prevalent touching it.
The sectarian rendering necessitated, of course, an accom
modated punctuation. It is simply impossible to make any
sense out of many passages owing to their improper punctua
tion. Such, in our humble judgment, are the difficulties in the
way of a perfect mastery of the epistle. It will be conceded
that they are by no means so formidable as is generally be
lieved. The style of the author and his method of argumen
tation may soon be learned by a study of his sermons and his
other voluminous writings. The errors of the translators,
whether in rendering or punctuation, lie upon the face of
the epistle, and require but little discernment in their de
tection, or skill in their correction. To ascertain with what
designs the apostle was writing, the propositions he was com
batting, the arguments he was refuting, we have only to
examine critically the writings of Moses and the Prophets,
the Gospels, the writings of the other apostles, or his own
sermons and other epistles.
Third. Why did the apostle address the epistle to the
Church at Eome, and put forth all the powers of his great
intellect in its composition? Sent as a reformer we readily
see why. Eome, at that time the capital of the world, was
a strategetic point whose occupation by the Christian army
was a matter of prime importance. Its value as a missionary
center was not lost on so distinguished a leader as was Paul
of Tarsus. With a powerful church at Eome, he well knew

78 Introduction.
that an influence for good would go out that would be felt
to the bounds of that colossal empire. That it should exert
this influence, it was indispensable that it be perfectly in
doctrinated in the heresies of Judaism and the truths of the
Christian religion. For thither, he well knew, Judaizing
leaders would flock; and leave no stone unturned to stamp
out the religion of Christ, and induce, if possible, the accept
ance of their false and heretical system.
The apostle was well aware of the tactics of these Bab-
bins — of the methods by which they sought to accomplish their
fell designs. He knew that they were skilled disputants —
men who knew well how to present their system in its
most attractive colors. He was not unmindful of the fact,
that "the Jews' religion," as contrasted with Christianity,
was fascinatingly easy, requiring no restraint in the indul
gence of either the lusts of the flesh, or the lusts of the eyes,
or of the pride of life. The Church at Eome, composed as it
was to some extent of reformed Jews, would, he was aware, be
tempted by these eloquent advocates of heresy, to return to
what they were pleased to call "the religion of their fathers."
From passage after passage in the epistle before us we see
that the apostle was profoundly concerned for the salvation
of his own people. He knew well the need that the reformed
Jews at Eome would have for such an overwhelming refuta
tion of "the Jews' religion," and such a masterly presentation
of the cardinals of Christianity, as the Epistle to the Eomans.
With it in hand, they would be armed at every point — able to
meet every attack, and repel every assault of such arch-de
ceivers as were those teachers of Judaism.
But the Gentile portion of the church at Eome, were, if
anything, still more in need of just such instructions, as this
epistle affords. Those Eabbins were accustomed to make a
special effort to induce the Gentile Christian lo renounce his
faith. They harped upon the fact that "the children of Abra
ham" would alone be saved. That it was imperative, if they
would become his heirs, that they be circumcised. That justi-

Introduction. 7f>
fication was by the deeds of the law. That, once circum
cised, their salvation was an assured fact— that whatever sins
they hereafter committed only served to magnify the glory
of God. Such were the main points stressed by them in favor
of their system.
Attacking Christianity, they laughed to scorn the idea
of being saved through faith in the blood of a crucified
malefactor. They branded as false the claim, that Christ had
risen from the dead. They ridiculed the idea of enlarge
ment of the church by Gentile accession through faith in
the blood of atonement. Finally, they denounced the Chris
tian system as a base heresy, boldly averring, that not one
of its cardinals could be found in their sacred writings. As
the apostle of the Gentiles, Paul was scarcely less concerned
for their salvation. He wrote the epistle that they, like the
Jews, might be armed for the conflict with those advocates
of a bald heresy.
Again. Such an elaborate discussion of the great car
dinals of Christianity, coupled with such a forceful expos
ure of "the Jews' religion," would, he knew, be attended
with the further result of disabusing the minds of the re
formed Jews of that feeling of superiority that they were
accustomed to urge in so boastful a way. Such boast
ing caused friction — made the Gentile convert feel envious.
Looking to the removal of this disturbing cause, such an
epistle, as the one before us, was eminently proper, in view
of the fact, that it was a matter of the gravest moment, that
the church at Eome exert a commanding influence in the
churches of the provinces. To do this it must have a united
membership — no jarring, no discord.
Tn the last chapter to this epistle, Paul alludes to a great
mystery. He explained it thus : "That the Gentiles should
be fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of the
promise in Christ by the Gospel." (Eph. 3:6:) To explain
this mystery was very necessary to the peace of the church
at Eome and elsewhere.

80 Introduction.
So much for the designs, principal and subordinate, with
which Paul evidently wrote this Epistle. To recapitulate:
They were: 1. To expose Judaism; 2. To teach the religion
of his fathers — Christianity; 3. To enable the church to
exert its most commanding influence; 4. To enable the re
formed Jews and Gentiles to cope with the advocates of
"the Jews' religion;" 5. To remove friction between Jewish
and Gentile proselytes; 6. To explain the mystery of the
ages, and thereby promote peace.
As the epistle is controversial, its review will be pre
sented as a debate, with a Jewish Eabbi, and the Apostle
for disputants. We shall have them lay aside the antiqua
ted style1 in which the epistle is written; and conduct the
discussion as though the controversy were of the present
day. We have alluded to the concise style of P'aul and its
necessity growing out of the fact that he was writing a let
ter and not a book. Under such circumstances, brevity was
constrained. As we propose to give the exposition in its
elaborate form, giving at length the authorities upon which
the disputants rely, for the purpose of perspicuity, did we
adopt the controversial style, believing that the cardinals
of the respective theories and the arguments in their sup
port could be, by such a plan, presented with more clear
ness. As the cardinals of the respective theories of Judaism and
Christianity have already been several times pointed out
in Part I. and as they will be again in the course of the dis
cussion yet to follow, we deem their formal statement here,
and again, unnecessary.
And now for an examination of the Epistle to the Eo
mans — an epistle that, to this day, is regarded by many as
an inexplicable mystery.

CHAPTER I.

We argued at some length in Part I. in proof that the
Epistle to the Romans was written: 1. To expose Judaism;
2. To show that the Christian religion was not a new sys
tem, but that embraced by both Patriarch and Prophets.
In our examination of the epistle itself, we hope to be
able to reduce our postulates to a demonstration. We shall
present: 1. The introduction; 2. The argument.
The Introduction to the Epistle. (Rom. 1:1-7.)
Paul. A servant of Jesus Christ, I was called to the
apostolic office — set apart to the work of preaching the
Gospel — a gospel, that, by an examination of Holy Scrip
ture, will be seen to have been preached in all the ages, by
the true prophets of God.
The Gospel to which I have reference is that touching
Jesus Christ our Lord — the Son of God. I speak of Christ
as the Son of God, and this I do, that you may understand
that while it is true, that He was descended from David af
ter the flesh; yet, was He declared to be the Son of God,
by the Holy Ghost, by evidence at once powerful and con
clusive, that of His resurrection from the dead.
This apostleship was conferred upon me, that I might
teach among all nations, obedience to the doctrine of re
mission of sin through faith in His name.
Such being the design and scope of my mission, I address
the Epistle to you that are at Rome, as being of those that
are beloved of God, and called to be saints by Jesus Christ.
Receive ye my apostolic benediction: Grace be to you and
peace from God the Father of all mankind and the Lord
Jesus Christ.
That your faith in Jesus Christ should be spoken of

82 Introduction to the Epistle.
throughout the whole world, fills my heart, allow me to
assure you, my brethren, with feelings of the profoundest
gratitude to God. And He, whom I serve with my spirit
in the gospel of His Son, is my witness, that I make men
tion of you constantly in my prayers, requesting, if such
be His will, that I, by some means, may be permitted to
visit you that are at Eome. For I long to see you that I
may impart some spiritual gift that will more firmly estab
lish you in your faith; and that you and myself may be
confirmed in our faith, and comforted, by the mutual faith
of each other.
I take pleasure in informing you, that I have often pro
posed visiting you, that I might have some fruit among
you, even as I have among other Gentiles. But thus far
circumstances, over which I had no control, have prevented
my doing so.
My commission as apostle to the Gentiles obliges me to
preach the Gospel to the Greeks and to the Barbarians,
to the wise and the unwise. So far, therefore, as ability
and opportunity will allow, I am ready to preach the gos
pel to you that are at Eome, also.
Though it be true that Jesus Christ was condemned and
executed as though he were a malefactor; yet, I am not
ashamed to preach salvation through faith in the atoning
merits of His shed blood, even in imperial Eome. For
through this gospel, and through it only, does God display
His power to save all that believe, whether they be Jews
or Gentiles. And not only so. For by the gospel does
God reveal His righteousness, that is to say, display His
immutability, in that he requires now, as in all past ages,
that salvation be offered to all upon the ground of their
belief in the blood of Christ." Habakkuk preached, "The
just shall live by faith." And this is the very doctrine I
with others, am sent to preach. And therein does God
reveal His righteousness — from faith to faith." In all past
ages was justification by faith taught. From dispensation

The Argument. 83
to dispensation it has been faith. It is still faith; and there
in, we repeat, "Does God reveal His righteousness from
faith to faith. '
The Argument.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Paul. If the Eabbi please, we will now proceed to a
discussion of our respective theories, relying for a final set
tlement of our differences, upon the Scriptures alone.
Eabbi. Gentile reprobacy is a cardinal of Judaism. I see
that you advocate Gentile salvation and claim that in so
doing you are following the example of the Prophets. No
prophet taught any such doctrine. Without exception do
they teach Gentile reprobacy.
Paul. In what sense do you use the term Jew and Gen
tile? E. — By the term Jew; we mean: 1. Those who endorse
Judaism — the circumcised lineal descendants of Abraham:
2. And those who are constructively his descendants — that
is to say, those Gentiles that have accepted of Judaism,
and evidenced it by submission to the imposition of the
seal of circumcision. By the term Gentile, we mean the
balance of the human race.
P. — From the sense in which you use the terms Jew and
Gentile, I understand you to hold, that such classification
of the human race was made, for the first time, in the days
of Abraham?
E. — Certainly.
P. — Will the gentleman be kind enough to inform us
where he learned that such a classification was then made?
E. — From Moses. He reports God as saying to our
father Abraham: "I will establish my covenant between me
and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations for
an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and thy seed

84 The Argument.
after thee;' (Gen. 17:7.) So God classified the race in the
days of Abraham. The descendants of Abraham, actual
and constructive, thus became the chosen people of God.
The remaining peoples of the earth not being included in
the terms of the Abrahamic covenant were, therefore, rep
robated. P. — You have affirmed that the Gentiles were reproba
ted by decree. Will you not support your affirmation by
proof? We want the formal decree — the exact words — and
where it will be found.
E. — It is not necessary to the truth of my holding that
I be able to shew a formal manifesto — to give the exact
words of such a decree. The terms of the covenant as
construed by God in person amount to such a decree.
Hear God: "This is my covenant, which ye shall keep be
tween me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man
child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall cir
cumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token
of a covenant between me and you. And he that is eight
days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child
in 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 man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not
circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he
hath broken my covenant." (Gen. 17:10-14.) From the
wording of this covenant no one can fail to see, that the
direct lineal descendants of Abraham, and those Gentiles
who are constructively so, are alone the people of God.
What more does my opponent want in the way of a decree?
The covenant as construed by God is a decree wherein
all Gentiles save those mentioned are excluded from the
pale of the elect of God. So excluded they must be con
sidered and classed as reprobate. If my opponent is not

The Argument. 85
satisfied with this direct evidence of Gentile reprobacy by
decree that is set forth in the covenant quoted, we have
other evidence that indirectly teaches the same thing, and
that with conclusive power.
P.— That such a conception of the Abrahamic covenant
is absurd, we shall, in the course of this discussion, estab
lish to a demonstration. Waiving for the present, there
fore, a refutation of what you are pleased to call your di
rect proof, we will hear your indirect evidence. To pass
in review the less weighty evidence, and advance step by
step to the more weighty is the usual course among dis
putants. By such a course, the climax is reached in a
natural and more conclusive way. If the Rabbi please,
he will proceed to set forth what he calls his indirect evi
dence of Gentile reprobacy by decree.
R. — That God intended that we understand, that he had
reprobated the Gentile world, we appeal to the fact that
he never gave them any revelation as to either his exist
ence, or his character. Leaving them uninstructed on such
subjects, are we not forced to conclude that he had repro
bated them? Is it possible to conclude otherwise? Had
he designed them for any other purpose than their damna
tion, he certainly would not have left them uninformed on
points of such grave and vital importance.
P. — My opponent astonishes me. God has never re
vealed his existence or character to the Gentile! That he
has given every human being that has ever lived, a perfect
revelation both as to his being and his character, is abso
lutely certain. For has he not placed before the race, for
its constant inspection, the great Book of Nature? Is not
the existence of a Great First Cause patent to every man
in all he sees in the heavens above, and in the earth be
neath him? And cannot everyone see, everywhere dis
played, his wondrous attributes? Are not the invisible
things of God, even his eternal power and Godhead, clearly
seen, from the creation of the world, being understood from

86 The Argument.
the things that are made? How the Rabbi can hold to
Gentile reprobacy based on a want of revelation, I cannot
see. R. — That the Book of Nature does dimly portray the
existence of God., and does reveal the further fact that he is
a Being of vast power and amazing intelligence, we freely
concede. So imperfectly does it do so, however, that the
Gentile world has never, in any age, been able to attain
to any correct idea of God from its study. That certainly
should not be called a revelation which does not reveal —
that leaves one in doubt as to what is designed to be taught.
P. — The gentleman concedes that God has, in Nature,
made a revelation of, not only his existence, but of his
omnipotence and omniscience. He then repudiates the
concession made, by declaring that the revelation was so
imperfect as to be unintelligible to the Gentile world — so
very imperfect that the Gentile never understood it — never
could attain to any proper conception of God from its ex
amination. What proof does he offer in support of his
position? How does he know that the Gentile never un
derstood the revelation in Nature? His mere assertion is
all that he gives us. That his assumption, for it is nothing
more, is false, we appeeal to the word of God : "The heavens
declare the Glory of God, and the firmament sheweth his
handiwork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night
unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor
language where their voice is not heard. Their line is
gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end
of the world." (Ps. 19.) This language cannot be misun
derstood. The Psalmist, in the plainest manner, declares
that Nature does reveal — shew — the existence of God, his
glory, and his handiwork; and, that in a tongue, that all
the nations of the earth understand, and that perfectly, and
throughout the ages. Will my opponent repudiate his
Bible? Will he antagonize the word of God? Certainly,
the authority of King David must be held to settle the dis-

The Argument. 87
puted point. My hearers will, at least, have no difficulty
in deciding between the King, who wrote by inspiration,
and my friend, the Eabbi.
B. — If nature be, indeed, a revelation, that has conveyed
so proper an idea of God to the Gentile world, then, how
pray, does the gentleman account for the prevalence of
idolatry among the Gentiles, in all past ages? And such
idolatry! Direct our attention to the entire heathen world
in all the past, and what do we find? Even the most cul
tured among them worshipping idols — bowing down to
stocks and stones, birds and beasts, insects and serpents, and
even, in some instances, some varieties of vegetation! Can
any one conclude that they would have so acted, had they
attained to any correct idea of God from their study of Na
ture? By their examination of things in heaven, or things
on earth? Certainly not.
P. — How then does the gentleman understand David?
E. — Why, as teaching, to be sure, that Nature revealed
God to those that had a more perfect revelation — to those,
who like David, had the word of God.
P. — The Eabbi will notice that the Psalmist says not
one word about any other revelator than Nature. He
makes Nature itself disciple all nations. My opponent
cannot help see, that his construction of the quotation from
David, is nothing less than a perversion of his teaching.
The fact is, the gentleman's theory needed such a construc
tion to save it from renunciation. He is in a strait, indeed,
that will dare add to God's word, especially, when the sever
est judgments are denounced against the man so offending.
The gentleman must, I insist, observe our engagement that
of referring all points in issue to the inspired page. He
cannot be allowed to manufacture testimony to save his
theory. But my opponent asks: "How are we to account for
idolatry among the Gentiles and such idolatry! and that
in all past ages, if Nature conveyed anything more than

88 The Argument.
a most imperfect idea of God? His position is: 1. Idol
atry has existed in all past, ages among the Gentiles; 2.
Their idolatry, especially, such idolatry, evidences their gross
ignorance of God. And then what ?
E. — That ignorance was of God's appointment. And,
therefore, as such was his ordering, the conclusion log
ically follows, that he would not so have arranged had he
not decreed their damnation. He would not, certainly, have
left them uninstructed — thus to grope in Hadean darkness
otherwise. P. — Were we to concede the correctness of the gentle
man's premises, acceptance of his conclusion would be con
strained. His premises we deny. They are untrue. There
fore his conclusions must be false.
Let us examine his premises.
And 1. The Gentiles were idolaters in all past ages. Is
such a position true? It is not. Has not the gentleman
held that God classified the race as Jews and Gentiles in
Abraham's day? Has he not claimed that, at that time,
God took him from among the Gentiles or heathen, and
made a covenant with him and his servants? If God took
the patriarch and his household — his servants bought with
his money — and covenanted with them, and them only,
then up to the call and covenant with Abraham, the entire
race were Gentiles, and that from the days of Adam. Now
what are we informed as to the commencement of idolatry?
Was Adam an idolater? Were any of his descendants until
the Deluge? Is it not a fact that there was not a case of
idolatry, in all the ages, till the days of Terah? It cer
tainly is. What then? Idolatry did not exist among the
Gentiles in all past ages. For nearly nineteen hundred and
fifty years, or from Adam to Terah, the father of Abraham,
we have no record of a single case, of idolatrous worship.
So this premise of my opponent is untrue.
E. — That idolatry was not a practice among the Gen
tiles till the days of Terah, is a mere assertion What proof

The Argument. 89
has the gentleman of any such assumption?
P. — Scripture. Here it is: "And Joshua said unto all
the people, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, your fathers
dwelt on the other side of the flood, in old time, Terah, the
father of Abraham, and the father of Nahor ; and they served
other gods." (Josh. 24:2.) Now the Eabbi will notice that
Joshua is quoting the words of God, who certainly knew
whereof he affirmed.
E. — The quotation made does not teach that idolatrous
worship began in the days of Terah. I understand God
as teaching when it began after the flood. But the gentle
man must remember, that we are not discussing the ques
tion of idolatry before the Abrahamic covenant was made.
P. — The Eabbi's position was, that, "The Gentiles were
idolaters in all past ages."
E. — Although the point raised is foreign to the position
taken by me; yet, as you seem so desirous of discussing it,
I have no objection. That the antediluvians were a most
corrupt people is taught by Moses: "And God saw that
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that
every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only
evil continually." (Gen. 6 :5.) Now, we reason, that if every
imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was evil and
only so, and that continually, then does it follow that the
Gentiles of that age were idolaters. Moses is here speak
ing of Noah's day. How could every imagination of man's
heart be evil, we repeat, and he not be an idolater? Such
an arraignment certainly embraces all the laws of God.
Such being the case, then were they guilty of idolatry or
the charge is unsustained. To be guilty of every sin they
were violaters of the Decalogue. Does this not forbid
idolatry? We thus show that idolatry existed in Noah's
day. And not only so. Enoch was a cotemporary of Adam.
What did he preach? "Behold the Lord cometh with ten
thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and

90 The Argument.
to convince all, that are ungodly among them, of all their
ungodly deeds, which they have ungodly committed; and
of all their hard fspeeches which ungodly sinners have
spoken against him." Do not ungodly deeds include idol
atry? Again. When Cain went into the land of Nod, he went
branded as a vagabond and an outcast. His descendants
to shew their ungodliness, were known as "the sons and
daughters of men," as contradistinguished from "the sons
and daughters of God." We thus trace a reprobate line,
back to the days and family of Adam — back to Cain the
first born of our race. That a large part of the antediluvi
ans were idolaters is absolutely certain. Do we read any
where that either Cain or his descendants ever worshipped
God? This show? that the Gentiles were idolaters before
the Flood. We hare no historic data to guide us in the
post-diluvian age, between the landing of the ark on Ararat
and the days of Terah. God may be held, as we remarked,
as having fixed the days when idolatry began after the
flood. Such may have been his intention. But this, at
least, is conjecture. To affirm that Terah "served other
gods," docs not necessarily mean that he only did so; or
that he first began idol worship. Indeed, there is nothing
that can be brought in proof, that idolatry has not been
practiced in all past ages by the Gentiles.
P. — The gentleman is given to interpolation. We plant
ourselves upon the positive dictum of God that idolatry
began in the days of Terah. There is no record to the
contrary — cannot be. His talk about antediluvian wicked
ness, and his conclusion, that they were idolaters, must be
set aside as in conflict with divine affirmative. He cannot
be permitted to interpret scripture so as to negative the
words of God. He must stick to the inspired record.
But my opponent concedes that there were Gentiles in
the ages from Adam to Terah, that did not worship idols-
men and women that feared and worshipped the true God.

The Argument. 91
His quotations from Moses as to the antediluvian world,
from Enoch, as to "the ungodly among them" of his day,
and as to Cain and his descendants, as distinguished from
"the sons and daughters of God," are so many concessions
as to this point. Now, admitting that there were wicked
people in the antediluvian age — very wicked — his premise,
that "the Gentiles were idolaters in all the ages," is shown
to be false. Those that did not worship idols, in those
ages, were certainly Gentiles. Will the Eabbi say they
were not?
E. — Strictly speaking, they were not. The wicked por
tion of them were Gentiles.
P. — Then the classification of the race, as elect and repro
bate, was not made at the call of Abraham and the coven
ant made with bim. How does the gentleman harmonize
his opposing positions? He admits a classification in the
ages before the Deluge. He allows that there were those
known as "the sons and daughters of God," and those
known as "the sons and daughters of men." Here is cer
tainly a classification. The gentleman will please explain.
E. — There was certainly a classificaton of the race as
the Elect and Eeprobate in all the ages before the Flood;
and until the days of Abraham. In his day, the line be
tween the classes was distinctly drawn — absolutely deter
mined — by the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant.
P. — The gentleman's position is a novel one for a Jew —
especially for a Jewish Eabbi, and one set for the defence
of Judaism. There was, indeed, a classification of the
race from Adam to Abraham. But that was a classification
that was based on faith and obedience, as we shall afterwards
prove, when we eome to examine the gentleman's direct
evidence of Gentile reprobation. Now, according to the
Rabbi's interpretation of the terms of this Abrahamic cov
enant, the classification was one of lineage — actual or con
structive^ — and submission to the rite of curcumcision.
Hence, if the classification of the race in Abraham's day

92 The Argument.
was the same that existed in the ages from Adam to his
day, then it is clear that he has utterly misconceived the
terms of the Abrahamic covenant. A classification based
on faith and obedience and one based on racial descent
and ritual observance, are as opposed as the polar regions.
To be the same covenant, the Abrahamic covenant must
be construed to be a covenant based on faith and obedi
ence. And this we will hereafter show is the proper inter
pretation of the Abrahamic covenant; — that it is the same
covenant that God made with Adam, upon his restoration
to his favor. What then? Why, we reach the conclusion
that the Gentiles were not idolaters in all the ages. And
this conclusion is reached upon the evidence furnished by
my opponent, for which he will please receive our thanks.
E. — We never took the position that the Gentiles were
all idolaters in all the ages from Adam to Abraham. On
the contrary, we have admitted that they were not all idol
aters. P. — You certainly made no limitation in your proposi
tion. In your speech, you conceded what you dared not
deny. In any event, you have conceded that the classifica
tion of the race was not first made in Abraham's day. Be
sides, you have admitted that the original classification was
one not based on racial descent and circumcision. And
you have conceded further yet, that the Adamic and Abra
hamic covenants were one and the same. But to return
from the digression.
We were discussing the question as to whether the gen
tleman's position, that "the Gentiles were idolaters in all
the past ages." We shall not rest our proof that they were
not, on the evidence thus far brought forward. We have
shown that they were not in the ages from Adam to Abra
ham's father, Terah. Now, when God called Abraham
out from among the Gentiles, with his large Gentile house
hold, it is well known that there were many Gentiles that
never did become Abraham's descendants constructively —

The Argument. 93
"by receiving circumcision and endorsing Judaism." Who
does not know, that at the call of Abraham and household,
and the making of the covenant with him and them, that
Shem lived? Who does not know that he did not decease
till 1846 B. C. ? He had sons and daughters beside the
line through which Abraham traced his descent. Arphax-
ad lived till 1908 B. C. He begat other sons and daugh
ters beside the direct line of Abraham, and the same is true
of Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor. Now, it is
susceptible of the most absolute proof that the most of
those patriarchs lived at the time Abraham was called, and
for years afterward. It is also certain that their descend
ants, through their other sons and daughters were numer
ous — a vast multitude. Have we any proof that they were
idolaters ? None under the heaven. So far from it, the pa
triarchal line was the line of God's elect — the holy line.
Were any one of these patriarchs descendants of Abraham?
They were his ancestors. Did any of them that were his
cotemlporaries ever become 'his descendants, so to speak,
by submission to circumcision and acceptance of the Jewish
theory of religion? It is certain that they did not. But
the other sons and daughters of the patriarchs? Did they.
or their descendants ever become Abraham's descendants
constructively? We have no account that they did. What
then? There were Gentiles, in numbers, cotemporaries of
Abraham and his descendants that never did become parties
to the Abrahamic covenant. They remained Gentiles.
Now, according to the Rabbi's position, they were idola
ters — they were reprobates. Is this true? Certainly not.
They were the people of God. Then it appears that the
Rabbi's interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant is cer
tainly false.
Pass on to the days of "the cities of the plain," and their
destruction. We know that Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah
and Zeboim, were destroyed in 1898 B. C. This was fifty
years before the death of Shem; twenty years before the

94 The Argument.
death of Salah, and more than eighty years before the death
of Eber. And so of others and the rest. And not only
these patriarchs and their descendants — all of whom were
cotemporaries of Abraham. There was Lot and his house
hold. Were these not Gentiles? They certainly were, ac
cording to the Eabbi's interpretation of the Abrahamic
covenant. Were they idolaters? They certainly were not.
But take the people destroyed — the inhabitants of the cities.
Were they idolaters? We have no account that they were.
Then must the Eabbi's position, that "the Gentiles were
idolaters in all past ages," be untrue. And it is far more
evident that his interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant
is unsound — is false.
But to press this point yet further. Take Job and his
descendants. They were certainly Gentiles,, according to
the Eabbi's view of the covenant made with Abraham and
his household. Were they idolaters? Certainly not. Job
lived, it is thought, in the year 1520, B. C. Again there
were the friends of Job — Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the
Shuhite, Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu. Were not
these Gentiles ? Were they idolaters ?
Then we read of Jethro, priest of Midian, and Balaam,
prophet of . Midian. Were these not Gentiles ? Were they
idolaters ? But why press this point ? We have now traced
a line of Gentiles, an almost unbroken line — a line from
Adam to Moses— a line from 4004 B. C, to 1452 B. C, a
line that reaches along twenty-five centuries — a line that
were not idolaters, and yet were, one and all, Gentiles, ac
cording to my friend the Eabbi's idea of the covenant made
with Abraham. What then? The gentleman's premise:
"The Gentiles were idolaters in all the ages," is certainly
false. In our next chapter we shall resume the discussion of the
subject.

CHAPTEE II.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the
truth in righteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans I.
P. — Resuming my argument. Having shown that the
Rabbi's major premise is false, we will now proceed to show
that his minor premise is equally so. This, in reality, is
not necessary to the setting aside of his conclusion. Show
ing either premise to be false, the conclusion must be. But
to his next premise.
And 2. The idolatry of the Gentiles, especially such
idolatry, evidences their ignorance of God.
The line of Gentiles traced, both before and after the
making of the Abrahamic covenant shows that they were
not idolaters, and, therefore, not ignorant of God. As they
worshipped God, they knew God. They could not have
known him without a revelation from him as to his exist
ence and character. They had the revelation. This is
shewn by their worship of God. As they had a revelation,
then they were not ignorant of God. Then, that the Gen
tiles should be ignorant of God, was not of God's appoint
ment. And hence the logical conclusion must be, that
God never decreed Gentile reprobation. For had he done
so, he never would have been at the pains to teach them
both as to his Being and his character, and what course to
pursue to become his elect people.
R. — My opponent knows that I admitted that there were
Gentiles that were not idolaters.
P. — You did concede that there were such Gentiles up to
the making of the covenant with Abraham. You then inter
preted that covenant as being limited to Abraham's descend-

96 The Argument.
ants, actual and constructive. This you will not deny. The
line I have traced, since the making of that covenant, were
Gentiles, but not idolaters. It was, therefore, not appointed
of God that the Gentiles should be ignorant of him. The line
traced shows it. Gentile reprobacy based on ignorance of
God, is clearly a claim without support. The Gentiles were
never ignorant of God.
R. — How, then, do you account for their idolatry? Does
not idolatry proclaim ignorance of God? Does not a wor
ship of such idols shew, an utter ignorance of God?
P. — That idolatry evidences ignorance of God is a holding
without a single fact to support it. Beginning with the first
recorded case of idolatry — that of Terah ? Was Terah ignor
ant of God? He was the contemporary of Noah, Shem,
Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug and Nahor his
father. Did any of these patriarchs worship idols? Were
they not all men that feared and obeyed God? Besides, as
we have seen, each of the patriarchs had other sons and
daughters. In the three hundred and more years that inter
vened the Deluge and Terah's day, there could not have been
less than ten millions of people that loved, feared, and
obeyed God. Was it possible then for Terah to have been
ignorant of God? Who so mad as to suppose that Noah,
with the scenes and sights of the Deluge ever before him,
could have ever ceased worshipping God? Ever ceased to
preach righteousness to his descendants? Who can believe
that Shem, Ham and Japheth, forgetting the Deluge and its
horrors, ceased to worship God? Knowing the fate of the
antediluvians, who had refused to obey God, can it be that
Noah and his three sons ever ceased to remind their offspring
of who God was, and what His character? Would not the
relation of paternity, coupled with a desire for the welfare of
their descendents, have ever operated in urging them to a
diligent instruction of their children and children's children?
Who can suppose for one moment, that the patriarchs were
so derelict in their duty to God, as to neglect so solemn a

The Argument. 97
responsibility, and that with a full knowledge of the fearful
past? Certain it is, therefore, that Terah was not ignorant
of God, when he began the worship of "other gods."
Take again "the cities of the plain." We have no knowl
edge that they were idolatrous. There is nothing to lead us
to suppose they were. But admitting that they were, could
they have been ignorant of God ? Had not Abraham with a
household of over three hundred male servants sojourned in
the land as their near neighbors ? Did he not arm and go
in pursuit of and slaughter the very kings that had overrun
those cities? Could he have been in that country and a
daily worshiper of God without those cities knowing of God ?
Had not Lot, a man of God, with a large household, trained
to fear God, dwelt in those cities for nearly twenty years?
Could they have been ignorant of God when Noah, their aged
ancestor and preacher, had deceased, only one hundred years ?
When Shem, and for the most part, the long line of patri
archs were their contemporaries ? Was Canaan, their own pro
genitor's counsel so soon forgotten? Who, with these facts
before him, can conclude otherwise, than that "the cities of
the plain" knew God?
But to press this point; for it is an important one. The
Egyptians in the days of Israelitish liberation, had been for
ages worshipers of all kinds of idols — beasts, birds, images
of men, and some varieties of vegetation. Were they ignor
ant of God ? Abraham, in his days, had sojourned in Egypt.
So had Lot. Had not God taught Pharaoh by judgments
who He was? If not, why did he so hastily return Sarah?
Had not Joseph been next to Pharaoh as ruler in that country
for seventy years? Had not Jacob and his descendants so
journed in the land of Egypt for centuries ? Did they not by
Moses' day number millions ? Were they not associated, inti
mately, with the Egyptians all that time? And were not
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants worshippers of
God? Surely, their idolatry cannot be urged as proof of
their ignorance of God. They knew God.
4

98 The Argument.
When, in the days of Moses, God sent those fearful plagues
on Pharoah and his people, were they not by such judgments
instructed as to who God was and His character? Did He
not take all of their false gods, and use them for their pun
ishment? Do we learn, notwithstanding such instruction,
that they ceased idol worship ? Did they not continue their
idolatry as before? What said God to Pharaoh? "Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might
shew to thee My power; and that My name may be declared
throughout all the earth." (Ex. 9:16.) Could such judg
ments, as were sent on Egypt, have been unknown to all the
Gentile nations, far and near? What effect did they have?
Do we read where a single nation turned from idolatry ? If
God was seeking through the judgments on Egypt to have
his name known throughout all the earth, then, we remark
in passing, that it was not of His appointment that the Gen
tiles should be ignorant of Him and His character. They
knew God.
Again, could the wondrous miracles wrought by God for
Israelitish emancipation and up to their final peaceful settle
ment in Canaan — the dividing and congealing of the Bed Sea ;
the manna sent from heaven; the quails provided for meat;
the rocks made to supply water; the brazen serpent, and
the healing by looking thereon; the dividing of Jordan; the
heaving up of the foundation stones of Jericho; the sun and
moon standing still, and a thousand other wonders — have
been unknown to the Gentiles, even in far distant countries?
Could the descent on Sinai, wrapped in flames, the terrific
lightning that played about its summit, the terrible thunders
that shook the mountains and trembled the plains, the awful
earthquakes with their heaving bosoms, the tremendous trum
pet blast that heralded the approach of God — have been
things unknown to the nations ? Did they not hear of God,
when in alternate chariot of fire and cloud He, for forty
years led Israel through the wilderness? Did they not hear
of God when the Israelites, under His lead, raised cities, slew

The Argument. 99
the giant sons of Anak? God did all these miracles, we are
expressly told, "that all the people of the earth might know
the hand of the Lord, and that it was mighty." (Josh.
4:23-24.) But with all this instruction— with all this effort
by God to keep the world informed as to who He was and
what His character, we read nowhere that the Gentile world
ceased its idolatry.
The Midianites. Who were they? The descendants of
Abraham by Keturah. Had they not been taught as to God
and His character? The seal of circumcision bound Abra
ham to do so. Did they not have living among them a
Moses for forty years ? Was not Jethro, Moses' father-in-law,
a worshiper of God? Hear him: "Now know I that the
Lord is greater than all gods." (Ex. 18:10-12.) Was not
Balaam their prophet? Did he not know the God of Israel?
His history shews that he had a perfect knowledge of God.
(See Numbers 22, 23 and 24.) Were they not with all that
light idolaters? Did they not worship Baal-peor? (Num
bers 25:17-18.)
The Moabites. They were the descendants of Lot. Had
they never heard the story of the storm of fire and brimstone
that swept "the cities of the plain" from the face of the earth?
Can it be that they had never heard of Lot's rescue, by
angels, from the overthrow? Could such a terrible judg
ment have passed out of mind in less than four centuries?
And yet, what were they doing in the days of Moses ? Wor
shiping Baal-peor and other gods. (Numbers 25:1-2.) Did
they not know God, associated as they were with the Israel
ites in the days of the Jewish law-giver ? They knew God.
The Canaanites in the days of Joshua. Did they not know
of God? What said Eahab to the spies sent by Joshua to
Jericho ? "We have heard how the Lord dried up the waters
of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; And
what ye did unto the two kings of the Amorites — Sehon and
Og. The Lord your God, He is God in heaven above, and on
earth beneath." (Josh. 2:9-11.) Were they not idolaters

100 The Argument.
all? Did they cease to worship their gods, after what they
had heard of God? They certainly did not.
We read that the Canaanites, the Philistines, the Sidonians,
the Hivites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites and the
Jebusites, were the nations that were left to prove Israel.
(Judges 3:1-5.) They were associated with the Israelites
for three centuries and more. Could they have failed of
knowing the God of heaven in all these years? It is certain
that they knew God.
We read that Chushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia,
conquered the Israelites, and ruled over them for eight
years — till delivered by Othniel. Could the Mesopotamians
have been thus associated with the Israelites for so long a
time, and not have known of God? (Judges 3.) Eglon
king of Moab, subjugated Israel and reigned over them for
eighteen years. Could he and the Moabites have been ignor
ant of God under such circumstances ? Jabin, a Canaanitish
king, subjugated Israel, and oppressed them for twenty years.
Did not this king and his people know God? The Midian
ites oppress and rule Israel for seven years, or until deliv
ered by Gideon. Did they not know God ? The Ammonites
next subdue Israel and oppress them till delivered by Jeph-
thah. The Philistians did the same thing in the days of
Samuel and Saul. Were they ignorant of God? And so
of others and the rest. Were not those nations all idolatrous ?
Did they not worship Baal, Ashtoreth, Malcom, Chemosh,
Dagon, Baal-zebub and many others?
The judges were finally put aside, and a king chosen in
their place. All the days of Saul was he warring with sur
rounding Gentile nations. Could these wars have failed in
giving them a knowledge of God ? When Saul was killed at
the battle of Gilboa, the Philistians captured the ark of God
and had it among them until, by terrible judgment, they were
forced to return it. Placed before Dagon, their god, Dagon
fell down before the ark of God, and had both his head and
feet lopped off. Had not God stormed upon the Philistians

The Argument. 101
with great stones in the days of Samuel? It is absolutely
certain that they knew God. Who can for one moment doubt
it? And yet they went right on with their idolatry.
David succeeds Saul as king over Israel. He subdued
all the surrounding nations from "the Euphrates to the river
of Egypt." He continued to reign over them for many years.
How could the nations that he reigned over be ignorant of
David's God? And how could this great empire exist
throughout the reign of David and Solomon, and all sur
rounding nations not know of Israel's God? What nation
in that age, but what certainly knew of the Temple, erected
by Solomon in honor of God? It is safe to say, not one in
Asia or Africa.
After Solomon's reign, the ten tribes revolted and set up a
government of their own. Their kings were all wicked. At
length God raised up the King of Assyria for their subjuga
tion and deportation. (II Kings 17:6.) They were carried
captive into the country of the Medes. How could the people
of the entire Assyrian empire fail by association with the ten
tribes to learn of Israel's God? "The king of Assyria," we
read, "brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and
from Alva, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim, and
placed them in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children
of Israel." (II Kings 17-24.) Did those people know God ?
They did not at first. But when wild beasts were sent among
them, it was told the king, and the cause. He thereupon had
priests sent from among the captive Israelites for their in
struction. These priests "came and dwelt at Bethel, and
taught them how they should fear the Lord." (II Kings
17:25-28.) Notwithstanding what do we read: "Howbeit
every nation made gods of their own, and put them in the
houses of the high places, which the Samaritans had made —
every nation in the cities wherein they dwelt. And the men
of Babylon made Succothbenoth, and the men of Cuth made
Nergal, and the men of Hamath made Ashima, and the
Avites made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharvites burnt

102 The Argument.
their children in the fire to Adrammelech and Anammelech,
the gods of Sepharvaim. They feared the Lord, and wor
shiped their own gods. So these nations feared the Lord,
and served their graven images, both their children and their
children's children; as their fathers did, so did they." (II
Kings 17:29; 33-41.)
In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, Sennacherib,
king of Assyria, invaded Judah. What is the record of that
invasion? God slew, in one night, one hundred and eighty-
five thousand of his army ! Who can believe that such a
fearful judgment was unknown throughout that entire em
pire? It had no effect upon Sennacherib whatever. He re
turned to Nineveh, and worshiped Nisroch his god. (II
Kings 19:37.) And as did the king, so did his people. It
will, also, be remembered, that it was during the century pre
vious to this Assyrian invasion that Jonah was sent to
Nineveh. We all know his text and with what result his
preaching was attended. The whole city cried mightily to
God, and repented in sackcloth and ashes. (Jonah 2:5-10.)
This was 862 B. C. And yet, in the days of Tiglathpilezer,
Shalmanezer, and Sennacherib — only a century or a century
and a half later, we find the Assyrians worshiping idols. Can
idolatry in view of such an array of evidence be held to be a
proof of ignorance of God on the part of the practicers ? Is
there one who will say that the Gentiles engaged in it
through ignorance of God, with such overwhelming proof to
the contrary?
About the close of the seventh century, we read of the
taking of the city of Jerusalem, and, eventually, of the de
struction of the temple and the deportation of the Jews "by
Nebuchadnezzar. This was from 607-588 B. C. Carrying
the Jews into Babylonia, and the sojourn there for several
years, certainly gave the people of that empire a knowl
edge of Israel's God. The return of that great army with
the trophies of war — with all the temple furniture — could
but have been the subject of universal comment.

The Argument. 103
Added to this we have the wonderful history of Daniel and
the Hebrew children. When Daniel recalled and interpre
ted the king's, dream, did not the monarch learn of God
and of His character? The nobles of Babylonia, whose
lives were saved through the interpretation of Daniel's God,
could but have learned of Him. When the king built an
idol in the plains of Dura, he, be it remembered, assembled
all the nobles, princes and dignitaries of his immense em
pire to the dedication of his image. And did he not re
quire them, one and all, to fall down and worship it?
threatening a horrid death to any daring to refuse? Who
does not know the history of the attempt to burn to death
the three Hebrew children? Did not Nebuchadnezzar know
God? He saw Him in the fiery furnace walking up and
down in the fire with the Hebrews. He with his nobles
saw them come forth from that seven times heated furnace,
without even the smell of fire on their garments — with not
one hair singed. Could such a miracle have failed in in
forming all that immense empire of the true God? Could
so astonishing a fact have occasioned anything other than
universal surprise? Would it not have been the theme of
every fireside in Babylonia? But the king's proclamation.
What did he decree? "That every nation, people, and
language, which should speak anything against the God of
the Hebrews, should be cut in pieces, and their houses be
made dunghills : because there is no other God that can
deliver after this sort." (Daniel 3.) Did he not know
God? Did not his people? Who is ignorant of God's
course towards Nebuchadnezzar? Who does not remember
how he reduced him to a brute and made him eat grass
for seven years? Who knows not of his restoration to
his throne and his published decree to his empire, acknowl
edging the God of Israel as the only true God?
He was succeeded by Belshazzar. Did he not know
God? He was the son or grandson of Nebuchadnezzar.
It had not been thirty years since God had reduced his

104 The Argument.
father or grandfather to the condition of an ox. Daniel
arraigns him for knowing all about God. (Daniel 5:22.)
And yet, in less than a third of a century, we find the king
and his nobles praising other gods — the gods of stone and
wood, silver and brass and gold — while shewing in every
way, their contempt for the true God. (Daniel 5.) Does
idolatry witness ignorance of God? Had not God taught
in every way, the people of that immense empire who he
was? The Babylonish empire overthrown, the Medo-Persian
takes its place. Who was its founder? Cyrus. Did he
not know of God? Hear him: "The Lord God of heaven
hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and He hath
charged me to build Him an house which is at Jerusalem
in Judah." (Ez. 1 :2-4.)
He was followed by Darius, as successor. What as to
his knowledge of God? We read: "Then king Darius
wrote unto all people, nations, and languages, that dwell
in all the earth: Peace be multiplied unto you. I make
a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom, men trem
ble and fear before the God of Daniel, for he is the living
God and steadfast forever, and His kingdom that which
shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall be even unto
the end." (Daniel 6:25-27.) Did they not soon lapse
again, with all this knowledge, into idolatry?
We have thus passed down the ages from Adam to the
period when the Jews were restored to their country —
something over five and a half centuries before Christ. With
what result? Have we not found that God in all those
ages was endeavoring to keep the Gentile world informed as
to His being and His character? Have we not found that
He in every age made strenuous efforts to point them to
the true God? Have we not shewn, that the Gentile world
did know God?
Thus far, we have confined discussion to the Gentile
world as limited to the descendants of Ham and Shem:

The Argument. 105
who, for the most part, settled in Asia and Africa. This
discussion would not be complete without some notice of
idolatry as beginning and prevailing among the offspring of
the patriarch Japheth — the progenitor of the white race.
He was of antediluvian birth. Like Noah and his broth
ers, as we have noticed, he passed through the scenes of
that universal overthrow. He could, as already remarked,
have never forgotten the experience of that frightful ca
tastrophe. That there was any lapse into idolatry in the
days of Noah, is not probable, at least to any extent. Nor
is that all. There was at that time no objection to inter
marriage between the races. This marital association served
to keep up a knowledge of God throughout the first three
or four generations after the flood, and, no doubt, even
tually gave rise to idolatry among all the nations. We
know but little about the Japhetic line till something over
three centuries before Christ. If the Japhetic races began
the worship of idols, as is most probable, when Terah first
started it, they did so with a perfect knowledge of God.
It is not improbable, that the judgment on "the cities of
the plain" came to be known among the Japhetic races.
It can hardly have been that God's judgments on the Egyp
tians, in Moses' day, were never heard of among the races
about the Caspian, or across the Bosphorous. When
Xerxes invaded Greece, there certainly was some information
given them of God, when that empire, throughout all its
bounds, knew God.
Without speculating as to the efforts made by God —
through commercial, marital and other relations, and by
great judgments — to keep the whole race instructed, we
pass down the ages till we reach the days when the Medo-
Persian empire lost its sceptre — when it was overthrown by a
Japhetic conqueror, Alexander, the he-goat of (prophiecy.
It was in the fourth century before the Advent, that he
invaded the empire of the Medes and Persians. He was
everywhere successful. Invading Asia, Minor, Ihe /finally

106 The Argument.
entered Palestine. Now, it is well known, that the Jews
never again returned to idolatry, after their release from
Babylonish captivity. For nearly a century and a half had
the Jewish Nation shone as a beacon light among the nations
of, at least, Asia and Africa, and pointed them, one and
all, to the true God. When, therefore, Alexander invaded
the east and south, he was in constant touch with nations
that knew God. When he arrived in the neighborhood of
Jerusalem, he went into camp for the night. Eetiring, he
had a remarkable dream. That dream was fulfilled the next
day. Thus was Alexander brought face to face with the
representatives of the God of heaven — the High Priest and
his attendants, all in official regalia. The High Priest bore
the keys of the city. They were tendered the monarch as
a mark of non-resistance. He thereupon entered Jerusalem,
visited the temple, was shown the prophecies as to his con
quest of the Medo-Persian empire. All this gave him a
perfect understanding of God and His character. This
knowledge, together with the friendly disposition exhibited
by the Jews, caused the king to treat the Israelites with
marked respect and distinguished favor. At his invitation,
many wealthy and distingushed Jewish families repaired
to Egypt, and assisted in the building of Alexandria. Thus
associated with the Jews the Greeks became informed as
to the true God. Through Alexander's conquest of Asia
and Africa, a knowledge of the true God came again to be
spread over those coutinents. But did not Alexander and his
army and the Greeks, generally, though perfectly posted
by the relation of conqueror and conquered, continue idol
worship? It is certain that they did. Why, Alexander
even caused it to be proclaimed that he was God. Who,
with these facts before him, can conclude that the Greeks
were idolaters because ignorant of God? Who will say that
they were not given by God a revelation as to His existence
and character? Does idolatry evidence an ignorance of
God ? Has not all this review shewn that the Gentile nations

The Argument. 107
began the worship of idols and continued it, though having
a most perfect knowledge of the Being and character of
God? After three centuries the Grecian empire was overthrown
and Eome mounted the throne of the world, and swayed
the destinies of all nations. Pushing her conquests east,
she, after conquering European Greece, advanced to the
conquest of the Asiatic and African parts of that em
pire. Everywhere her victorious legions marched, whether
east or south, they met with Jews — a people that did not
worship idols — that had a perfect knowledge of the true
God. The Eomans reduced Judea to a military province —
occupied it with legions, putting garrisons in all the chief
towns, and governing it with appointed governors. How,
under such circumstances, could the Eoman empire have
failed in being fully instructed as to God? The relation of
conquerors gave them access to all parts of the then known
world. The Jews were then famous for their custom of
trading among all the nations. As they were subjects of
the empire, they could travel throughout its bounds un
molested. Eome became the patron of all the gods of all
the Gentile nations conquered. She cared not what gods
the nations worshipped. And this the Romans continued
to do, though knowing the true God. And as they did, so
did all their subjects of whatever nation. We thus reach,
friend Rabbi, our own day. With what result? This: Ig
norance of God is not evidenced by idolatry. The preva
lence of idolatrous worship does not shew that God had
left the Gentile world without a knowledge as to His Being
and character. The review shews that God, in all the ages,
sought to keep the entire Gentile world informed as to who
He was and what His characteristics.
The verdict of the ages, from this hasty and imperfect
review of its history is this: They knew God; but while
they did so, they glorified Him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their

108 The Argument.
foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be
wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incor
ruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,
and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
We have thus shewn that the Gentile world had a revela
tion from God both in nature and directly, through per
sonal appearances, terrible judgments, marriages, con
quests, and in many other ways. So, friend Eabbi, your
premises having been both demonstrated to be false, your
conclusion, that of Gentile reprobacy for want of a revela
tion from God, is manifestly unfounded.

CHAPTER III.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eomans 1 :18.)
Eomans I. (Continued).
E. — With some facts that may admit of such a use as
my opponent has made of them, there has been a deal of
presumption, and speculation generally. Without continuing
directly a discussion of the p6int in controversy, we will in
this lecture pass on to our next indirect proof of Gentile rep
robacy by decree, to-wit:
God has never given the Gentiles His laws.
That he has never done so, I appeal to their ungodliness
in all the ages. Not only have they been guilty of an utter
violation of the First Table of the moral law — a table that
enjoins worship of God alone — prohibiting image making of
anything in heaven above, in the earth beneath, or in the
waters under the earth; but they have violated all the laws
of the second table — all His laws for the regulation of social
intercourse in all the relations of life — giving themselves
over to the most unnatural lusts, and vilest affections. Men
with men have practiced sodomy. Even their women have
changed the accustomed way bf intercourse between the
sexes, and been guilty of sodomy. In view of such worse
than brutal indulgeneies, are we not warranted in holding that
God never revealed His laws to them? Who can believe
for one moment, that the Gentiles would have pursued such
a villainous course as is avouched for by their past history,
if they had been instructed in the provisions of the
code divine? There is absolutely no other conclusion possi
ble than that of their ignorance of the Decalogue, and the
other laws of God for the regulation of the social relations.

110 The Argument.
From, therefore, their personal depravity, we hold that they
have been left uninstructed. Such was God's appointment.
Therefore, do we conclude, that their reprobation was decreed
of God. Surely such a course on the part of God was in
tended to teach us, that he created them with no other de
sign than their damnation — the great mass of them, at least.
Though, therefore, it be conceded that the Gentiles had,
in some degree, a knowledge of God and His character; yet,
such information, confined as it was, to a dim presentation
of Himself and His attributes, availed them nothing in
understanding how He designed them to act towards either
Himself or their fellow beings. That is to say, such a reve
lation left the Gentile world in a state that did not materially
differ from that of absolute ignorance.
P. — The substance of my opponent's speech is, that the
indulgence of brutal lusts and vile affections by the Gentiles,
evidences their ignorance of God's laws. Such ignorance
being of divine appointment, he concludes, that God had
created them — the great mass of them, at leasts — with no
other intent than their damnation. Here, again, is his postu
late false. His conclusion, therefore, must be.
That God has given the Gentiles His laws, we will now
proceed to demonstrate.
And (1). The mental constitution of man implies his in
struction in the legislation of God. The mind of man points
unerringly to the fact, that God designed him as a subject
of government. That he has capacity to understand law,
will be conceded by my opponent. His memory enables him
to remember what is 'ordained. His reason enables him to
consider the pros and cons, as to the propriety of observing
the law, or violating it. His judgment determines him to
obey, or vice versa, upon a thorough balancing of the incen
tives to obedience— reward on the one hand, and punishment
on the other. This mental constitution is common to the
race — Jew and Gentile. Now, it will be remembered that
God claims Perfection Infinite. Such an all comprehensive

The Argument. Ill
claim must be supported by evidence commensurate. For
God to stop short of such proof, would be for Him to dis
prove His claim and impeach His veracity. What then?
Why every act of His in the eternal ages, past or to come,
must have been performed, and have been done, with a view
to a more perfect, absolute, infinite demonstration of His
claim. Accordingly, look where we may, or examine what
we will, we are overwhelmed with evidence, whose one de
sign was, clearly, that of proving His claim. A drop of water
or an ocean — a snowflake or a glacier — a pencil of light or
universal effulgence — a sun or a system of worlds en train —
alike evidence His claim of infinite perfection. Now the
proof of such a claim must needs be, we repeat, infinite.
Therefore, we reason, that as God gave man his mental con
stitution, then did He impose law for its instruction — for the
exercise of that intellect. For, let us suppose, that man was
left uninformed in the legislation of God. The mind untutor
ed, remains well-nigh a blank. Why endow man with a mind
at all, if it was to remain without instruction — if such was the
Creator's design? Such mental endowment without legisla
tion for its instruction, would not prove the claim of God.
It would disprove it. It would be an endowment, in the ab
sence of law, that would be entirely useless on any plain above
that of the brute creation. What then? God must follow
such an endowment with laws regulating man's intercourse
with Himself and his fellow beings, or His claim must be
held to be absurd. Legislation, we repeat, was indispensa
ble to the proof of His claims. Therefore, in the absence of
all other proof, the conclusion cannot be avoided, that God
with man's mental constitution, gave him laws for its exer
cise — laws to guide him in all his relations, divine and hu
man. And (2). And not alone the mental make-up of man. His
Moral Constitution, in particular, implies law for its in
struction, and government. Man has passions, that when
properly indulged, confer happiness upon all with whom he

112 The Argument.
may be associated, while they give to him the highest and
purest enjoyment, that he experiences in this life. The
passion of love, for example, when rightly exercised, makes
happy the lover and the beloved. The domestic circle, in
all its varied relations of father, mother, husband, wife,
brother, sister, child, master, or servant, is one of delight,
where love reigns. Again. Love for one's fellow beings is
that that causes delight in contributing to the support of
the needy, the relief of the suffering, the comfort of the be
reaved, and the protection of the weak and the defenseless.
The crowning virtue, too, of religious association is love.
How sweet is such communion where love is the bond that
binds heart to heart! It, too, is, par excellence, the Chris
tian grace that confers upon man his highest enjoyment in
all his intercourse with God. Amid all his trials — through
out his baptism of fire — the reflection that God loves him,
cheers, sustains, supports. How delightful the thought that
God loves him ! With his heart filled with love for God, man
can not only bear, but rejoice in tribulation — can enter the
seven times heated furnace of affliction, not only without re
pining, but exultingly, and come forth with unsinged head,
or unscarred heart.
Now, without instruction — without law for his guidance —
how would man know upon whom he should lavish his love
in its highest sense? Or how would he know that it was
his duty to love his fellow as himself ? How would he know
that it was his most solemn obligation to love God supreme
ly? Or to let love reign in all the domestic relations?
But not alone love. The passion of anger demanded leg
islation. This, as we all know, is a most dangerous passion.
It is deadly, destructive in its nature. It is not only death-
dealing to others ; but, in very many instances, does it lead to
self-destruction. . It is, in most instances, followed hy a feel
ing of hatred, malice, and a disposition to be revenged. We
cannot conceive of God, but as a Being profoundly concerned
for the welfare and happiness of His creatures. As such,

The -Argument. 113
He legislated for the indulgence, or the restraint of man's
passions, or repudiated, in failing to do so, all claim to per
fection infinite. What a chapter of woes have unrestrained
passions occasioned ! Beginning with the first family it has
flooded the world with blood and tears. It has armed pa
rents against children, and children against parents; hus
bands against wives, and wives against husbands; brothers
against sisters, and sisters against brothers. It has ruth
lessly severed every domestic tie — filling entire households
with inexpressible grief. Did not God know man's future?
He knew when he planted such passions in his bosom, that
xmgoverned, they would decimate the race. Did He not leg
islate ?
And (3) Man's animal nature. God has given man, in
common with all animals, lusts. Their gratification, or re
straint demanded the imposition of law. The proper in
dulgence of his lusts communicates happiness. Unrestrained,
they bring ruin upon the man himself, disgrace to his family,
and grief to others. Can any sane man suppose that God
gave man such lusts, knowing what would be the consequence
of their improper indulgence — that wretchedness, destruction,
would inevitably follow their wrong exercise — without im
posing laws for their restraint or indulgence? Without giv
ing law whose violation would be attended with the severest
penalties ? What is the experience of the past as to the law
less indulgence of human lusts? This. The great per cent.
of human wretchedness is directly attributable to the unre
strained indulgence of the lusts of the flesh, the lusts of the
eyes, and the pride of life. We cannot conceive of an in
finitely perfect Being, we repeat, but as taking delight in the
happiness of His creatures. His infinite claim necessitates
his so doing. What then? Why that, with man's animal
constitution, he gave laws defining, positively, what the
proper exercise of his lusts should consist in.
And (4) But man has appetites. Man, it seems, has, in
all the ages, had an appetite for spirituous liquors. Even

114 The Argument.
Noah, who had sailed over what, at one time, was a shoreless
ocean,, and witnessed the pitiless storm of forty days and
nights, is reported to have given way to excessive indulgence.
This appetite alone has wrecked its multiplied millions, phy
sically, intellectually, morally, eternally. It has led to the
most diabolic deeds. In every age, it has flooded the world
with a widening, deepening current of crimes without num
ber. It has populated jails and penitentiaries, victimed
scaffolds, filled graves without number, and stocked hell with
some of its worst demons. What is true of the liquor habit,
is no less so of indulgence in eating and smoking opium.
This habit leads equally to mental, moral, and physical de
struction. The unfortunate victim descends, with an ever
accelerated step, to absolute, hopeless ruin, in time and eter
nity. Were this appetite for stimulants confined to liquors
and opiates, it would argue the necessity for law regulating
its indulgence and forbidding excessive gratification, under
heavy penalty. But there are a multitude of things that
threaten man's destruction. We cannot conceive of God's
giving man such appetites and surrounding him with the
means of their fatal indulgence, without His giving law for
his instruction.
But if the evil effects of an undue indulgence of these ap
petites demanded law, when these effects are confined to the
unfortunate victim, much more is the necessity for law appa
rent, when we pause to consider the effects of such an over
indulgence upon others. "No man liveth to himself," is the
teaching of God's word. The victims of these appetites have
relations, friends, associates. Who can estimate the untold
wretchedness that drunkards and opium eaters alone, have
entailed upon fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers, wives, chil
dren, friends and associates? Who can measure the dire ef
fect of such examples on others ? A stone dropped into a lake
creates a wave that widens to the farthest shore. So the
evil example of an inebriate disturbs the great deep of hu
manity's bosom with a wave that circles till it breaks upon

The Argument. 115
the unseen shore. No man that has given this subject the
least thought, can fail of conviction, that, with the gift of
such dangerous appetites and the means for their gratifica
tion, God gave laws for their government.
And (5) Man has a conscience. Its office is to arraign for
wrong and to approve that which is good. It accuses, or ex
cuses. It condemns, or applauds. This monitor within is
peculiar to every member of the human race. All have it.
How could conscience discharge its office without law?
Condemnation implies wrong doing. Justification, right
doing in thought, word, and deed. How could action be
right or wrong, without law determining what is right or
wrong ? There must be, of necessity, a standard of rectitude,
before conscience could decide to arraign or applaud. But
conscience stops not with arraingnment for criminality. It
is armed with a deadly lash — a knout — that applied, causes
unspeakable agony. Under its remorseless application, men
have been known to lay violent hands upon themselves — to
be guilty of self-murder. The tragedy of a Judas has been
often enacted. So great is the agony, that the terrors of
hell serve not to constrain self-preservation. How could con
science cause such pain, without something with which to
inflict it ? And what is its fiery lash ? It is a sense of viola
ted law. From, therefore, the gift of conscience to every
man, we argue the gift of law, since, without law, conscience
would be powerless to discharge its functions, either in ar
raigning or applauding — either in justifying, or condemning
and punishing the guilty. Infinite Perfection could not be
proven short of the existence of legislation for the regulation
of man's whole life.
(6) Volition. Before man can will intelligently, to do, or
not to do a certain thing, he must have law with its incen
tives to enable him to choose whether he will perform the ac
tion or not. The incentives attached to the law will usually
determine his volition. If, for instance, the penalty for vio
lation of the law is heavy, and the chances great that he

116 The Argument.
will be summarily punished. Volition, swayed by the dread
of punishment, elects or chooses legal observances. There
can be no choice in a course of action without instruction
as to the right or wrong of an action. Such instruction
could not be communicated so properly as in legislation
enjoining what is right and prohibiting what is wrong, with
accompanying incentives of reward and punishment. Voli
tion implies law.
(7) God's spirit is, and has ever been, engaged in striv
ing with man. Such was his office in the antediluvian pe
riod, and in all subsequent ages. (Gen. 6:3.) What does
the Holy Spirit strive to do? To convince man of sin, of
righteousness, and of the judgment. Is not righteousness
legal observance? Is not sin a violation of God's laws?
And is not the Judgment Day appointed to reward the
righteous and punish the guilty? There is but one answer
to these questions. How could the Holy Spirit convince
man of righteousness, sin, or the Judgment in the absence
of law enjoining what is good, prohibiting what is evil, and
declaring the incentives? The Holy Spirit's work and mis
sion necessitated law. His mission argues with conclusive
power that man has ever had God's laws. The Holy Spirit
could not perform the work he was sent into the world to
do, otherwise.
Looking then at 1b< mental, moral, and animal constitu
tion of man — at his conscience, and his volition — at the mis
sion and work of the Holy Spirit, the conclusion cannot
be avoided that God did give man law — all the law that,
with some exceptions, he republished at Sinai.
E. — If the gentlf-man please, we wish him to desist from
his speculations, and proceed, if he can, to show when God
ever gave the Gentiles his laws. The scriptures teach that
God made Abraham and his descendants a repository for
His oracles. This v,e positively know. For speaking to
Isaac after his father's death, God is reported as saying:
"Abraham obeyed my voice: kept my charge, my com-

The Argument. 117
mandments, my sUlutes and my laws." (Gen. 26.) In Moses'
day, we iead of His giving His laws to Israel at Sinai.
There is no such scr.'pture as that "God gave the Gentiles
His laws." As the gentleman is contending that God gave
the Gentiles His laws, we demand that he give the scripture
in proof of his posit' en. We insist that he show time and
place where God promulgated His laws among the Gen
tiles. P. — We will endeavor to accommodate the Eabbi.
Speaking through Isaiah, God said: "The whole earth is
defiled under its inhabitants; because they have trangressed
the laws, change:! Ihe ordinances, and broken the everlast
ing covenant.1 (Isa, 24:5,6.) For this arraignment to be
true, then must the race have been given His laws, His
ordinances: and then must He have made a covenant with
the race. What covenant is it that God arraigns the whole
race for breaking? The context shows that it was the cov
enant of legal observance — the' same covenant made with
Abraham — the very covenant made with Israel at Horeb.
We repeat. If this covenant be an everlasting one, that
the inhabitants of the earth have violated, then does it fol
low, that the inhabitants of the earth have always been ac
quainted with its provisions. We thus reach the conclusion,
that the covenant referred to was made with Adam. This
gives the time when, and the place where, this covenat was
entered into by God with man. And this conclusion is
warranted by the fact, that sin is imputed to the race. Now
what is sin ? Certainly a violation of law. God imputes sin
to the race in all ages back to Isaiah. This imputation
of sin, and this arraignment by God, through Isaiah, of
the inhabitants of the earth, leaves nothing to be desired in
the way of proof, that the Gentiles have ever had God's
laws, all and singular. For sin is not imputed where there
is no law.
Though the proof submitted is sufficient as to the time
when, and the place where God gave the Gentiles His laws,

US The Argument.
His ordinances, and entered into a solemn covenant with
them, we will, if the Rabbi please, present other evidence.
Speaking through Moses, God said to the Israelites: "De
file not ye yourselves in any of these things ; for in all these
are the nations defiled that I cast out before you. And the
land is defiled ; therefore, do I visit the iniquity thereof upon
it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye
shall, therefore, keep my judgments and my statutes; and
shall not commit any of these abominations — neither any
of your own nation, nor any stranger (Gentile) that sojourn-
eth among you: (For all these abominations have the men
of the land done, which were before you ; and the land is
defiled:) That the land spue not you out, also, when
ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you."
(Levit. 18.) "For all that do these things are an abomina
tion to the Lord, and because of these abominations the
Lord thy God doth drive them (the Canaanites) out from
before thee." (Deut. 18.) Here God Himself witnesseth
that the Canaanites had His laws; and had violated them;
all and singular. What laws ? The very same laws He was
then republishing for Israelitish instruction.
But there is still another scripture that bears upon the
point. Speaking to Abraham God said: "Know of a cer
tainty that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not
theirs, and shall serve them ; and they shall afflict them four
hundred years; and also, that nation whom they shall serve
will I judge; and afterwards they shall come out with great
substance. In the fourth generation they shall come
hither again ; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
(Gen. 15:12-16.) Here it will be observed, that God under
the name Amorite is including all the Canaanitish nations —
the people then living in the country given Abraham and
his descendants. And what does God charge them with?
Iniquity — lives of the grossest sin — the same that He is
charging them with in Moses' day? What does He declare
as to their ungodliness? "That it was not yet full" — that

The Argument. 119
He would not destroy them till four hundred years later.
Now if they were sinners then — in Abraham's day — then
had they His laws at that day ; for certain it is that the scrip
tures teach that "sin is a transgression of law." We thus
learn that the Canaanites had God's laws and would con
tinue to have them for four centuries. Now four centuries
brings us to the very time that God is declaring that "the
whole land is defiled, and vomiteth out its inhabitants" —
that is to say, to Moses' day. At this time, we repeat, God
himself tells us that these nations had His laws — the very
same laws that He was then again publishing. It was
because they had violated them that He ordered their de
struction. Now were these Canaanites not Gentiles? My
opponent will so concede. We have thus shown, that the
Gentiles had the laws of God from the days of Adam till
Isaiah, who began his predictions about 760 B. C.
But it will be noticed that God imposes the same laws
on the Gentiles in Moses' day, that He does on the Israel
ites. He saith: "Ye shall, therefore, keep my judgments
and my statutes, and shall not commit any of these abomi
nations — neither any of your own nation nor any strangers
(Gentiles) that sojourneth among you." (Levit. 18.) Here it
will be seen, that God requires the Gentiles sojourning
among the Jews, to keep the same laws, all and singular,
given the Jews.
Again. At the institution of the Passover, God ordered
Moses to circumcise all Gentiles before permitting them to
partake of the Feast." (Ex. 12:48, 49.) Is the gentleman
informed as to the time when, and the place where, God
gave the Gentiles his laws ? If he is not, it is his misfortune.
I yield the floor.
R. — When God gave the Israelites His laws at Horeb,
He wrote them on tablets of stone. Do I understand the
gentleman as holding that the Gentiles had God's written
laws? P. — The Rabbi has not replied to my argument. He

120 The Argument.
contents himself with asking another question. My an
swer is, that God did give the Gentiles His written laws.
Covenants, laws, ordinances are uniformly reduced to writ
ing. We do not, be it understood, take the position that
God wrote His laws on tablets of stone for all nations. It
was not at all necessary that He do so. Adam and Eve,
Enoch, all the patriarchs to the days of Noah, Noah and
his family, all the patriarchs from Noah till Abraham, Job
and his friends, and hosts of others, were all Gentiles.
There is no evidence they had the laws of God written on
stone, indeed. But that they had His written laws is cer
tain. Now, where were they written? On their hearts and
in their minds — just where God declared through Jeremiah,
He would write them in the days to come: "After those
days, saith the Lord, I will put My law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts ; and I will be their God, and they
shall be my people." (Jer. 31:33.) It must be remembered,
that God held personal interviews with Adam, Noah, Abra
ham, Job, Moses, Joshua, and many others. By such in
terviews were they made perfectly conversant with the laws,
one and all, of God. But to press this point.
We have other evidence that the Gentiles have ever had
God's laws, not only from Adam to Abraham; but from
Abraham to the present era. As the gentleman claims that
the classification of the human race was made in Abra
ham's day, we will waive till another part of this discussion,
the evidence that the people of the age from Adam to
Abraham had the laws of God. We will begin with Abra
ham.

CHAPTER IV.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all unrighteousness and ungodliness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans I. (Continued.)
For convenience sake we will consider the question: 1.
In the age from Abraham to Sinai; 2. In the days of Moses
and Joshua; 3. From the death of Joshua to that of David;
4. From the reign of Solomon to the captivity of Judah;
5. From the Babylonish captivity to the Advent.
And. 1. In the age from Abraham to Sinai.
My opponent holds, and truly, that Abraham was given
God's laws. (Gen. 26.) Now was there not a widespread
knowledge of those very laws, and that among all the Gen
tile world, at the very time God solemnly reimposed them
on Abraham and his descendants? The quotations from
Isaiah, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy make the fact of such
knowledge absolutely certain. How, then, could the mak
ing of Abraham and his offspring a repository for those
laws have deprived the Gentile w6rld of such knowledge?
It is plain that it did not, in any way, affect it. We have
alluded to the destroyed cities, in another connection. They
were, as we have seen, burned in the very days of Abraham
and Shem and other patriarchs. Did they not have God's
laws? Abraham interceded for them with many prayers.
Did he urge their ignorance of God's laws? Not once.
Could he have omitted so powerful a plea for mercy, if they
were uninformed as to the laws of God ? Such a plea would
have suspended judgment without the shadow of a doubt.
God never punishes the ignorant. His character forbids

122 The Argument.
the idea of such atrocity. But why was it that he asked
God to spare them? "There are righteous people in those
cities." Are not the righteous those that obey God's laws?
The example and precept of those righteous ones argue
their knowledge of the laws of God. But why argue ? Were
not the people of those cities the very people of whom God
said : "The iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full ?" ( Gen.
15.) As noticed, intermarriage, at that day, was common
between the races. Abraham's last wife was of Ham's off
spring. Esau married Judith, the daughter of Beeri the Hit-
tite, Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and later,
the daughter of Ishmael. (Gen. 26 and 28.) All the sons of
Jacob married Gentile women — every one off them. If,
therefore, we had no other evidence of the fact that the Gen
tiles had the laws of God, this constant intermarriage is,
itself, proof positive. We have referred to the sojourn of
Lot in the burned cities. He had hundreds of servants,
taught as were Abraham's, in the ways and statutes of God.
Association for twenty years with Lot and his household,
could but have made them acquainted with God's laws.
We need not dwell. The news of that fearful overthrow
must have fallen upon the ears of the whole Gentile world,
like the alarm of fire-bells at midnight. The cities certain
ly had a perfect knowledge of God and His laws.
But not only "the cities of the plain." It must be remem
bered that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were given in charge
God's laws, with the intent that they teach the observ
ance of them. To whom? To their own descendants, ac
tual and constructive? Certainly to them. But were
they to teach their observance to them only? Is such the
record ? Certainly not. They were bound to teach them to
all with whom they associated — to the Canaanites — as far
as possible. Now Abraham, Isaac and Jacob dwelt among
these nations for over two hundred years — from 1921 to
1706 B. C. They traveled, far and near, among them.
Everywhere they went they built their altars, sacrificed to

The Argument. 123
their God, and called upon His name. Could this have been
going on for over two centuries without the nations of Ca
naan becoming informed as to God and His laws?
Again. We have alluded to Job and his friends. They
certainly had the laws of God. It would be easy to com
pile from the book of Job,' almost the entire code divine.
But returning to the days of Abraham a moment. Not
only did he sojourn in Canaan, but for awhile, in Egypt.
We have noticed Pharaoh's taking Sarah, supposing she
was the sister of Abraham, for the purpose of making her
his wife or concubine. When, by judgment, God had in
formed him as to the real facts in the case, the king returned
Sarah to Abraham, and roundly upbraided him for the de
ceit put upon him. Now what does the course pursued by
Pharaoh show? Certainly that he knew the law of God
as to the sin of cohabiting with another man's wife — he knew
the law concerning adultery.
Sojourning in Gerar, the same thing happened. Abime-
lech did as did Pharaoh. This shows that he knew the
Lord's law. (Gen. 20:9.) In the days of Isaac, the same
thing happened. Isaac passed Eebecca off for his sister,
The then reigning Abimelech, for it was in Gerar, happened
to catch Isaac sporting with Eebecca. He, too, denounced
Isaac for his deceit, telling him that he might have brought
great sin on him and his people, by either himself or some
one of his people, through ignorance, lying with his wife.
Did he not know of the law against adultery? Were not
those kings of Egypt and Philistia Gentiles? They cer-
tainljr were.
But let us come to the Egyptians in Jacob's days. We
have already noticed that Joseph lived and almost reigned
in Egypt for seventy years. That Jacob's descendants were
intimately associated with the Egyptians, for over two cen
turies. Could such association have left those people ig
norant of God's laws? Who will so contend? No one.
Whose arrangement was it that the Israelites should be

124 The Argument.
bondsmen in Egypt for so long a time? God's. Then was
it not Gpd that so ordered as that they might know not
only of Him, but of His laws?
Pass on to Moses' day. We have alluded already to God's
dealing with Pharaoh and his people. And what reason did
God give for His course? "That My name might be de
clared throughout all the earth?" That is to say, God
wanted to remind the whole earth, not only of who He
was; but of His character, His dominion and His laws.
What would such arguments have amounted to, supposing
the Gentile world to be ignorant of His laws? Not only
had the Egyptians His laws; but the whole world. For how
else, we repeat, would they have been benefited by a mere
knowledge of His existence and character ?
Again. When Moses fled into the land of Midian, after
his murder of the Egyptian, we read, that he found Jethro
to be a priest of that nation. We have already seen that
the Midianites had God's laws. Their descent from Abra
ham, the sojourn of Moses among them for forty years, the
worship by Jethro of God, the language of Balaam their
prophet, his advice to Balak, and his death by violence for
giving such advice — all declare that the Midianites had the
laws of God, and whence they got their knowledge. Whose
ordering was all this? God's. Then it was God that gave
them His laws. Were the Midianites not Gentiles? We
thus reach the day when God republished His laws at Sinai.
And (2) : In the days of Moses and Joshua.
We have already seen, that the Canaanites did have the
laws of God — had had them for, not only the four hundred
years intervening Abraham and Moses; but, in all tbe ages,
intervening Noah and Abraham — and that it was clue to
their wholesale violation of them that God drove them off
the land, and out of the world.
We have alluded to the days of Joshua ; and the ruse prac
ticed by the Gibeonites, and their reduction to a state vir-

The Argument. 125
tually, of slavery — they being made hewers of wood and
drawers of water for the Sanctuary services, and for other
purposes. They thus became informed as to the laws of
God. Whose arrangement was this? God's. Then was it
not He that gave them His laws ?
But the tribes left to prove Israel. They had the laws of
God. Their association with the Israelites all through the
days of Joshua, make it absolutely certain that they were
thoroughly informed as to God's laws. Here again, have
we God's ordering and arrangement for Gentile instruction
in His laws.
And (3) : From the Death of Joshua to that of David.
The nations left to prove Israel were associated with the
Israelites either as conquered or as conquerors, from Joshua
till Samuel, the last of the Judges. Such an association
made a knowledge of God and His laws certain. All the
events of thoso four centuries and more — the period of the
Judges — were of God's designing. It was the method that
He took, that of judgment, to keep the Gentiles as well as
the Israelites — posted as to His laws. This method of in
struction was pronounced throughout the reign of Saul.
Constant war, with varying success, prevailed all the days
of Saul.
Saul was succeeded by David. We have already no
ticed in another connection the success of David in extend
ing the Israelitish empire from the Euphrates to the river
of Egypt. All the nations subjugated by David were Gen
tile. It was impossible for them to be under David and
worship false gods and practice their other villainies. He
would not have allowed it. He reigned over Israel forty
years. How could these nations have remained subjects of
David for so long a time, with priests by the thousands daily
teaching God's laws all over the empire, and the subjuga
ted nations not know these laws ? And how could sur
rounding nations — nations with whom David's people were

126 The Argument.
associated commercially and by contiguity — have been with
out knowledge of them? It was impossible that they be so.
And (4) : From the death of David till the captivity of
Judah. David was succeeded by Solomon. His reign was forty
years. We need not repeat the argument. After his death,
the kingdom became divided. The ten tribes became so
wicked that God caused them to be removed as we have
seen, and the country repopulated with Gentiles. We have
noticed how this depopulation was the cause of the spread
of the knowledge of the existence and character of God.
The same contributed to a republication of His laws not
only throughout the Assyrian empire; but among the new
settlers in Samaria. We need not repeat. Jonah in this age
was sent to Nineveh. We read, that there was a mighty re
formation in the great city. How could they reform with
out knowing the laws of God? Eepenting of their wick
edness, they certainly knew wherein they had violated God's
laws. If they had no knowledge of God's laws, then would
they have had no sense of wrongdoing. They certainly
had God's laws; or Jonah could not have moved them to
repentance. And (5) : From the Babylonish captivity till the Advent.
'The deportation of the ten tribes was something over
one hundred years before the captivity and deportation of
Judah and Benjamin by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Baby
lon. During this century Judah was in constant war, with
neighboring kings, with varying success. In this way was
the education of the Gentiles kept up.
When deported, the Jews were carried to Babylonia,
where they remained for seventy years. By association
with them, by intimate intercourse between the king and
Daniel, by visions and their interpretation by Daniel, by the
attempt at execution of the three Hebrews, by personal ap-

The Argument. 127
pearances and by judgments appalling — were the people,
the princes and the king made acquainted with God and
His laws. The proclamation of Nebuchadnezzar, before
and after his personal humiliation, also gave the entire
empire knowledge of the King of heaven and His ways.
Pass on to the days of Belshazzar. The history of his feast,
with its sacrilege, and the handwriting on the wall have
already been alluded to. The flaming handwriting on the
walls of that banquet hall, riveted the gaze and filled with
unspeakable awe the king, his nobles, and their wives.
And well it might. It announced at once their doom and
their death. Daniel is sent for to interpret the words of
fire. He thereupon arraigns him for his wicked insulta-
tion of God, who held the breath of his nostrils in His
fist. He concluded by informing him that he had been
weighed in the balances and found wanting, that his king
dom was divided and given to the Medes and Persians.
His arraignment is proof positive that a knowledge of God
and His laws everywhere obtained throughout that vast
domain. Belshazzar's reign ended the same night.
Babylon is taken by Cyrus, and after a few years Darius
reigns in his stead. Under this prince Daniel is again pro
moted to the chief dignity beneath the throne. The plot of
the princes for his destruction and its success is well known.
The deliverance of Daniel and the fate of those who planned
his horrid death is, also, known to all. That, with the de
cree of Darius, that followed the deliverance of Daniel need
not be repeated. The execution of the provisions of that de
cree by the entire people of the empire, depended upon their
knowledge of the laws of God. They must needs be in
formed, or obedience was impossible. How else could they
"tremble and fear before the Lord of Daniel." They must
know what God's commandments were, before they could
manifest their fear of Him by obedience.
But Cyrus. We have alluded to his course in decreeing
the building of the temple of God at Jerusalem. Informed

128 The Argument.
of the prophecy concerning him, made two hundred years
before he was born — a prophecy wherein he was not only
named, but in which his brilliant achievements were fore
told — he could but have been profoundly impressed, and
must have hastened to acquaint himself with the laws of
God, who had advanced him to so lofty a position, and
crowned him king of the world. It is certain that he knew
of the laws of God. Were not the Babylonians and the
Medes and Persians all Gentiles ? How then can the Eabbi
hold to so absurd a theory as that of Gentile reprobacy, pre
dicated on a want of information as to the existence, charac
ter, and laws of God?
The Medo-Persian Empire was overthrown by Alexan
der, king of Macedonia. We have already alluded, in an
other connection, to his conquest of the east and south,
Judea included, and the certainty that he and his army
became informed as to God's laws. Upon his death, his
kingdom was divided into four parts. The part to which
Egypt was attached fell to Ptolemy. During the reign
of Ptolemy Philadelphus, a translation of the scriptures
into Greek was made. This was 280 B. C. This transla
tion gave the four divisions of the empire the laws of God
in the Greek dialect. That this translation became widely
circulated is not conjecture. In addition to the transla
tion, the Grecians were in friendly association with the
Jews, who traded and trafficked throughout the empire.
As remarked, by the establishment of the Grecian empire,
on the ruins of the Babylonish and Medo-Persian empires,
God restored to the Japhetic line along with the Shemitic
and Hamitic lines, a knowledge of himself and his laws,
and that in their own tongue. How wonderful is all this !
How absurd the invention of Jewish Babbins, of Gentile rep
robation based on ignorance of God and his laws !
The Eoman Empire overthrew the Grecian. Pushing
itB conquests east, west, north and south, it overran the
world. In every place where its legions marched in the

The Argument. 129
cast and south— in Greece, Asia Minor, Assyria, Egypt,
Palestine, Medo-Persia — they came in contact with the
word of God. By this association of conquerors and con
quered, the word of God came to be republished through
out the world — from the British Isles to India. Whose
ordering was all this? It was God's He it was, by
enabling the Eoman empire to conquer all the then nations
of the earth, that informed the world of His laws.
We have now passed in review the history of the world for
four thousand years. Upon that history, do we plant our
selves and claim, without fear of refutation, the positive her
esy of Eabbinical holding as to Gentile reprobacy. This dis
cussion shews, that, from Moses to the present, millions
upon millions of the Gentiles were given the laws of God.
Sometimes by judgments; sometimes by wars; sometime*
by association of captors and captured; sometimes by in
termarriage of the races; sometimes by the rise and fall of
empires, and sometimes by prophets, like Jonah and others,
and by priests — did God proceed to the instructon of the
world as to His existence, character and laws.
But aside from this argument. It is certain that the Gen
tiles were given the laws of God. This is evident from the
arraignment of the prophets. Look through the prophetic
rolls. Everywhere do we see fearful judgments foretold as
coming upon Gentile cities and nations. The most fearful
wrath is denounced against them. We could easily con
sume days from Old Testament writers in proof, that the
Gentile world in all past ages were reprobated and destroyed
only after the most positive knowledge of God and His laws,
and warning after warning of coming wrath because of their
outrageous violation of one and all of those laws. Now, who
inspired prophecy? God. The prophets wrote as He dicta
ted. The arraignment made by the prophets is, therefore,
that of God Himself. He it is that declares that He had
time and again given them His laws, and that they had been
punished only after their most shameless, outrageous, and

130 The Argument.
universal violation. Therefore, upon the testimony of God,
who cannot lie, do we affirm that the Gentiles were given His
laws, and that, in all the ages from Adam, Abraham, or
Moses, to the present.
They were certainly given the laws of God. This is shown
by the fearful punishment inflicted — the appalling judgments
with which they were visited all down the ages. We have
alluded to the punishment of "the cities of the plain," of the
Egyptians, and of the Canaanitish nations. These were in
the last degree awful and appalling. But the judgments of
God of Babylonia, Idumea, Moab, Ammon, Amalek, Assyria,
Syria, Chaldea, Medo-Persia, Greece, and others too num
erous to mention, were no less far-reaching and devouring.
His judgments on the greatest cities of the past were par
ticularly awful. Where is the lordly Babylon of the days of
Nebuchadnezzar? Then was she spoken of as "the beauty
of the Chaldees' excellency." Her massive walls, towering
to heaven, her immense gates of solid brass, her hanging
gardens, her splendid temples, her lordly palaces, her bound
less wealth — all have been swept away. Has not the fate of
Babylon been that of Nineveh, Karnac, Luxor, Memphis,
Tyre, Ashdod, Gaza, Ekron, and a hundred other great cities ?
We have only to visit their sites, to see, in the ruins that
everywhere strew the ground where once they towered in
glory, that God has poured out on them the vials of His
wrath. Sum up all these fearful judgments — call up before
you the billions of human beings that came to horrid deaths —
the ocean of blood and tears that have flooded the world — the
vast volume of human woes that the ruins of the past epi
taph — and no one can fail in reaching the conclusion that
this argument is designed to demonstrate. One of two
things is evident. The Gentiles were given the laws of God,
or the God of the universe is utterly depraved. But who
dare deny that they did have the laws of God? Has not
God declared through prophet after prophet that they did,
and that in every age? His declaration must settle it.

The Argument. 131
So, friend Eabbi, your premises must be discarded; and
with them your conclusion. We have shown that vile lusts,
and brutal affections, though indulged to the utmost ex
cess, do not evidence ignorance of God's laws forbidding such
obscenities — do not show that the Gentiles were left unin
formed as to either God or His laws. On the contrary, from
the evidence submitted, the proof is overwhelming, that they
committed these vile crimes to which you have alluded, with
a full knowledge of the laws of God. When they began to
worship idols, God, as a further judgment, gave them up to
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dis
honor their own bodies between themselves: Who changed
the truth of God into a life, and worshiped and served the
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Amen. And when to idolatry they had added the further out
rage of violating all of God's laws, God, as a judgment,
gave them up to these vile affections and unnatural lusts —
allowing men and women to engage in lustful indecencies,
that were unknown to even the brutes of the field. Such
indulgence in sodomy and other vileness occasioned disease,
and then did they receive in themselves that recompense
of their error which was meet.
R. — Again, has the gentleman treated us to a lengthy dis
cussion, in which there was, perhaps, a grain of truth,
with a mass of assumptions. We will, therefore, as before,
pass on to our next evidence, indirect, of Gentile reprobacy
by decree, to-wit:
The Gentiles have ever displayed a reprobate mind.
This is shown, not only, by their idolatry and depraved
lusts, but by their zeal in the propagation of these false,
idolatrous systems and obscene practices; coupled with the
great pleasure that it ever gave them when successful in
their efforts — in seeing others worship their gods and in
dulge in their licentiousness. Notice the course of the Mid-

132 The Argument.
ianites in the days of Moses; of the Moabites, at the same
time; of the nations left to prove Israel in the days of the
Judges; of the outlandish women in the days of Solomon,
and of many other instances that might be mentioned.
Were anything wanting in proof that they knew neither God
nor His laws, it is certainly furnished by their desire and
persistent efforts to seduce the Israelites in all the ages; and
their manifest gratification at their success in accomplish
ing their villainous purposes. Such a course on their part
proves their ignorance of God. Their ignorance was of His
appointment. Therefore, we conclude that their reprobation
was decreed.
P. — The gentleman contents himself with passing my ar
guments by in silence. The reason is obvious. He has
nothing to urge in their refutation. He still persists, how
ever, in holding to Gentile reprobacy, based on their ignor
ance of God, changing withal the ground upon which he
fitill posits his theory. We pass to a notice of his last proof
of Gentile reprobacy, with the remark, that zeal in propa
gating idolatry or educating others in depravity, coupled with
the greatest manifestation of pleasure at their success, does
not evidence ignorance of God and His laws — does not prove
Gentile reprobacy to have been decreed. The course that the
Gentile world has pursued only evidences the proneness of
mankind to proceed from bad to worse. It is a fact without
•exception, that sin has a hardening effect — that misery loves
company — that when once an individual or a nation have
filled to overflow the cup of depravity, nothing gives so much
pleasure as that of seducing others to their pernicious prac
tices. That is to say : Progressive sinfulness is characteristic
of mankind, and when that is followed to its limit of hard
ness, delight is taken in the commission of all manner of sin,
and in seeing others similarly indulge. This is a fact, that it
would be useless to waste time in discussing. The Gen
tiles began by making idols and claiming that God was in
the idol. In course of time, they began to hold that the

The Argument. 133
idol was God. Reaching this depth of depravity they ban
ished all idea, of God. As they did not wish to retain God in
their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind —
to do those things which are not convenient — to become filled
with all uncleanness — fornication, wickedness, covetousness,
maliciousness — to be full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
malignity; to become whisperers, backbiters, haters of God,
despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobe
dient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers,
without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful. They
-knew all the while that the judgment of God was that they
which commit such things are worthy of death; and yet they
not only did the same, but had pleasure in those that did
them. Their course, we repeat, does not shew ignorance of
God, but progress in depravity. When individuals or nations
reach a certain depth in sin, God withdraws his Spirit and
suffers them to rush on to destruction. This premise is false.
The reprobate mind only shows that the lowest depth in
criminality has been reached and that they are ripe for the
direst judgment of God, that of their final and everlasting
overthrow. The conclusion must be false therefore.
R. — We pass on as before, there being nothing that we
deem worthy of notice in the gentleman's speech, to our
next position as indirectly evidencing Gentile reprobacy by
decree, viz:
The Gentile world has never been instructed as to the
principles of God's government.
They have never known that it was an inviolable maxim of
the divine government to punish the ungodly and reward the
righteous. Uninstructed in the governmental polity of God,
they have rushed on and downward in depravity to its ap
pointed limit, ignorant that such a course would eventuate
in their damnation. As a ship driven before the storm, is
wrecked upon an unknown rock, so the Gentile world,
launched upon the deep of life, without chart or compass or
rudder, have been suffered to drive forward upon the rocks
prepared for their destruction. No one can believe that the

134 The Argument.
Gentiles were instructed in the principles of God's govern
ment. Would not such a knowledge have deterred them from
such a course? Even a dumb brute will not leap into an
exposed abyss. And why not? Love of life — a desire to
avoid death. So, though the Gentile might have had an
imperfect idea of God and His laws, he was left without any
incentive to their observance or any inducement to reverence
their Creator. Was not this ignorance designed of God?
Seeing he had created them for no other purpose than their
damnation, He withheld from them that instruction which
was so essential to their proper conduct. This act clearly
marks the Gentile as the object of God's damning wrath — as-
he for whom God had prepared the lake of despair, begirt
with walls of fire, and swept with the everlasting storm of
fiery shaft and bickering thunderbolt.
P. — Were the Gentiles left without any knowledge as to^
the principles of the divine polity? If the history of the
past teaches any lesson, it is that God has ever sought to'
give our race a perfect knowledge of the nature of his govern
ment. What was the lesson of God's dealing with Adam
and Eve, Cain, the ante-diluvians, "the cities of the plain,"
the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians,
the Philistines, the Edomites, and I may add the Israelites?
What do His dealings with nations, cities, and individuals in-
all past ages teach ? Certainly, that to punish the ungodly is a-
fixed and unalterable principle of His government. This--
great truth is written in indelible characters throughout the
world. The destruction of the greatest empires of the past,
the mouldering ruins of the grandest cities ever built by man,
declare God's vengeance against sin. All ages have witnessed
the untiring zeal with which God has labored to impress the-
race with His indignation, against ungodliness.
But what are we taught by His course towards Abel,.
Enoch, Noah and his family, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph,.
Job, Moses, Joshua, Caleb, Gideon, Jepthah, Samuel, Heze
kiah, Ahijah, Isaiah and a host of other worthies whose lives-

The Argument. 135
of holiness have shed their radiance on the historic pages of
the world? Each, like some great and effulgent Pharos, has
lighted up the great deep of the ocean of life. Each has
poured upon the path of life an effulgence that the roll of
-ages has not dimmed. Guided by the light that in focal
splendor they have poured upon the pathway of humanity,
the Gentiles had no difficulty in seeing that to reward the
righteous has ever been the course of God.
In God's dealing with the ante-diluvians, we have, in the
•clearest manner, taught that God would bless and save the
righteous and destroy the ungodly. Passing on down the
ages we have the same taught in His dealings with Lot and
his family and "the cities of the plain." In the days of
Pharaoh the same lesson is taught, and so on down the ages.
We need not dwell. So then this position of the Eabbi is
false, and with it his conclusion. The fearful judgments of
the past, individual and national — the famines, pestilences,
wars, diseases, in their varied forms, the indulgence of vile
lusts and worse than brutal affections — all mark God's wrath
against sin. It has also been a settled policy of the divine
government of the race to increase the severity of His judg
ments, just in proportion to the increase of man's sinfulness.
This discussion sets forth this fact in glaring colors. Notice
how God increased the judgment with every advance in de
pravity. When the Gentiles began the worship of idols, they
•claimed that God was in the idol. For this offense God gave
them over to blindness. Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools, and their foolish heart was darkened.
When they had advanced to the point of holding that the
idol was God, thereby doing away entirely with God, He then
gave them up to vile affections, and brutal lusts — to a de
pravity below the brute. When they had advanced yet fur
ther, violated all the laws of God, He then gave them over
to a reprobate mind — to work all uncleanness without let or
hindrance — murder, adultery, fornication, covetousness, pa
rental irreverence, maliciousness — everything in fact, that was

136 The Argument.
vile. And when they had reached the limit — when they had
filled up the cup of abominations, by proselyting to idolatry
and delighting in their success, He then destroyed them.
Such is the lesson of the ages. The principles of His gov
ernment have ever been known and read of all men .

CHAPTEE V.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
nngodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Romans 1:18.)
Eomans I. (Continued).
R. — Another proof of Gentile reprobacy — indirect proof —
is that God never required the Gentile to be circumcised in
the flesh. This we hold to be evidence that is strong and
conclusive of his reprobation.
P. — If the Rabbi, please, we will defer a discussion of
^circumcision at this point.
R.— Certainly, if the gentleman so prefers. Waiving a dis
cussion of circumcision now by request, we will take up our
.text indirect evidence of Gentile Reprobation, that of Abra
hamic descent. The great mass of the Gentiles, being neither
lineal nor constructive descendants of Abraham, were cer
tainly designed for damnation. This is self-evident.
P. — I would prefer a discussion of the lineage question, also
at another time, there being other strong arguments, that 1
wish to make against the points already raised by the Rabbi;
which I think it would be best to deliver at this time. Our
hearers will then have the whole argument, on the points
-considered, in a connected form. By such a course they will
have the benefit of all the evidence in opposition to the
Rabbi's theory, of Gentile reprobacy by decree, in unbroken
mass. R. — Certainly, I wish the gentleman to exhaust his stock
-of ammunition — to fire the last shot in his caisson. I am
perfectly willing that he assail my theory with new guns,
¦especially, if they be of heavier calibre. Howitzers of small
pattern will do for noise making ! But it takes rifled cannon
to batter down the walls of a fortress. Let the gentleman

138 The Argument.
proceed. We will hear his additional arguments with pleas
ure ; and, may we hope, with some profit, at least.
P. — The Rabbi, it seems, is disposed to be sarcastic. His
course is not novel. It is the recourse, always, of disputants
that have nothing to urge in opposition to the arguments of
their opponents. If he has thus far received no profit from
this discussion, I can only be expected to commiserate his
intellectual deficiency, seeing that I am in no wise responsi
ble for it, and powerless to correct it. I am not without
hope, however, that I shall yet probe deep enough to reach
whatever brain the gentleman possesses. Nothing will, I
assure him, afford me more pleasure. For, if I ean reach his-
brain, I shall expect to induce him to renounce his heretical
holding, though his capacity be little, seeing it will require
but a little brain to see the absurdity of such a heresy. But
to the argument.
As it is always legitimate to assail an opponent with his
own weapons — to spike his guns with his own files — we shall
now take the positions assumed by the Rabbi, substituting
Israelites, simply, for Gentiles. We make no doubt that we
shall reach some interesting, not to say startling, conclusions
to our friend, the Rabbi.
And 1. The Israelites — the great mass of them — were
designed by God to he damned. This is shown by the fact,
that God never gave them any revelation of either His ex
istence, or character. This want of revelation is evidenced
by their worship of idols for over nine hundred years — or
from Moses till the close of the Babylonish captivity. This
ignorance was, of course, of divine appointment. Such an
ordering of events, evidences their reprobation by God. For
had God designed the great mass of them for any other pur
pose than that of their damnation, He would not have ?.?ft
them uninstructed in a matter of such moment. Such was
the Rabbi's position. I have only substituted Gentile by
Israelite. He held that idolatry evidenced ignorance of God
and His character. Very well. Let us see how the Israelites

The Argument. 139
will stand, that position being true. Take the days of Moses.
We read: "And when the people saw that Moses delayed to
come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves
together unto Aaron and said: Up, make us gods which
shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that
brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is
become of him. And Aaron said unto them, Break off the
.golden earrings which are in the ears of your wives, of your
.sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me. And
.all the people broke off their golden earrings, which were in
their ears, and brought them unto Aaron. And he received
¦them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool after
he had made it into a molten calf : And they said, These be
thy gods, 0 Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of
Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before
it; and Aaron made proclamation and said: To-morrow is
.a feast of the Lord. And they rose up early on the morrow
and offered burnt offerings, and peace offerings, and the
people set down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play."
(Ex. 32:1-8.) Here is a plain ease of idolatry on the part of
Aaron and the entire Israelitish nation — Moses excepted.
This, according to the Rabbi's holding, shows that they were
ignorant of God. This ignorance was designed of God, and,
therefore, he intended their destruction. By this reasoning
-we reach a conclusion, that: 1. Would damn the nation;
2. Is in direct conflict with the facts in the case. But
let us enquire : Where the Jews ignorant of God, when they
were worshiping that calf ? Take Aaron. Had he not been
the chief spokesman, in the Pharaoh judgments? Had he
not followed the pillar of cloud and fire ? Had he not seen
the God of Israel divide the sea? Had he not seen him
drown the army of Egypt? Had he not seen him open
the windows of heaven, and shower manna for three mil
lions of people day by day? Had he not seen the rock
of the desert, stricken, pour forth water for three millions
:and their stock? Had he not seen the flaming mount, . and

140 The Argument.
heard the trumpet horn of the arch-angel blast the approach
and herald the coming of God? Had he not seen the God
of Israel high and uplift, upon the great white throne rain-
bowed with emerald? Had he not seen the lightenings that
leaped from the angry bosoms of the clouds of inky black
ness, that draped Sinai's quivering mass? Had he not felt
the throes of the fearful earthquake that tossed the moun
tain on its heaving bosom as though it were but a feather?
Had he not been given the decalogue? And what is true
of Aaron is it not, also, of the whole Israelitish host? Aaron
and the whole encampment were right there under the
mount, when they thus dared Jehovah's vengeance —
when they dared to worship that golden calf. What then
is the conclusion? This: Idolatry does not evidence ig
norance of God. Such a position to be believed would re
quire a repudiation of unquestionable facts — would necessi
tate the diseardal of the word of God. Will the gentle
man discredit Moses? He will not. What then? This
history of the Israelites teaches that idolatry does not evi
dence ignorance pf God; for it was practiced under the very
mount of God, with the glare of its lightenings in their eyes
and the bellowings of its thunders mingled with the blast
of the trumpet of the arch-angel in their ears. And, again.
If idolatry was practiced by the Israelites under such cir
cumstances, is it not absolutely certain that it obtained
among the Gentiles under a full and complete knowledge
of God? The Eabbi's position, that idolatry evidences ig
norance of God, would reprobate the Israelites as well as
the Gentiles. If it were true it would prove the Israelites
ignorant of God, and thus set aside the testimony of Moses.
But further. We find the Israelites worshiping idols,
not simply at Sinai. We read, that Midian and Moab act
ed upon the advice of Balaam, and began through their
women to seduce the young Israelites to fornicaton. Suc
ceeding in this, they then led them to engage in the worship
of Baal-peor. Moses writes: "And Israel abode in Shit-

The Argument. 141
tim; and the people began to commit whoredom with the
daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the
sacrifice of their gods; and the people did eat, and bowed
down to their gods. And Israel joined himself unto Baal-
peor: and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Is
rael." (Numb. 25:1-3.) Now, did Israel not know God?
This was thirty-nine years after his descent on Sinai. All
this while had they followed God in the wilderness. All
these years had God' fed them, clothed them, protected
them, and by judgments scourged them for their sinful,
rebellious conduct. They certainly knew God; and yet they
worshipped idols.
Turn to the history of Israel during the days of the judges.
Who has not read their history throughout the centuries?
Were they not idolaters throughout those ages? Why, in
less than a quarter of a century after Joshua's death, we
find them worshiping idols. We read: "And the chil
dren of Israel did evil in the sight of God, and served
Baalim:" (Judges 2:11.) Again: "They forsook the Lord
and served Baal and Ashtaroth." (Judg. 2:13.) Again:
"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord,
and forgat the Lord their God, and served Baalim and
the groves." (Judg. 3:7.) And so the record continues.
Owing to their idolatry, God delivered them into the hands?
of the nations left to prove them, and the hands of distant
nations of Mesopotamia. When oppressed and enslaved,
they would cry unto God; and, in mercy, He would send
them a deliverer. So soon as delivered by the hand of an
Othniel, an Ehud, a Deborah and Barak, a Gideon, a
Jephthah, a Sampson, or a Samuel, they would lapse again
into idolatry. In two hundred and fifty years after Joshua,
we read: "And the children of Israel did evil again in the
sight of God, and served Baalim and Ashtaroth, and the
Gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of
Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the
gods of the Philistines, and forsook the Lord, and served

142 The Argument.
not him." (Judge. 10 :6.) This wholesale idolatry among Is
raelites was in the year 1161 B. C, or something less than
three centuries since the decease of Moses! Did they not
know of the existence and character of God? Bead the his
tory. And did they, notwithstanding, worship idols?
They certainly did. Then idolatry does not evidence ig
norance of God. If the gentleman's position were true, it
would certainly, we repeat, prove that Israel were reproba
ted of God.
But let us come to Solomon's day. What do we read
of him? "For it came to pass when Solomon was old, that
his wives turned away his heart after other gods. * * *
For Solomon went after Astaroth, the goddess of the
Zidonians; and after Mileolm, the abomination of the Am-
onites. * * * * Then did Solomon build for Chemosh, the
abomination of Moab, an high place in the hill that is before
Jerusalem; and for Moleeh, the abomination of the chil
dren of Ammon. And likewise did he for all his strange
wives, which burned incense and sacrificed unto their
strange gods." (I Kings 11:1-8.) Had not Solomon a
knowledge of God? Had God not spoken audibly to him
as many as two times? Had he not seen the glory of God
fill the temple which he had but just finished? Had he not
from his infancy been trained by David, his father, in the
ways of God? And yet, with God's word in his hands,
and God's temple before his eyes, he went into the grossest
idolatry. After his death, his kingdom was divided between Eeho-
boam and Jeroboam. What was the course of Jeroboam
and his wicked successors for over two hundred and fifty
years? They worshiped idols. Did they not do so with
a perfect knowledge of God? Did not the ten tribes know
of the God of Israel? What said Elijah to Ahab? "Thou
and thy father's house (trouble Israel) in that ye have for
saken the commandments of the Lord, and followed
Baalim." (See I Kings 18:18.) The history of Elijah on

The Argument. 143
Carmel shews that Ahab and his people knew God and His
character. And so on down the ages till the deportation of
the ten tribes by Shalmanezar, King of Assyria. This was
in the year 721 B. C. At that time what do we read of
these tribes? "And they set them up images and groves in
every high hill, and under every green tree; and there they
burnt incense on all the high places, as did the heathen,
whom the Lord carried away before them; and wrought
wicked things to provoke the Lord to anger. For they
worshiped idols, whereof the Lord had said unto them; Ye
shall not do this thing." (II Kings 17:8-12.) Did they,
in all these ages, not know of God and His character? We
read: "Yet the Lord testified against Israel, and against
Judah by all the prophets, and by all the seers, saying:
Turn ye from your evU ways, and keep my commandments,
and my statutes," etc. (II Kings 17:13.)

CHAPTEE VI.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Romans I. — Continued.
We notice next Judah and Benjamin — the other two
tribes. What is their history after the deportation of the
ten tribes? Were they not idolaters? With the exception
of a Hezekiah, a Josiah and some few others, both kings
and people were for the most part idolaters. Of Manasseh
we read, that he restored idolatry in Judah, and seduced
the people till they did worse than the Amorites which were
before them. (II Kings 21:2-9.) And so things continued,
till Jerusalem was taken, and it and the temple destroyed,
and the residue of the inhabitants carried into captivity.
This was in the year 588 B. C.
We have thus shown by an examination of the history
of the Israelites from Moses to the Babylonish captivity,
a period of over nine hundred years, that they worshiped
idols, though they knew God. What then becomes of the
Eabbi's holding, that idolatry witnesseth ignorance of God?
It is shown to be utterly untrue, and with it the conclusion
based on it. Hence, the conclusion that God reprobated
the Gentiles, the claim being based on their idolatry, is
false. Jews and Gentiles would, in that event, stand equally
reprobated, we repeat. The truth is they both served
idols with a full knowledge of God. The Eabbi's
position is clearly false. It is controverted by the history
of both Jew and Gentile. The gentleman will admit the
correctness of this reasoning.
E. — Such, certainly would be the conclusion if it were
not for the fact that the Jews were the elect people of God;

The Argument. 145
and as such, privileged to do those things that were done
by the Gentiles, with immunity. God has chosen to make
that distinction between Jews and Gentiles. He allows to
the Jew what He does not to the Gentile. He condemns
and punishes the Gentiles because it was His pleasure to
make him with no other design than his damnation.
P. — Such a theory is monstrous ! Is God a respecter of
persons? He is not. Hence such a claim as that pre
ferred by the Eabbi is certainly false. God claims to be
an impartial God. Your theory impeaches His veracity,
while robbing Him of His character ! But more anon.
When I come to consider the gentleman's claim — his direct
evidence rather — of Jewish election, I promise him that
I will demolish him with his theory. But to continue the
exposure of the gentleman's theory.
And 2. The Israelites were ignorant of God's laws.
This is evidenced by their vile affections, and their brutal
lusts. They indulged sodomy and every other bestiality.
Their ignorance of His laws was of God's ordering. There
fore, God reprobated the Israelites. Here, as before, we
have simply replaced Gentiles, by Israelites. If the gen
tleman's position be true, we shall shew that the Jews were,
also, reprobated by God, for they indulged the same affec
tions and lusts.
Did they not in the very days of Moses? Have we not
seen that they practiced whoredom with the daughters of
Moab and Midian? But did they not practice sodomy,
both men and women? Did they not do worse than the
nations of Canaan ever did ? Hear the record : "And Judah
did evil in the sight of the Lord; and they provoked Him
to jealousy with their sins which they had committed,
above all that their fathers had done. For they, also,
built them high places, and images, and groves, on every
high hill and under every green tree. And there were,
also sodomites in the land, and they did according to all
the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out
before the children of Israel." (I Kings 14:22-24.) Again:

146 The Argument.
"And Asa did that which was right in the sight of the
Lord, as did David, his father. And he took away the
sodomites out of the land, 'and removed all the idols which
his father had made." (I Kings 15:11-12.) "And the
remnants of the sodomites which remained in the days of
his father Asa, did Jehosaphat take out of the land." (I
Kings 22:46.) Hear Ezekiel: "Thus saith the Lord God.
This is Jerusalem. I have set it in the midst of the coun
tries and nations that are round about her. And she has
changed my judgments injto , wickedness, more than the
nations." (Ezek. 5:5-6.) Hear Isaiah: "Ah, sinful na
tion — a people laden with iniquity — a seed of evil doers —
children that are corrupters. * * * Hear the word of
the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, ye people of Gomorrah."
(Isaiah 1:4-10.) Again: "Thy princes are rebellious and
companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts and followeth
after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither does
the cause of the widow come unto them." (Isaiah 1 :23.)
We could easily consume hours with quotations in proof of
this fact, that the Israelites have indulged every vile affec
tion and brutal lust that the Gentiles ever knew of. Aye,
the proof is overwhelming that they have done far worse.
Now, if such lusts and such practices evidence ignorance of
God's laws, then were the Israelites as ignorant of them as
the Gentiles. According to the Eabbi's position, such an
ordering was of God's appointment. Hence the conclusion
reached, accepting his theory, that the Israelites were repro
bated. As before, we reach a conclusion in conflict with
conclusion. Accepting his theory and following it to its
fact. The Israelites were at no time, in their history, with
out God's laws. And this the Eabbi will concede. His
premise is, therefore, shown to be false, and with it his
logical conclusion, we reach a reductio ad absurdum, as
before. In this way logicians disprove any theory. No
theory can be true, that can be reduced to an absurdity.
Accepting his theory, we reach the further conclusion, we
repeat, of Israelitish, as well as Gentile reprobation. Will

The Argument. 147
the gentleman not concede the force of these logical deduc
tions from his premises?
R. — Certainly, were it not that the Israelites were God's
elect, and were delivered to do these abominations. My
opponent must remember that they are a privileged people;
while the Gentiles are not.
P. — Your theory sets aside all of the claims of God, and
the teachings of your prophets, as I could easily shew; and
as you know. There is no such scripture teaching as im
munity in sinning by any one. And this the Rabbi must
concede. R. — There is no scripture teaching immunity in sinning,
save by the Jews only. Their election by decree, makes
their sinning in any and all ways a matter of mere pleasure
with them. How could any sin affect the election by de
cree of any one? Elected, their sins cannot prejudice their
election in any way.
P. — This is monstrous ! The idea of God's punishing the
ignorant Gentile with an infinite wrath, while letting the
Israelite go, though perfectly instructed! What idea can
the Rabbi have of God? But we will waive further notice
of election at this point; and pass on to the notice of the
Rabbi's next position, to-wit:
And 3. The Israelites have ever displayed a most repro
bate mind. This is exhibited not only by their idolatry
and vile lusts, and the violation of all the laws of God ; but
in the zeal that they have displayed in the propagation of
their false and idolatrous systems; and the pleasure they
have ever manifested in seeing others worship their false
gods, and indulge their obscene practices. This last vil
lainy, if there were nothing else, proves their ignorance of
God. Such ignorance was as God ordered. Such being
His appointment, then were the Israelites reprobated. We
have as before simply substituted Israelites for Gentiles.
Does proselyting to heresy and delighting in the success
of the effort, prove reprobacy of mind? If so, then were
the Israelites reprobate in mind; for they have ever mani-

148 The Argument.
fested untiring zeal in propagating idolatry, and have glo
ried in seeing others follow their example. Is not this so?
Have they not compassed sea and land to make one prose
lyte? And when he was made, did they not proceed to
make him even two-fold more the child of the devil than
themselves? Who displayed more of this hellish zeal for
idolatry than (a Jeroboam? an Ahab? a >Man]asseh? all
Israelitish princes. Who among the nations ever forsook
and forgot their false gods ? Not one. Can this be said of
Israel? Surely not. They served and worshiped all the
gods of the heathen; but they forsook and forgot their
own God — the God of Israel. What nation ever equalled
the Israelites in their idolatrous zeal? The account is, that
they did worse than the heathen. (Ezek. 5.) From Othniel
to Samuel, did they shew a persistent, untiring zeal in
spreading a knowledge of all the false gods then known.
They trained up their children to idolatrous practices, and
idolatrous worshiping. So zealous in idolatry did they be
come, that they worshiped the false gods of all the nations
round about them. They became mad on their idols.
This, we are told, time and. again, by their prophets. They
were ever adding to their stock of gods. They were labor
ing to banish all idea of the true God from the earth. And
as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God
gave them over to a reprobate mind. Hence, the record
as to Israel at the time of the deportation. "And they
rejected His statutes, and His covenant that he made with
their fathers, and His testimonies which He testified against
them; and they followed vanity, and became vain; and went
after the heathen that were round about them, concerning
whom the Lord had charged them not to do like them. And
they left all the commandments of the Lord their God, and
made them molten images, even two calves, and made a
grove, and worshiped all the host of heaven, and served
Baal." (II Kings 17:15-16.)
If we take up the history of Judah from the deportation
of the ten tribes, till her captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, it

The Argument. 149
teaches the same thing. We read of Mannasseh: "And
Mannasseh seduced them to do more evil than did the
nations whom the Lord destroyed before the children of
Israel." (II Kings 21:9.) He even "set up an image of
the grove, that he had made in the house, of which the Lord
said to David, and to Solomon his son, In this house and
in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes oi
Israel, will I put my name forever." (II Kings 21:7.) The
proof is positive that the whole Israelitish nation, save a
bare remnant, were wicked beyond the Gentiles round
about. That they induced the nations about them to do
worse than they had done. Now, such being the undoubted
history, then did they display the greatest reprobacy of
mind. According to the Rabbi's holding, the reprobate
mind, proved their ignorance of God. And such ignorance
being of divine appointment, then God decreed Jewish rep
robation. Such is the logical conclusion, from the Eabbi's
position. But is it true that such a reprobate mind proves ignor
ance of God? Certainly not. The Israelites displayed this
reprobate mind in all the ages from Moses to their cap
tivity by the King of Babylon; and that, though they had
God's laws, God's prophets, and God's priests for instructors.
If the Eabbi's holding be true, it proves not only Jewish
reprobation; but that they had not the Scriptures. Bis
holding cannot be true, unless his scriptures are false. To
be true, he is forced to repudiate his scriptures, which
teach that Israel pursued that course in spite of instruction
by the sword, by famine, by pestilence and judgments the
most appalling. Can my opponent still hold to a thing that
involves such logical sequences? When it reprobates "Israel
and repudiates God's word? When it assails God's charac
ter and impeaches His veracity ? When, to be true, it makes
God, and not the Israelites, responsible for their depravity?
E. — My opponent will hot see, it seems, that Israel were
the elect; and as such, were given over to do these things —
allowed to do them.

150 The Argument.
P. — We shall attend to this claim of Jewish impunity la
ter on. We will now, as the gentleman makes no argument
in reply, proceed to notice his last position as to Gentile
reprobacy, viz:
And the Israelites were ignorant of God. This is shown by
their want of instruction in the government of God — in the
principles of His government. Had they known that it was
the course of God to punish the evil and reward the good,
they would not have thus dared the divine displeasure — the
wrath of God — the penalty of death. People apprised of
the danger of offending God, never proceed to such depths
of crime and depravity. This ignorance was of divine or
dering. Therefore, the conclusion: He designed them for
damnation. We have again simply substituted Israelite for Gentile.
The Rabbi's theory being true, then will it follow, that his
own people were ignorant of the principles of God's govern
ment. And, upon his hypothesis, were reprobated. But
who does - not know that they were not ignorant? Were they
not instructed as to what was God's course to the righteous?
Were they ignorant of his course towards the ungodly,
whether nations or individuals? Could not Israel learn the
principles of God's government from His course towards
an Abraham and all the righteous till this day? Could they
not learn those principles from His course towards the un
godly in all the ages? The Eabbi's holding being again
false, so must his conclusion again be. Thou art, therefore,
inexcusable, 0 Eabbi, for Gentile condemnation; for wherein
thou condemnest him, thou condemnest thyself; for thou
that condemnest, doeth the same things.
But there is one objection based on the character of God,
that thought noticed, I wish to notice further. It is this:
The Eabbi's theory makes God to reprobate the Gentile
without cause. Is this true?
E. — It is assuredly. God was pleased to make the Gen
tile world — the great mass — for no other purpose than their
damnation. In the exercise of His sovereign authority, and

The Argument. 151
because it was His will, He made him for no other purpose
than his damnation.
P. — Such has been the gentleman's position oft repeated.
We cannot suffer such a reflection upon God's character to go
nuchallenged, and unexposed. We have already alluded to
the fact that God condemned the Gentile for cause. Let us
stress this point.
Take the antediluvians. Was their condemnation with
out cause? Does not God say that. "Every imagination af
man's heart is evil and that continually." Does He not say
the earth is filled with violence? (Gen. 6.) Does He not
expressly declare that it was for their sins that He destroyed
them? R. — The gentleman will remember that we are discussing
the course of God towards the Gentiles from and after the
days of Abraham. The classification of the race began in
Abraham's day.
P. — Very well. We will eome to the days after the Abra
hamic covenant. Take "the cities of the plain." God
stormed upon them with devouring fires and brimstone.
Wherefore? "Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is
great, and because their sin is very grievous," is the record.
(Gen. 18:20.) Again. Take the ease of Pharaoh and the
Egyptians in Moses' day. God showed the utmost long-
suffering and forbearance in dealing with that rebellious,
king and his people. Time and again did He call upon
Pharaoh to let His people go, that they might serve Him.
This command, though repeated no less than ten times, was
scornfully disobeyed. God only destroyed that king and
his army when they had filled up the cup of their iniquity.
He, with his army, were in the most high-handed and dar
ing rebellion when they were overtaken with that fearful
overthrow that swept them into one common grave.
Again. The destruction of the Canaanitish nations by
Israel, at the command of God, bears upon this point, with
overwhelming weight. It is God that testifies: "And the
land is defiled ; therefore, do I visit the iniquity thereof upon

152 The Argument.
it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants."
(Deut. 18:12; Levit. 18:25; 20:23.)
We notice next the prophets. We begin with Isaiah. He
tells us of fearful judgments on Assyria. (Isaiah 10:7-19;
21; 31:8, 9; 37:13.) He foretells the utter destruction of
Babylon; and expressly tells us as in the case of the Assy
rians, that the overthrow was occasioned by their fearful
sinfulness. He also predicts the reprobacy and destruction
of all save a remnant of the inhabitants of Damascus, Egypt,
Ephraim, Ethiopia, Edom, and of Tyre, for their sins.
(Isaiah 15:19:27; 21; 34:6, etc.; 24:5.) We search the
entire prophecy, for a single exception to reprobacy without
cause — grievous cause. But, as we have seen, Isaiah de
clares: "The whole earth is defiled under its inhabitants;
because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordin
ance, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore, hath the
curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are
desolate; therefore, the inhabitants of the earth are burned,
and few left." (Isaiah 24:5j 6.) Dozens of quotations
might easily be made from this prophet bearing on the
point of Gentile reprobacy for cause. (Consult Isaiah 26:
21; 28:22; 34:2.)
But Jeremiah. He tells of fearful judgments on the
Gentiles — on the King of Babylon and his army — on Egypt
— on Philistia — on Moab — on the Ammonites, Edom, Da
mascus, Kedar, Hlazor, and Elam. (Consult Jer. 12:17;
36:31; 25:12; 51:52; 44:30; 47:1-7; 48:1-7; 49:1-38.)
He further declares: "All sinners of the earth — all nations
shall be punished for their sins." (Jer. 25:15-35.)
Hear Ezekiel. He saith: "The Ammonites were destroyed
for their sins." (Ezek. 21:28.) From chapter twenty-
fifth to chapter thirty-second, the prophet declares God's
judgments on Sier, Edom, Ammon, Moab, Philistia, for
assisting and rejoicing in the fearful punishment of the
Jews. He declares that Tyrus, Sidon, Egypt, Assyria, Elam
and Meshack, and Tubal are, one and all, uneircumcised —

The Argument. 153
wicked; and that fearful judgments await them. In chapter
thirty-fifth, he tells us, that Mt. Sier is destroyed for hatred
of Israel. Gog and Magog are mentioned as other nations
upon whom God would pour out the vials of His wrath for
cause. (Ezek. 39.)
What saith Joel? He declareth the judgments of God
on the enemies of his people, because of their hatred of
them; and because they rejoiced at the calamities that over
took the Jews. (Joel 3:1-17.)
And Amos? He declares God's judgments on the Gen
tiles for sin. (Am. 1:3-15.)
And Obadiah ? He sets forth the iniquities of the Edom-
ites; and their judgment in consequence. (Obad. 1-14.)
He foretells as near at hand the day, wherein God will judge
the heathen. He declares that their sin and their evil do
ings shall return upon their own heads. (Obad. 15.)
And Nahum? This prophet tells of the destruction of
Nineveh, and its causes. (Nah. 2:13.)
And Habakkuk? He foretells the destruction of the
Chaldeans, stating that it was for their grievous sins; and
their unpardonable cruelty to the Jewish captives. (Hab.
2:8-20.) And Zephaniah? He declares God's judgments against
Philistia, Moab, Ammon, Ethiopia, and Syria for their great
sins. (Zeph. 2.)
And Zechariah declares that the destroyers of the Jews
should be visited with the damning wrath of God.
This lengthy review of Moses and the Prophets fails to
show a single case of Gentile punishment without cause.
There is no such case on record in all the ages from Adam
to the Advent. The prophecies referred to constitute a
summary of God's dealings with Gentile nations. There is

154 The Argument.
not a case, we repeat, where the causes for the judgment
are not assigned. The scriptures teach that God has ever
observed the principles of his government; that of visiting
with awful judgment the wicked. Now who sent the pro
phets? God. Then as the prophets were merely His mes
sengers, the prophecies were those of God — they are the
very words of God Himself. He it is, therefore, that de
clares, that the Gentiles ever had His laws, and were pun
ished only when they had knowingly violated them. Hence,
upon the testimony of God, who knew whereof He affirmed,
do we hold that the Rabbi's theory of Gentile reprobacy
without cause is false.
In our next lecture, we will examine the Rabbi's indirect
evidence of Jewish election.

CHAPTER VII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in righteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans II.
P. — Thus far, we have shown that the Rabbi's theory as
to Gentile reprobacy is false. For taking the positions as
sumed by him, we have proven the reprobation of the Jew
in the same way that he proposed to evidence that of the
Gentile. His theory being true, there is no escape from the
logical conclusion reached. We have shown, in a word,
that while the Jew was condemning the Gentile for every
iniquity, in creed and practice, he was doing the same, and
worse. Now we lay down this as a rule that needs not to
be proven: That to condemn another and do the same
things, is to condemn the party condemning. What is WTong
in one man must be equally so in another. My opponent,
like all Jews, unhesitatingly condemns the Gentile; and
justifies God in His course towards them. He has held it
to have been right in God to condemn and punish the
Gentile world in the fearful ways we have noticed, and that,
though according to his theory, God has left the Gentiles
in Hadean darkness as to His existence, character, laws,
and the principles of His government. He has persistently
claimed that the Jews were the elect; and hence, privileged
to do as they please — that God permitted them to do these
things. Before passing to an examination of this election claim
and its privileges — before examining the evidence upon
which he claims to base such a monstrous theory, I would
like that the Rabbi explain, for the benefit of our hearers,
how he reconciles his denunciation of the Gentiles in such

156 The Argument.
unmeasured terms for their wickedness, while the Jews,
himself included, are doing, and have been doing in all the
ages from Abraham to the present, the very same things
that they condemn the Gentiles for doing?
R- — There is not the slightest inconsistency in a Jew's
holding the Gentile in supreme contempt, and denouncing
him as a dog for his wickedness, while he is, or may have
been doing the same things. Will the gentleman have me
to explain again and again? Can he not see, that, as the
Jews are the elect people of God, they are a privileged class,
and may do what another class of people cannot do, seeing
they are not the elect ?
P. — Could naything be more monstrous than such a
theory? What! condemn the Gentiles, whom you say sin
through ignorance; and hold that you, who have God's laws
in hand — laws condemning all wickedness, are not incon
sistent though violating those laws, all and singular? Con
demn others, and do the same things! What idea can the
gentleman have of consistency? And what idea can he have
of God? Think, if you please, of God's arrogating perfec
tion infinite, and damning the ignorant ( ?) Gentile for a
violation of his laws, while saving those perfectly instructed
in those laws ! though as criminal for their violation as the
condemned Gentile! Punishing the ignorant, and, there
fore, innocent, while saving the instructed, and they as
criminal! And that the act of a God claiming infinite
justice! To condemn others and do the same, is certainly
to condemn thyself, Rabbi. Is it not taught in your scrip
tures that to condemn others and do the same things is to
condemn one's self?
R. — We hold that a Jew does not condemn himself
though he condemns the Gentile, and does precisely the
same things. God elected the Jews unconditionally. They
have, therefore, a carte blank to sin; and at will. God does
not hold them as- sinners.
P. — We denounce such a position as unscriptural. Does
my opponent not remember David's anger upon hearing

The Argument. 157
Nathan's parable of the rich man, who, to furnish a feast
for his guest, sent and took, by violence, the only lamb of
a poor neighbor, and that when he had flocks in number?
Has he forgotten how David condemned to death the man
that had so acted? Under what circumstances? Why,
when he himself was guilty of just such an outrage, only a
thousand times worse, in taking Bathsheba to wife, and
murdering her husband. Now what said Nathan after
hearing the king? "Thou art the man." The moral of the
parable is, that those who condemn others and do the same
things, or worse, condemn themselves. Now the gentleman
will not deny that David was one of his elect. When arraigned
by Nathan did he plead his election? Did he say to the
prophet, "I have a perfect right to do as I did, I being
God's elect and His chosen king?" Nay verily. He offered
no such plea. His language was, "I have sinned against
the Lord." So it seems that David held no such theory as
my opponent and his friends. He admitted that he was a
sinner, and justified God in the fearful judgment that the
prophet proceeded to pronounce against him. In the light
of this chapter in David's history, my friend, in condemn
ing the Gentiles for their ungodliness, condemns himself as
a sinner. His plea of indulgence, he being the elect, is
utterly without scripture warrant — is in direct antagonism
with its plainest teaching.
R. — God, in punishing the Gentile, aye, in damning him,
is perfectly just. He made him for that purpose. He made
the Jew with no other design than his salvation. He elected
to save the Jew, while damning the Gentile. It was His
sovereign will and pleasure to do so.
P. — As to the justice of God in punishing the Gentile for
his wickedness, we are perfectly agreed. We are sure that
God's fearful and appalling judgments were according to
truth — against such violators of His laws — against those
who commit such crimes, as we have already noticed. But
0, Rabbi, we fail to see how God can make it appear that
He is an infinitely just God, if, as you claim, He permits the

158 The Argument.
Jew, though doing the same things, to go unwhipped of
justice. Where is the justice in punishing one violator of
His laws, while letting a worse criminal go without chas
tisement? Justice makes no such discrimination. Your
claim that God elected you Jews unconditionally to salva
tion, must be repudiated; for it cannot be harmonized with
the justice and veracity of God. If God be, as you allow,
an infinitely just Being, you need not think that you, who
condemn others and do the same things, shall escape the
judgment of God. God must punish all violators of His
laws, without distinction, if He would respect His claim of
moral perfection.
R. — But we are God's elect. We appeal to God's course
towards Israel, in all the past, since Abraham's day. He
has ever exhibited the greatest forbearance, , mercy, and
love. He has heaped blessings upon them with unsparing
hands; and that, too, when Israel were, for the most part, a
most wicked and rebellious people. This shows that Israel
has been delivered to do all abominations with impunity.
Being the elect of God, he is not regarded by God as a sin
ner. P. — What a monstrous theory! Yoii allow, 0 Rabbi,
that God has been especially gracious and long suffering in
His dealing with the Jews. You plead His goodness under
such circumstances as licensing them to sin. Was there
ever such a perversion of the goodness of God ? Think of it.
Because God has ever shown the Jews the greatest mercy — be
cause He has borne long with them in their wickedness — be
cause He has blessed them, though rebellious — to conclude
that God intended them to understand that He had granted
them a liscense to all criminality, is absurdly ridiculous, in
view of the fact that God everywhere denounces the fiercest
wrath against the transgressors of His laws. To so conclude
is to defeat the very end God had in view in exhibiting His
mercy and forbearance. To so act is to despise the riches
of His goodness, and long-suffering and forbearance. God's
mercy, forbearance and long-sufferance were with the design

The Argument. 159
of leading the Jews to repentance — to godly sorrow. Will
you close your eyes to the teaching of your prophets ? With
out dissent do they declare that God, in heaping blessings
on the ungodly, does so, that they, won by His goodness and
mercy, may become ashamed of their sinful course and
repent of their wickedness. Hear the prophet: "And many
times didst Thou deliver them (Jews) according to Thy
mercies; and testifiedst against them, that Thou mightest
bring them again under Thy law; yet they dealt proudly,
and hearkened not unto Thy commandments, but sinned
against Thy judgments (which if a man do, he shall live in
them) ; and withdrew the shoulder, and hardened their
necks and would not hear." (Neh. 9.) Here the prophet
tells us that God designed by His mercies "to bring them
again under His law" — to lead them to repentance. What
a monstrous theory! It perverts God's mercy and love, His
longsuffering and forbearance into a license to crime ! Aye,
more. It causes the sinner to harden his heart — to refrain
from repentance, thereby treasuring up unto himself wrath
against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God. So far from the goodness and mercy of
God being designed to teach Jewish election, it was designed
to induce repentance. ,
Nor is this all. Unconditional Jewish election antagon
izes the teachings of God's word as to the Judgment day.
We read: "For the work of man shall he render unto him,
and cause every man to find according to his deeds." (Job
34.) David saith: "Also, unto Thee, 0 Lord, belongeth
mercy; for Thou renderest to every man according to his
works." (Ps. 62.) Solomon asks: "And shall He not ren
der to every man according to his work?" (Prov. 24.) "I,
the Lord, search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every
man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of
his doings." (Jer. 17.) We have quoted only a few of many
scriptures that teach the principle that God will be governed
by on the Day of Judgment. We have quoted from Job,
David, Solomon and Jeremiah. Do they teach that God

160 The Argument.
will pursue one course towards the Gentile and another to
the Jew? Do they teach that God will judge, condemn —
every Gentile regardless of what his life has been, however
uprightly he may have acted; and permit every Jew to go
scott free, it matters not how corrupt he has been? Cer
tainly not. The language is that "he will render to every
man according to his deeds."
E. — Those scriptures refer to Gentiles. They are all
wicked. God simply means to teach that He will damn
every Gentile who is not a Jew constructively. They do not
refer to Israelities. Elect, their deeds ean not affect their
salvation. P. — Is the gentleman so ignorant of his scriptures ? Hear
your prophets, my friend : "Yet we say, the way of the Lord
is not equal. 0 ye house of Israel, I will punish you, every
one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Eepent and
turn yourselves from all your trangressions ; so iniquity
shall not be your ruin. Cast away from you all your trans
gressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a
new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, 0 house of
Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that
dieth, saith the Lord God; wherefore, turn yourselves and
live ye." (Ezek. 18.) This quotation shows, if anything,
that God had especial reference to Jews. They show that
unconditional Jewish election is positively condemned by
David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others. Nothing
can be plainer than, if God renders to every man according
to his deeds, that he will punish Jew and Gentile alike, if
they violate His laws. The exhortation of God, just quoted,
shows that all Jews who do not repent of their iniquity shall
be damned. There is no other meaning to be attached to it.
My hearers will see that the scriptures quoted by us harmon
ize with the position taken by us, that salvation is condi
tional, and that for every man. They will, also, see that
they are in direct conflict with the Eabbi's position. Noth
ing can be more evident than that God will punish Jew and
Gentile alike, if wicked; and reward both alike, if religious.

The Argument. 161
And this course God must pursue. We say must. For what
does God claim? To be no respecter of persons. So the
Scriptures teach. Elihu asks: "Is it fit to say to a king
thou art wicked? And to princes, ye are ungodly? How
much less to him (God) that accepteth not the person of
princes, nor regardeth the rich more than the poor? For
they are all the work of His hands." (Job 34.) Moses
saith .1, "For the Lord your God is a God of Gods, and Lord
of Lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which re
gardeth not persons, nor taketh reward." (Deut. 10.) Je-
hoshaphat, king of Judah, saith to the Judges : "Wherefore
now, let the fear of the Lord be upon you; take heed, and
do it; for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor
respect of persons, nor taking of gifts." (II Chronicles
19.) Are these authorities to be relied on? Will my oppo
nent dare call them in question? He will not. What then?
Why, if God is no respecter of persons, then must the theory
of unconditional Jewish election to salvation be scouted as
stark heresy. Its foundation then is, in a word, that God is
a respecter of persons. But, if God be no respecter of per
sons, then must He punish all ungodly of whatever name or
nation; and then must He reward all righteous alike. This
Scripture again teaches conditional salvation. In other-
words, it teaches Christianity and repudiates Judaism.
But before closing my remarks, let us pause and inquire,
What is meant by the Scriptures when they declare that:
"God will render to every man according to his deeds?"'
Certainly this. God will render to every man, Jew or Gen
tile, who patiently continues in well doing — every man who
seeks for glory, honor, and immortality, eternal life; and
will confer honor, glory and peace, with eternal life, on every
man that worketh good. While to him that is contentious,
and does not obey the truth, but unrighteousness — to every
man that doeth evil, He will render anguish, tribulations,
and eternal wrath. Such is the clear sense of the passage.
It will be observed that it lays the axe to the root of Juda-
6

162 The Argument.
ism — mines to its foundation stones, the heresy that the
Jews are the unconditionally elected of God.
If, therefore, the Scriptures be true, and the claims of
Cod are to be conceded, there is no escaping the conclusion
that as many as have sinned without law — not having the
^written law — those who have had the laws of God written
on their hearts — the Gentiles — shall perish, be damned, they
having had, as we have seen, ample revelations to guide
them in the way of righteousness. While, as many as have
.sinned having the written law — the Jews — shall be judged
by the law — held to an awful accountability for its violation
— be damned — in the day when God shall judge the secrets
of men by Jesus Christ according to my Gospel.
E. — Though the gentleman takes strong ground against
the doctrine of Jewish election by decree; and, as must be
¦conceded, with some show of scripture support, we have other
and stronger reasons for holding its scripturality. To re
state our position. All Israelites are God's chosen people.
In the exercise of His sovereign will, He elected Abraham
and his descendants — actual and constructive — as His peo
ple. Having elected them, it was His pleasure to decree
them blessing here and salvation hereafter, without condi
tions of any kind. That this position is the correct one, we
plead the following fact, among others yet to be adduced in
proof :
He made Abraham and his descendants a repository for
His oracles. In so doing, God distinguished him and others
above all the nations of earth. It was the greatest honor
that He ever conferred on the race; Never before, that we
have any record of, did God give His oracles in charge to
man. Amid the thunders of Sinai, He again, and in the
most solemn manner, gave His oracles to Abraham's de
scendants, and to them only. Moses declared that God never
pursued such a course with any people before. From the
time of the Horeb covenant until now, God has in all the
ages raised up prophets, and sent them to Israel alone, with
the design of keeping them informed as to HEs oracles. As

The Argument. 163
He has pursued this course with no other nation on earth, we
claim that the very fact that the Jews have had His oracles in
their possession in all the ages from Abraham's day, to the
exclusion of all other nations, is itself proof of the strongest
and most conclusive character, that the Jews are His elect
people. Such a course persisted in for two thousand five
hundred years, is certainly proof of the strongest character
of Jewish election.
P. — We have already proven to a demonstration, that the-
Gentiles were given the laws of God — have ever had them in
possession. If the bare possession of those laws evidences
election, then must the Gentiles, also, be held to be the
elect of God. As the Gentiles were given the same laws,
God so witnessing, we are at a loss to see what ground
Jews have for claiming to be the elect, when the same laws
were given in charge to Gentiles. How does the gift of
the same laws to Gentiles and Jews show that God had
elected the Jews and not the Gentiles? My friend has time
and again demanded that we give Biblical proof of our
positions. He can not, therefore, complain, if we refuse to
take his assertions without proof. Where is there a prophet
that teaches that God, in giving His oracles in charge to
Abraham and his descendants, designed to show, that, by
so doing, they were His elect people? There is not one. I
demand that he give us his authority. His construing God's
act, in making the Jews a repository for His oracles, as
evidencing Jewish election and the positive proof that He,
by so doing, intended so to teach, are essentially dissimilar.
We must again remind the Eabbi that assertion and proof
are, by no means, the same.
So far from it, his scriptures teach, that it is not the mere
fact that the Israelites have ever had God's laws in posses-
son, that entitles them to consider themselves God's people;
but their rigid observance. Is this position correct? In
proof, we appeal to the prophets: "Heaken, 0 Israel unto
the statutes, and unto the judgments which I teach you,
to do them, that ye may live." (Deut. 4.) "Cursed is the

164 The Argument.
man that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do
them." (Deut. 27.) "But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt
not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God to observe
to do all His commandments and statutes, which I command
thee this day; that all these curses shall eome upon thee and
overtake thee." (Deut. 28.) David saith: "Thus hast re
buked the proud that are cursed, which do err from Thy
commandments; Thou has trodden down all them which do
err from Thy statutes." (Ps. 119.)
If we turn to the first thirteen chapters of the prophecy
of Isaiah, we see that the Israelites were destroyed till only
a remnant remained. Wherefore? The prophet expressly
declares that it was because they had violated God's laws.
The burden of the entire prophecy is, that the doers of the
law, and not the hearers are just before God.
We read in Jeremiah, the Jews speaking: "We are wise,
and the law of God is with us." Here is the very claim set
up by my friend, the Eabbi. They prided themselves on
having the laws of God. But what reply does the prophet
make? "Lo, certainly, in vain made he it; the pen of the
Scribes is in vain. Have the wise men been ashamed ? They
are destroyed and taken; lo, they have rejected the word
of the Lord; therefore, will God consume them." (Jer. 8.)
Speaking through Ezekiel, God saith: "I gave them (the
Jews) statutes and judgments, which if a man do he shall
live in them." (Ezek. 20.) "They have my words and will
not do them, and shall they be my people?" (Ezek. 33.)
"But they rebelled against Me in the wilderness ; they walked
not in My statutes, and despised My judgments, which,
if a man do, he shall live in them. Then I said, I will pour
out My fury upon them, to consume them." (Ezek; 20.)
"Say unto them, 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, turn ye from your evil
-ways; for why will ye die, 0 house of Israel." (Ezek. 33.)
"Hear the word of the Lord, ye children of Israel; for the
Lord hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land,

The Argument. . 165
'because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God
in the land. By swearing, and lying, and killing, and steal
ing, and committing adultery they break out and blood
toucheth blood. Therefore shall the land mourn, and every
one that dwelleth therein shall languish," etc. (Hos. 4.)
We need not multply scriptures. All its writers teach,
¦that the man that observes the laws of God is one of His
elect. So then it is not he that hath the laws of God; but
he that observes them, that He regards as one of His peo
ple. They show, we repeat, that the bare possession of Hia
laws constituted no claim whatever to be His people; but
their observances gave the right to claim such distinction.
They show further, that God destroyed the Jews in all the
ages past, giving as a reason that they had violated all of
His laws. How my opponent, with Moses and the prophets
in hand, claims that the possession of God's oracles tokens
Jewish election, we are at a loss to see. They declare in
thunder tones, the exast opposite. They show to a demon-
station that election is conditional, dependent on obedience in
¦all things. In showing that, they again teach the Christian
religion. This my opponent will admit.
Nor Jews alone. God has ever required that the Gentiles
he obedient, as we have already remarked, if they would be
His elect — if they would be saved in the great Day of wrath.
And this the Gentiles have understood. They have not had,
as we have admitted, God's laws written on stone or parch
ment; but they have had them written on their hearts, and
been given a conscience to accuse when wicked, and approve
¦when righteous. We repeat. They have ever understood
that God required men to observe His laws — to be holy in
thought, word and deed. The evidence that they have ever
to understood, is found in the fact that there have been, in
¦every age, men among the heathen, who, though without the
letter of the law, have done what the law required — have ob
served the things contained in the law ; thereby showing, that
they not only had the spirit of the law written in their
hearts, but were fully informed that it was not the hearer but

166 The Argument.
the doer of the law, that God held to be His elect people.
From the holy lives led by some Gentiles, it is evident that.
God has instructed all men alike — has taught that election
was conditional, dependent on perfect holiness. The fact
that God had never given the Gentiles the letter of the laws,
constituted no excuse for their sinful lives. This they under
stood. Having not the letter of the law, they knew would
not prevent their punishment, if they violated it. With the
laws of God written on the heart, each Gentile was a law unto
himself. He needed no further guide than the spirit of
God's law in his heart, with a conscience directed by the Holy
Spirit, to approve for observance, or reprove for disobedience.
As then the Gentile has ever had the laws of God as well aa
the Jews; and as their holy lives prove, were fully informed,
as were the Jews, that the observance of those laws was an
indispensable condition to acceptance by God as his elect
people, we can not see, we contend, where the Eabbi has any
ground to base his elective claim. Imposing the same
laws on all nations, and instructing all alike as to the neces
sity of their observance, surely does not warrant any one of
the nations to claim that it is the elect, to the exclusion of all
the others.
E. — Our scriptures teach that God in parcelling out the
earth among the nations, did so with a view to further hon
oring His people — with a view to making them the Pharos
of the world. That is to say, he designed them as a light to
the Gentiles ; and hence he placed Israel in the centre of the
then known earth. As we have all along admitted, there was
a part of the Gentiles that God was pleased to allow to be
come Abraham's descendants upon condition that they would
consent to be Judaized. That the Gentiles be given this op
portunity, God arranged as above noticed. What another
honor! What a privilege to be set apart to the work of
guide to the blind, a light to those that are in darkness, an
instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes ! In setting the
Jews apart to this grand work of the world's evangelization,

The Argument. 167
we have another distinguishing mark of their election; and,
withal, of the heresy of the Christian system.
P. — That the Jews were set apart to the very work claimed
by the Eabbi, we fully admit. Their central location wit-
nesseth that God designed them as the Pharos of the world,
as he holds. But alas! their ungodliness has operated to
render their commission to this noble work, in vain. Behold,
0 Eabbi, thou art called a Jew, and resteth in the law; and
makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will, and approv-
est the things that are more excellent, being instructed out
of the law ; and you boast that you are a guide to the blind,
a light to them which are in darkness ; and you pride yourself
on being set apart to the grand, mark of the. world's evangeli
zation, claiming, withal, that the Jews have, in the law, the
keys of knowledge and truth. Such is your claim and boast ;
and that of all Jews. Sent to teach others, how is it that
you do not teach yourselves? Dare you preach to Gentiles
that they must not steal, while you yourselves practice theft?
Will you denounce adultery in them, and set them the exam
ple of adultery? Will you profess to have the profoundest
hatred and contempt for idolatry in them, while you your
selves are guilty of sacrilege? You boast yourselves in the
possession of God's laws. Do you not in these wholesale vio
lations dishonor God ? Do you claim to be the people of God
while living in notorious violation of all His laws? Your
course in teaching one thing and doing another — condemning
the Gentiles for what you yourselves do — has caused them to
blaspheme the name of God. And is it to be wondered at?
They can see no justice in God's giving you Jews His writ
ten laws and permitting you to violate them with impunity,
while He is pouring out the vials of His wrath upon them,
and that, too, when they have never been given the letter
of His laws. Indignant (and who would not be, if such were
true?) at God's pursuing such a course, they have come to
conceive a perfect disgust for God. Called to the work of
the world's evangelization, you have acted in such a way as to
defeat, we repeat, the design of your appointment. Instead of

168 The Argument.
reforming the world, you have so acted as to harden them in
sin; aye, made the nations more ungodly than they would
otherwise have been. Your conduct having defeated the de
signs of your appointment, makes void that appointment.
To base your claim to election on your appointment is, there
fore, to base it on nothing, you having by your course made
void your commission to that work.
R. — God has not revoked our commission. The gifts and
calling of God are without change.
P. — That you are mistaken, we appeal to the word of God.
We read : "Thus saith the Lord God : This is Jerusalem. I
have set it in the midst of the nations, and countries that are
around about her. And she hath changed My judgments
into wickedness more than the nations, and My statutes more
than the countries that are round about her; for they have
refused My statutes and My judgments, and have not walked
in them. Therefore, thus saith the Lord God: Behold I,
even I, am against thee; and will execute judgments in the-
midst of thee in the sight of the nations. I will do in thee
that which I have not done, because of all thine abominations.
Therefore, the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee,.
and the sons shall eat the fathers; and I will execute judg
ments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter
unto all winds. A third part of thee shall die with the pesti
lence, and with famine shall they be consumed in the midst
of thee; and a third part shall fall with the sword round
about thee; and I will scatter a third part unto all the
winds, and I will draw out a sword after them, etc." (Ezek.
5.) This scripture is proof positive that the Jews have for
feited their commission. My opponent will not fail to see
that this support to his theory is also removed.

CHAPTER VIII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
¦all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans II. (Continued.)
E. — Our next proof of unconditional Jewish election is
based on the rite of circumcision in the flesh. The scrip
tures teach that God imposed this rite on the descendants of
Abraham only. Time and again did He enjoin the observ
ance of this rite on Israel, declaring: "And the uncircum-
cised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circum
cised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath
broken My covenant." (Gen. 17.) Who are not familiar
with the scene at the inn? The account is that as Moses
was on his way back to Egypt, God met him in the inn, and
Bought to slay him. (Ex. 4.) Wherefore? Evidently be
cause Moses, yielding to the wishes of Zipporah, his wife,
had neglected to circumcise his son. Going 'on the mission
of Israelitish redemption, Moses must set the example of
observing the laws of God. Forty years afterwards, God re
quired Joshua to circumcise all the males. It had been neg
lected while they journeyed in the wilderness. (Josh. 5.)
We need not particularize. In every age, has God insisted
on the observance of this rite by the Israelites. This mark
in the flesh is an important link in the chain of evidence
that establishes alike Gentile reprobacy and Jewish election.
Why, we ask, did God limit circumcision to Abraham's de
scendants? Why did he draw a distinct line between Israel
and the Gentiles? There can be but one reason assigned.
He designed by this mark in the flesh to teach Jewish elec
tion. By this mark would Jews and Gentiles be taught, that
Abraham's descendants were alone the people of God.

170 The Argument.
P. — My opponent's position is: 1. Circumcision was not
imposed on the Gentiles, and therefore they were reproba
ted by God; 2. It was imposed on the Jews; and, therefore,
they were elected by God. That is to say, because the Gen
tiles were not required to receive this mark in the flesh, and
the Jews were, he concludes that God designed to teach
Gentile reprobacy and Jewish election. This is a most as
tonishing conclusion from such premises. In reply, we re
mark that my opponent is unscriptural in both his premises-
and his conclusions. In taking such positions, he only ad
vertises his ignorance of Moses and the Prophets — the very
Scriptures upon which he claims to rely.
That his position is unsound, we will now proceed to
demonstrate. And 1. There was no such rite from Adam to Abraham.
If the nonimposition of the rite on the Gentiles evidenced
their reprobation, then was the entire race reprobated for
twenty-two centuries. Does he not know that God had his
elect people in all those ages? If Gentiles were God's elect
people in all those ages, without being circumcised^ then, as
God is immutable, how could the want of circumcision prej
udice their being regarded as His people, in or after, the
days of Abraham, in all the ages to the present? If God
did not make circumcision in the flesh, that is to say, to-
distinguish his elect before Abraham's day, then, how could
He have done it at any time therafter, without divesting
himself of His attribute and impeaching His veracity? He
certainly did not legislate in a way that would disprove His
claim, and falsify His word. There is not a word in all the
scriptures that intimates, even, that one, to be a child of
God, must be circumcised in the flesh.
And 2. The Eabbi's claim is heretical. For the word of
God teaches that circumcision of the flesh was designed as
the token of a covenant. If it was so intended, then how,
pray, can the gentleman claim that it was designed to mark
the elect? His claim perverts the intention of the rite.

The Argument. 171
R. — We deny that it was so designed. It was not intend
ed as the token of a covenant.
P. — What does the Rabbi's denial amount to? Hear the
word of God: "I am the Almighty God, walk before Me,
and be thou perfect" — adding, after stating the terms of the
covenant — "and it (circumcision in the flesh) shall be a
token of the covenant between you and Me." (Gen. 17.)
Is the gentleman answered? We proceed.
And 3. But the claim of the Eabbi is certainly false.
Circumcision of the flesh was imposed on Gentiles, as much
as on the lineal descendants of Abraham. Here is the rec
ord: "And God said unto Abraham: Thou shalt keep My
covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee, in thy
.generations. This is My covenant which ye shall keep be
tween Me and you, and thy seed after thee: Every man
child among you shall be circumcised; And he that is eight
days old shall be circumcised "among you, every man child
in your generations — he that is born in thy house, or he that
is bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy
•seed." (Gen. 17:9-12.) Here, certainly, we have circum
cision imposed on the Gentiles by express command of
God. We are told that Abraham had three hundred male
¦servants that went with him to the slaughter of the kings.
Some of these servants were bought — some were given him
hy the kings of Egypt and Philistia — others were born of his
servants that he had bought. They were all Gentiles.
Again. In Moses' day, God said to him: "And when a
stranger shall sojourn with thee and will keep the Passover
to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let
him come near and keep it ; and he shall be" as one that is
horn in the land; for no uncircumeised person shall eat
thereof. One law shall be for him that is home born, and
unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." (Ex. 12:4-8.-
49; Numb. 9:14; 15:15; 16, 29.) As, therefore, God re
quired the Gentiles to be circumcised in both the days of
Abraham and Moses, then does it follow that my opponent,
in claiming that God never required the Gentile to be cir-

172 The Argument.
cumcised, holds in conflict with the direct teaching of his.
scriptures. The scriptures being true, what becomes of his-
claim of Jewish election — based on circumcision of the flesh ?
If circumcision be a mark of election, then must the Gen
tiles be of the elect; for it has been shown, that God did
require them to be circumcised. And if Jew and Gentile
be both required to be circumcised, how can there be any
ground for election for Jews any more than for the Gen
tiles? Election means a choice between two or more.
E. — We have all along conceded that there was a certain.
per cent, of the Gentiles that God was pleased should be:
saved, by their becoming constructively Abraham's descend
ants. Of course, these Gentiles were required to be circum
cised, that were numbered with the Israelites. They had to
be, before they were classed as the people of God. We fail
to see any weight in this argument of the gentleman's.
P. — We are not responsible for the gentleman's want of
understanding. He certainly took the ground, that God had
never required the Gentiles to be circumcised. We have
Bhown that he did. And, therefore, we hold, that such
being the case, there could be no ground for his claim of
Jewish election or Gentile reprobacy based on the imposi
tion of the rite. The Rabbi attempts to set aside the point,
made, by claiming that the circumcised Gentiles were in
reality Jews — the elect — they becoming so, when they re
ceived the rite. We were discussing the question as to
whether God had required the Gentiles to be circumcised.
We were not discussing the point as to whether or not one
became of the elect when circumcised. The gentleman, it
will be noticed, made no limitation. He emphatically de
clared that God had never imposed the rite on the Gentiles.
Jlis own answer is an admission that his position is erro
neous. And 4. But the gentleman claims that the Gentile was
reprobated, because he never was required to be circum
cised. His position is still further shown to he false in
this: God makes Gentile reprobacy to have been occasioned

The Argument. t 173
by his wickedness as we have seen. But, if Gentile wicked-
edness — his uncircumcision of heart — be the cause of his
reprobacy, then the fact that he was not circumcised in the
flesh cannot be the cause. This shows again that his theory
as to Gentile reprobacy is not scriptural. Before leaving
this part of the subject, we would like for the Eabbi to an
swer a question. Do you hold that when one is circumcised,
he, by that act, becomes one of the elect?
E. — We hold that the circumcised are the elect, whether
they be Jews or Gentiles.
P. — This we emphatically deny. Abraham had seven
sons besides Isaac — Ishmael and the six sons by his last wife,
Keturah. That they were circumcised is absolutely certain.
Were they counted as the elect?
E. — They were by Gentile women. Strictly speaking,
they were not Abraham's descendants.
P. — I thought the gentleman claimed that all who were
circumcised became, if Gentiles, constructively of Abrahamic
lineage. The gentleman gives up his claim. The fact is
that no such doctrine as he advocates, can be proven — not,
at least, in the family of Abraham. But he claims that
Ishmael and Keturah's sons were, strictly speaking, not
Abraham's descendants, their mothers being Gentile wo
men. Very well. Let us pass on to the family of Isaac.
Esau was circumcised as well as Jacob; and so were his de
scendants. Was not Esau of pure Syrian blood — as pure
as was Isaac's? He certainly was. Was he reckoned among
the elect? Were his descendants so counted? There is but
one answer to these questions ? They were never so accounted.
But the Israelites in Moses' day? A vast multitude died
in the wilderness — all in fact of adult Israel, Joshua and
Caleb excepted. They were destroyed by a series of awful
judgments. Now we are expressly told that all that came
out of Egypt were circumcised. (Josh. 5:4-5.) As they
were put to horrid deaths, they certainly were not reckoned
by God as his elect. Here then we have again positive evi
dence that the circumcised in the flesh were not counted by

174 The Argument.
God as his chosen people. Must not the gentleman's claim
he held to be false?
But again. The great mass of the Israelites in the days
of the Judges, were punished in every way — destroyed most
of them. Were they not circumcised? Were they held
by God as his elect? And how was it in Elijah's day? Oat
of the millions of Israel there were only seven thousand but
what were vile idolaters. They were circumcised. But God
certainly rejected them. His language to the prophet is:
"I have reserved to myself seven thousand that have not
bowed the knee to Baal." If the seven thousand were all
that God reserved, then was the balance not rejected?
Again. Take the ten tribes. They were certainly cir
cumcised: and, as certainly rejected by God. When Judah
was carried into captivity by the king of Babylon, is it not
a fact that the deported were but a bare remnant? What
became of the rest? They were destroyed. Were they not
circumcised? How then can the Eabbi hold that the Gen
tiles were reprobated, giving as a reason, they were never re
quired to be circumcised? If the circumcised Jews were
reprobated, then is it certain that the Gentiles were not rep
robated, because they were never required to be circumcised.
It is plain that the gentleman's theory is "as baseless as the
fabric of a dream."
And 5. But what was the obligation of circumcision?
It was to live holy — to do the whole law. My opponent and
those who endorse his theory live notoriously ungodly lives.
This being the case, they are estopped from pleading it as a
ground of election. For circumcision profiteth, if thou
keep the law; but, if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir
cumcision is made uncircumcision — you are just as though
you had never been circumcised.
E. — This I deny. Once circumcised, the party is ever
thereafter one of God's elect.
P. — Let God's word decide. We have shown that the
Jews in the wilderness, the Israelites in the days of the
Judges, the ten tribes, and the great mass in the days of

The Argument. 175
Elijah, and at the destruction of Jerusalem by the king of
Babylon — were certainly not regarded by God as his people.
But we have other and positive evidence that bears on this
point. Hear God: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord,
that I will punish those that are circumcised with the uncir
cumeised — Edom and Judah, and Egypt, the children of
Moab, and of Ammon, and all that are in the utmost cor
ners that dwell in the wilderness; for all these nations are
uncircumeised, and all the house of Israel are uncircum
eised in heart." (Jer. 9:26.) Here God himself declares
that the Israelites, though circumcised in flesh, were not
circumcised. Here he affirms that where the circumcised
violate his laws, they, by so doing, become uncircumeised;
and will be destroyed by him though they were circumcised.
He classes all such with the uncircumeised, and declares he
will punish both alike. Then is it evident that the Eabbi's
holding of "Once circumcised, always circumcised" — always
of God's elect — is not true. It will be noticed here that
God, as before remarked, assigns, as a cause of Gentile re
probacy, their wickedness — that they were "uncircumeised
in heart." Here God repudiates the claim of Gentile repro
bacy based on a want of circumcision in the flesh. He makes
it, just what we have argued in another connection, to be
due to his wickedness, depravity, idolatry and other causes.
And further. God declares that he will reprobate all wicked
¦ — the circumcised with the uncircumeised — Jews and Gen
tiles alike. This, also, we have argued. God is just, ho
respecter of persons, and will render to every one according
to his deeds. He, God, further, be it noticed, emphatically
denies that circumcision of the flesh is circumcision— does
not mark those who are his people.
Since then, all circumcised parties, that violate God's
laws, are as though they were never circumcised, it follows,
that the Eabbi and those who endorse his theory are not
circumcised, for they live in utter disregard of God's laws.
How then can he with his endorsors claim 'to be the elect,
because circumcised in the flesh, when, by their own ac-

176 The Argument.
knowledgments, they are as though they had never been cir
cumcised? To base election on circumcision, while violating
its obligation, is to found it on nothing. How absurd to
base election on what you and your followers have not, friend
Eabbi !
But again, 6. The scripture just cited from Jeremias,
shows conclusively that circumcision of the heart is alone
regarded by God as circumcision. This being so, then for
one to be of the elect, he must be spiritually circumcised.
E. — What is that? Do you hold that circumcision of the
flesh is not circumcision?
P.— I do.
E. — How dare you so hold? If our scriptures teach any
thing under heaven, it is that circumcision is of the flesh.
P. — You are at fault again, friend Eabbi. The scripture
cited shows that the circumcised in heart are the elect, and
none others. Such being the case, then circumcision of the
flesh is not circumcision. But there are many other scrip
tures that I will refer to, that places this point beyond con
troversy. Hear God: "If they (the Israelites) shall confess
their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, and their
trespass, which they have trespassed against me; and that,
also, they have walked contrary unto me; if then their un
circumeised hearts be humbled, and they then accept of the
punishment of their iniquity, then will I remember my cov
enant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (Levit. 26:40-42.)
Here God arraigns the Jews as uncircumeised in heart again.
Why so? To teach that circumcision of the heart, is alone
circumcision. Here he certainly teaches that circumcision in
the flesh is not circumcision. And that all who are not
spiritually circumcised will be treated by Him as though
uncircumeised. This shows again, that election is condi
tioned — dependent upon becoming and remaining circum
cised in heart. On this same point hear Moses: "Circum
cise the foreskins of your hearts, and be no more stiff-
necked." (Deut. 10-16.) "And the Lord thy God will cir
cumcise thine heart, the heart of thy seed to love the Lord

The Argument. 177
thy God, with all thy heart and with all thy soul, that thou
mayest live. (Deut. 30:6.) Here Moses not only teaches that
circumcision is of the heart and not of the flesh ; but he tells us
how this circumcision of the heart is manifested — by lov
ing God with all the heart and soul. This sets forth again
the fact that election is conditioned; and, that condition is
— a love supreme to God — a love that is exhibited in obe
dience in all things. He further teaches that the observ
ance of no rite avails anything with God — gives one any
right to consider himself as one of God's elect. Hear God
once more: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and take
away the foreskins of your hearts, ye men of Judah, and ye
inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my fury come forth like fire,
and burn that none can quench it, because of the evil of
your doings." (Jer. 4:4.) Here again God in person de
clares that unless the Israelites have their hearts circum
cised, he will destroy them. This language shows : 1. That
circumcision of the flesh avails nothing; 2. That circumcis
ion of the heart is alone circumcision; 3. That without this
spiritual mark, the Israelites will be destroyed; 4. That elec
tion is conditional — dependent on legal observance. Once
more. Hear Jeremiah: "Behold their ear is uncircumeised,
and they (the Jews) cannot hearken; behold, the word of
the Lord is unto them a reproach — they have no delight in
it." (Jer. 6.) Is the gentleman satisfied? Will he take
issue with his God? With a Moses? With a Jeremiah?
And 7. But the scriptures teach that there have been
Gentiles that have kept the laws of God perfectly — observed
the obligation of circumcision, that of holiness; and that in
all the ages. All the holy men that lived before the days of
Abraham were Gentiles. After his day, we have a Lot, who
was a holy man. He was a Gentile. Job and his friends
were Gentiles. Jethro and his family, were without doubt,
holy men. They were all Gentiles. They did by nature the
things contained in the law. They had not the written law.
But they showed the work, (spirit) of the law written on
their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their

178 The Argument.
thoughts the meanwhile excusing or else accusing one an
other. These parties observing the spirit of God's laws,
showed that they were spiritually circumcised. Thus cir
cumcised, they were God's elect. Now, you and your fol
lowers, friend Eabbi, are accustomed to denounce all Gen
tiles, that are uncircumeised in flesh, "as dogs." Circum
cised in heart they are the true people of God; and with far
more justice and truth could they denounce you J?ws as
"uncircumeised dogs"; who, though you have God's laws
and are solemnly pledged by a sacred rite to their observ
ance in all things, are living the most ungodly of lives.
And this the gentleman will not deny.
E. — Our next objection to Gentile salvation is based on
descent. From our interpretation of the Abrahamic cove
nant, election depends on descent from him either actual or
constructive. As the great mass of the Gentiles are not his
descendants and never were so classed, it follows, that they
were made to be damned. As we shall have a great deal to
say on this subject in another connection, we will waive any
thing more than its bare mention here. This" is another in
direct proof, that, taken with the fact that circumcision of
the flesh was never imposed on them, makes it evident, to
our mind, that the great mass of the Gentile world was made
to be damned.
P. — As the gentleman merely states his position without
argument, we will content ourselves with its brief notice at
this point. We lay down this proposition, that there is no
scripture that teaches that salvation is a matter of descent
from Abraham, either lineal or constructive. The Eabbi as
sumes what he cannot prove. The argument submitted as
to circumcision and its obligation is conclusive upon the
point raised. We have seen that God makes Gentile, or
Jewish, reprobacy to depend on an uncircumeised heart;
that is to say, wickedness. Such being God's decision of
the point, the Rabbi's assumption is false. If reprobacy is
occasioned by wickedness, then it cannot be dependent on
descent.

CHAPTER IX.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans III.
R. — If you are correct in your positions — that the Gen
tiles have always had the laws of God written on their
hearts — have, very many of them, received circumcision of
the heart, and are, therefore, the true descendants of Abra
ham; while the Israelites, though they have ever had God's
written laws — were set apart to the world's evangelization —
have been circumcised in the flesh — and are lineally de
scended from Abraham — are not, the peat mass of them,
regarded by God as his elect people; then, pray inform us,
what advantage hath the Jew? or what profit is there in
circumcision ?
P. — Much every way — chiefly, that unto them were com
mitted the oracles of God — that they were given in keeping
his written laws.
E. — Without discussing further, at this time, the indirect
evidences of Israelitish election and Gentile reprobacy, we
will now, if my opponent please, take up the weighty proof
of the correctness of my holding — pass to a consideration
of the direct evidence, to which reference was made in an
other part of this controversy.
P. — Certainly. Let the gentleman proceed. It is to he
hoped that his direct evidence will have the weight that he
assumes for it.
E. — The direct evidence to which I have referred, will be
found in the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant, which
reads as follows: "Now, the Lord had said unto Abram,
Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and

180 The Argument.
from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless
thee, and make thy name great; and thou shall be a bless
ing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him
that curseth thee," etc. (Gen. 12:1-3.) As corroborative
of this covenant of protection, blessing and greatness, we
find God in another interview repeating the provisions of
the covenant. We read: "And the Lord said unto Abram,
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," etc. (Gen. 13:14-16.) Again.
"Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land
that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall
afflict them four hundred years. But in the fourth genera
tion, they shall come hither again." (Gen 15:13-16.) And
again. "In the same day, the Lord made a covenant with
Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land from
the river of Egypt, unto the great river, the river Euphra
tes." (Gen. 15:18.) In every one of the quotations made,
God is speaking of Abram's seed, and of his seed only. He
saith not one word about any other people. The word seed
includes the whole of Israel. It will be further observed
that God imposes no conditions, whatever, to the covenant
of blessing, and protecting Abram and his seed, or to his
giving to him and his descendants, and to them only, the
land of Canaan for an everlasting inheritance. As God
covenants with Abraham and his descendants, to the exclu
sion of all other people, then do we conclude, that Abra
ham and his offspring are the elect; and as God imposes no
conditions of any kind, that they are the unconditionally
elect. Again. As all other people are excluded, they were,
as a matter of course, the reprobate — the unconditionally
reprobated. Such is our construction of the Abrahamic cov
enant. The terms of that covenant cannot be mistaken.

The Argument. 181
They amount to a positive decree, wherein Jewish election
and Gentile reprobacy are promulgated.
P. — A great deal of useless controversy is due to a fail
ure, on the part of disputants, to define the terms that
they use. Will the Eabbi inform us in what sense he uses
the word seed? Who, in a word, he understands to be the
seed of Abraham? Such an explanation will aid our hear
ers in comprehending the arguments, pro and con.
E. — Israelites, by either descent or construction, are the
seed of Abraham. Israelites by descent are his lineal off
spring — of his own flesh and blood. Gentiles by purchase,
birth in his house, or that have been proselyted to Judaism
and have received the rite of circumcision, are Abraham's
descendants constructively. All other heathen are Gentiles.
As they were not provided for in the Abrahamic covenant,
they were, we repeat, reprobated by God.
P. — Your position is, that the covenant with Abraham
was: 1. Unconditional; 2. That the Israelites, lineal and
constructive, were, by that covenant, decreed God's elect;
3. That the Gentiles were decreed to be reprobate. ,
E. — I so understand the covenant.
P. — Your entire holding is unfounded — unscriptural, un
reasonable and monstrous.
Before passing directly to a consideration of the Abra
hamic covenant, I deem it necessary to notice, at some
length, the covenants that God has made with man. In the
morn of creation, God covenanted with Adam and Eve, the
progenitors of the race. That covenant was of a legal char
acter, simply. It is the covenant that obtains throughout the
universe. It was first made with the angels. It was a con
ditional covenant. The conditions were implicit faith and
absolute obedience on the part of the angelic hosts of every
rank — thrones, principalities, dominions, archangels, ser
aphs^ cherubim, every angel in heaven. On the part of God,
the self-imposed obligation was of life, blessing, protection,
happiness, joy inconceivable and unending, to all that com
plied with the conditions proclaimed. So long as the an-

182 The Argument.
gels observed the conditions, just so long did God stand by
his covenant of eternal life, with all its promised joys. The
moment the conditions were violated, God expelled the vio
lators from heaven, and condemned them to the penal fires
of an eternal hell.
As man was made but a little lower than the angels, God,
as remarked, made a covenant with him. It was the same
covenant made with the angels. Its conditions were pre
cisely the same; the laws imposed were the same — God hav
ing but one code in the government of men and angels.
The moral law, as summarized by Christ, is of two-fold ob
ligation : 1. "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
heart, and soul; 2. And thy fellow (neighbor) as thyself."
This is the code universal — the constitution of the universe.
This code with accompanying statutory regulations adapted to
man's sphere of life, was, as already stated, imposed on
man — on Adam and Eve, and their descendants, through
out-all generations — all the ages of man's probation. The
conditions having been violated by first Eve and then Adam,
God, as in the case of -the angels, expelled them from Para
dise, and condemned them to woes eternal, unless they re
pented, and death unending. From time to time, as we have
seen, in another part of this discussion, has God, in all the
ages, kept the human race informed, as to the code divine —
its provisions and its conditions. It was republished amid
the thunders of flame-wrapped Sinai. Such was the legal
covenant. God, claiming Perfection Infinite, must act in harmony
with his claim — must demonstrate it, in every way. Though
man had been guilty of the same offense that the angels that
fell had; yet, in the sight of God, he was less criminal.
The angels were superior beings, and were, therefore, owing
to their higher plain of life, and direct relations with God,
^regarded by God, and justly so, as the more criminal. Be
sides, the angels fell, though untempted; but man was led
into sin by the higher intelligences. Infinite Justice, under
such circumstances, must discriminate, and, in man's favor.

The Argument. 183
God must attempt man's recovery, from his lost state. This
necessity gave rise to a second covenant with man, beginning
with Adam and Eve. This covenant being with the federal
heads of the race, included their descendants to all time.
The covenant referred to was that known as the covenant of
redemption. The provisions of that covenant are too well
known to need to be repeated. Owing to the character of
the two covenants, they came to be known as the covenant
of the legal observances or works; and the covenant
of grace, or faith. These two covenants descend the ages
side by side. When any man violates the covenant of law,
he may by complying with the provisions of the covenant of
grace, be restored to the favor of God. When thus restored,
it is with the solemn obligation on the part of the party
restored, to obey implicitly the constitution of the universe
— the moral law. In regard to each of these covenants, it
must be understood, that there is both a literal and spirit
ual side. The covenant of grace, literally, is the sacrificial
system, an elaborate symbolism, whose one design was to
enable the human race to understand the spiritual side, or
the covenant of grace. The sacrificial system "was a school
master to bring man to Christ," the Savior of the race. The
sacrificial system being but a pattern or figure of the cove
nant of grace — a shadow of good things to come — "was im
posed only till the time of reformation." When Christ
came, the system having answered its purpose, was removed.
So, too, the moral law had its spiritual side, as well as its
literal side. It, for example, forbids adultery. Literally
speaking, it is a prohibition of sexual-intercourse by either
man or woman, that is married, with another. Spiritually
speaking, it prohibits all sinful acts of whatever character by
one claiming to be a child of God, the Christian being re
garded by God as bearing the relation to him of wife. "Thou
shalt do no murder" prohibits the killing of the body of
man. Spiritually, it prohibits the murdering of the spirit
of man — his soul; and so of others and the rest.
These two covenants — faith and works — may be taken to-

184 The Argument.
gether; and may be regarded as a single covenant, oblig
ing to belief and obedience, the people of God, in all the

These covenants being obligatory upon the race, obtained
in all the ages; and, of course, from Adam to Abraham.
When God called Abram to go into a land that he would
shew him, promising him blessing, greatness and protection,
he introduced, by way of explanation, what might be called
the Abrahamic covenant. Its conditions were, as we shall
hereafter show, faitbi and obedience. It, too, had its literal
side, and its spiritual side. As to the literal side, it was
a covenant of blessing, protection, life, etc., with the gift of
an earthly Canaan. To enter that Canaan, faith and obe
dience were required of Abraham, and of his descendants,
after their liberation from Egyptian enslavement. Its lit
eral meaning obliged, as remarked, faith and obedience, on
the part of the Israelites. On God's part, it was a pledge
to give Canaan to Abraham's descendants, lineal and con
structive. The Abrahamic covenant had its spiritual side.
From this side, it was an obligation, by God, to confer upon
Abraham and descendants the Canaan above — heaven with
all its joys — upon compliance with the conditions of faith in
the atoning merits of the blood of the Lamb of God, Christ.
From that standpoint, it was but a renewal with Abraham
and his descendants of the covenant of grace, that God had
published in the days of Adam and Eve. The Abrahamic
covenant, literally taken, made no provision for other than
an earthly Canaan, and temporal blessings, conditioned upon
faith and obedience. But taken spiritually, it was a renewal
with Abraham and his descendants of the original covenant
of grace made with the race; a covenant that makes
provisions for the heavenly Canaan, and eternal bless
ings. It was in _ its spiritual sense that the Abra
hamic covenant was made to embrace the race. Taken
literally or spiritually, the Abrahamic covenant ob
liged to implicit faith and obedience. In its literal sense,
it may be taken as a type, of which the spiritual sense

The Argument. , 185
is the antetype. Moses, as redeemer of Israel from Egyp
tian bondage, typified Christ as Redeemer from the bon
dage of the devil, of an unfortunate race. So he was the
type of Christ as lawgiver, judge, king, etc. Aaron was
the type of Christ as High Priest, in his installation and
official functions. The lambs and other clean beasts typed
Christ as suffering vicariously for the race. The sojourn in
the wilderness typed man's stay on earth — a period of near
forty years, as an average. The Israelites entering Canaan
under Joshua, typed the true Israel of, God under the lead
ership of Christ or Jesus, crossing the Jordan of death into
the Canaan above. With these remarks on the covenants of
God, by way of explanation, we will now proceed to discuss
the Abrahamic covenant as presented by my opponent.
And First, THE CONDITIONS.
The gentleman says that the covenant made with Abram
was unconditional. That he is mistaken, let us examine the
interviews that God had with the patriarch. Beginning with
the covenant that God first made with him, it will be ob
served, that God commands him to leave his country and
his kindred, promising him great earthly blessings. Had
not Abram obeyed, there was no obligation on the part of
God to bless, as promised. For God to bless, Abram must
do, in all things, as God ordered. Now before he obeyed,
Abram had of necessity to have faith in the promises made
by God. He must needs believe God, before he would obey
him. Who, for one moment, supposes that Abram would
have left home and friends with no faith in God? Can any
one imagine that he would have ever made a journey into
a strange land, inhabited with heathen nations, unless he
had had implicit trust in God — unless he believed that God
would respect the promises made and not only protect, but
bless him, as he had engaged? The peril of going among
the heathen was great at that day. For Abram to have
risked his life and the lives of his household among such a
people, required the most unbounded confidence in God.

186 The Argument.
So in the second quotation made. There God promises to
make Abram's seed "as the dust of the earth," — to be an
innumerable multitude. Did not such an obligation require
the greatest possible faith?
In the next interview, God said to Abram: "Fear not,
Abram, I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
* * * * Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou
be able to number them; and he said unto him, So shall
thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord. (Gen. 15:1-6.)
Again we read: "And when Abram was ninety years old
and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him,
I am the Almighty God; walk before (with) me, and be
thou perfect." (Gen. 17:1.) After stating the terms of
the covenant, God goes on to say : "And I will establish my
covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in
their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God
unto thee and thy seed after thee." (Gen. 17:7.) Here the
condition of obedience is clearly brought out. The command
is : "Walk before me and be thou perfect." God's com
pliance with the obligation to be a God unto Abram and to
his seed after him, was conditioned upon Abram's doing as
God commanded — being perfect and walking before him, be
ing in all things, obedient. This was certainly Abram's in
terpretation of the covenant. For not only do we read, that
he circumcised his entire household on the same day that
God interpreted the covenant, and pledged its observance
by imposing the rite; but we read where God speaking to
Isaac, after Abraham's death, said: "Abraham obeyed my
voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes,
and my laws." (Gen. 26:4-5.)
When renewed with Isaac God said: "I will make thy
seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto
thy seed all these countries.' (Gen. 26:4.) After making
the promise, God refers as above to Abraham's obedience
in all things. Why this allusion to Abraham's exemplary
life? It was with the design of reminding Isaac that the
promised blessings on him and his descendants were depend-

The Argument. 187
ent upon his and his seed's perfection— upon their walking
with him in all things.
This same covenant was renewed with Jacob at Bethel in
his journey to Haran, when fleeing from the wrath of Esau.
On that occasion God said: "I am the Lord God of Abra
ham thy father, and the God of Isaac; the land whereon
thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy
seed shall be as the dust of the earth," etc. (Gen. 28 :13-14.)
It will be seen by an. examination of Jacob's whole history,
that he understood that the covenant was conditional; and
that these conditions were faith and obedience. (Consult
Gen. 31:13; 32:9-12; 35:1-12; 46:1-4.)
But let us come to the covenant made by God with the
Israelites, in Moses' day. Was not this the same covenant
that God made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? What
saith my opponent?
R. — It was, certainly.
P. — What were the terms of that covenant? God speak
ing to Moses saith: "Thus shalt thou say to the house of
Jacob: You have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and
how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto my
self. Now, therefore, if you will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto
me, above all people, a kingdom of priests and a holy na
tion. And all the people answered and said: All that the
Lord hath spoken, we will do." (Ex. 19.) Was not this a
conditional covenant? Do not its terms so show? The
Horeb covenant was but an interpretation of the cove
nant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Its observance
by God was conditioned on the jot and tittle observance of
it, by the Israelites. This is further shown by the language
invariably used by Moses, Joshua and the prophets, in speak
ing of it.
What saith Moses? "Bear, 0 Israel, hearken unto the
statutes, and unto the judgments which I Teach you, to do
them, that ye may live." (Deut. 4:1.) "Thou shalt keep,
therefore, his statutes, and his commandments, which I com.

188 The Argument.
mand thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and thy
children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days
upon the earth." (Deut. 4:40.) "When ye shall corrupt
yourselves, and do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, to
provoke him to anger, I call heaven and earth to witness
against you this day, that you shall utterly be destroyed."
(Deut. 4:25-28.) "Know, therefore, that the Lord thy God,
he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and
mercy with them that love him, and keep his commandments,
unto a thousand generations. Therefore, it shall come to
pass, if ye hearken to these, judgments, and keep and do them,
that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee, the covenant
and the mercy, which he swear unto thy fathers. And he
will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee. Thou shalt
be blessed above all people." (Deut. 7.) "And it shall be,
that if thou do at all forget the Lord thy God, and walk
after other gods, and serve them, and worship them, I tes
tify against you this day, that ye shall surely perish. As
the nations which the Lord destroyed from before your
eyes, so shall ye perish; because ye would not be obedient
unto the Lord your God." (Deut. 8.) "All the command
ments which I command thee this day, shall ye observe and
do, that ye may live and multiply, and go in and*possess
the land which the Lord God swear unto your fathers."
(Deut. 8.) In the twenty-seventh and twenty-eighth chapters
of Deuteronomy, Moses gives in detail the curses that were
to be visited upon them, if they disobeyed; and the bless
ings that would be conferred upon them in case they obeyed.
On this point, God in person speaks: "0 that there were
such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep
all my commandments always, that it might be well with
them and their children forever." (Deut. 5.)
If these scriptures settle anything, it is that God's cove
nant with our ancestors in Moses' day, was conditional, based
on obedience in all things. Such was God's interpretation
of the Horeb covenant. Of the twelve hundred thousand
and more adults — men and women — that made the covenant

The Argument. 189
of obedience in all things, there was only two that ever en
tered Canaan. All the rest disobeyed at one time, or an
other, and perisned in the wilderness. So we not only have
the terms of the covenant, but God's interpretation of it, in
the destruction of all adult Israel, that crossed the Red Sea,
save Joshua, and Caleb. Of these two men we are expressly
told that they believed and obeyed God, in all things. Of
this historical fact there can be no doubt. It is the plain,
unmistakable teaching of God's word, that he made a con
ditional covenant with our ancestors. The claim, therefore,
of unconditional election is absolutely false. It is in posi
tive conflict with the history of that day — with the teach
ing of God as reported to us by Moses, and as interpreted
by God in person. The evidence is overwhelming that it
was conditioned, too, on faith and obedience.
As bearing further upon this point, we notice next the
Book of Joshua. In the very first chapter, God tells Joshua
that he must observe to do all the laws given Moses — that
he must not turn from it to the right hand or to the left,
that he might prosper whithersoever he went — that the
Book of the Law of Moses must not depart out of his
mouth — that he must meditate thereon day and night, and
observe to do all that is written therein; and that, in case
he did as commanded, his way should be prosperous, and
he should have great success. (Josh. 1.)
In the days of Jeremias, he is sent by God to the Israel
ites with this command: "Obey my voice and do them
(his laws), according to all which I command you. So
shall ye be my people, and I will be your G|od. That I
may perform the oath, which I have sworn unto your
fathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey,
as it is at this day." (Jer. 11:1-5.) Such was the Horeb
covenant. It being the same as the covenant made with
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, one cannot fail in seeing that
it was conditional, and that those conditions were faith and
obedience. Moses, Joshua and Jeremiah so declare, while
God in dealing with the Israelites in the wilderness so

190 The Argument.
interprets it. Such was the covenant with Abraham, taken
literally. So taken, it was a type, as remarked, of the spiritual
side of that covenant. Now type and antetype must corre
spond. This being so, then must the spiritual side of the
Abrahamic covenant be based on conditions, and those con
ditions must be the same — faith and obedience.

CHAPTER X.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1-18.)
Romans III. (Continued).
P. — But aside from the argument based on type and
antetype. We took the position, that the Abrahamic cov
enant taken in a spiritual sense, was the same covenant of
grace, that God made with Adam and Eve.
R. — This we deny.
P. — That it was only a renewal of the Adamic covenant
of grace, the proof is overwhelming. The race fell in
Adam. Participating in the consequences of his fall, then,
God being just, must include in the plan of Redemption,
the entire race; for justice cannot discriminate. Salvation
had of necessity to be offered to all alike, if God would not
impeach his claim of Perfection Infinite, and falsify His
word. Of course, salvation for any one, depended upon a
compliance with the provisions of the proposed plan — the
party must exercise faith in the atoning merits of the Lamb
of God, and live obedient to the requirements of God's
laws. From Adam to Abraham there was a line of holy
people, that were known as "the sons and daughters of
God." We have but to examine the history of an Abel,
an Enoch, and a Noah, to say nothing of the long line of
other patriarchs, to see that they complied alike with the
conditions of faith and obedience. This is proven by their
being blessed with acceptance by God. This holy line are
spoken of in contrast with another line, that of "the sons
and daughters of men." On this last line were sent God's
.fearful judgment of the Deluge. Of them, we are told
that their unbelief and disobedience, caused their destruc-

192 The Argument.
tion. Such was the covenant of redemption as interpreted
to us by God in the overthrow of the antediluvians.
Now God, of necessity, must not alter the Adamic cov
enant. His claim is that He is an immutable God. When,
therefore, He came to covenant with Abraham and his de
scendants, He must stipulate in harmony with the covenant
that He had made with Adam. His immutability so obli
gated Him. And so we find He did, in every interview,
nearly, that He had with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. While
promising Abraham and his descendants temporal blessings,
and limiting them to him and them, we find that God goes
on to say: "And in thee (Abraham) shall all the families
of the earth be blessed." (Gen. 12:3.) Again: "My cov
enant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many na
tions." (Gen. 17:4.) Here we have the spiritual side of
the Abrahamic covenant. It will be observed that it is in
exact accord with the Adamic covenant. For in no other
sense could he be the father of the race than that of its
spiritual ancestor. Unless the Abrahamic covenant be
construed as having a spiritual signification, then, is the
conclusion forced, that there was no provision made for the
salvation of either Abraham or his descendants. Further.
Unless it be so taken, then God, in its making, disregarded
the Adamic covenant, and in so doing divested himself of
His claim of unchangeableness and impeached His veracity.
This cannot be allowed, that God altered the Adamic cov
enant in Abraham's day. What then? Taken in a spiritual
sense it was the Adamic covenant. The very fact that Abra-
am and his descendants continued to sacrifice — observed
that system, in all its regulations, is proof positive that the
Abrahamic covenant was held to be, spiritually speaking,
the same as the Adamic covenant. Regarded literally, we
repeat, the Abrahamic covenant was a type whose antetpye
was the Adamic covenant spiritually! considered. Taken
literally, it interpreted the Adamic covenant.
Now we have shewn that the Abrahamic covenant and
that made at Horeb, in the days of Moses, was one and the

The Argument. 193
same covenant. Such being the case, then we reach the
conclusion that the Adamic covenant and the Horeb cov
enant were the same. As to its letter, the Horeb cove
nant, was confined to the descendants of Abraham after
the flesh, or by construction. As to its spirit, it embraced
the race. We thus reach the conclusion that the Abra
hamic covenant taken literally or spiritually must be held
to have been a conditional covenant, with faith and obedi
ence as its conditions.
And second. The Abrahamic covenant was a decree in
which the Israelites, lineal and constructive, were declared
to be God's conditionally elected people. We have proven
that the Abrahamic covenant, whether taken literally or
spiritually, was conditional. It follows, therefore, that as
Abraham and his descendants were the parties with whom
God made that covenant, that neither he nor his descend
ants were unconditionally elected by God. If the covenant
was conditioned on faith and obedience, then must the par
ties covenanted with comply with the conditions required,
if they would be regarded by God as His elect people. This
being so, it follows further, that a failure to comply with
the conditions attached to the covenant, worked its repeal,
so far as the parties disregarding the provisions, were con
cerned. All such ceased to be held by God as His elect
people. R. — There must be some mistake about that. We have
never before heard that it was possible for the descendants
of Abraham to become the non-elect. Once elected, we have
ever regarded them as remaining the chosen of God, no
matter what they did.
P. — Your misunderstanding of the covenant led you into
that error. That we are correct, we appeal to the proposi
tion made by God to Moses: "Let me alone, that I may
destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven;
and I will make of thee a nation greater and mightier than
they." (Deut. 11 :13-14.) Here we have God actually pro
posing to exterminate Israel, because of their idolatry and
7

194 The Argument.
whoredom. If God had unconditionally elected them, how
could He destroy them without violating His covenant ? This
proposition is proof that the covenant was conditional.
It was certainly conditional. "They have moved Me to
jealously by that which was not God — they have provoked
Me to anger by their vanities; and I will move them to
jealousy by those which are not a people ; and I will provoke
them to anger by a foolish nation." (Deut. 32.) How was
this to be done, other than by rejecting Israel as His people,
and taking the Gentiles in their stead ? But how could God
reject the Israelites, if He had unconditionally elected
them? And how could God have elected the Gentiles in the
room of rejected Israel, if He had reprobated them?
Hear Joshua: "If ye forsake the Lord, and serve strange
gods, then He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you,
after that He hath done you good." (Josh. 24:20.) Here
Joshua warns the Israelites against forsaking God; and
notifies them that, in case they do, He will consume them.
It would be absurd to talk about consuming the uncondi
tionally elected.
But the Book of Judges. This book is replete with in
struction, showing that the descendants of Abraham were
conditionally elected. It everywhere teaches that when they
forsook and forgot God, He raised up enemies for their
oppression and destruction.
The Historical Books. These are the books of Samuel,
Kings, Chronicles, and, later on, those of Ezra and Nehe-
miah. Can any one read these books without seeing that
God's covenant with the Israelites was conditional? Do not
the terrible judgments sent on them, all down the ages, so
witness? Millions of them put to horrible deaths! Destroy
the unconditioally elect ! But let us hear from the prophets.
And 1. ISAIAH.
In the very opening chapter of his book, he makes holi
ness indispensable to being the elect of God. Hear him:
"Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your do-

The Argument. 195
ings from before mine eyes, learn to do well, seek judgment,
relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the
widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the
Lord : Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be 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; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."
(Isaiah 1:16-20.) Again. "For Jerusalem is ruined and
Judah is fallen; because their tongue and their doings are
against the Lord to provoke the eyes of His glory." (Isaiah
3:8.) From the sixteenth to the twenty-fourth verse of this
same chapter, the prophet declares God's wrath against the
daughters of Zion, because of their pride, extravagance in
dress, wantonness, and many other things. He declares
that fearful judgments would be soon visited upon them,
and that they should be reduced to the most abject degrada
tion. Again. We read : "As the fire devoureth the stubble,
and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root (that of the
Jews) shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up
as dust; because they have east away the law of the God of
hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel."
(Isaiah 5 :24.) We need not multiply quotations. The
whole book sets forth the fact that God made a conditional
covenant with the Jews, its terms being faith and obedience
in all things.
(2) Jeremiah. This prophet exhorts: "Wash thine heart
(0 Israel) from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved."
(Jer. 4:14.) Stand 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.) "Amend your
ways, and I will cause you to dwell in this place." (Jer.
7:3-23.) "Circumcise the foreskins of your hearts," saith
God, "lest My fury burn like fire that none can quench it."
(Jer. 4:4.) "Eeturn unto Me," saith God, "and I
will return unto you." (Jer. 4:1.) Such quotations show

196 The Argument.
that God's covenant was a conditional one, and what were the
conditions. But the prophet, at the command of God, reproduces the
Horeb covenant. God speaking saith: "Cursed be the man
that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I com
manded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth
out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying:
Obey My voice, and do thou according to all which I com
mand you: so shall ye be My people, and I will be your
God." (Jer. 11:3, 4.) Because they had violated the terms
of this covenant, God declares: "I will bring evil upon
them (the Jews) which they shall not be able to escape."
(Jer. 11:10-11.) God speaketh saith: "Thou hast forsaken
me, thou art gone backward; therefore, will I stretch out
My hand against thee and destroy thee. I am weary of re
penting. I will destroy My people, since they return not
from their evil ways." (Jer. 15:6, 7.) When the Jews
asked, "What sin have we committed?" God replies: "You
have done worse than your fathers, who forsook Me and
violated My laws. Every one of you walketh after the
imagination of his evil heart. Therefore will I cast you out
of My land." (Jer. 16:10-13.) Again God speaks: "I the
Lord search the heart, to give every man according to his
deeds — according to his ways, and the fruit of his doings."
(Jer. 17:10; 21:14; 25:14.) Again. God exhorts them
to turn from their evil ways, lest He consume them. (Jer.
21:12; 22:1-5; 22:15, 16.) The prophet in his prayer
saith : "The Jews, after they came in possession of the land,
did evil, and obeyed not God's voice; therefore, He punished
them." (Jer. 32:23.) Again. God saith: "From their
youth, have they provoked Me to anger with the work bf
their hands." (Jer. 32:30-35.) "Therefore will I slay
them, and hide My face from them." (Jer. 33-5.) Finally,
the prophet saith: "The Lord pronounced evil on this place.
He hath done as He said He would; because ye sinned
against the Lord, and obeyed not His voice." (Jer. 40:23;
44:20-23.)

The Argument. 197
(3.) Ezekiel. Beading the first chapters of this prophecy,
we find, that the prophet is sent to a most rebellious, wick
ed, depraved people. (Ezek. 2 and 3.) He declares: "God
will punish them with famine; they shall consume away
for their iniquity." (Ezek. 4:16-17.) The Jews were set
in the midst of the nations as a light. By precept and
example they were great sinners — worse than other nations.
Hence their judgment. (Ezek. 5:1-17.) "Judgments are
sent on Jerusalem by the king of Babylon, because she made
her sins to be remembered." (Ezek. 21:24.) "The land,"
said the Jews, "is given us for an inheritance. Our sins,
however grievous, affect not our claim to Canaan." (Ezek.
33:24.) But what saith God: "Ye eat with the blood, and
shed blood; worship idols; work abominations; defile every
man his neighbor's wife; and shall ye possess the land?
Nay, verily." (Ezek. 35:23-29.) "I will give you to the
pestilence, to the sword, and to wild beasts, and the whole
land will I lay in waste, because of the evil of your doings."
(Ezek. 33:23-29.) "The Jews are uncircumeised in heart —
they are not allowed in God's house." (Ezek. 44:7-9.)
(4) Daniel. This book teaches emphatically that the
elect are those that believe and obey God in all things. That
election is conditional is the one great truth of this author.
He himself was a living epistle, known and read of all men.
He lived only to believe and obey God. The first chapter of
his book sets forth the fact, that he feared and obeyed God.
When death stared him and his friends and the wise men in
the face, Daniel, with sublime confidence in God, says: "If
the king will give me time, I will tell him his dream, and the
interpretation." See with what abounding confidence in
God he goes to Him in prayer ! Hear him as he lays before
God, with childish simplicity, the great strait, he, with his
friends, was in ! See this same man of God daring the lions'
den, in absolute stay upon God ! How grand the man !
What will not God do for that man who obeys him unhesi
tatingly, and believes Him implicitly, no matter what dan
ger threatens, what calamity impends ! Look, too, at the

198 The Argument.
three Hebrew children ! Was ever faith and obedience so
grandly illustrated? Before them flamed the furnace heated
to a white heat ! The mandate had gone forth ! Death,
awful death, confronted them! And yet those grand men,
never, for a moment, begged for mercy — never plead for
commutation of sentence! No! Believing God, they went
forward and surrendered their bodies to the fires, rather
than disobey Him. Thank God for their sublime confi
dence ! for their defiance of death in the line of duty ! What
a lesson for us all ! But to return.
(5.) Hosea. God speaking through this prophet, saith:
"For ye are not My people; and I will not be your God."
(Hos. 1:2, 6, 9.) This prophet denounceth "Israel as a
whore, that God would no more have mercy upon ; but would
utterly take her away." (Hos. 1.)
And (6). Zechariah. This prophet exhorts: "Execute
judgment, speak truth, imagine no evil against your neigh
bor, love no false oath, if you would be the elect of God.
Lying, perjury, injustice, doing evil to a neighbor — all these
things God hates." (Zech. 8:16-17.)
And (7) : Malichi. "This prophet is sent to complain of
the Jews' wickedness, of their profaneness, of their ineor-
rigibleness, and to denounce God's curse against them."
(Mai. 1:1-14.) He sharply reproves the priests for their
ungodliness — the people for their idolatry, adultery, and in
fidelity. (Mai. 2:1-17.) He declares: "All the proud, and
all that do wickedly, shall be burned up. The wicked shall
be as ashes under the feet of God's people." (Mai. 4:1-3.)
Such are the teachings of the prophets. They all make
Jewish election conditional; and the conditions faith and
obedience. But aside from these prophetic teachings. We notice
that these same prophets all speak of a bare remnant of the
Israelites as being saved — as being, that is to say, the elect
of God. In the days of Elijah, as already noticed, out of

The Argument. 199
all the millions of Israel, there were only seven thousand
that had not bowed the knee to Baal. This small number,
God speaks of as those only that He had preserved.
On this point Isaiah saith : "Except the Lord of hosts had
left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as
Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah."
(Isaiah 1:9; 4:2-6; 6:13; 10-20-23; 11:11-16; 37:31, 32.)
Ezekiel saith: "There shall be a remnant left; and they
shall be scattered to the four winds — the land shall be made
desolate with sword, pestilence and famine — it shall be more
desolate than the wilderness of Diblath." (Ezek. 5:10;
6:1-14.) Again. "A remnant shall be saved. To them
will I give a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My stat
utes and do them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be
My people." (Ezek. 11:17-21.) As a matter of pure grace,
God restores this mere remnant, after they had served out
their seventy years' captivity in Babylon. (Ezek. 36 :24-28.)
What saith Amos? He exhorts to righteousness and
concludes thus : "It may be that God will be gracious to the
remnant of Joseph." (Amos 5:14, 15.)
And Micah ? "The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst
of many people." (Micah 5:7, 8.) Again. "God will par
don the remnant of His people."
And Zephaniah? "God will restore to His people the
remnant of His heritage." (Zeph. 3:10-20.)
From these scriptures it is evident that only a small per
cent, of the descendants of Abraham, lineal or constructive,
even in the chosen line, were ever counted as the people of
God. They further teach us that this rejection was due to
disobedience and unbelief. What then? There is no au
thority for unconditional Jewish election, direct or indirect.
But the theory is a pure fabrication. This is shown by
a multitude of scriptures, in which God promises that He
will not utterly destroy — will not make a full end — of the
Jews. Speaking through Jeremiah, God saith: "The whole

200 The Argument.
land shall be desolate ; yet will I not make a full end. ( Jer.
4:7.) On this point consult (Leviticus 26:44, 45; Isaiah
54:10; Jer. 5:10, 18; 30:11; 31:36, 37; 33:20-26; 46:28.)
After judgment by sword, pestilence, famine, and in other
ways, a remnant was to be restored to the favor of God.
(Hos. 2 :2, 20 ; 3 :5 ; Amos. 9 :8, 11, 12 ; 13 :18 ; Obad. 17-21 ;
Mica. 2:12, 13; Zeph. 3:10-20; Micah 2:10; 8:1-8; 10:
11-12.) If only a remnant were restored to Canaan, then it
is clear, that the Abrahamic covenant was conditional. The
restored were those that believed and obeyed. All the rest
were rejected as the people of God. And if rejected, then
were they reprobated. If reprobated for cause, then were
they conditionally elected.
But the very rite of circumcision is itself proof of the
conditional character of the Abrahamic covenant. What did
it oblige? To do the whole law. Why so, if obedience was
not one of the conditions on which the covenant was
founded ?
And Third. "The Gentiles were reprobated by decree.
This is shown by their not being a party to the Abrahamic
covenant." Such is my opponent's claim and the ground
upon which he rests it. Were anything wanted to prove the
falsity of his position, in addition to what has already been
brought forward in evidence, while discussing the indirect
proofs of Gentile reprobacy, it is furnished by the fact that
the Abrahamic covenant as to its spiritual side, was the same
as the Adamic covenant. As such, it embraced the Gentile
world. So taken, Abraham was the father of all nations.
The spiritual side of that covenant had for its obligation
spiritual circumcision — "circumcision of the heart. Such
being its obligation, the spiritual side of it, embraced all
that were spiritually circumcised, whether Israelites or Gen
tiles. But that the Gentiles were not reprobated by that cov
enant with Abraham, is evidenced by the scripture already
quoted from Deuteronomy. God declared that He would

The Argument. 201
"provoke the Isrelites to anger by a foolish nation." This
could only be by rejecting the Israelites and accepting the
Gentiles in their stead. But how could God propose to re
ject the Israelites, if unconditionally elected? And how
could He accept the Gentiles in their stead, as remarked, if
unconditionally reprobated? This scripture is proof alike
of the absurdity of Jewish election, and Gentile reprobation,
unconditionally. But there are many scriptures that show that the Gentiles
were to be restored to the favor of God in the last days.
The prophets all so teach. The passages are familiar, and
we need not quote them. What then? Then the entire
Jewish theory as to the Abrahamic covenant is without a
particle of proof. This we have overwhelmingly shown.
B. — From the scriptures you have cited, it seems that you
have made out a claim in utter antagonism with the Abra
hamic covenant. God, certainly, promised to carry Abra
ham's seed into Canaan. He pledged Himself in the most
solemn manner to Abraham that his seed should be restored
to the land of Canaan after their bondage of four centuries.
Time and again does He declare that He had given them the
land, and that everlastingly. He does not limit the seed to
a part. He certainly does not propose any conditions in the
quotations made. It seems to me, therefore, that your in
terpretation of the Abrahamic or Horeb covenant sets aside
the word and promise of God.
P. — Not so. The trouble with the Eabbi is, that he has
not read far enough. He cannot be allowed to take a cov
enant when unexplained, and make it set aside that covenant
when it had been explained by God and His prophets.
The discussion will be resumed in the next lecture.

CHAPTER XI.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Romans 1 :18.)
Romans III. (Continued).
E. — If I understood your position, it is that God did not
carry out the covenant made with our ancestors, because a
part of them did not comply with the conditions that you
hold were imposed. If this interpretation of God's dealing
with our ancestors of that day be as you allege, then you
cannot avoid the conclusion that God failed to comply with
a solemn obligation — then God forfeited His word — then,
in a word, God lied; and was induced to do so by the un
belief and disobedience of a part of our ancestors. Now
what if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make
the faith of God without effect ? Shall God forfeit a solemn
compact, and thereby impeach His veracity, simply because
a certain number of persons failed to observe the terms of
the covenant. Will you construe the history of our ancestors
in the wilderness and before, so as to impeach God's ve
racity ?
P. — My construction of that history involves no such con
clusion. God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man
a liar, as it is written : "That thou mightest be justified in
thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."
God forbid, that I should take a position that compromises
God's truth — that shadows His veracity ! God forbid, that I
should so interpret His word as to place Him in a position,
where He would be estopped in His arraignment of men,
for their violation of their covenant with Him, by the re
flection, that He had violated His covenant with them ! God
forbid, that is to say, that I should so expound His word,

The Argument. 203
that in arraigning others, He Himself could be counter ar
raigned — where He could not justify Himself — could not
prove His veracity — could not overcome when arraigned by
His creatures! We repeat. The position taken by us in
volves no such impious conclusion. The covenant that God
made with our ancestors was a conditional one. Our
ancestors were obliged by it to faith and obedience, in all
things. God was obliged, in case they believed and obeyed,
to carrry them into the land of Canaan. Such is the Mosaic
record; and such the covenant was, as interpreted by God.
He put all of our ancestors to death that disbelieved and
disobeyed Him — all who forfeited their obligations. He al
lowed, as remarked, no one to enter Canaan, of all that vast
adult concourse that were at Sinai, save Joshua and Caleb.
They believed and obeyed. Such is the record. As God
covenanted conditionally to carry our ancestors into Canaan,
He was under no obligation, whatever, to carry them in
when they had violated the terms of the compact. On the
contrary, He was obliged not to carry them in, if He ob
served the terms of the covenant. In not carrying them in,
did God respect his solemn obligation — regard His veracity
— verify His truth. His conduct was in exact accord with
the principles of His government — principles as old as man
— that of destroying the unbelieving and disobedient, and
rewarding those that believed and obeyed. He left our an
cestors no ground, whatever, for counter arraignment. He
stood prepared to overcome should they attempt to judge —
condemn — Him for not complying with His covenant with
them — to justify Himself as standing by His obligations in
every respect. So, friend Eabbi, your objection falls to the
ground. But let us admit your interpretation of the covenant. And
what then? Why, if God did, as you allege, covenant un
conditionally to carry our ancestors into Canaan, He for-
-feited the covenant; for it is certain that He. carried only
Joshua and Caleb into the land. Your theory, and not the
one I am advocating, makes God to forfeit His word. This

204 The Argument.
conclusion cannot be avoided, your theory being true. Con
cede its truth, and God's veracity stands impeached. Dare
you endorse a theory necessitating such a conclusion? You
will not. What then? Your theory of unconditional elec
tion is false. It cannot be harmonized with the claim of
God — with His claim of being a God of infinite truth. Ad
mit it, and God stands in a position, where He may be ar
raigned by His creatures, with no possibility of justifying
Himself. A theory that involves such conclusions must be
discarded. R.— Your position is, that not only did the unbelief of
our ancestors occasion their rejection by God; but their dis
obedience. On this point you have laid great stress. Now
my theory is, that so far from their unrighteousness having
been the cause of their rejection, it commended them to the
favor of God — seeing that the more unrighteous they were,
the greater the opportunity afforded for God to display His
love, mercy, longsuffering, and forbearance, in their salva
tion. P. — That sin, by whomsoever committed, is offensive to
God, is the teaching of all the scriptures. Take Abraham.
He committed adultery with Hagar. Was he not punished?
Witness the domestic unhappiness occasioned by that act.
Esau despised his birthright. Was he not punished? Esau
regretted with bitter tears his folly.
The history of Jacob's sons is in point. Envying their
brother, they sold him — lied to, and deceived their father in
other ways, and thereby brought down his gray hairs, al
most to the grave, in sorrow. Were they unpunished? Nay,
verily. God never fails to have one's sins find him out. We
have only to read of their visit to Egypt — their meeting
with Joseph — their arrest for charged theft — the imprison
ment of Simeon — their forced return with Benjamin — their
consternation at Joseph's proposition to keep him, and many
other things — to see that God remembered their sins and
punished them.
Moses committed murder. With what result? A state

The Argument. 205
of servitude. For forty years did he fill the hard, place of
a shepherd in Arabian wilds. Called to the honor of re
deeming his people from Egyptian bondage — advanced to
the unspeakable privilege of personal interviews with God —
given the power to perform all kinds of miracles of the most
varied and wondrous character, he sinned. For that one
sin — that single act of disobedience — God punished him by
never letting him go over Jordan into the promised land.
Did the sin of Aaron in making the calf, or in smiting the
rock commend the righteousness of God? His death on
mount Hor declares. Did the rebellion of Miriam do so?
Witness her leprosy in punishment. Did that of Dathan,
Korah and Abiram? They are swallowed up with all their
households. Did the sin of Achan in stealing the golden
wedge, the two hundred pieces of silver, and the goodly
Babylonish garment? He and all his house are stoned to
death. Did the constant rebellions of all adult Israel? They
died in the wilderness, to a man. Neither individuals — the
most illustrious of the nation — nor the nation, escaped the
judgment of God. From Abraham to Joshua, Jewish history
witnesseth against that absurd claim.
So, too, the history of the Jews from Joshua to the Ad
vent declare against this claim; — is replete with instruction,
showing that their unrighteousness did not commend the
righteousness of God. Consulting their history we find,
that the sword was drawn out for their destruction, and to
such an extent was it bathed in blood, that their whole land,
in the ages referred to, was drenched in Jewish blood. Fam
ine prevailed, till, on more than one occasion, they ate their
own children. In the days of Elijah, for instance, the
heavens were shut for three and a half years that it rained
not, for their punishment. At other times, pestilence wast
ed the land, till every household wept over its dead — diseases
of every kind being sent upon them, and curses without
number. Their bones have bleached on all hills and valleys,
from the Nile to the Indus. All lands have heard their
sighs, their groans, their agonies; and witnessed their ca-

206 The Argument.
lamities. Nearly every nation of earth have joined in their
punishment and assisted at their destruction. Chaldeans, As
syrians, Medo-Persians, Eomans, Midianites, Ammonites, Mo
abites, Philistians, Edomites, Egyptians, Syrians, Ethiop
ians and others too numerous to mention, have swept their
land with fire and sword, ravished their wives and daugh
ters, murdered wives and children, burned their cities, de
vastated their land, wasted their substance. Does this record
look as if their unrighteousness commended that of God?
The history of the world, and the annals of time, give no
account of such judgments on any other people. Do these
terrible judgments not witness the falsity of this part of
your theory, friend Rabbi? Your claim being true, why
were these judgments sent on them?
But to the lesson of this history must be added the testi
mony, in unbroken line, of your prophets.
Hear them: "But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked; he
forsook the God which made him, and lightly esteemed the
Eock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with
strange gods — with abominations provoked they Him to
anger. They sacrificed unto devils, not to God — to gods
whom they knew not — to gods that come newly up, whom
their fathers feared not. Of the Eock that begat thee, thou
art unmindful; and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
And when the Lord saw it, He abhorred them, because of
the provoking of His sons, and of His daughters. And He
said: I will hide My face from them, I will see what their
end will be; for they are a very proud generation, children
in whom is no faith. I will provoke them to anger with a
foolish nation. For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and
shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth
with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the
mountains. I will heap mischiefs upon them. I will spend
my arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger and
devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction. I
will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison
of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and the terror

The Argument. 207
within shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the
suckling, also, with the man of gray hairs. I said I would
scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of
them to cease from among men, were it not, that their ad
versaries should behave themselves strangely, and lest they
should say, Our hand is high, and the Lord hath not done
all this. For they are a nation void of counsel, neither is
there any understanding in them." (Deut. 19:15-28.) How
fearful are these judgments! There is no speech nor lan
guage that has terms for the portrayal of more awful. Upon
whom are these judgments? The Israelites — the chosen
seed — the elect of God ! What a commentary are these judg
ments on the claim of election! on their holding! "Our
unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God !" Such
judgments witness with overwhelming power, that such
claims are false.
But to proceed. Joshua, as remarked, in another connec
tion, saith: "If ye forsake the Lord and serve strange gods,
then will He turn and do you hurt and consume you, after
that He hath done you good." (Josh. 24:20.)
Judges ?
This book has but one lesson: God's wrath against the
Israelites for their sins, and His punishment of them in
consequence. But Isaiah?
"Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of
evil doers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken
the Lord, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto
anger, they are gone away backward. Hear the word of the
Lord ye rulers of Sodom, give ear unto the law of our God,
ye people of Gomorrah. Except the Lord had left unto us
a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and
we should have been like unto Gomorrah. How is the faith
ful city become an harlot! Thy princes are rebellious and
companions of thieves; every one loveth gifts, and followeth

208 The Argument.
after rewards : they judge not the fatherless, neither does the
cause of the widow come unto them. Therefore, saith the
Lord, the Lord of hosts, the Mighty one of Israel, Ah, I
will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine
enemies: And I will turn my hand upon thee, and purely
purge away thy dross, and take away thy tin; And the de
struction of the transgressors, and of the sinners shall be
together, and they that forsake the Lord shall be consumed."
(Isaiah 1:4-28.) Consult (Isaiah 2:6-9; 3:2-8; 5:24; 25:26-
30.) In the passages referred to the prophet threatens
sword, pestilence, and famine, "because, they have cast away
the law of the Lord of hosts, and despised the word of the
Holy One of Israel, because their tongues and their doings
are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of His glory." He
asks, at another time : "Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Is
rael to the robbers ? Did not the Lord, He against whom we
have sinned? For we would not walk in His ways, neither
would we be obedient unto his laws. Therefore, He hath
poured upon us the fury of Has anger, and the strength of
battle." (Isaiah 42:24, 25.) God speaking of Israel saith:
"For the iniquity of his sins was I wroth with him; and
smote him." (Isa. 57:17.) Consult (Isa. 59:3-15, 18; 63:
10; 64:7.) The charges brought in these passages are, they
that rebelled and vexed His Holy Spirit; — had filled up the
cup of their iniquity. For these crimes, God rewarded them
according to their deeds — consumed them. (Isa. 59:3-18;
63:10; 64:5.) "Therefore, saith God, "will I number you
to the sword, and ye shall how down to the slaughter, be
cause ye did evil before mine eyes, and did chose that where
in I delighted not." (Isa. 65:12, 13; 66:4.) "The right
eous shall go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men
that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not
die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be
an abhorring to all flesh." (Isa. 66:24.) But not only did
Isaiah teach the reverse of the Eabbi's theory; but we find
that God sent him to arraign the Jews for their wickedness
and exhort to righteousness : "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up

The Argument. 209
thy voice like a trumpet, and show, my people their trans
gressions, and the house of Jacob their sins." (Isa. 58:1.)
Why do this, if their unrighteousness commendeth the right
eousness of God? \
But what saith God through Jeremiah? "The priests that
handle the law know me not ; the pastors transgressed against
me; and the prophets prophesied by Baal, and walked after
things that do not profit. The nation has changed its glory
for that which doth not profit — have forsaken me, the foun
tain of living waters. The young lions roared upon him,
and they made his land waste; the cities are burned, with
out an inhabitant. Also, the children of Nop and Tahpenes
have broken the crown of thy head. Hast thou not procured
this unto thyself, in that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy
God, when He led thee by the way?" (Jer. 2:8-30.) This
prophet arraigns the Jews for harlotry, whoredom, as evil
speakers and doers, backsliders — for saying: "The Lord liv
eth," falsely — as having an uncircumeised ear — as having no
delight in God's word — as covetous — as from priest to proph
et dealing falsely — for sacrificing, while disobeying God in
every way — as murderers, thieves, liars, sinners, idolaters — for
making God's house a den of thieves — as walking, every one,
in the imaginations of his evil heart — as an assembly of
treacherous men — as a people that go from evil to evil — as
lying in wait for their neighbors; while speaking peace to
them — for walking after Baalim. (Jer. 3 ; 5 ; 6 ; 7 ; 9 ; Lam.
1:8.) "For which things," saith God, "I will take ven
geance on such a people and destroy them. I will destroy the
temple and east you out of my sight. I will reject and for
sake this generation of my wrath; and I will melt them;
make Jerusalem heaps, and the cities of Judah without an
inhabitant; I will feed them with wormwood, and give them
water of gall to drink; I will scatter them among the
heathen; and send a sword after them, till I have consumed
them; I will punish all them that are circumcised with the
uncircumeised — Judah, Egypt, Ammon, Moab and all Gen
tile nations." (Jer. 3 :24 ; 25 ; 4 :5-18, 20-29 ; 5 :9, 14; 6 :19 ;

210 The Argument.
7:9, 10, 14, 15, 29; 9:7, 9-11, 13-16, 25, 26.) In Lamenta
tions, Jeremiah declares, again and again, that God afflicted,
ruined, destroyed the Jews for their sins.. (Lam. 1:5, 8, 22;
2:4, 22; 5:16, 17, 22.)
We notice next Ezekiel. This prophet arraigns prophets
and prophetesses for their great wickedness. He denounces
the Jews for committing whoredom with Egyptians, Assy
rians, and Chaldeans — as hiring them to come in unto them.
He declares that the prophets, the priests, the pastors, the
princes and the people are all desperately wicked. He
brands Jerusalem and Samaria as both whores — Jerusalem
more than Samaria. He charges them with profaning God's
holy name among the heathen. (Ezek. 13; 16:1-14, 15-34;
22:6, 25; 23:28-38; 36:20-23.) He, in the plainest man
ner, teaches that they were punished for their crimes. God
speaking saith: "I will make the land of Judah desolate,
because they have committed trespass against the Lord." He
declares that "They shall be thrust through with swords, and
their houses burned; that He will send the king of Babylon
on them, because of their iniquities; that they shall be gath
ered into the midst of Jerusalem and melted; that there He
will pour out the fire of His anger upon them, and consume
them ; that He will deliver them into the hands of those that
hate them, and they shall strip them naked; that he will
bring up a company upon them, and give them to be ruined."
(Ezek. 12:19; 15:6-8; 16:1-44; 21-24; 22:6-31; 23:28-38;
24:21-23.) This prophet lays down this: "The soul that
sinneth, it shall die," as an unalterable law of God. (Ezek.
18:4, 20.) He exhorts to holiness as did Isaiah and Jere
miah, saying: "Bepent, and turn yourselves from all your
iniquities, so they shall not be your ruin. For why will ye
die, 0 house of Israel?" (Ezek. 18:30-32.) Time and
again does he declare that "God will render to every man
according to His ways." (Ezek. 16:1-44.) God himself
speaks and says: "I will judge you every one according to
his ways." (Ezek. 18:5-27; 22:6-31; 33:20; 36:17-19.)
We could easily multiply quotations, were it necessary. This

The Argtoqient. 211
whole prophecy is in direct opposition to this part of the Eab
bi's theory. He everywhere testifies Nthat God punished the
Jews for their transgressions — that all their fearful judg
ments were punitive. His testimony must be added to that
of his predecessors.
We come now to Hosea.
This prophecy begins with God's open renunciation of the
Jews as His people because of their wickedness. (Hos. 1 :2-
9.) He charges that the priests and the people are corrupt —
as dealing treacherously with God, and violating the cove
nant, saying, "My God, we know thee," while doing all man
ner of crimes; as deeply corrupting themselves; as having
fallen by their iniquity. (Hos. 4:1-10; 5:4; 6:7; 8:2-11;
14:1-9.) He then says: "Therefore, (God speaking), I
will punish them for their ways, and reward them for their
doings, because they have left off to take heed to the Lord;
I will pour wrath upon them like water; I will be unto
Ephraim as a moth, and to the house of Judah as rotten
ness; their sins shall be remembered; and they shall be de
stroyed; they shall go into captivity; I will remember their
sin, and visit their iniquity; for their sin I will drive them
out of my house — I will love them no more — I will cast them
away, because they did not hearken unto me. Samaria shall
become desolate — their infants shall be dashed in pieces,
their women with child ripped up, and men fall by the
sword; for they sin more and more." (Hos. 1:2-9; 4:1-10;
5:4-12; 7:13; 9:9; 9:9-17; 13:2-16.) He further declares,
God speaking : "According to the ways of Judah and Jacob
will I recompense them." (Hos. 12:2.) He exhorts them
to righteousness— to return unto God; for His ways are
right and the just shall walk in them; but the wicked shall
fall therein." (Hos. 10:12, 13; 14:1-9.) This prophet
witnesseth against this monstrous heresy.
What saith Joel? "The day of God's wrath is at hand.
He charges them with great sin." (Joel 1.) He declares

212 The Argument.
God's judgments as impending, and their fearful nature.
(Joel 1 ; 2 :1-11.) He exhorts to repentance and fasting, and
a turning to the Lord with all the heart. It may be God
will pardon. (Joel 2:12-14.) He promiseth blessing, if
they return to God. (Joel 2:21-32.)

CHAPTEE XII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eomans 1:18.)
EOMANS III.— Continued.
P. — So Joel is against this theory.
We will now hear from Amos. God through this prophet
arraigns Israel for oppression, idolatry, incorrigibleness, for
turning judgment into wormwood ahd leaving off righteous
ness in the earth; as hating him that rebuketh, and abhorr
ing him that speaketh uprightly, as afflicting the just and
turning aside the poor from his right; as swallowing up the
needy, causing the poor to fail; as making the ephah small
and the shekel great; as having false balances; as buying 'the
poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes. (Amos 4:
1-12; 5:7; 5:10-12; 8:4-10.) He then declares: "God will
send on them the sword, the pestilence, and the famine for
their sins." God saith: "I abhor the excellency of Jacob
and hate his palaces; therefore will I deliver up Israel to a
fierce nation, who shall afflict the whole land; I will no
longer spare; Israel shall go into captivity; I will make the
land desolate, and destroy the temple; the end is come upon
my people, Israel ; the songs of the temple shall be howlings,
dead bodies shall be in every place, and they shall be cast
forth in silence; I will turn your feasts into mourning and
your songs into lamentation ; I will bring up sack cloth upon
all loins and baldness upon all heads; I will set mine eyes
upon them for evil and not good; they are as Ethiopians
in my sight; I will destroy the sinful kingdom from off the
face of the earth ; I will sift the house of Israel like grains
of corn among all nations. All the sinners of my people
shall die by the sword. (Amos 4 :1-12 ; 6 :7-14; 8 :3-3, 4-10 ;

214 The Argument.
9:1-10.) Besides, God, in person, exhorts Israel as follows:
"Seek ye me, and ye shall live; lest I break out like fire in
the house of Israel and destroy it." (Amos 5:4-6.) There
is nothing in this prophecy that sustains the gentleman's
claim. Micah? This prophet, God speaking, saith: "They are
sinners that have wicked balances and false weights. The
rich are full of violence; the inhabitants are deceitful, and
liars." All are charged with being sinful; none upright; they
hunt every man his neighbor with a net; and do evil with
both hands earnestly. (Mie. 6:10-12; 7:1-4.) God saith:
"I will visit them for these things; and I will make them
sick with smiting them, and desolate. They shall sow and
not reap ; tread the olive, but not anoint with the oil ; the
whole' land shall be desolate for the fruit of the doings of
them that dwell therein." (Mic. 6 :13 ; 7 :13.) This prophet
opposes this wicked theory.
Nahum says : "God is jealous. He taketh vengeance on
His enemies. He will not acquit the wicked. They shall be
cut off. He knoweth those that trust in Him." (Nah. 1 :
2-7.) He exhorts: "0 Judah, keep thy solemn feasts — per
form thy vows." (Nah. 1:15.)
Habakkuk saith: "The whole land is sinful; violence is
everywhere, with strife and contention. The law is not ob
served, judgment never goeth forth. The wicked compas-
seth the righteous." (Hab. 1 :l-4.) He declares that for these
things God will bring the Chaldeans upon the land. (Hab.
1 :5-ll.) The Chaldeans to he afterwards destroyed for their
wickedness — their idolatry, drunkenness, cruelty and op
pression of the Jews. (Hab. 2:8-20.)
Zephaniah? God's vengeance on Judah for divers sins.
"I will utterly consume all things from off the land, saith
God." (Zeph. 1:2.) "Their blood shall be poured out like
dust, and their flesh like dung; the whole land shall be de
voured by the fire of my jealousy. I will make a speedy rid
dance of them that dwell in it." (Zeph. 1:3-18.)

The Argument. 215
Zechariah ? This prophet reminds the Jews that God sent
prophets to their fathers ; but they would not hear them. He
tells them that God destroyed them in consequence — that He
did unto them according to their ways and according to
their doings. (Zech. 1:1-7.) The Jews exhorted to refor
mation. They would not obey God; and were scattered
among all nations. (7:5-14.)
Lastly Malachi? This prophet lays great crimes at Ja
cob's door. Jacob more than Esau. God laid Esau's heri
tage bare — he will do the same to Jacob for his sins. He
arraigns the priests. He charges them with teaching that
"Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of God and
he delighteth in him." "With sinning against God from the
days of their fathers; as robbing God, as saying, there was
no profit in keeping His laws; as calling the proud, happy,
etc." (Mai. 1:6-10; 2:11-16, 17; 3:7, 8-18.) The Judg
ment Day, the wicked destroyed; and the righteous saved.
(Mai. 4:1-2.)
In view of these appalling judgments, in all the ages, on
the Israelites, we are at a loss to see how the gentleman can
hold to so monstrous a theory as that "their unrighteousness
commends the righteousness of God." And not only does
God's judgments against them condemn such a holding. Why
should God have raised up that long and illustrious line of
prophets, and commissioned them to denounce Israelitish un-
holiness, in such fearful anathema, if such a principle ob
tained in his government? If his righteousness was com
mended by their unrighteousness, then should He have sent
the prophets to urge them to do evil — to have exhorted them
to every possible crime. But to return.
We were discussing the course that God pursued towards
the Jews in the wilderness. Does not Moses recount the
ungodliness of Israel in the wilderness, and the fearful judg
ments of God in consequence ? Have you never read, Eabbi,
of what occurred on the return of the ten spies to Kadesh-
Barnea ? Do you not remember, that it was because of their

216 The Argument.
unbelief and disobedience that God declared, that not one
of adult Israel, Joshua and Caleb excepted, should ever en
ter Canaan?
E.— Admit their unrighteousness. It should not have in
duced God to disregard His covenant, as I understand it.
Carrying them into Canaan, under such circumstances, only
enabled God to display his righteousness in a more resplend
ent light. The more sin they committed, the more glory
would He have gotten to Himself in keeping that covenant.
His doing so would only have displayed His steadfastness
as a covenant keeping God — would have shown that He was
not to be dissuaded from complying with His engagement,
by any consideration whatsoever. We repeat, their sinfulness,
though we admit it, for argument sake, could not have in
duced God to do as you say — disregard His covenant with
them. It only gave Him an opportunity to display His
righteousness — His infinite veracity in a more overwhelming
manner. Who does not know that a physician gets to him
self more glory in restoring to health a patient that was at
death's door, than he does one that was only slightly indis
posed ? The sicker the patient the more glory gets the phy
sician, upon his recovery. But, we shall be asked, doubt
less, to account for the fact that all adult Israel died in the
wilderness — to explain how it was that ten out of twelve
spies died so suddenly; and why only two of them ever were
allowed to enter Canaan. As to the death of all adult Israel
in the wilderness, we have to say that that was according to
Nature. The most of them at the crossing of the Eed Sea
were adults. Wandering in that fearful desert for forty
years, they were all old people; and died because they had
reached the age when all die. In regard to the death of the
spies. The account is that a plague was raging. They died
of the disease, as did many others. As to Joshua and Ca
leb — their living to enter Canaan was accidental.
P.— Your position antagonizes Moses' writings. He, in the
plainest manner, teaches that God did not carry our ances
tors into Canaan because of their ungodliness and want of

The Argument. 217
faith. Here is the language: "And the Lord said unto
Moses, "How long will My people provoke me? And how
long will it be ere they believe Me, for all the signs which I
have showed among them ? I will smite them with the pesti
lence and disinherit them; and will make of thee a greater
nation and mightier than they. Because all those men which
have seen my glory and my miracles, which I did in Egypt,
and in the wilderness, and have tempted Me now these ten
times, and have not hearkened to My voice; Surely they
shall not see the land which I swear unto their fathers,
neither shall any of them that provoke Me see it. Say unto
them. As truly as I live, saith the Lord, as ye have spoken in
mine ears, so will I do to you. Your carcasses shall fall in
this wilderness, and all that were numbered of you, accord
ing to your whole number, from twenty years old and up
ward, which have murmured against Me. Doubtless ye shall
not come into the land concerning which I swear to make
you dwell therein, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and
Joshua, the son of Nun." (Numb. 14.) Here, we are ex
pressly told by God in person, that it was because of their
sin and unbelief, that He destroyed all adult Israel in the
wilderness. Is God to be believed? He must be. What
then? Then their unrighteousness did not commend the
righteousness of God. If it were true that the righteousness
of God was commended by their unrighteousness, and that
God, having sworn to carry them into Canaan, would, by so
doing, have set his righteousness in a more resplendent
light, then is the conclusion forced, that God, in their de
struction, was guilty of an act of sheer atrociousness. God,
certainly, destroyed them for their sins. The record must
be accepted. Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I
speak as a man is wont to speak. I mean no irreverence.)
God took vengeance on the Israelites in the wilderness, we
repeat. His doing so is a repudiation by God of the heresy
of his righteousness being commended by man's unrighteous
ness. It is a point blank proof of His repudiation, too, of
the Jewish theory of unconditional Jewish election. Had

218 The Argument.
God covenanted to carry the Israelites into Canaan uncondi
tionally, then He would of necessity have done so. His cov
enant would have been complied with, most certainly. His
destruction of all adult Israel is positive proof that His cov
enant was conditional.
As to Joshua's and Caleb's survival and entrance of Ca
naan, the account is positive that it was due to their faith
and obedience. I refer my friend, the Eabbi, to the writ
ings of Moses.
In regard to the death of the ten spies by the plague. We
are expressly informed that it was in punishment for their
unbelief and their discouragement of the people, by their re
port of the formidable difficulties that confronted them,
should they attempt to enter the land of Canaan.
But take the only position warranted by the history, that
God covenanted conditionally with our ancestors, and God's
course in not carrying them into Canaan is in strict compli
ance with His obligation; while his punishment and final
destruction of them for their unbelief and disobedience was
only to act in accordance with a well established principle
of his government. God had, in all the ages, from Adam,
punished with fearful judgments the distrustful and un
godly. In punishing the Jews in the wilderness, he main
tained his reputation as a God that is no respecter of persons,
and one who cannot look upon sin with, the least degree of
allowance. But the theory must be scouted; for it leads men to sin
ful lives — it offers a reward, really, for ungodliness. Nor
does its iniquity stop there. It repudiates and sets aside a
well established principle of the government of God — that of
punishing, in time and eternity, the ungodly.
Again, God claims to be no respecter of persons. Now if
the unrighteousness of our ancestors commended the right
eousness of God, then the unrighteousness of all men must
do the same. In that event, God would be estopped from
punishing any one — it would be an unrighteous act for God
to judge the world. But the scriptures clearly teach that,

The Argument. 219
"God shall judge the world in righteousness." The theory
cannot be admitted; for, if God discriminates — lets the Jews
go unwhipped of justice, and punishes the Gentiles — then,
he would act in contravention of his claim of impartiality,
falsify his word, and be guilty of the damnable outrage of
punishing with eternal hell a part of his creatures, while
honoring and blessing another part, who were, to all intents
and purposes, the most wicked — they having been given his
written laws. The theory cannot be allowed. "God forbid;
for then how shall God judge the world?" We repeat. If
such a claim be allowed, it was an unrighteous act for God
to not only not carry the Jews into Canaan, but to punish
them for their unrighteousness; seeing their "unrighteous
ness commended his righteousness." God being no respecter
of persons, if it was unrighteous in him to punish the Jews
in the wilderness, it would be unrighteous for him to punish
any one, at any time. This conclusion controverts the
scripture, for it expressly teaches that there is to be a Judg
ment Day, wherein God will judge the world in righteous
ness — rewarding the good, and punishing the ungodly. A
theory that is in conflict with the character and word of God
must be repudiated.
But take the theory I am advocating, and God's course,
in punishing and destroying the Jews in the wilderness, sav
ing only Joshua and Caleb, is in harmony with his character,
his claim, and a well established principle of his government.
Take the theory, and God's arraignment of the race of man
kind at Judgment Day, punishing all sinners without dis
tinction, and rewarding all the godly of every nation, sets
God's righteousness in an imposing light, and verifies the
truth of His word.
Rabbi — Admitting your theory, still it does seem to me
that He, carrying them into Canaan notwithstanding their
faithlessness and wickedness, would have displayed his truth
in a most glorious way — he being not dissuaded by their lie,
from observing his engagement. So acting, his truth, we
hold, would have more abounded through their falsehood.

220 The Argument. i
Paul. — If such were true, then answer the question : Why
then were they judged as sinners? God certainly adjudged
them to be sinners, and punished them as such. His doing
so is conclusive against the theory that God's glory — his
truth — is set in a clearer light in consequence, or, by reason
of, the untruthfulness and wickedness of men. Their pun
ishment by God is proof positive that no such principle ob
tains in his government.
But such a theory as that God's righteousness is com
mended by man's unrighteousness — that God's truth shines
in a more resplendent way, in consequence of man's false
hood, faithlessness and disobedience — must be scouted as
monstrous. For stript of every disguise, it sets forth the
awful doctrine that, "it is right to do evil that good may
come of it" — a doctrine, by the way, that I am slanderously
reported as teaching. Such a doctrine is villainous in the
highest sense of the word. Think of God's truth being de
pendent upon the duplicity, falsehood and wickedness of man
for its most perfect exhibition ! Such a doctrine justifies sin
of every kind, and of every degree. Aye, more. It makes
the punishment of sin by God to be an atrocious act. Since
unconditional election leads to sin, and its justification; since
it makes sin right — makes it right to do evil that good may
come of it; since it antagonizes God's character, falsifies
his word, makes it wrong for him to condemn and punish
the wicked; since it sets aside the Judgment Day; and since
it offers every inducement to sin, promising immunity to sin
ad libitum — it must be regarded as "the sum of abomina
tions." So far from teaching such an awful heresy, I with
out hesitation declare that nothing more is wanting to make
the damnation of the holder just, than his iniquity in hold
ing and advocating such a damnable heresy. A theory that
teaches that "it is right to do evil, that good may come of
it," is, we repeat, in utter conflict with the government of
God. Such a theory nullifies all law, justifies all crime,
licenses every iniquity. Adopted generally, it would fill the
world with ungodliness of every description, populate heaven

The Argument. 221
with sinners of every grade, and empty hell of its inmates,
present and prospective.
This discussion shows that Jews and Gentiles, alike, hold
the truth in unrighteousness; that both have ever had light;
and that they have both lived lives notoriously wicked, not
withstanding. What then ? Are the Jews in a better condi
tion than the Gentiles? Nay, verily. They are both under
sin, as we have overwhelmingly shown from Moses and the
prophets. Rabbi. — What's that? The Jews are in no better condi
tion than the Gentiles ? The Jews sinners ? I deny it. They
are not sinners.
Paul. — They are sinners. What saith the word of God?
In brief, it is as follows: "There is none righteous, no, not
one; There is none that understandeth, there is none that
seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way; they
are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth
good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with
their tongues they have used deceit ; the poison of asps is un
der their lips ; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery
are in their ways. And the way of peace have they not
known. There is no fear of God before their eyes."
Rabbi. — Do you make these scriptures to apply to the
Jews? Think you that they were intended as descriptive of
Israelites ?
Paul. — I certainly do. Are not the Jews under the law?
Do they not boast themselves and proudly claim that they
are the elect of God, because he gave them his laws? Do
they not, on the ground that they have God's laws, claim
their superiority to all other nations? They covenanted to
obey God in all things, as we have seen. They certainly are
under the law. As they are under the law, then, they are
the people that the law paints in such sinful colors — that the
law describes as a people more ungodly, really, than the
Gentiles. Since the law so describes the Jews, they are un
der sin. Why did you not admit so much? Did you not

222 The Argument.
urge that the unrighteousness of the Jews commended the
righteousness of God ? Is it not your theory that it is right
to do evil that good may come of it? You will not deny it.
Rabbi. — The Jews are not under sin. You ask, "Did you
not so admit?" I did for the sake of argument. I ex
pressly so limited my admission. We do hold, too, that it is
right to do evil that good may come of it. But while we so
hold; and while we do violate God's laws, yet we are not
sinners, in the sight of God. Our sins are sins of the flesh.
Those we condone by the deeds of the law — by observing the
requirements of the sacrificial system.
Paul. — There is no such thing as justification by the deeds
of the law. This is evident from the following scriptures:
"For thou desireth not sacrifice (for sin), else would I give
it. Thou delightest not in burnt offerings. The sacrifices
of God are a broken spirit: a broken and contrite heart, 0
God, thou wilt not despise. Then shall thou be pleased with
the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole
burnt offering; then (when righteous) shall they offer bul
locks upon thine altar." (Ps. 51.) "Will I eat the flesh of
bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer unto God thanks
giving; and pay thy vows unto the most High. And call
upon me in time of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou
shalt glorify me. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast
thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldst take
my covenant in thy mouth? Seeing thou hatest instruction
and casteth my words behind thee?" (Ps. 50.) "Sacrifice
and offering thou didst not desire ; burnt offering and sin of
fering hadst thou not required (for sin). Then I said, Lo,
I come ; I delight to do thy will, 0 my God ; yea, thy law is
within my heart." (Ps. 40.) The purport of these scrip
tures is: 1. Sin is not condoned by sacrificing; 2. That a
broken and contrite heart is the sacrifice that pleaseth God;
3. That the sacrifices of the ungodly are not acceptable to
God ; 4. That God is pleased with an offering only when the
righteous sacrifice ; 5. That it is not the animal offering ; but

The Argument. 223
the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God,
that alone condones sin.
Again. Saul was sent to destroy the Amalekites, root and
branch. He destroyed the people; but kept all the stock,
claiming that he did so, that the stock might be used for
sacrificial purposes. What reply did Samuel make? "Hath
the Lord as great delight in sacrifice and burnt offerings, as
in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better
than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of the rams. Be
cause thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath re
jected thee from being king." (I. Sam. 15.) Here the
prophet teacheth, that sacrifice did not condone sin; that
though one sacrifices, yet, if he sin, God would reject him,
though he be a king. Solomon saith : "The sacrifice of the
wicked is an abomination to the Lord; but the prayer of the
upright is his delight." (Prov. 15.) To do justice and
judgment is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice."
(Prov. 21.)
But what saith the prophets ? We will hear from Isaiah :
"To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto
me? saith the Lord; I am full of the burnt offerings of
rams ; and the fat of fed beasts, and I delight not in the
blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye
come to appear before me, who hath required this of your
hand to tread my courts ? Bring no more vain oblations ; in
cense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and Sab
baths, the calling of assemblies, I can not away with; it is
iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and
your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble
unto me: I am Weary to bear them. And when ye spread
forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you. Yea,
when ye make many prayers I will not hear; "your hands
are full of blood. ' (Isa. 1.)
Jeremias? "Hear, 0 earth: behold, I will bring evil up
on this people ; even the fruit of their thoughts ; because they
have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law; but re
jected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from

224 The Argument.
Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country ? Your burnt
offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto
me. Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord
hath rejected them." (Jer. 6.) "Thus saith the Lord of
hosts, the God of Israel : Put your burnt offerings unto your
sacrifices, and eat 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 or sacrifices'.
But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,
and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people ; and walk
ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be
well with you." (Jer. 7.) From this prophet, we learn
that it was not sacrifice of beasts that God delighted in, but
holiness of life. We might quote from Ezekiel chapters
twenty and twenty-third. He teacheth the same, that Isaiah
and Jeremias do.
Let us hear from Hosea: "For I desired mercy and not
sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt of
ferings. But they like men have transgressed my covenant."
(Hos. 6.) "I have written to him (Ephraim) the great
things of my law; but they were counted as a strange thing.
They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and
eat it; but the Lord accepteth them not. Now will he re
member their iniquity, and visit their sins." (Hos. 8.)
What saith Amos ? "I hate, I despise your feast days, and
I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye of
fer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not
accept them; neither will I regard the peace offerings of
your fat beasts. Take them away from me, the noise of thy
songs ; for I will not hear the melody of your viols. But let
judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty
stream." (Amos 5.) They sacrificed and sinned. They
worshipped idols, and did all kinds of evil; and then went
and offered their sacrifices, holding that hy sacrificing they
condoned their sins. But what saith God because of their
course in sinning and sacrificing? "Therefore, I will cause
you to go into captivity beyond Damascus." (Amos 5.)

The Argument. 225
What saith Micah? "Wherewith shall I come before the
Lord, and bow myself before the Most High God? Shall I
come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year
old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or
with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first
born for my transgressions, the fruit of my body for the
sins of my soul? He hath shewed thee, 0 man, what is
good; and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do
justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy
God?" (Mic. 6.)
Who can read these scriptures without seeing that justi
fication by sacrifices and offerings — by the deeds of the law —
has no foundation ? How absurd would it have been in God
to make justification for the violation of one part of his laws,
to consist in observing another part of them ! These proph
ets all teach, that to sin in all manner of ways, as did the
Jews, and then come and sacrifice, claiming, "we are justi
fied — we are pardoned, because of our sacrifice; the blood of
our sacrifices hath washed away our sins," — was, of all
things, an offence unto God. It is seen that all these proph-
etc declare, that God will send fearful judgments on the
Jews, though they sacrificed. This shows that their sacri
ficing after sinning, only added to their sin. This shows
the truth of Solomon's statement: "The sacrifice of the
wicked is an abomination to the Lord."
The fearful arraignment of the prophets, quoted above,
to-wit: "There is none righteous, no, not one, etc.," and
their teaching as to justification by the deeds of the law —
by sacrifices and offerings — are in harmony. This arraign
ment of the Jews for their wickedness, shows that they were
not justified by the deeds of the law — shows that sin never
was condoned by observing the requirements of the sacri
ficial system; shows, in a word, the heresy of sinning and
sacrificing — shows the heresy of this part of the Jewish
theory. But aside from these scriptures. Nothing is more certain
than that the law is a rule of action — that "by the law is
8

226 The Argument.
the knowledge of sin." The law points out sin; but makes
no provision whatever for escape from the penalty attached
to its violation. The law declares, plainly: "The soul that
sinneth it shall die." (Ez. 18.)
Rabbi. — Such a construction of the scriptures voids the
sacrificial system. If the observance of its requirements does
not operate justification — does not relieve the transgressor
of the guilt of sin, then tell me, if you can, what availeth it ?
Why were the Jews required to observe so burdensome a
system ?
Paul. — I am astonished that any Old Testament reader
could have ever conceived that it was possible that the blood
of bulls and of goats could take away sin. I am astonished
that my friend, the Rabbi, does not know that the sacrifices
offered, day by day, by the priests, can not take away sin.
Do you not know that the letter oi the sacrificial system kill-
eth ? But he asks, why then was this costly system imposed ?
The reason is obvious. The sacrificial system was a school
master to bring the Jews and Gentiles to Christ. Everything
in the system points to him.
Eabbi. — If you are right, that Jews and Gentiles are un
der sin, and that there is no such thing as justification by
the deeds of the law, then it follows, that all mankind are
exposed to the wrath of God without any hope of reprieve,
'seeing there is no other way by which a man can be justified.
Then no one has been saved, in all the ages from Adam until
now. Your construction of the prophets must, therefore, be
false, since it leads to such a false conclusion.
Paul. — You are mistaken. There is a plan of salvation,
in which God manifests his righteousness — a plan that is
witnessed by the law and the prophets. The entire sacrificial
system points to it ; aye, it teaches that plan. The sacrifieial
system, as above remarked, from a spiritual standpoint, is
that system — I refer to the righteousness of God, which is
by faith in Christ's blood for remission of sins. This plan
embraces all that believe — Jews and Gentiles — for there is
no difference. As all have sinned, and come short of the

The Argument. 227
glory of God; so all are freely justified by his grace through
the redemption that is in Christ Jesus : whom God hath set
forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to de
clare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are
past, through the forbearance of God : To declare, we repeat,
his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus. All had sinned. All were
under the penalty of the violated law. To meet the demands
of the law all must perish, unless a substitute could be
found. That substitute was found in the person of his own
Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. On him were laid the sins of
the world; and He died in their stead. The demands of
the law being met, God could be just — true to his word — re
spect his law which declared: "The soul that sinneth shall
die;" and yet, be the pardoner — the justifier — of him that
believeth in Jesus, that exerciseth faith in his shed blood for
the remission of his sins.
Such is the plan. It embraces all men in its provisions.
As all have sinned, and were under the penalty of the vio
lated law; and, as all were reconciled to God as a matter of
grace, and all have to be saved in the same way, i.e., by faith
in the blood of Christ for remission of sins; there is no
ground for boasting, it being excluded by the law of faith.
As, therefore, justification by the deeds of the law is not
taught in either the law (Moses' writings) or the prophets;
and, as this plan of justification by faith is taught in both,
the theory of justification by the deeds of the law must be
discarded. As, therefore, the plan of salvation embraces the Gentile
as well as the Jew, the doctrine of Gentile reprobacy by de
cree is without foundation in the word of God. And this
conclusion is further necessitated, in that salvation is for the
Gentile as much as it is for the Jew, by the answers that
must be given to the following inquiries: (1) Is God the
God of the Jews only? (2) Is he not of the Gentiles also?
Yes, of the Gentiles also.
Seeing then that he is the God of the Gentiles, as well as

228 The Argument.
the Jews, and is no respecter of persons, he justifies Jew and
Gentile alike — by faith in the blood of Christ — the circum
cision (Jews) by faith, and the uncircumcision (Gentiles) by
faith. Eabbi. — Your theory of justication by faith in the blood
of Christ, we repeat, if true, does away with the law — nulli
fies it. No theory can be allowed that sets aside God's law.
If you do away with the law as a ground of justification, and
make faith its ground, you void the law, do you not?
P. — God forbid: Yea, we establish the law. The scrip
tures, we repeat, nowhere teach justification by legal observ
ance. They make the law a rule of action — that by which
we have "a knowledge of sin." They teach that where a man
has once violated the law, he is a criminal condemned to
death, without the shadow of a prospect for a reprieve so far
as the law is concerned. Further, they teach that every man
may escape the penalty of the law, and become reconciled to
God and receive remission of sins, by simply exercising faith
in the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God. Teaching
what the law teaches, what the scriptures set forth, is, we
submit, not to set the law aside, but to conform to its re
quirements — obey its injunction — "teach the law."

CHAPTEE XIII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
ROMANS IV.
R._Did you not teach that the doer of the law is alone
regarded by God as one of his elect? You certainly did. If
God regards no one but a doer of the law as one of his peo
ple, then, must justification be a matter of debt— then must
God owe a man salvation. When one works for another, the
relation is that of employer and employee. When the work
is done, then the employer owes the employee for his services
— he is indebted to the employee. In discharging that debt
would you say that the employer did so as a matter of grace.
Certainly not. Honor, honesty, justice, oblige to the liquida
tion of the debt. If, therefore, you make justification a mat-
'ter of faith on the part of man, and grace on the part of
God, you in so doing do away with the relation existing be
tween man and God — that of employer and employee.
Again. It is, as you have contended, a well established
principle of the government of God to reward the observer
of his laws. Is such a doctrine as justification by grace, in
consequence of man's faith, in harmony with that well estab
lished, universally conceded, principle of God's government?
To make justification a matter of grace, you repudiate your
own claim, do away with the relation existing between God.
and man, set aside the unalterable principle of God's govern
ment, and renounce the plain teaching of the word of God,
which makes justification dependent upon, or in consequence
of, legal observance.
Again. Suppose that we concede, that there is no such thing
as justification, by observing the requirements of the sacrifi-

230 The Argument.
cial system, is it not a fact that man is justified by legal ob
servance? Why was circumcision of the flesh imposed on
Abraham and his descendants? If it did not mark him and
his as the elect of God, then it must have been designed by
God as that, through the receiving of which, he and they
were imputed righteous— he and his descendants were ac
cepted by God. By becoming circumcised, God certainly jus
tified both him and them.
P. — We will answer each of the Rabbi's positions in order.
We are not in conflict with our position that a man must
obey God in all things to be regarded by him as one of his
elect. Our position is that a man must be holy — observant
of God's law in all things — after justification. The subject
before us is not what a man's life must be after his justifica
tion; but, as to the way in which a man is to become justi
fied — how a sinner, one under the penalty of the violated
law, may be restored to the favor of God — what, in other
words, he must do in order that he may become purged of
his iniquity. The two subjects are, you will perceive, friend
Eabbi, essentially different. Your position was that a man
could get forgiveness, by observing the requirements of the
sacrificial system. Mine, that he could be restored to the
favor of God, through faith in the atoning merits of the
blood of Christ — the Lamb of God. You, that he could
become justified by his works — by legal observance. I, by
faith. We have already shown that there is no such doc
trine as justification by sacrificing. This the gentleman has
conceded. He still holds, however, to his heresy of justifi
cation by the deeds of the law basing his claim on the new
ground of justification in consequence, or hy reason of being
circumcised in the flesh. We will notice this new position
presently. His position as to employer and employee will now claim
our notice. Abraham is the father of all nations, in general,
and of the Israelites in particular. We will, therefore, ap
peal the question raised to his life. Abraham was the ser
vant of God. A servant, there was no work that he could

The Argument. 231
do, but what God, his master, had a perfect right to exact
of him. There was no work that he could do, therefore, that
would bring God under any obligation to him. This being
so, he could not claim justification as a consideration for
work done. In performing labor for a fellow man, Abraham
could of right claim pay for his services. Under such cir
cumstances the relation of employer and employee would ob
tain; and he would have a perfect right to expect and to
claim remuneration for his services. But the case is entirely
different as between God and Abraham. For in that case
the relation is that of Master and servant. As a servant,
Abraham could not pride himself on the service he had ren
dered him; and expect justification in consequence. We re
peat. To make works a ground of justification, and hold
that by works man brings God under obligation to him — to
make justification a matter of debt — a consideration for ser
vice rendered, is to ignore the relation existing between God
and man, that of Master and servant. That is to say: If
Abraham was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory;
but not before God.
But the gentleman claimed that in making justification by
faith, we repudiated the scripture teaching as to a well es
tablished principle of the government of God. That the
word of God declared that God rewarded the doer of the law.
The gentleman will not remember that we are discussing the
question of how a man is justified. The subject is not as to
God's course in dealing with those who serve him — those who
live holy lives after justification. As the servant of God,
man is rewarded as a matter of grace. When the servant
has done his entire duty, he has done nothing more than he
should have done. Our position as to justification is not,
therefore, in conflict with the principles of the divine gov
ernment, or the teaching of the scripture concerning it.
But as to the gentleman's last argument in support of jus
tification by works. He claims that the descendants of Abra
ham were justified by reason of their obedience to the com
mand: "Every man child shall be circumcised." He claims

232 The Argument.
>
that is to say, that if man is not justified by reason of his
observance of the sacrificial law, he is by his observance of
the rite of circumcision. In reply to this new holding in
support of his theory, we have to say, that circumcision was
the token of a covenant: "And ye shall circumcise the flesh
of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant be
twixt me and thee." (Gen. 17.) As God makes it the to
ken of a covenant, it cannot be brought forward as a ground
of justification. This is to pervert the rite. Again. Cir
cumcision of the flesh obliged, as we have seen, to legal ob
servance^ — to do the whole law. If it was designed to oblige
to legal observance, then it cannot be claimed as a ground of
justification. For that again would divert the rite from its
design. Again. To base justification on circumcision in the
flesh is to base it on that which is not circumcision, as we
have seen.
Having answered the gentleman's objections to my hold
ings, we proceed. That justification is not of works, is the
positive teaching of the word of God. Speaking through
Isaiah, God saith : "I will declare thy righteousness and thy
works; for they (thy works) shall not profit thee." (Isa.
57:12.) Since justification is not by legal observance of any kind —
since sin is not condoned by either sacrifice or circumcision
— then, our holding that it is by faith, must be conceded, see
ing that man can recover himself from his sin. Do not the
scriptures so teach? They certainly do. As remarked in
another connection, the sacrificial system was the letter of
which redemption through faith in the blood of Christ was
the spirit. The sacrificial system symbolized the plan of jus
tification in all its details. The sacrificial law was a school
master, to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by
faith. The entire system pointed to Christ. Aside from
Christ, no part of it possessed any virtue of itself. How ab
surd, then, it is for my opponent to claim justification by
sacrificing, when the design of the system was to educate

The Argument; 233
in the doctrine of justification in the atoning merits of
Christ's blood!
But to the prophets. What do they teach us as to justi
fication? "Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him. He,
also, shall be my salvation; for an hypocrite shall not come
before him." (Job 13:15, 16.) "For I know that my Ee-
deemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon
the earth." (Job 19 :25.) "Serve the Lord with fear, and
rejoice with trembling; Kiss the son (Christ), lest ye be an
gry, and ye perish from the way when his wrath is kindled
but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in
him." (Ps. 2:11, 12.) "0 taste and see that the Lord is
good; blessed is the man that trusteth in Him." (Ps. 34:8.)
"0 Lord of hosts, blessed is the man that trusteth in Thee."
(Ps. 84:12.) "Whoso trusteth in the Lord, happy is he."
(Prov. 16:20.) Esaias saith: "In that day there shall be
a root of Jesse (Christ), who shall stand for an ensign of
the people." (Isa. 11:10.) "Trust ye in the Lord." (Isa.
26:4.) "Therefore, thus saith the Lord, Behold, I lay in
Zion for a foundation — for a stone — a tried stone,' a pre
cious corner stone, a sure foundation : he that believeth shall
not be ashamed." (Isa. 28:16.) "He (Christ) was wound
ed for our transgressions — he was bruised for our iniquities
— the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his
stripes we are healed ; the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
of us all." (Isa. 53:1-12.) Jeremiah saith: "Blessed is
the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord
is." (Jer. 17:7.) "Whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved." (Joel 2:32.) Habakkuk saith: "The
just shall live by (or in consequence of) faith." (Hab. 2 :4.)
The scriptures cited show that the prophets — David, Solo
mon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk — all held that justi
fication is not of works, but a matter of faith in Chirst.
But let us come to Abraham. What saith the scripture
as to his justification? We read: "Abraham believed God,
and it was imputed to him for righteousness." (Gen. 15.) This
scripture, of itself, settles the question as to the manner of

234 The .Argument.
justification, and that beyond controversy. Justification by
faith, and not by works was taught by Moses. Will the
Rabbi repudiate the teaching of the prophets? Will he set
aside the teaching of Moses ? He will not. He dare not.
But, to make justification by works, and to claim, in con
sequence, that God owed a man salvation as a debt, is to ig
nore the positive teaching of still other scriptures. "Thou
hast cast all my sins behind thee." (Isaiah 38.) "I, even
I, am he, that blotteth out thy transgressions, for mine own
sake, and will not remember thy sins." (Isaiah 43.) "I
have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, and as a
cloud thy sins; return unto me for I have redeemed thee."
(Isaiah 44.) "Let the wicked forsake his way, and the un
righteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the
Lord; and he will abundantly pardon." (Isaiah 55:7.) Can
my opponent not see that Esaias makes justification a matter
of grace on the part of God?
But let us hear from Jeremias. God speaking through
him saith: "For I will forgive their iniquity, and remember
their sin no more." (Jer. 31.) "And I will cleanse them
(the Israelites) from all their iniquity, whereby they have
sinned against me; and I will pardon all their iniquities
whereby they have sinned, and whereby they have trans
gressed, against me." (Jer. 33.) "I will pardon them whom
I reserve." (Jer. 50.)
Hear Micah.
"Who is a God like unto Thee? That pardoneth iniquity
and passeth by the transgressions of the remnant of his her
itage? He retaineth not his anger forever; because He de-
lighteth in mercy. He will turn again; He will have com
passion upon us ; He will subdue our iniquities, and will cast
all our sins into the depths of the sea." (Micah 7.)
But let us hear from David. He describeth the blessed
ness of a man unto whom God imputeth righteousness
without works, saying: "Blessed are they whose iniquities

The Argument. 235
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man
to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Ps. 32:1, 2.) The
scriptures quoted, prove to a demonstration, that justification
is a matter of pure grace on the part of God, as remarked.
So then reason and scriptures concur in establishing the
truth of our position, to-wit: justification by the deeds of
the law is heresy. In other words, the Eabbi's theory is
shown to be "as baseless as the fabric of a dream." Now to
him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but
of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteous
ness. This the Eabbi will admit. He must concede what
such men as David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and others
teach. E. — Do you pretend to claim that salvation through Christ
— through faith in His blood — has been taught in all these
ages? P. — We certainly do. Justification through faith, is, as
remarked, the spirit of the sacrificial system. The sacrificial
system obtained in all the ages from Adam till the Advent.
The gospel was the spirit of that system. Besides the sys
tem there were men preaching the gospel in all the ages.
Christ in person preached it to Adam, saying : "The seed of
the woman shall bruise the serpent's head." (Gen. 3.) He
it was that preached it to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, de
claring: "In thy seed (Christ) shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed." (Gen. 12; 26; 28.) It was preached to
our ancestors in the wilderness, in Moses' day ; "but the word
preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith
in them that heard it. All the prophets since the world be
gan have preached it — it has been preached to every creature
under heaven. (Col. 1.)
B. — Admitting the truth of the scriptures you have brought
forward, your conclusion, that all men are justified by faith —
that justification through faith in the blood of Christ is for
Gentiles as well as Jews — does not follow. You have quoted
from our scriptures. The prophets are speaking of Israel-

236 The Argument.
ites alone, as justified by faith. They clearly refer to Abra
ham and his descendants, lineal and constructive. And this
being so, they prove just what I hold : that the Israelites only
are God's people. Did you not so claim?
P. — I made no such concession. You certainly paid but
little attention to the quotations made. Take the quotation
from David for example : David saith, "Blessed is the man."
He does not say, "Blessed is the Jew." He clearly teacheth
that every man is blessed to whom God doth not impute sin.
This embraces all men — Gentiles as well as Jews.
But let us refer the settlement of this question to Abra
ham's day. Cometh this blessedness, of which David
wrote, upon the circumcision (the Israelites) only? Or
upon the uncircumcision (the Gentiles) also? Don't forget
that we have shown that "faith was imputed to Abraham
for righteousness." Now to determine whether this bless
edness" of which David wrote, was for the Jew only, or
was for the Gentile as well, we have only to pause and
inquire: When was Abraham's faith imputed to him for
righteousness? Was it after he was circumcised? Or was
it before he was circumcised? The scripture account
is that he was imputed righteous before he was cir
cumcised; and that he received the sign of circumcision
(circumcision of the flesh) fifteen years after he was imputed
righteous, as a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which
he had before he was circumcised. Now with what designs
was the sign of circumcision imposed on Abraham so long
after he was counted righteous? They were: 1. To show
that justification was not a matter of words — of legal ob
servances — because he had received the rite; 2. To declare
that Abraham was to the father of all those that believe,
though they be not circumcised, that is to say, of the Gen
tiles — that faith must be imputed to them, also, for right
eousness ; 3. It was imposed fifteen years after he was impu
ted righteous — a few months before the birth of Isaac — that
he might be the father of the circumcision (Israelites) — not,
be it understood, the father of those that had received the

The Argument. . 237
sign of circumcision — circumcision of the flesh — but, of
those that had received circumcision of the heart, and walk
ed in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which
he had before he was circumcised in the flesh. We thus
learn from history of the imposition of the rite of cir
cumcision, that the blessedness of justification by faith — of
imputed righteousness because of faith — came on Abraham
when he was himself a Gentile — and that fifteen years be
fore he came to be known as a Hebrew. This being so,
then the conclusion cannot be avoided that his righteousness
was not to be confined to his descendants only; but was to
be extended to the Gentiles, also. The very fact that faith
was imputed to him fifteen years before he was circumcised,
points unmistakably to the fact that he was to be regarded
as the father of the Gentile, as well as the Jew. For the
promise that Abraham should be the heir of the world, was
not made to Abraham or to his seed — 'because of his or
their receiving circumcision in the flesh — through the law;
but through the righteousness of faith — because he had
faith in the promised seed for justification — which seed was
Christ. We thus, we repeat, reach the conclusion that the
blessedness of which David spoke was for Gentiles
as well as Jews. And this conclusion is forced.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void,
and the promise made of none effect.
The theory put forward by the Eabbi does away
with the way in which Abraham was justified; and sets
aside the promise of God, that all nations should be blessed
in him — that he should be the heir of the world. Justifica
tion must, therefore, be held to be by faith, that it might be
by grace; to the end that the promise might be sure to all
the seed — not simply to the descendants of Abraham, lineal
or otherwise; but to those that were not, literally speaking,
his descendants, or the Gentiles. And this conclusion is
sustained by the positive teaching of the word of God. For
what saith God? "I have made thee a father of many (all)
nations." This scripture is sufficient. It settles beyond dis-

238 The Argument.
pute, that the Gentiles were the descendants of Abraham,
when justified by faith. It will be further seen that no Is
raelite was regarded by God as one of His elect, who was
not justified by faith, and lived a holy life. It shows, in a
word, that Abraham was the father of the human race, in
a spiritual sense.
But recurring to justification, for a moment, by the law.
No man can be justified by the law for the law offers no
ground for justification. The law saith: "The soul that
sinneth shall die." The law worketh wrath; for where there
is no law there is no transgression. As, therefore, the wrath
of God is kindled against man by reason of his transgres
sion of the law, it is absurd to talk of man's being justified
by legal observance of any kind. That which is the oc
casion of God's wrath against man, cannot be held to be
a ground for justification. It is manifestly absurd, we re
peat, to attribute justification to that which brings one un
der the wrath of God. The same fountain doth not send
forth sweet water and bitter. That cannot be held to give
life, which occasions death. How ridiculous would it have
been in God to make the observance of one kind of law con
done the offense of violating another kind of statute !
The promise made to Abraham that he should be the
heir of the world — "the father of all nations" — was made
when he was of an age that made it, from a natural stand
point, impossible of fulfillment. It was the fact that this
promise was made by God, who quiekeneth the dead, and
calleth those things which be not, as though they were,
which led Abraham, who knew the ability of God to per
form what He promised, to believe that the promise would
be fulfilled to the letter. Though he was a very old man,
and incapable of begetting a child, and though Sarah was
like himself, well stricken in years; yet against hope he be
lieved, and hoped that he might become the father of many
nations, according to that which was spoken: "So shall thy
seed be." And being not weak in faith, he considered not
his own body now, as it were, dead — he being an hundred

The Argument. 239
years old; nor did he consider the deadness of Sarah's
womb. No ! He staggered not at the promise of God
through unbelief; but was strong in the faith, giving glory
to God — being fully persuaded, as remarked, that he was
able to perform that which he had promised. And, there
fore, it was imputed to him for righteousness. The very
fact that God deferred the fulfillment of the promise, that
he should be the father of many nations, till the time, that
it was impossible for Abraham to beget, or Sarah to bear
a child, evidences in the strongest manner, that God de
signed to teach all men that justification was a matter of
pure grace on His part, and depended absolutely on faith.
Now it was not written that faith was imputed to Abraham
for righteousness, for the instruction of him alone, we re
peat. No. It was written for our sakes, also — for our in
struction likewise — to whom righteousness shall be, also,
imputed, if we believe as did he, on him that raised up Je
sus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our
offences, and raised again for our justification.
It will be noticed that Abraham was required to believe
what, according to natural law, was impossible — believe that
he could beget and Sarah bear a child; and that that child
was He that would be the Saviour of the race. In requir
ing that, we believe in Christ's resurrection, the demand of
God is the same — that of an impossibility according to the
law of nature.

CHAPTEE XIV.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans V.
P. — Experience is the true test of all theories. The ex
perience of a religious person is, of itself, evidence of the
strongest character, not only that he is religious; but that
the theory of religion that he has accepted is the true one.
As further proof, that, in advocating the doctrine of justi
fication by faith in the atoning merits of Christ's blood, I
am setting forth a great cardinal of the word of God, I ap
peal to the experience of all those who have sought for, and
obtained, justification or pardon through faith. What is
that experience? It is that of peace with God — a feeling of
restful comfort, that assures them that God is not angry
with them — that He is reconciled to them. How delightful
is this experience of being at peace with God! It passeth
understanding! Language cannot describe it! When the
soul is stayed on God, man is prepared for all the vicissi
tudes incident to existence in this world. Even death be
comes a welcome visitor! The prisoner with body wasted
with long confinement — with limbs galled with ball and
chains — watches, with not half the eagerness for the ap
proach of the officer that will unbar his prison doors, and
strike from his aching limbs the horrid bonds, that the
Christian does the approach of the grim monster. He hails
him as a deliverer, that striking off this mortal coil, will
give his spirit a free wing to mansions in the skies — to the
home and presence of his Father and his God. 0 ! to be at
peace with God! How it thrills the spirit in time! What
will it in eternity ! Such is the experience of one when jus-

The Argument. 241
titled by faith in Christ. He rejoices that he has found
peace with God through Jesus Christ; and he exults in
Christ, through whom he has attained to so great peace.
But his peace and joy stop not there. He has access to
a throne of grace, at all times, through faith in Christ. Ap
proaching God through Him, he is ever receiving a new
supply of grace, that enables him to stand against the wiles
of the Devil, the lusts of the flesh, and the allurements of
the world. Being thus able to stand all temptation, he
confidently expects to participate in the promised glory of
God— he hopes to reign with Christ in glory. In this hope
he constantly rejoices.
But not only does he glory in the peace that he has found
— in his access to God's throne, and the strength that he
derives from that access to stand fast — and in the hope that
he has, in consequence of his participation in the joys of
heaven — but he glories in all the tribulations and trials of
whatever character he is called upon to suffer for the sake
of Christ.
R. — I was about to remark, that my observation was that
Christians have the greatest persecutions to bear, and the
most grievous trials; and all, too, on account of their relig
ion — that, in a word, they had anything else but peace.
P. — The Christian enjoys inward peace, of which those
who are not Christians know nothing. He has tribulations
it is true; but even they are a source of joy to him. For he
knows that they are permitted of God, that he may have an
opportunity to cultivate the grace of patience. He that en
dures with unruffled temper afflictions, pain, toil, provoca
tion, or other evil, will, he knows, receive the crown of life.
His baptism of fire only makes him take a stronger hold
upon God, like the young tree, when pressed upon by the
storm, the soil. Looking back along the past, he finds that
it has ever been the history of God's elect to be subjected to
the fiery ordeal. He recalls the experience of the patriarchs
and the prophets, and finds delight in the reflection, that
his life, like theirs, is one of suffering. He rejoices in the

242 The Argument.
thought that "whom God loveth He chasteneth, and scourg-
eth every one whom He receiveth." With such meditations
he comforts his heart, and submits patiently to the rod.
Enduring evil without repining, the experience of tha
presence and approbation of God is realized in a most
marked and consoling manner. He feels that God is near —
that His hand is stretched forth for his deliverance, and
His shield for his protection. He experiences in a high de
gree union and communion with God. Driven by the storm
he takes refuge under the wings of his God, and pillows his
aching head upon the bosom of his Heavenly Father.
From such an experience his hope of eternal life is
strengthened. Like an anchor the tempest-tossed vessel,
does this hope enable him to hold fast his integrity.
As this hope is based upon a consciousness of the love of
God that is shed abroad in his heart by the Holy Ghost
which dwells within him, his earnest expectation is, that,
in nothing shall he be abashed — that he shall never have
that inward sense of guilt, that is alike humiliating and
afflictive. In this assurance he goes forward in all boldness,
determined that Christ shall be magnified in his body,
whether it be by life or by death.
Again. The Christian ever rejoiceth in the reflection that
Christ, as appointed, died for the ungodly — died for our
race, when under the wrath of God, hopeless and in constant
dread of the penal fires of hell. How awful that state!
With no means of escape! Powerless to resist the arm of
omnipotent vengeance! It was under such circumstances,
that Christ, having donned our form, bared his head and
uncovered His bosom for the stroke intended for our race.
But for His compassion, His infinite love, mankind would
have left the world en masse for the lake fiery and billowed
with the unending storm of God's WTath. What a cause for
rejoicing to every Christian, this love divine! This infinite
compassion! This amazing condescension!
R. — You speak of Christ dying for the ungodly. Con
ceding for the present, that justification is by faith in the

The Argument. 243
atoning merits of His blood, we deny that the Israelites ever
had any need of salvation through Christ. We never will
concede that our people are sinners. Not being sinners,
then He could, in no sense, be regarded as a Saviour of
Israelites. P. — Whether you concede that the Israelites stood in need
of a Saviour or not, it is certainly taught in your scriptures
that Christ died for the ungodly. Your scriptures teach
that the Jews are now, and have been, all along the ages
from the days of Abraham, a most wicked, depraved people,
as we have overwhelmingly demonstrated. Your claim is
that the Jews are not sinners — are God's elect — are right
eous. This cannot be so. As additional evidence that they
are sinners, I appeal to the fact, that Christ died for all
mankind. Nothing is clearer than that if Christ died for
all, then were all dead — then were all under the penalty of
the violated law, and, therefore, exposed to the wrath of
God — eternal death. It is absurb to talk of Christ's dying
for the righteous. What need was there, that he die for
those that were the elect of God? Your theory is in conflict
with the teaching of your scriptures. There is such a thing
as a man's dying for a good man — dying in his place, if by
his death he ean save his friend's life. How transcendent
the love of God, as compared with that of man ! How doth
God commend His love for us — manifest it towards us — in
that, while the race were sinners, He sent Christ to die for
it ! How comforting is this love of God for our unfortunate
Tace ! A love that is exhibited in the death of His only Son
— and that while the race were depraved, wicked, sinful!
What a source of comfort and joy unspeakable is all this
to the Christian! We appeal to this peaceful, restful, joy
ous, hopeful experience — an experience realized by all Chris
tians, and to which they all bear testimony — as evidence
that, of itself, vouches for the truth of the doctrine of justi
fication by faith. Those that have held to justification by
the deeds of the law, have no such experience; but the exact

244 The Argument.
contrary, as we shall hereafter show. Therefore, tried by
experience, the doctrine we advocate is shown to be true.
But there are yet other reasons for the Christian's rejoic
ing. This is afforded in the reflection that, if Christ died
for him while he was a sinner, He will save him from wrath,
now that he is justified through faith in His blood. How
consoling this thought! How sustaining! How comfort
ing! That, if while he was a sinner, he was reconciled to
God by the death of His Son, now that he is reconciled to
God — restored to His favor through faith in the atoning
merits of that Son's blood — he will be saved through the
intercessions of Christ risen from the dead, who ever liveth
as a Mediator between him and God — that, in a word, as
Christ resurrected from the dead liveth, so shall he, resur
rected from death, live with God, seeing that by the death
of his Son, God proposed to restore the race to His favor —
save it from the consequences of sin, and death.
Nor does the Christian find joy in even such reflections as
those noticed, simply. He rejoices in God the Father, from
whom he has received the atonement, through Jesus Christ.
It is an ever increasing sense of joy, that he is saved now —
that he has now eternal life, as a gift of the Father through
Jesus his Son. What a glorious experience! Who can
doubt that he has the true religion — that he has been justi
fied in God's appointed way — when his life is one constant
round of conscious acceptance with God? When his peace
flows like a river, widening and deepening as it pours its
flood onward to the ocean of bliss that tides without ebb the
shores immortal? Were there no other evidence we repeat,
of the truth of Christianity, . than that of the life of a child
of God, that of itself would be sufficient to witness its verity
and assure its worth.
What then? Not only does the death of Christ for the
race prove that Jews, as well as Gentiles, were in a lost con
dition ; but it furnishes proof of the most conclusive charac
ter that the Gentiles were, as well as the Jews, embraced in
the plan of redemption. God claims to be no respecter of

The Argument. 245
persons, an infinitely just God. He was constrained by his
claims, if he provided a plan of salvation at all, to make it
to embrace the race. And further. The death of Christ for
an ungodly world is proof overwhelming that the Jewish
theory of election, and reprobation unconditionally, is false —
that there is no such thing as Jewish election, or Gentile
reprobacy by decree — that there is no such thing as justifica
tion by legal observance of any kind.
R. — We are loth to believe that the Jews are sinners — as
much so, or even worse than the Gentiles. We reject with
scorn the idea that the Jews are to be saved in the same
manner as are the Gentiles. We cannot believe that God's
plan of justification makes no distinction, whatever, between
Jews and Gentiles. It cannot be that the plan of salvation is
universal in scope — that God subjected his chosen people to
the indignity of being classed with Gentile dogs !
P. — In further proof of the universality of the redemptive
scheme, we appeal to the relation of Adam to the race, and
the consequence of his transgression to all mankind. We
have alluded to this in another connection. Adam was the
federal head of the race. He sinned. The race being as
yet in his loins, sinned in Adam. In sinning, Adam in
curred the penalty of the law, or death. The race fell under
the same penalty, as a matter of course.
R. — Allow me to interrupt you, just a moment. Did you
not in the early part of this discussion, take the position,
that sin is not imputed where there is no law? As the laws
of God were first given to Abraham — being republished at
Sinai — how could Adam and his descendants in ail the ages
till Abraham's day, sin ? The law must first be promulgated
before its violators can be held to be sinners, is your claim,
oft repeated.
P. — You are in error when you hold that the laws of God,
moral and ceremonial or sacrificial, were first published in
Abraham's day. Had you taken the position that they were
republished in his day, it would have been strictly true —
absolutely correct. We have argued the necessity for the ex-

246 The Argument.
istence of law, in another connection; and that, for many
reasons, it was imperative, if God would prove his claim of
Perfection Infinite, that he impose law for man's govern
ment. We have held that sin is a transgression of law; and
that God could not punish mankind where there was no law,
without the grossest injustice. In this connection we alluded
to his punishment of the antediluvians and Cain — of indi
viduals and peoples, and claimed the existence of law, as
evidenced by the course that God pursued to them.
R. — I remember that you took such positions. I recall
your claim that the laws of God, all and singular were given
Adam and his descendants — that the race had them till
Abraham's day. Where have you the slightest evidence that
God promulgated his laws before Abraham's day? We
understand Moses, as declaring, that God had never so hon
ored any other part of the race, as he had the Israelites,
alluding to his having given them his laws. Your position
is in conflict with Moses. Besides. You have admitted that
the Jews had the advantage above all other races in being a
repository for the oracles of God. How can you reconcile
your claim with your concession ? How with the teaching of
Moses ?
P. — There is no sort of trouble in so doing. We admitted
that the Jews had a great advantage in having God's writ
ten laws. We never did concede that the Gentiles did not
have the laws of God. As to Moses. He is simply teaching,
that God had never so honored any people, as in writing his
laws, and delivering them in a written form, for their pre
servation and transmission down the ages — he had honored
no other people in this way, except the Jews.
R. — You seriously contend then, that the race had all of
the laws of God, before the days of Abraham — or from
Adam to Abraham?
P. — We do. The race certainly had them in all those
res. R. — Where have you any evidence that such was a fact ?
P. — The scriptures make a church to be a congregation of

The Argument. 247
the pure and holy. Did such a church exist in the ages from
Adam to Abraham?
K._ We hold that there was no church in those ages.
What proof have you?
P.— We know that Messias was descended from the holy
line, and from Adam. He certainly was to be a lineal de
scendant of the first man. Our first evidence, therefore, of
the existence of a church, is that of Messianic genealogy.
This line of saints were known as "the sons and daughters
of God," as we have before noticed. In the days of Enos,
the grandson of Adam, we read: "Then began men to call
upon the name of the Lord." (Gen. 4:26.) The marginal
reading is : "Then began men to call themselves by the name
of the Lord," that is, sons of God. From the two renderings,
we get the fact, that in the days of Adam, men, calling
themselves sons of God, met together to worship — "to call
upon the name of God." Does not worship imply law for
its regulation? How could the worshippers know, in the
absence of law, what God would have them do? in what
manner to approach him? As they worshiped, they had
law. Here then we have a church, and a worshiping one,
and that in the days of Adam — a church denominated and
given law for the regulation of its services. This church ex
isted in Noah's day. We read : "And it came to pass, when
men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daugh
ters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the
daughters of men, that they were fair, and they took them
wives from among them," etc. (Gen. 6:12.) Here then
we have a church known as sons of God, in all the ages from
Adam to Noah. Now let us ask: Who are the sons of God?
Certainly those that love and obey him. But does not obe
dience imply law? It does beyond a doubt. But not only
was there a church of lay members. There were official
members in that church — preachers in all the ages from
Adam to Noah. Enoch, a cotemporary of Adam's, for three
centuries and more, was a preacher of righteousness. Short
ly after his death, the patriarch Noah is called to the min-

248 The Argument.
istry, with a special warning to the people of his day. Now
this man Noah lived till only two years before the birth of
Abraham. He died in 1998 B. C. What then? There was
a church known as sons of God, that had ministers preach
ing to it, and that were accustomed to meet together for
worship, in all the ages from Adam to: Abraham. Does not
the existence of this church evidence the existence of law,
moral and ceremonial?
But we will not content ourselves with claiming the ex
istence of law, moral and otherwise, because the church with
its ministry existed. It is certain that sin existed throughout
the ages from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to Abraham's
day. Now, what is sin? Certainly a transgression of law.
Then, as sin existed, law existed, seeing there can be no sin
in the absence of law. But mankind certainly had God's
laws in those ages for sin is universally imputed. But sin
is not imputed where there is no law. As the arraignment
of the race is wholesale, then the conclusion cannot be avoid
ed that all men from Adam to Abraham had the laws of
God. But that mankind had God's laws is evident from the
prevalence of death. Death reigned from Adam to Abra
ham. Now, death is the penalty that God has attached to
a violation of his laws, all and singular. . The prevalence of
death, throughout those ages, is proof positive that law ex
isted. So much for the existence of a vast system of laws.
We have been discussing this law covenant as a whole — one
all comprehensive code. Let us take up the respective sys
tems of that code, and consider each separately.
And First, The Moral Law.
Did it exist, in the ages, we are considering? As this
age, reaching from Adam to Abraham, comprises twenty-
one centuries, we cannot expect to find this code in all its
details, as it was afterwards republished at Sinai. The
Book of Genesis has only fifty short chapters in all. That
a book — giving as it does the history of the world for twen-

The Argument. 249
ty-five hundred years — giving an account of man's creation,
fall and punishment: — his restoration to the favor of God —
the plan of that restoration— the history of individuals —
the creation of the world, and many other things, too num
erous to be mentioned — should enter into details, of any
kind, was impossible. There is nothing given in Genesis
but the merest outline of the moral or any other of the codes.
But while we have only a mere brief, it requires but that we
examine it closely, to see that the people of that age had the
moral law in all its details.
In proof, we appeal to the Book. It is well known that
the Decalogue, when republished at Sinai, was engraved on
two tables of stone. These tables were known as the First
Table, and the Second Table. The first table contained the
laws that God designed for the regulation of man's conduct
as a worshipping being. The second, the laws intended to
regulate man's intercourse with his fellow beings. Now, if
we can find a part of the laws of each table, the conclusion
will not be wide of the premises, if we hold that the people
of that age had the entire moral code. For they would have
scarcely been given a part of each code, especially when the
entire code was so indispensable to a proper regulation of
man's conduct with God and his fellows. Now let us look
at each table, and see what evidence exists that the people of
those days had the whole moral law.
Beginning with the First Table.
Turning to the second chapter of Genesis, we read : "And
on the seventh day God ended His work which He had
made; and He rested on the seventh day from all His work
which He had made; And God blessed the seventh day and
sanctified it; because that on it He had rested from all His
work, whioh God created and made." (Gen. 2.) Eef erring
to Exodus, we find that God, at the republication of the
Decalogue, alludes to His setting apart and sanctifying the
seventh day at the close of His work of creation, declaring
that He made the Sabbath day at that time. This shows,

250 The Argument.
therefore, the existence of a part of the First Table, on the
very morn of creation. In other words, it shows that Adam
had this part of the moral law. Nor that alone. We find
that this hebdomadal division of time still existed in Noah's
day. (Gen. 7:4, 8:12); and that Noah observed it. As
Noah observed this law before the Deluge and during it, it
is morally certain that he continued its observance till his
death. Here then we have a part of the code in all the days
from Adam to Abraham — with its observance solemnly en
joined as a holy, sanctified day.
But the people of that day had the Sabbath. For the
Sabbath was made for man. As it was made for man it was
made for all men; and as it was made for all men, it was
made for the first man and his descendants.
Now in what sense was the Sabbath made for all men?
For their observance. This is declared to be the design of
its institution, in both Exodus and Deuteronomy: "Eemem-
ber the Sabbath Day to keep it holy." (Ex. 20.) "Keep
the Sabbath Day to sanctify it." (Deut. 5.) We conclude
that, as God is immutable, it was set apart for the same
purpose in Adam's day. And this conclusion is warranted by
the scripture which declares: "God sanctified the seventh
day." (Gen. 2.)
Now what did the holy keeping of this day require of
Adam and his descendants? Certainly, among other things
the worship of God. But can one worship God without ob
serving the first and second commandments? He cannot.
From, therefore, the institution of the Sabbath, and the
requirement of its holy observance, do we reach the conclu
sion that those laws which constitute its holy observance
were imposed, at the setting apart of the Sabbath. As, there
fore, Adam and his descendants had the first, second and
fourth commandments, is it not a legitimate conclusion isiat
they had the entire First Table?
But they had the Sabbath day, and laws necessary to its
holy observance. For we read : "In process of time, it came
to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, an

The Argument. 251
offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he, also, brought of the
firstlings of his flock, and of the fat thereof. And the Lord
had respect unto Abel and his offering. But to Cain and to
his offering he had not respect." (Gen. 4.) Here certainly
is an act of worship described. Let us examine the passage
briefly. The phrase : "In process of time," is rendered mar
ginally: "In the end of days." The two renderings taken
together, show that the worship was rendered on the Sab
bath day, reference being had, in the phrase "In the end of
days," to the work of God in creation, which ended with the
seventh day. Now take all these facts together: 1. The
seventh day, or Sabbath day, set apart at the close of the six
creative days; 2. The fact that it was made for all men; 3.
That it was instituted for holy observance; 4. That such
observance required worship ; 5. That worship necessitated
the observance of the first and second commandments; 6.
That Cain and Abel worshipped "in the end of days;" 7.
That the hebdomadal division of time existed before and
after the flood — take all the facts together, we say, and it is
evident that the race had the laws of the First Table in the
ages we are considering.

CHAPTEE XV.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1 :18.)
Eomans V. — Continued.
P.— BUT THE SECOND TABLE.
Did it exist in that period ? That it did we appeal to the
interview between God and Cain, after the murder of Abel.
We read that God called to Cain to know where his brother
was. Cain dissembled, answering God in a most insolent
way: "I know not; am I my brother's keeper?" Now why,
we ask, did Cain feign ignorance of Abel's whereabouts. He
wished to conceal his crime. Wherefore? There is no other
reason than that he was conscious of guilt. But how could
he be conscious of guilt, if he did not have the law forbid
ding murder? The scripture saith: "For by the law is the
knowledge of sin." Had Cain been ignorant of the law pro
hibiting murder, he would have had no cause for conceal
ment. The annals of time do not afford a single instance
where concealment was attempted in the absence of a knowl
edge that the act attempted to be concealed was in violation
of positive law. Concealment is positive evidence of crimi
nal conduct. Concealment argues dread of punishment.
Men never conceal an act that they know to be legal. And
for the very good reason, that they know that there is no
punishment attached to its performance. In the absence of
any other evidence the conclusion is forced that Cain had
the law forbidding murder. His attempt at concealment is
positive proof that he had.
But Cain had the law of murder. This is evident from
God's reply: "What hast thou done? The voice of thy
brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground." (Gen. 4.)

The Argument. 253
Here it will be noticed that God arraigns Cain on two dis
tinct counts — lying and murder. Paraphrased his language
would read thus: "Cain, there is no use in attempting by
falsehood to conceal your fearful crime. You have murdered
Abel, for his blood crieth unto me from the ground, demand
ing your punishment." Now why did God arraign Cain?
If he was ignorant of the law of murder, he was guilty of
no sin in the act. If God had not given Cain the law, he
was innocent of any crime. But the very fact that God did
arraign him is pToof that Cain knew the law — is evidence
that he had given Can the law. God certainly does not
charge with criminality in the absence of law. We appeal
to God's arraignment of Cain as proof that he had the law.
That he did, is shown by the curse- put upon him : "And
now thou art cursed from the earth, which has opened her
mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand : When-
thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto
thee her strength : A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be
in the earth." (Gen. 4.) Such was the curse. How awful!
This will appear from the language used. The word "fugi
tive" implies, "flying, wandering, a runaway." The word
"vagabond" means "a tramp, a strolling beggar, wandering
idly without any settled habitation." That is to say : "Thou
shalt be a vagrant, who, in constant dread, and destitute,
shall flee from place to place." Had the curse ended there
it would have been most grievous. But when to that was
added : "The ground shall not henceforth yield her strength
unto thee," i. e., you shall be cursed with short crops — it was
indeed appalling, and that in the last degree. Think of one
wandering from place to place a miserable beggar, in con
stant dread of personal peril and starvation! A dread of
assassination ! a dread of starvation ! A constant foreboding
of calamity and death. Death, instant, would have been, in
many respects, far preferable. Does God punish where there
is no law ? God's word is : "Sin is not imputed where there
is no law." But God did impute sin to Cain. The curse put
upon Cain shows that God held him to be a great criminal.

254 _ The Argument.
Hence from the punishment inflicted, we conclude, that Cain
had the law — knew perfectly the criminality of its violation.
To conclude otherwise is to conclude against the goodness,
mercy, and justice of God, as well as against the positive
teachings of the word of God.
But Cain had the law of murder. This is shown by his
remonstrance : "And Cain said unto the Lord. My punish
ment is greater than I can bear." Against what does Cain
complain? The punishment? Nay. Its unbearableness, its
severity. "It is greater than I can bear." It seems to us
that had he been sentenced without law, he would not have
remonstrated at the excess of the punishment; but at the in
justice of inflicting any punishment. His remonstrance is
itself a confession of guilt. But to admit criminality is to
confess that he had the law, and had wilfully violated it.
But Cain had the law. For he pleads for mercy. "Behold
thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth;
and from thy face shall I be hid ; and I shall be a fugitive and
a vagabond in the earth ; and it shall come to pass, that every
one that findeth me shall slay me." (Gen. 4:13, 14.) Think
you Cain would have plead for mercy, supposing God to have
sentenced him without law? He would not. Bather, would
he have upbraided God for His gross injustice in punishing
him for doing an act of whose criminality, in the absence of
law, he could not have been otherwise than ignorant. Cain
pleads with God not to banish him from His presence. How
that plea must have touched the great heart of God, even
under the circumstances under which Cain made it! Think
of an infinitely just, loving, merciful God turning a deaf ear
to such a wail from, evidently, an agonized heart ! He never
could have done so, admitting the guilt of Cain. He did
not do so, as the sequel shows. Think you God could have
turned away from that agonizing plea, knowing that Cain
had erred through ignorance? No! a thousand times no!
In that event, he would have withdrawn His sentence. Com
passion for the ignorant, would have compelled his doing so.
But Cain had the law. He declares his dread of .assassi-

The Argument. 255
nation. Why did he have such dread of a violent death at
the hands of another ? Why did he imagine that "Every one
that findeth me will slay me." Because he knew that the law
of God was: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall
his blood be shed." (Gen. 9.) If anything were wanting
to establish Cain's guilt, this part of his plea for mercy, sup
plies that want.
But Cain had the law. For, if not, why did he not plead
exemption from punishment on the ground of ignorance?
Had he been ignorant of the law of murder, he, most cer
tainly, would have availed himself of this strong plea in bar
of his punishment. Had he been ignorant, such a plea would
have operated a stay of all punishment. God could not have
turned a deaf ear to such a plea. But Cain did not plead
ignorance. His not doing so is positive proof that he was
fully conversant with the law. The, arraignment and punish
ment of Cain by God shows, in the most overwhelming way,
that Cain had the law. His pleas show that he had the law.
God's claims forbade such a curse — any curse — in the ab
sence of law, and Cain's perfect knowledge of it. But if
Cain had the law forbidding murder, then he had the Second
Table. And if Cain had it, his father had it, he, in all
probability, having learned it from Adam. By this reason
ing, we reach the conclusion that man had the moral law
from the very morn of creation — we having proven, that the
first pair and their descendants had a part of each table.
But we will not rest our claim on the argument submit
ted. That the people of the age from Adam to Abraham
had the moral law, is shown by the lives of such men as
Enoch and Noah.
And (1) Enoch. This saint was a contemporary of Adam.
Of him we read : "Enoch walked with God." Now what is
meant by, "Walked with God?' Why, that he was a right
eous man — one that "walked in all the commandments and
ordinances of the Lord blameless." Then, walking with God
implies law. If Enoch obeyed God — "walked with God" —
then he had the moral law. Such is the lesson of the pa-

256 The Argument.
triarch's life. But his life aside. What were his teachings?
It is well known that he preached to the antediluvians and
that the following is the text of his sermon:
(1) You are sinners; (2) Your deeds are ungodly; (3)
Your words are ungodly; (4) God is coming with ten thou
sand of his saints to judge you for your great wickedness.
Now who are sinners? Those who have violated God's laws.
What constitutes a deed or word ungodly ? Certainly the law
of God. It determines what is and what is not ungodly.
Words and deeds that are in violation of God's laws, can
alone be held to be ungodly. There is nothing to which one
can refer fbr instruction as to the character of his conduct
or conversation, but the scriptures. As Enoch arraigns the
antediluvians for their ungodliness, then, it is absolutely cer
tain that they had the moral law. For "sin is a transgres
sion of law." "There is no transgression where there is no
law." Now, is it not the Decalogue that, in the main, de
termines the ungodliness of converse or conduct ? What saith
it ? "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain." Such is the third commandment. What
are ungodly speeches but its violation? What are ungodly
deeds, but idolatrous worship, sabbattical violations, parental
irreverence, murder, theft, adultery, perjury, covetousness ?
And what are these, but provisions of moral law? The
words used by Enoch show that the Decalogue was the text
of his discourse.
But the antediluvians had the moral law. This is evident
from the warning God sent him to give — that he was com
ing with thousands of his saints for the purpose of fearfully
punishing them — to, in a word, sentence them to hell ! Think
you that God would send human beings to hell, eternal hell,
who, through ignorance, not voluntary, but forced, had vio
lated his laws ? The warning declares in thunder tones that
the antediluvians had the moral law — were fully conversant
with all its provisions, and had violated them, all and sin
gular.

The Argument. 257
But with what object was Enoch sent? Evidently with
that of their reformation. Would his arraignment and threat
of impending judgment have been likely to cause their refor
mation, supposing they were ignorant of God's laws? Ee-
formation begins with repentance — a godly sorrow for sin.
How could they feel sorry for violating laws of which they
had never heard? How could they reform their lives in the
absence of laws instructing them in the way of life? How
could they repent for having said and done things that were
wrong without a consciousness of guilt? As God sent Enoch
to reform the antediluvians, then must he of necessity have
made known his laws, all and singular. To have sent the
prophet as a reformer, before he had promulgated his laws,
would have been to send, him to do an impossible work. It
would have been an utterly absurd mission. What then?
The life, teachings, and mission of Enoch, witness that the
antediluvians had the moral law.
And (2) Noah. What of his life? He lived for six hun
dred years before the Flood. He was a man of God. "Noah
was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and Noah
walked with God." (Gen. 6 :9.) We have already seen "what
walked with God," means, that it is tantamount to saying,
"Noah obeyed God in all things?" But obedience necessi
tates law; and obedience in all things necessitates exhaustive
legislation. We, therefore, understand that as he "was a per
fect man in his generation," he perfectly observed a perfect
code. And such a conclusion is shown to be correct by what
God said to him, when the time for the Deluge drew nigh :
"Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I
seen righteous before me in this generation." (Gen. 7:1.)
Who are righteous? "Those that do righteousness." (Deut.
6:25.) But what is it to do righteousness? To obey God's
laws. But how could he obey laws of which he was igno
rant? He certainly had God's laws and withal the Decalogue.
There is no escaping such a conclusion. But Noah was "a
preacher of righteousness." Could he have preached right
eousness to the people of that age, in the absence of a code of

258 The Argument.
laws, if righteousness consists in legal observance ? To preach
is to teach. Could he teach law without its promulgation?
Could he arraign for a violation of law, where there was no
law? Could he exhort them to obedience, if he had no code
to point them to? It must be conceded that the antedilu
vians had the moral law.
But Noah had the moral law. For we find that his first
act after reaching the new world was to worship God. But
to worship is to observe the moral law. Besides. We read
of his being given again the law of murder: "Whoso shed-
deth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." (Gen.
9 :6.) This is a part of the Second Table. Stress was with
out doubt laid on it, because of its frequent violation in the
age before the flood. As, therefore, Noah was a just man,
and perfect in his generation; a righteous man; a preacher
of righteousness; worshipped God; and had a part of each
table, the conclusion cannot be avoided that he had the moral
law, lived it, preached it. And this being so, his hearers
had it. Noah's life is in evidence.
But the antediluvians had the moral law. Were other
proof needed, it is afforded by this scripture: "And God
saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth; and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart, was only
evil continually. And God said unto Noah : The end of all
flesh is eome before me; for the earth is filled with violence
through them; and, behold, I will destroy, them with the
earth." (Gen. 6:5, 13.) Such was the judgment of God,
as to antediluvian depravity. It is impossible that God
could have been mistaken as to the depths of iniquity to
which the antediluvians had plunged. To conceive of greater
moral turpitude, more sweeping, absolute corruption, than
this arraignment of God reveals, is not possible. What pro-
founder depth of depravity has been reached in any age of the
world than that to which the people of that era had descend
ed? Think of a people whose lives were one round of gross
immoralities and indecencies? Whose minds were so de
praved that every thought was evil ! — only evil, and that con-

The Argument. 259
tinually!! Whoso adjudged? God. Upon what could he
have based his decision? Certainly the existence of law and
its wholesale violation. From such far-reaching guilt we
must conclude exhaustive legislation. In its absence it is
apparent, that God's arraignment of the antediluvians is
most unjust. To be just, there must have been a perfect
understanding by those people of all of God's laws. Hence
they most certainly had the moral law, and had violated all
of its provisions. But the Flood — God's judgment. We
have alluded several times before to the fact that punish
ment implies law and its violation. But this judgment. It
hurried to sudden, sweeping, appalling death all classes.
Neither age nor sex were spared. Wholesale, indiscriminate
slaughter heaped them all in one vast tomb. Death stormed
upon them from the opened windows of heaven; surged
around them from the broken up foundations of the great
deep at their feet; bore down upon them in the billows of
all oceans — billows that rushing landward rolled their mighty
volume along the valleys, over the hills, and above the high
est peaks of the mountains. Who can gaze upon that de
vouring storm, that waste of waters, that shoreless ocean,
those tremendous waves crested with foam, rolling in awful
grandeur above the mountains, remembering the while, that
hundreds of millions of human beings lay stark and stiff in
that vast mausoleum of waters, and that this terrible massa
cre was planned, ordered and consummated, in all its fearful
details, by a Being arrogating infinite love, mercy, compassion,
goodness, holiness, righteousness, and conclude otherwise, than
that such a fearful destruction of human life was demanded,
imperatively demanded, in vindication of the majesty of his
laws? Such an indiscriminate massacre cannot be harmon
ized with the character of God, without conceding the exist
ence of exhaustive legislation and its wholesale violation.
The punishment inflicted declares the existence of such leg
islation, or of the infinite depravity of God There is, we
repeat, absolutely no escape from such a conclusion. As,
therefore, the punishment was sweeping, and in the last de-

260 The Argument.
gree appalling, we conclude, the existence of a vast system of
laws, and withal, of the moral law.
We come now to the post-diluvian period — the period in
tervening the Deluge and the call of Abraham. That Noah
and his family had the moral law up to the flood, has been
shown. Until the birth of another generation, they consti
tuted the entire population of the world. After the unspeak
able horrors of the Deluge, we may well conclude that they
needed no additional incentive to the strictest observance of
God's laws. The recollection of that appalling judgment
must have kept them profoundly concerned that the rising
generation know and keep the laws of God. So concerned,
they were, without doubt, diligent in their instruction "in the
fear, nurture and admonition of the Lord." Such consider
ations, warrant the conclusion that Noah and his descendants,
kept, rigidly, the laws of God. Nor is this conclusion with
out other evidence. There is no record of the prevalence of
sin to any alarming extent throughout that period. We do,
indeed, read of the wickedness of "the cities of the plain;"
but this was more than one hundred years after Noah's
death. This silence as to the sinfulness of that age, witness-
eth the observance of God's laws.
Again. That Noah continued to tell the story of the Del
uge, up to the day of his death, is not conjecture. He was
"a preacher of righteousness." His obligation to teach the
laws of God — to "preach righteousness" — did not terminate
with the flood. Called to that holy office, he certainly conf
tinued to exercise its functions. If he, moved by the peril
of the antediluvians — the centainty of their approaching
doom and absolute destruction — embraced every opportunity
to "cry aloud and spare not" against their sins, then his in
terest in his own offspring — f or they were all his descendants
after the flood — must have made him redouble his efforts, if
possible. He knew God was an unchangeable God. He knew
"he was no respecter of persons." He knew that to punish
the violators of his laws, was an unalterable principle of his
government. A knowledge of these facts, the obligations of

The Argument. 261
his office, the interest that he felt in his own flesh and blood,
coupled with his experience of a submerged world, could but
have moved him to unremitting effort. How impressive
must have been his discourse as he pictured the awful storm
and the shoreless ocean ! Such discourses must have kept up
a feeling of dread of the judgment of God.
But that the moral law was known and observed by the
people up to Abraham's call, is certain. Aside from the ef
forts of Noah. We must conclude that Japheth and Ham
were profoundly interested in the welfare — the salvation —
of their own descendants. They, too, had voyaged the mighty
deep of God's wrath. They, too, had experienced the hor
rors of that protracted storm. They, too, had heard .the aw
ful thundering and seen the flaming thunderbolts of God's
vengeance, as they coursed the heavens murky with clouds
of inky blackness. It is impossible that that judgment, with
its horrid details, should have been forgotten. Its remem
brance must have ever controlled their lives, and prompted
untiring effort for the salvation of their own flesh and blood.
It could not have been otherwise.
But the Shemitic line. It is certain that they knew and
observed the moral law. For it is through this line Christ
traced his lineage. We have seen that the line of Messianic
descent was, in all the ages, the holy line. Who are the ho
ly? Those who observe the laws of God. How could they
observe God's laws unless they were known to them? But
we need not dwell longer on this period, as we have
travelled over this field in another connection. We
thus have shown that by one man sin entered into
the world, and death in consequence of sin. We
have further shown that sin was in the world in
all the ages, till the law was given to Abraham. It would
have been easy to show in this connection that God's laws
existed from Abraham to their republication at Sinai, in
Moses' day. This is not necessary here, that point having
been elaborately discussed in another lecture.
The fact that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over

262 The Argument.
them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression — tne innocent babes — parties who had done no
sin — parties knowing nothing of its criminality, and unad
vised of its penalty — necessitates the conclusion that the
race had the laws of God in all that period.
B. — Do you hold that the race had the ceremonial law
also? The very code given Abraham and republished at
Sinai, in all the ages before Abraham ?
"P. — We do. Did not Cain and Abel bring the very sacri
fices required at Sinai? Compare Genesis with Leviticus.
Did not Noah have the sacrificial system? He sacrificed
clean beasts and birds on an altar directly after the Flood.
There can be no question as to the fact that the sacrificial
system was the same from Adam to Moses, and that it was
perfectly understood. We have noticed this point in another
connection, and therefore pass on. We have alluded to the
fact that death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over the
poor innocents — the babes. They, dying in their infancy,
knew no sin. It is a clear case of the innocent suffering for
the guilty — for the sin of others. In the death of the babes,
therefore, we have prefigured the death of Christ, who
though he knew no sin died the innocent for the guilty. In
sin and death we have the fact pointed out that all men have
had God's laws and have violated them. In the sacrificial
system, and the death of babes, we have the further fact
pointed out that Christ would suffer death for the whole
world, Jews and Gentiles alike. In the fact, that sin was
so fearful a malady, that it involved the innocent with the
guilty, we have alike the disease and the remedy set forth
in the ages we are considering, aye in all ages. The race hav
ing all fallen through Adam, then, God being no respecter of
persons, must, in providing a plan of salvation, provide for
the whole. The justice of God necessitated such a course.
We repeat. The conclusion cannot be avoided. While in
Adam the race died, in Christ they were all made alive. The
consequence of Adam's sin fell upon the race. The character
and claims of God necessitated a plan of salvation — a rem-

The Argument. 263
edy — as far-reaching as the consequences of the fall. That
is to say : While it is true that man lost in Adam life, and
became subject to all the ills of life; yet what he lost in
Adam he gained in Christ. That is to say : though through
the offense of one (Adam) death came upon all, the grace of
God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man Jesus Christ,
was conferred upon all.
Were this not so, what would have become of the babes
dying in their infancy. If there was no universal plan of
salvation, then God would have been guilty of damning babes
who knew no sin; and that because of another's guilt! Who
can so believe?
E. — Your plan seems to be radically defective. Your posi
tion is, that the whole race fell under the penalty of the
law, in consequence, of a single transgression by Adam; and
that Christ restored man what he lost in Adam. If the gain
in Christ went no further than an offset of Adam's offence,
then the loss of the whole race is absolutely certain. For it
will not be denied, that all men have been guilty of violating
God's laws themselves. Your argument did not go further
than that the loss of the race in Adam was parallelled by the
gain in Christ.
P. — Had you waited, I would have met the objection
raised. Death passed upon all by reason of Adam's sin. Life
was restored to all by reason of Christ's atonement. Thus
far the loss and gain parallel. But the free gift went far
beyond condoning Adam's offense. It restores man to the
favor of God, though his sins.be as scarlet. The free gift is
of many offences unto justification of life. We repeat. And
not as it was by one that sinned, so is the free gift; for the
judgment was in consequence of one sin by Adam; but the
free gift is of many offenses to justification of life.
E. — Do I understand you to teach that the death of Christ
of itself, condones all the offences of all men? If such be
the case, then will all be saved, and that though they sin at
will. Such a theory offers a premium for sin ; and does away
with the Judgment Day. A theory that offers an inducement

264 The Argument.
to sin must be discarded. Such was your position in de
nouncing our theory of religion. We fail to see wherein it
is a better system than that we advocate.
P. — We never took any such position, as that the death of
the Son of God, condoned of itself, the whole of a man's in
dividual sms. We expressly taught that the loss in Adam
was offset by the gain in Christ. Had you given me an op
portunity I would have explained who it was, that gained
more in Christ, than he lost in Adam. Hear and under
stand. He that believeth in the atoning merits of Christ's
blood shall receive remission of all his sins — shall receive
abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness and shall
reign in life by one, Jesus Christ, but no others. By the of
fence of one man judgment came upon all men to condemna
tion; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came
upon all men to justification of life, that would comply with
the terms of salvation. For as by one man's disobedience the
race were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall
many — all who will accept Christ through faith, and lead
holy lives — be saved. Those shall gain eternal life, heaven,
and all its joys, in exchange for their loss of life in this world,
and the miseries incident to this life of sorrows and death.
How great the gain in Christ! It raises man to angelic
equality, crowns his brow, scepters his hand, mounts him
upon a throne, makes him an inhabitant of the New Jerusa
lem, gives him access to the tree and river of life, fills his
soul with rapture; and, all this, for duration endless! How
insignificant are man's losses in Adam when contrasted with
his gains in Christ! We count all our losses and sufferings
for Christ's sake as dung, should we but win Christ.
We have seen that the law has existed in all the ages, that
a knowledge of sin might abound — that every man might
have an opportunity to know and do his duty. But where
sin abounded grace did much more abound. Though sin
reigned unto death, grace reigned through righteousness,
unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHAPTEE XVI.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
EOMANS VI.
E. — From your speech, I conclude, that sin, and what you
are pleased to call grace, go together; and have ever done so
in the past. I understand, further, that where wickedness
obtained in its most heinous form, there grace abounded, aye,
much more abounded. It seems, therefore, that, in order for
this grace to abound, there is an imperative need that sin
exist. That is to say, that a continuance in sin, is necessary
to a continuance of this abounding grace — and by him who
avails himself of this offered grace — by the Christian. If I
have rightly understood you, it is plain, that you have, at
last, reached a conclusion, that is in perfect accord with one
of the great cardinals of Judaism — the righteousness of sin
— that it is right to do evil that good may come of it. Such
being my understanding of your discourse, I fail to see where
in the Christian system of religion, is more desirable than
that of Judaism — a system that you have on all occasions
branded with the opprobrious epithet of stark heresy.
Now it seems to me you made a strong argument in favor
of a cardinal of our system "that it is right to do evil that
good may come of it." For you alleged that the race gained
in Christ far more than it lost in Adam. If this be so, then
good came to the race — the greatest good — in consequence of
Adam's sin. Hence the conclusion that it is right to do evil
that good may come of it. You remember how you scouted
such a position and denounced it as damnable ? How do you
harmonize your conflicting claims ? Once more. Your theory
amounts to this: "Unrighteousness in man commends the

266 The Argument.
righteousness of God"— a holding dear to every one that en
dorses "the Jew's religion." A few more such admissions,
and you will be a respectable Jew; a few more, and there
will be nothing left of your Christian theory.
Paul. — No such conclusions are warranted from my lecture.
I did, indeed, run a parallel between sin and grace. I did,
too, concede that they were co-existent, in all the ages. But
I never intimated that they were complimentary of each
other — that grace was not possible, save where sin was pres
ent — that even God's people must sin in order that grace
might abound. I never for one moment, conceded that it
was right to sin; or that sin was unavoidable. On the con
trary, I hold, that it is perfectly practicable, under the Chris
tian system of religion, to lead a perfectly sinless life. God
would never have enjoined holiness, in all the ages, laid such
emphasis upon its necessity, if it was not essential to salva
tion. My opponent knows that both by precept and precedent
has God ever sought to impress the human race with the fact
that "without holiness no man shall see the Lord." As the
question of the necessity for sin, even by the people of God,
has been raised, we will now examine it. We think that we
can show that all Christians are obliged, by many and cogent
reasons, to holiness of life, and that it is perfectly possible
and practicable that they so live. But to the question. Shall
a Christian continue in sin; that grace may abound?
We answer, God forbid. In the very act of restoration to
the favor of God, he pledges himself to a life of holiness. He
solemnly promises God, that, if he will pardon his sins, he
will consecrate himself soul, mind, body and spirit to his
service; and that throughout his natural life. And this he
does, before God pardons him. Thus, in the very act of re
storation he pledges himself to a sinless life. This pledge
executed, he dies to sin — the old man with his lusts is put to
death, and, being dead, is buried, or put away. • This done, he
is raised up a changed man. A moment since, he was dead
in sin — he was under the curse of the law. Now, he is dead
to sin — alive from the dead, and no longer under the penalty

The Argument. 267
of the law. Hfe is in this state of acceptance with God, in
consequence of his solemn pledge of holiness of life. In view
of this pledge, how can he live any longer in sin without be
ing guilty of perjury? We repeat. His solemn obligation
necessitates his renunciation, once, and for all time, of the
service of the devil; and pledges him to holiness of life in
thought, word and in deed.
That you may understand this death to sin, I will use
three figures: (1) Baptism in the sense of death, burial and
resurrection; (2) Grain planting, and the resultant changes;
(3) Crucifixion of Christ, and man's crucifixion in the person
of Christ, or with Christ.
And (1) Baptism in the sense of death, burial and resur
rection. On one occasion, Jesus thus delivered himself: "But I
have a baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened
till it be accomplished!" (Luke 12:50.) Let us look for a
moment at his passion that we may learn its lessons; for
Christ is evidently alluding here to his death baptism. The
scriptures teach, that the sins of the world were imputed to
Christ. Dying on the cross, he died with the sins of the race
upon him. In his death, he met the racial penalty for sin —
be expiated the sins of the race, in other words. The de
mands of the law against the race being satisfied, he is raised
up from the dead, in a body that is no longer weighed down
with the sins of a world. The body on the cross, and that
of the resurrection, is, essentially, one and the same body;
but existing under essentially differing circumstances, or con
ditions. Christ's body on the cross is laden with the sins of
the world. His resurrection body is entirely relieved of that
weight. In receiving this death baptism, Christ's body suf
fered, died, and was buried in Joseph's tomb. When, in the
morn of the resurrection, it was quickened again into life, it
was raised up no longer under the death penalty. The body
that was laid in the tomb laden with the sins of the race,
was, in a sense, never raised up. The body raised up, being
no longer under the death penalty, was, we may say, a new

268 The Argument.
body — a body spiritualized, like the bodies of the resurrected
saints are to be in the judgment morn — a body freed forever
from the possibility of death. Thus raised up from the
dead by the glory of the Father, Christ, in newness of life,
walked forth from the grave, conscious, that he was freed,
forever, from imputed sin, and that the redemption of the
race was an accomplished fact. This consciousness relieved
him of all feeling of straitness — all dread of anticipated
death. He walked forth, rejoicing that he had passed the on
ly death he would ever know — that he was alive forevermore
— that the grandest work of his life was finished ; that he had
bruised the serpent's head; had led captivity captive; broken
the devil's sceptre; struck from the brow of death his crown;
and wrenched from the grave the symbol of its sovereignty.
Now, there is a beautiful parallel between the passion of
Christ, in all its stages, and that of the actual changes
through which a man passes, when he dies to sin— when he
receives this death baptism— this baptism into death to sin —
that is to say, this baptism into Christ. That you may, friend
Eabbi, understand what I mean by the expression, death to
sin, or baptism into death, or into Christ, we will run the
parallel. Man in sin is, in the sight of God, dead. He has eyes,
but he sees not his fearful condition. He has ears, but he is
deaf to the warnings and exhortations, the judgment and
the punishment that God's word sets forth. When, however,
the Holy Spirit attends the word of God to his heart, he
is at once convicted of sin. He now sees his awful state. He
is painfully conscious of his danger — the danger of being
banished from the presence of God; and subjected to the
pains of the second death. Alarmed, he at once begins to
repent. In an agony of soul, he confesses his sins, and
cries to God for mercy. Having reached the state of a
godly sorrow for sin, the Holy Ghost, pointing him to the
blood of the atonement, reminds him that Christ died in his
stead; and instructs him to plead that blood's atoning mer
its, believing as he prays, that God will respect his promise,

The Argument. 269
and forgive his sins for the sake of Christ his redeemer.
Aided by the Holy Spirit, the sinner, exercising faith in
that blood, throws himself upon the mercy of God, trusting
alone for pardon to the merits of Christ's blood. Beaching
this state of belief and absolute trust, the Holy Spirit
cleanses 'the sinner's soul with the atoning blood — sprinkles
it with the precious blood of Christ, thus baptizing him
into Christ; and at once witnesseth his acceptance with God
— his restoration to his favor. Baptized by affusion, into
Christ, the Holy Spirit being the administrator, the man
becomes a member of Christ's body, thus fulfilling the word
of God, that "by one Spirit are we all baptized into one
body." The Holy Spirit then occupies the soul, and wit
nesseth, we repeat, with the man's spirit, his perfect restora
tion to the favor of God. Eeceiving the witness, the man is
no longer straitened — no longer weighed down with a sense
of guilt, and a dread of eternal death, in consequence of
his sin. Now, all fear of such an awful fate is gone; and
the man walks forth, conscious of having passed from death
in sin, to death to sin — walks forth, as did Christ conscious
that he, like his Saviour, is alive forever more. Dead "in sins,
the sinner was a moment since, in a state not unlike the
body of Christ, when dead under the sins of the world.
When he receives this baptism into death to sin, the old man
with his lusts is put to death, and, as burial follows death,
is buried, or put away, and he is, as was Christ, raised from
death, in a body no longer under the penalty of death — in a
new body. We perceive, therefore, that this death baptism
has three stages, so to speak: (1) There is the death of
the old man with his lusts; (2) As burial follows death, the
old man with his lusts is buried, or put away; (3.) And as
resurrection follows burial, the "body is resurrected, it being
like the body of Christ, no longer under the death penalty.
And now that he has been baptized into Christ, and raised
up a new creature, he is obliged to holiness of life — to walk
as Christ walked — the very relation that he sustains to
Christ, that of a member of his body, necessitating his hear-

270 The Argument.
ing the holy fruit. Shall' the Christian sin? God forbid!
He has been baptized into Christ — is a member of his body.
He was put into communion with Christ, that he, aided and
assisted by the Holy Spirit, might bear the holy fruit. The
outer man with his lusts, was put to death, that the spirit
man, in union with Christ, might develop the spiritual fruit.
The two cannot exist together. If the body with its lusts is
alive, the spiritual man cannot develop. The outer man
must needs be destroyed, and this spiritual communion with
Christ set up, before the spirit life can begin its growth and
development. But that you may have a perfect understand
ing of this death to sin, we ask attention to a scene in na
ture; or:
(2) That of grain planting, with its resultant changes.
Take a grain of corn in your hand. It has within it the
germ of the new plant. So long as the grain remains un-
subjected to the "conditions of heat and moisture, the young
germ cannot possibly develop. And for this reason. The
outer body of the grain holds it confined. But take the
grain and bury it — subject it to the conditions mentioned,
and what is the result? Why, after a few days the body of
the grain begins to rot away. At a certain stage in this
decaying process — in the rotting of the body of the grain —
the germ begins to show signs of development. As the de
cay of the body of the grain progresses, the development of
the new plant advances, and soon it is observed to be putting
down into the soil a tender rootlet. The decay, day by day,
of the body of the grain progresses; and day by day, the
development of the young plant advances. At a certain
point in this plant development and decay of the body of
the grain, there is seen to appear a new body pushing its
way through the soil. By this time, the root has bifurcated,
and is penetrating the soil in every direction. These roots
extract from the soil the nourishment that the young plant
needs. Eapid growth now follows. And there is, "first the
blade, then the corn, and then the full corn in the ear."

The Argument. 271
This scene in nature, like the baptism into death has its
lessons. It exactly parallelizes the changes that pass upon
a sinner from his state of death in sin, to that of his death
to sin. Let us run, as before, the parallel, that there may be
a more perfect understanding of this death to sin — of this
change that passes upon a sinner, when, dead in sin, he is
raised up a new creature in Christ Jesus.
A man in a state of sin, like the grain of corn, has within
him the germ of life — spiritual life. But that life cannot
develop, owing to his outer body. Animal lusts have their
seat in the heart. The devil dominating the soul, fires those
lusts. The old man with his lusts thus excited, is stronger
than +he spiritual man, and keeps it in subjection — keeps it
from developing as certainly and as perfectly, as the body
of the grain, unsubjected to the conditions of heat and
moisture, does the young plant. But subject the body to
the conditions of death to sin, already explained — let the .
deaf ears be unstopped, and the blind eyes be opened — and
the spirit within seeing its fearful condition, begins to re
pent, confess its sin and beg for mercy. Through these
steps the death of the outer man begins. As it progresses
the spirit takes hold on Christ by faith, as did the plant the
soil by the root. The devil is driven out. The old man
with his lusts is destroyed. Its power to dominate the spirit
within, is gone. The Holy Spirit baptizes the spirit with
the blood of Christ, and takes possession of the soul.
Brought into direct communion with Christ, the spirit re
leased from the shackles of the old man with his lusts, be
gins rapid development. And we have first the young babe
in Christ; then the young Christian, with his or her imma-
tured fruit; and, finally, the matured Christian, ripe for
the Master's garner. The body of the grain entirely disap
pears — it, from the commencement of its decay, ceases to
exert any control over the developing plant. So the spirit
man, subjected to the conditions of repentance, confession
of sin, and faith in Christ, aided by the Holy Spirit, con
trols the old man with his lusts — destroys it finally — ren-

272 The Argument.
dering it as powerless as the decaying body of the grain. By
this subjection, the old man, to all intents and purposes,
becomes as devoid of existence, as the body of the grain,
when it has entirely disappeared. The body of the grain
and the young plant cannot exist together. When the body
of the grain is destroyed, the young plant begins and per
fects its development. So the man. Spirit life, latent with
in him, cannot develop, until the old man with his lusts is
destroyed. When the outer man's power, we repeat, is de
stroyed, the spirit within asserts itself. Brought into com
munion with Christ, it begins and perfects its spiritual life,
exhibiting the blade, the corn, and the full corn in the ear,
in succession. Shall the Christian sin? God forbid! He
has been planted in the likeness of Christ's death ; and raised
again in the likeness of his resurrection. He is, therefore,
pledged to holiness of life. But that you may apprehend
me, and understand certainly, this death to sin, we will in
troduce still another illustration.
And (3). The Crucifixion of Christ.
Whien the Savior died on the cross, he, in a sense, per
sonated the entire race. He was, in a word, the embodiment
of the human race. Speaking figuratively, the old man of
each individual of our race, was crucified and buried with
him. The penalty of the law being met by Christ, the power
of the devil over the race was broken, and his dominion
ended. "The strength of sin is the law." Man, having been
relieved of its penalty, had only to be put in communion
with Christ, to acquire power to control perfectly, the outer
man — to repel every assault of. the devil. The old man cru
cified and buried with Christ, he is raised up with, that is
to say, in Christ, and in him — a member of his body, he
bears the holy fruit. Shall the Christian continue in sin?
God forbid! His old man has been crucified with him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed (and this was done) that
henceforth he should not serve sin.
Each of these figures explains, very perfectly, this death

The Argument. 273
to sin. They all set forth the fact that the old man with
his lusts is destroyed in the change that passes on a sinner
when he dies to sin — when he receives this death baptism.
They all set forth the death of the old man as indispensable
to man's walking in newness of life — all declare that this
must take place, before it is possible for his spirit life to be
gin its development, and advance to its maturity. The old
The old man and the spirit life cannot exist together. If
the old man lives, a life of sin is inevitable. If the old man is
put to death, the new man lives, and a life of holiness is a
necessary sequence. This baptism into Christ, or this planting
in his likeness, or this crucifixion with him, is indispensable
to the release of man from the dominion of sin, and to en
able him to live the holy life.
But aside from these figures. The Christian must not
sin. There is no necessity that he should sin. For he that
is dead is freed from sin — freed from its power and control.
Again. The Christian founds his expectation of living with
Christ upon the fact that he is dead with Christ — dead abso
lutely to sin. He believes he shall live with him, because
he knows he has received this death baptism, and is leading
the holy life — the life led by Christ while here on earth.
That is to say, he believes he shall live with Christ, because
he is dead to sin; and is "walking in all the commandments
and ordinances of God blameless."
Once more. The Christian must not sin; for Christ is his
exemplar as well as his Eedeemer; and that in life and
death. Christ raised from the dead, died no more. Death
had no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he
died unto sin once ; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Let all Christians reckon themselves, therefore, to be dead
indeed to sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our
Lord. Let them see to it that sin no longer reigns in their
mortal bodies, that they should obey it in the lusts thereof.
And neither let them yield their members as instruments of
unrighteousness unto sin ; but let them yield themselves unto
God, as those that are alive from the dead; and their mem-

274 The Argument. j
bers as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin
shall not have dominion over them; for they are not under
the law, but under grace. They are not living under a
system like that known as "the Jew's religion" — a system
that is powerless to put to death the old man — a system
wherein they vainly seek to subject the old man and his lusts
to control — to condone sin through legal observances of one
kind and another; but they are living under grace, a system
of religion that crucifies the old man and empowers the
spirit man to live a life of perfect holiness — to keep the
temple of God clean for the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
E. — Did I understand you to say that under the Christian
system a man is not under the law? If he is not, then as
he has nothing to condemn sin, it would seem that the sys
tem you advocate licenses to all sin — gives a carte blank to
revel in iniquity. What mean you by a Christian's not being
under the law? What law? Please explain.
P. — -The Christian is not under the penalty of the law.
Christ has released him; aye, and empowered him to keep
it perfectly. You seem to have paid but little attention to
my explanation of death to sin; and of what baptism into
Christ did for a man. In another sense, is the Christian not
under the law. He is under no obligation to keep up the
sacrifices and offerings of the sacrificial or ceremonial law.
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. It was im
posed till "the time of reformation." (Heb. 9.) That it
was to pass away is easily gathered from the command given
Moses by God on the mount : "See thou do everything accord
ing to the pattern shown thee." The sacrificial system was
simply a pattern, a figure of the true. The Christian system
is the spirit of the ceremonial system. He that accepts of
Christ is not under the sacrificial law; and neither is he
under any other law. From the time he is baptized into
Christ he is a freeman. The law of God is henceforth his
manual — his guide — directing him in the way of life.
But shall the Christian sin, now that he is not under the
law? God forbid! He was released from the law's domin-

The Argument. 275
ion for the very purpose of leading a holy life. That em
powered by grace, he might keep the law perfectly.
And not only so. He must not sin; for it is an estab
lished fact, that a man is the servant of him whom he obeys.
If he sins he obeys the devil. If he obeys him, he knows that
eternal death awaits him. If he is holy, he obeys God. If
he serves Him, he knows that his life of righteousness will
be followed, by and by, by life everlasting. Don't mistake
me. The removal of the sacficial system, nor a release from
the death penalty, gives no privilege to sin. Baptized into
Christ, the Christian can observe the holy law of God. Ob
serving it, he is not under it — not subject to the penalty that
follows its violation. He not only can obeserve the law' per
fectly; he must do it.
I thank God, brethren, that you, Jews and Gentiles, who
were at one time the servants of sin, have obeyed from the
heart that doctrine which was taught you; that being made
free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I
use the familiar illustration of servitude and freedom be
cause of the difficulty that some have in understanding the
doctrine. I teach — that of absolute holiness of life. Allow
me to urge that you no longer yield your members servants
to uneleanness, and to iniquity after iniquity, as you were
at one time wont to do ; but now that you are freed from sin,
to yield your members servants to righteousness unto holi
ness. When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
righteousness: While in that state of bondage to sin, what
fruit had ye in your sinful lives? lives of which ye are now
ashamed? You had no rest. You were in constant dread;
for ye knew that the end of those things was eternal death.
But what fruit have ye now that you are the servants of
Christ? You have your fruit unto holiness; and in the end
everlasting life.
With this exhortation we resume. The Christian must
not sin, though he be no longer under the law; and for the
reason, that the wages of sin is death. Such is the compen
sation that the devil will give for a life spent in his service,

276 The Argument.
eternal death. He must not sin. For if he does, he forfeits
the gift of God, eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord.
May God help you all to follow the example of Christ, yield
ing your members as did He, instruments of righteousness
unto holiness!
E. — You have given many and cogent reasons why a
Christian should not sin — why a man, endorsing what you
are pleased to call the Christian system of religion, should
lead a sinless life — why he is pledged to a life of absolute
sinlessness. But you have, by no means, answered the ques
tion : Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? In
your last lecture, you reached the conclusion that man gained
in Christ far more than he lost in Adam — that while he lost
temporal life, he gained through Christ eternal life and
elevation from a plain of existence a little lower than that
occupied by the angels, to one of equality with them. Hence
it is warrantable to conclude that our holding, to-wit: that
it is right to do evil that good may come of it, is correct.
Now you know, friend Paul, that in another connection you
denounced in the roundest manner, such a holding. How
do you harmonize your conclusion just reached with your
previous anathema — your withering denunciation of this
very holding? We demand that you explain yourself. We
cannot permit you to dodge this all important inquiry. So,
friend Paul, we await your answer, need we say, with the
profoundest interest.
P. — The good that man gets out of Adam's sin — his gain
in Christ — his exaltation to the angelic plain of life, joy and
happiness — is not in consequence of Adam's sin; but is due
entirely to the abounding grace of God. He was not only
pleased to restore the race to His favor; but to grant unto
every man that would accept of offered mercy through
Christ — and that man alone — exaltation to angelic station,
liberty, honor and glory. And this display of abounding
grace on the part of God was made with a view to honoring
his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ — to manifesting His pro
found appreciation of the great work of the atonement. The

The Argument. ¦ 277
Father had the right to show His high regard for the work
done by His Son in any way it pleased Him. He chose to
exhibit His appreciation of it, by exalting the Christian to
the angelic state — making him a joint heir with His Son, it
being the wish and request of that Son that He confer such,
and so high dignity upon all who would accept of salvation
through faith in His atoning blood. Certainly God had a
perfect right to do what He pleased with His own. In this
sense are we to be understood when we declare: "Where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound." To honor Christ,
the Father made man the recipient of His abounding grace
— exalted him to joint ownership with His Son. That is to
say, God was not only pleased to show His grace in giving
man back life and restoring him to His favor; but, to honor
His Son, He has further pleased to exhibit His grace in his
exaltation to the heavenly state and glory.
But there are other views that we may take of this in
quiry: shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? To
state the proposition differently — shall we continue to sin
that God may have an opportunity to extend His grace —
to show His mercy, longsuffering, forbearance, etc.? For
let us suppose a Christian to lead a perfectly sinless life —
and this he must do to be a Christian. In that event where
would God have an opportunity to show His grace in for
giving, pardoning, remitting sin? With no sin committed,
there would, of course, be no occasion for exhibiting the
grace of remission. And this being so, is it not right to
continue in sin, seeing that, by so doing, God is given the
opportunity to display His pardoning grace? To reply, we
use an illustration. Let us suppose that a man is sick —
deadly sick — and is suffering the greatest pain. Eealizing
his dangerous state he sends for a physician. The doctor
anwers the call. If he cures his patient — if he is restored to
health by his medicine, will not that cure leave the physician
without a case — without a subject? Will not he be out of a
case? Will he not be left where there is no occasion — no
opportunity — to show his skill in medicating? He certainly

278 The Argument.
will. Such being the case, is it not right for the patient to
be left in sickness that the doctor may have the chance to
continue to display his medicinal and curative skill? and
that he may have the further opportunity of disposing of
his drugs? Of getting to himself both gain and reputation?
To state such a proposition is all that is necessary to show
its utter absurdity." Is it right that the patient suffer and
continue so to do — for weeks, months, years — till death
come, that the physician may enrich himself at his expense
— that, in other words, the doctor may gratify his selfish
ness? That he may speculate on human . suffering ? Drop
ping the illustration. Its application is easy. Is it right
that man should sin that God may have the opportunity to
display His grace ? No, a thousand times, no ! Shall man
suffer on and on, with no other reason than that the Lord
God is thereby given the occasion to exhibit his remitting
grace? Certainly not. What would be thought of a physi
cian that would insist upon the patient's being left sick that
he might have the opportunity to show his medicinal skill?
Who would contend that it was right for him thus to specu
late upon human suffering — to peddle drugs at the_ expense
of human agonies? Would not such a man be held to be a
brute? A monster? He certainly would. The doctor is
called not to prolong the suffering of his patient; but to
cure the patient — to restore him (or her) to health. It is
by restoring the patient to health that the doctor gets to
himself honor and glory. So in the case of God. He is the
great physician. Has power to cure absolutely. His reputa
tion as a physician would be compromised by his leaving
man in a state where he continues to sin. There is no
greater disease than sin. God's abounding grace is exhibit
ed in curing the deadly malady. For Him to leave the
Christian in a state where he must continue to sin that He
might have an opportunity to show his pardoning grace
from day to day, would be disgraceful on His part, since it
would be to get to Himself the reputation of longsuffering,
forbearance, etc., at the expense to His creature of continued

The Argument. 279
pain and disease. The human physician that keeps His pa
tient sick, does so motived by his love of gain. For God to
leave man under the infiuence of sin — subject to constant
sinning — would be for Him to pursue a more disreputable
course than the human physician. For the man physician
has the motive of gain, while God pursuing the supposed
course can not have the motive of gain, for He has in pos
session the wealth of the universe. What then? Shall we
continue in sin that grace may abound ? Certainly not. "To
do evil that good may come of it" is never right. It is not
right to do evil under any circumstances. In the supposed
case, the doing of evil — the continuing in sin — would not
redound to the glory, but, to the disgrace of God — while it
leaves man exposed every moment to the consequence of
sin — eternal death. This is to view the inquiry — the ques
tion — from the standpoint of its effect upon the character of
God. It would be disgraceful in God to leave man in sin,
that he might achieve to Himself reputation as a God of
moral perfection — of mercy, forbearance, etc.
But there is still another view that may be taken of the
inquiry. We refer to its bearing upon man. Sin occasions
pain, and great pain. Who has not felt the lash of a guilty
conscience? If then, we answer the inquiry affirmatively —
that we should continue in sin that grace may abound —
would we not by such an answer proclaim ourselves arrant
fools ? Madmen ? What ! hold that it is right to sin, when
to sin gives pain, and eventually will result in death — in
damnation? So we conclude, that that man is a fool, aye,
his damnation is just, that holds that it is right to sin. For
by such a holding he is guilty of the absurdity of claiming
that it is right for him to continue in a state that has no
other results to him than that of pain now, and, hereafter,
damnation. Such a course results in evil alone to him.
Such a holding reflects upon God. Shall we continue in
sin, that grace may abound? God forbid!

CHAPTEE XVII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans VII.
E. — The scriptures teach that the covenant made by God
with Abraham was an everlasting covenant. God said to
Abraham : "And I will establish my covenant between me and
thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an
everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and thy seed af
ter thee." (Gen. 17:7.) As conceded, the covenant made at
Horeb was but a renewal of that covenant. That covenant was
most certainly a law covenant — including all the laws God
ever gave the Jews — moral, sacrificial, ceremonial. That it
was a law covenant is evident from the rite that was imposed
at the time it was made — the rite of circumcision in the
flesh. That rite obliged to legal observance in all things —
to do the whole law. You took the position, in your last
lecture, that through the death of Christ, the race, Jews and
Gentiles, were released from all law — were no longer under
any law. Now you have admitted that the Abrahamic and Ho
reb covenant was an everlasting covenant. You have conceded,
too, that circumcision obliged to an observance of the Horeb
covenant in all things. Your position in your last lecture
and your concessions in previous lectures are directly op
posed. I appeal to your concessions, as well as to the pro
visions of the covenant as proof positive that your position
as to the annullment of the provisions of the Horeb coven
ant, is false and unscriptural. You cannot be permitted to
teach what is in clear violation of the word of God.
Now, such being the character of the Horeb covenant; —
an everlasting covenant — we reach a number of conclusions:

The Argument. 281
1. That of unconditional election; 2. That of Gentile repro
bacy; 3. That of justification by the deeds of the law; 4.
That of sins of the flesh. As an everlasting covenant with
Abraham and his descendants, lineal and constructive, it
teaches the election of the Israelites and the reprobation of
the Gentile, throughout all time. As an everlasting covenant
it taught that justification was ever to be by the deeds of the
law. Circumcision pledged to legal observance, and that
everlastingly. The sacrificial system was the remedial plan
of restoration to the favor of God. It, too, being a part of
the Horeb covenant, and as such, included in the obligation
of circumcision, was to be everlastingly resorted to as a means
to restoration to the favor of God.
That is to say, speaking figuratively, Abraham and his de
scendants became married to the law — the law being the
husband and the Israelites the wife. By prosopopoeia, God
was the husband and the Israelites the wife. We so under
stand God, when, in speaking of the Horeb covenant, he de
clares : "I was an husband unto them," the Israelites. Now
the Israelites being in the position of a wife, it is evident
that were they to renounce Judaism, and tmbrace Christi
anity, they would be guilty of adultery. The wife is bound
by the law of her husband, so long as her husband liveth.
What then? This. My opponent in seeking to have our
people renounce their religion, and accept the heresy of
Christianity, is simply endeavoring to have them contract a
union, that, our scriptures being true, would eventuate in
their damnation. He well knows that adultery is a damnable
offense. What could be more reprehensible than that of
teaching a people, what, were they to accept it, would result
in their eternal ruin? 0 that God would cut off all teachers
of heresy!
P. — The gentleman's conclusion would certainly follow,
were it not that his premises were false. He has taken the
absurd position that the Abrahamic covenant, which, subse
quently, was renewed at Horeb, was an everlasting covenant.
He charged that I had so conceded! Let the gentleman

282 The Argument.
look at the cvenant. Can he not see that it was to be an
everlasting covenant on condition of the observance of its
provisions ? I have time and again appealed to the fact that
the Horeb covenant was conditional — that it was to be ever
lasting, provided the Israelites observed rigidly its terms. I
have overwhelmingly shown that the Jews did not comply
with its provisions — that they had violated, all and singular,
the laws of God — done worse than the Gentiles ! That I
was right as to the character of the Horeb covenant, I ap
pealed to the fact that God had rejected all save a bare rem
nant of the Israelites, and that in all the ages from Moses'
day. I have abundantly shown that faith and obedience were
the conditions upon which the everlasting existence of that
covenant depended. I have shown, too, that the Horeb cov
enant embraced all nations. And that justification was by
faith in the atoning merits of Christ's blood. I shall not
repeat the argument.
The gentleman was unfortunate in his scripture quota
tion. He will accept thanks for calling attention to it. For the
benefit of our hearers, we will quote the entire passage.
Here it is: "Behold, the days come 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, though I was an husband unto them, saith the
Lord." (Jer. 31:31, 32.) Can the gentleman not see that
the Abrahamic or Horeb covenant was to be an everlasting
one, solely on the condition of its observance? Can he not
see that God gives as a reason for its annulment that its pro
visions had been violated? Can he not see that the old cov
enant was repealed? God declares, that he would, in the
days to come, make a new covenant — a covenant whose pro
visions should be not according to those of the Horeb cov
enant. If that covenant was to continue forever, then why
should God declare he would make a new covenant?
Again. Since the Horeb covenant was conditional, when

The Argument. 283
the Israelites failed to keep the provisions, they were
to be put away by God — no longer regarded as His people.
Here we have, then, the fact plainly set forth that Israelitish
election was conditional. Their election being dependent
upon the character of the covenant, the removal of the cov
enant did away with the Jewish claim of election. And this
is taught in the scriptures quoted in other connections. It
has been shown, too, that God declared that he would ac
cept the Gentiles as His people and thereby provoke the Jews
to jealousy. This proposition does away with Gentile repro
bation. But the gentleman still harps on justification by the deeds
of the law. He claimed that the sacrificial system, being a
part of the Horeb covenant was, taken literally, to remain
f orver. Now we have shown that the Horeb covenant was to
be done away. Such being the case, then the sacrificial sys
tem being included in it, was, also, to be done away. And
to this agree the words of God to Moses in the mount : "See
that thou make all things," — the tabernacle, the furniture
thereof, the official regalia of the priests," etc., — "according
to the pattern showed thee in the mount." As a pattern, it
was to cease to exist. Its design was, as remarked, to teach
the spirit of the system — it was a schoolmaster to bring us
to Christ. As it was imposed for a time, it ceased to exist
when the time arrived. Therefore, do we conclude, that the
observance of the sacrificial law was never designed to oper
ate justification; for in that event there would be a day,
when there would, by the removal of the system, be nothing
whereby man could recover himself from his lost condition —
nothing whereby he could purge his iniquity. If, we repeat,
the observance of the provisions of the sacrificial system,
taken literally, constituted the plan of restoration to the fa
vor of God, then when the Horeb covenant was done away,
there would be no way by which man could condone his sins.
Here then we have an insurmountable objection to the Eab
bi's theory of justification by the deeds of the law.
Again. It will be noticed that the husband, God, repudi-

284 The Argument.
ates his marriage bond — the Horeb covenant — with Israel
and Judah, and charges them with having violated its pro
visions — as having been guilty of adultery. The position of
the husband is that the wif e — the Jews — had been untrue to
the marriage bond. That because of their adultery he would
no longer be their husband. He especially declares, that the
days would come, we repeat, when he would put away his
wife. In this connection, God goes on to say, that he would
make a new covenant, and concludes by saying: "For I will
forgive their iniquity" — their adultery — "and remember
their sin no more." Does this not show that justification
was a matter of grace on his part, and does it not show that
there was to be a re-marriage? Does it not show that that
reunion was to be based on faith on the part of the restored
wife ? Faithfulness on her part to the provisions of this new
bond? Observance by her, when restored to favor, of the
law of her husband? Her leading a virtuous, holy life?
Here then, have we a new proof of the doctrine of justifica
tion by faith, followed by holiness of life. It is furnished by
the bond of union — the marriage bond — between God and the
Jews. But we have contended that the Abrahamic or Horeb cov
enant was not confined to the Jews, but included the Gen
tiles in its provisions. This is shown by the language of
God in speaking of this new covenant: "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 to the greatest of them, saith the
Lord." (Jer. 31:24.) All who? All the race— Jews and
Gentiles. But God charges adultery upon his wife. In what did
her adultery consist? Certainly in violating the law of the
husband. We have shown that the Jews were wicked to a
degree — the great mass of them — more wicked than the
Gentiles. Thus their wickedness grew out of their miscon
struction of the marriage bond. Holding that it was ever
lasting, they were indifferent as to the observance of its ob-

The Argument. 285
ligation — loyalty to their husband. This error, coupled with
the further mistake of regarding the sacrificial system as
everlasting, led them to the further iniquity of claiming that
they could condone their adultery by observing its provisions
— slaughtering their beasts and their birds. This was to
justify their adultery by a further adultery — by making one
part of the Horeb covenant's observance to condone the vio
lation of another part. Such an entire misconception of the
Horeb covenant, made it necessary for God to put the cov
enant away, that He might disabuse the minds of the Jews
of their gross misunderstanding of their marriage bond with
Him. It was necessary that He do so, that they might see
and understand: 1. That they were not His elect spouse un
conditionally; 2. That the bond of union was conditional,
dependent on the loyalty of the spouse to the law of her hus
band; 3. That disloyalty, or adultery on her part, could not
be condoned by sacrificing. Nothing but such a course would
ever bring the spouse to see her error, and correct her con
ception of the marriage bond. It must be done. For so
long as God permitted the misconception to remain uncor
rected, just so long would the union be attended with bar
renness upon the part of the wife. It must be done. For
to permit the union to continue would be only to encourage
the continuance of adultery by the wife. In annulling the
Horeb covenant, God, in a word, taught the absurdity of the
entire Jewish theory; and the correctness of the theory I am
advocating. But, the gentleman has charged me with trying to lead
the Jews into an adulterous union. How could that be?
God, their husband, had charged them with the grossest
adultery. Aye, He had put them away. Divorced a mensa
et thoro, by God, they were already branded with adultery.
When the marriage bond was annulled, did not the marriage
relation cease? Eegarding the covenant as though it were
the husband, when it was annulled, then was the husband as
though dead, at least to his Jewish wife. As the husband
dead, constructively, was not the wife released from the

286 The Argument.
marriage relation ? This being so, then when endeavoring to
get the divorced wife — divorced in consequence of the death
of her husband, to contract a new marriage — to be remar
ried under a new covenant of marriage — am I not trying to
get her into a lawful union.
Now my brethren (I speak to you that know the law), am
I not correct in holding that the law hath dominion over a
man as long as he liveth ? And is not the woman that has an
husband bound by the law to her husband so long as he liv
eth? And, if her husband be dead, is she not loosed from
the law of her husband? If while her husband liveth she
be married to another, 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 again. Is this not
our law ? What then ? The Horeb covenant having expired
when Christ came, the bar to remarriage was removed by
His death. By His death the adultery of the wife was con
doned. Her old husband, the law, put to death and put
away. By this act, she was released from the law of her hus
band — from the entire Horeb covenant. Hence the truth of
my position. The wife is no longer under the law. Where
fore was it that she became dead to the law by the body of
Christ? With what intent was the wife thus released from
the Horeb covenant? That she should be remarried — mar
ried to him, even Christ, who was raised from the dead. And
why married to him? That she should be enabled to bear
the holy fruit — that she might be empowered to live without
sin — to live loyal to the marriage bed — avoid the sin of adul
tery, and damnation as a consequence of its indulgence.
For when she was in the flesh, that is to say, when she
was living under the Horeb covenant, the motions of sin,
which were condemned by the law, whose indulgence was
forbidden, urged her on, till she disregarded the law, and be
came subject to its penalty; did, that is to say, work in her
members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now, having
been delivered from the law, that being dead wherein she was

The Argument. 287
held, she can serve in newness of spirit, and not in the old-
ness of the letter.
E. — Judging from your speech the Horeb covenant was
sinful — promotive of sin, at least; since it led the Jews to
lives of sin — to bring forth fruit unto death. Do I under
stand you as teaching that the Horeb covenant was, to the
Jews a covenant with death and a league with hell? An
swer. Is the law sin? What mean you by "serving in new
ness of the spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter?"
P. — I will answer your last inquiry first. The Abrahamic
or Horeb covenant had its literal and its spiritual side.
Taken literally, it was a covenant between God and Abraham
and his descendents, that related to an earthly Cannaan, with
temporal blessings. Taken spiritually, it related to a heav
enly Canaan and eternal blessings. The covenant, however,
taken either literally or spiritually, necessitated faith and
obedience on the part of the Jews, as remarked, in another
connection. The Jews misconstruing the terms of the cov
enant, were led into the most shameless depravity. So of
the sacrificial system. It, too, had as explained, its literal
and its spiritual sides. Taken literally it required offerings
of animals and birds, the fruits of the ground, etc. Taken
spiritually, it pointed to Christ, the lamb of God, in the
shedding of whose blood man was to receive remission of
sins, through faith in its atoning merits. Mistaking the en
tire nature of the covenant, moral and ceremonial and oth
erwise, the covenant proved a curse to the Jewish nation.
Misunderstanding it, the devil stirred up their sinful lusts,
until, as in the case of Eve, the Jews were led to an utter
disregard of its true spiritual sense. The removal of the
letter of the covenant was to teach them their mistake. To
serve in newness of the spirit, is to observe the spiritual side
of the covenant. Seek justification in God's appointed way
through faith in the blood of Christ.
But he asks, is the law sin ? God forbid that I should be
understood as so speaking of God's holy law! So far from
it, we admit, without hesitation, that but for the law, we had

288 The Argument.
not known sin; for we should not have known what lust is,
except the law had said: "Thou shalt not covet." The law
is a rule of action. By the law is the knowledge of sin, as
before remarked. It was in the way the Jews construed the
law that it became death unto them — that led to God's re
jection of them. That you may get a clear understanding,
if you will give me your attention, I will explain, if possible,
more fully.
Sin is a violation of law. There is no such thing as sin
in the absence of law. Without the law, that is to say, sin is
powerless — impossible. In consequence of the law's prohi
bition, sin, that is to say, the devil, wrought in man all man
ner of concupiscence — as he did in Eve's case — stirred up
his animal lusts. Led captive by the devil, as was Eve, man
yielded to these lusts — violated the law, and fell under its
penalty, death. I, for example, while yet an infant, ignorant
of the law's obligation, was in a state of innocence — was a
child of grace — was free from all sin — was alive, seeing that
I was reconciled to God through the death of His Son, a
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. But when I
arrived at an age, when taught I knew God's law, and the
criminality of its violation, tempted by the devil, I yielded
to his seductions — that is to say, sin revived, and I died.
And the commandment which was ordained to life — which
was given to me as a rule of action, through whose observ
ance I was assured of life, I, violating it, found to be unto
death. The devil, we repeat, taking occasion by the com
mandment, as in Eve's case, deceived me, and by it slew me.
Therefore the covenant is holy, and the commandment is
holy, just and good. God forbid, that you should under
stand us as charging unholiness upon either the covenant or
the laws of God.
E. — Was this law that you concede to be holy, just and
good, imposed with the design that I should violate it, and
thus become amenable to its penalty, death? Was it intend
ed for such a purpose? Was it made with a view to its oc
casioning my death?

The Argument. 289
P. — God forbid ! The law was designed to point out sin,
and that the devil might be exhibited in all his depravity —
that he might be seen by us as a being so corrupt, so villain
ous, that he was even equal to the exceeding sinfulness of
taking God's holy law and perverting it to the vile purpose
of using it as an instrument in our destruction. It was de
signed to show up, we repeat, in all his hideousness the
devil, who works death in man by that which is good. That
by the commandment, sin might appear as exceeding sinful.
E. — I know that the law has its spiritual side. I allow
that it is holy, just and good — that it enjoins holiness in
thought, word and deed — demands that we live pure and
holy. While I know such is its character, and concede that
such are its requirements, I am carnal, sold — enslaved by
sin. That which I do — violate the law of God — I allow not ;
but what I hate, that I do. As I do that which I condemn,
I of course, acknowledge or consent unto the law that it is
good, just, holy.
P. — I am glad that we are so far agreed. You have, time
and again, Eabbi, held that you were not a sinner. As you
concede that the law of God is holy, just and good, and that
sin consists in its violation, and that you, like all Jews, vio
late it constantly, will you explain how in view of your
acknowledged sinfulness, you make it appear that you are
not a sinner? that the Jews are not sinners?
E. — I hold that man is dual in nature. There is his phy
sical, or fleshly, or outer man; and the inner or spiritual
man. While violating the law I am not a sinner. For it is
not I, the spiritual man, that sins; but the outer or fleshly
man that sins — the man that the devil dominates. In my
flesh, this evil spirit, the devil, dwells, rules and reigns. In
my flesh dwelleth no good thing. I see that the law of God
is holy and good. I can will to perform it — will do as it
requires ; but how to do what it requires I find not. I do not
the good that I would; but the evil that I would not, that I
do. Now, if I do that I would not, it is not I, the spiritual
man, that does the sin; but the outer man that is under the
10

290 The Argument.
control of the devil. The devil is in reality, the evil doer.
When I would do good, I find a law, the law of evil, that
prevents my. doing so. I, the inner man, delight in the law
of God. But there is another law — the law of evil — in my
members, that, warring against the law of my mind, brings
me into captivity to this evil law in my members. This con
stant war between my inner and outer man — a battle that is
always attended with the same result, that of the subjection
of my inner man to my outer man — makes me so wretched,
so miserable, that I feel like a murderer with his victim
lashed hard and fast to him — face to face, limbs to limbs,
body to body — who is slowly, but surely, being suffocated by
the fumes and foul gases that are escaping from the decaying
body that he is forced to carry about with him. Thus feeling, I
am constantly crying out in the bitterness of my soul, 0
wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the
body of this death?
P. — (Interrupting) I thank God that there is one who
can deliver from the body of death, even Jesus Christ my
Lord! And the way in which he does it, has already been
explained. He puts the old man to death, and empowers the
spirit man, by making it a member of his body, to lead a
perfectly holy life.
E. — (Continuing.) So then my position, in brief, is:
Spiritually, I delight in the law of God, and internally desire
to meet its every obligation. This desire is accepted by God,
as though I actually observed it perfectly. And He regards
me as His servant, though I am living in daily violation of
His laws. Spiritually, or with my mind, I repeat, I serve
the law of God; but with my flesh the law of sin.
P. — Then you allow all that I claim. You have, at last,
acknowledged that the system you advocate is powerless to
keep you from sin; and that your inability to perform what
you desire, to-wit, to keep Gods laws, makes you a miserable
man. Is it, in the light of your admissions, not apparent
that you are advocating a false system ? What more is needed
to condemn it ? What further proof do you require that it is

The Argument. 291
heretical? You are correct, when you say that Satan domi
nates the unregenerate heart — that he so stirs up its sinful
emotions that you are constantly doing things that God's
holy law condemns. You confess, in short, that you serve the
devil. For nothing is more self-evident than that one is the
servant of him whom he obeys. A system of religion that
does not redeem man from the dominion of the devil, must
be held to have originated with him. He is its father; and
those that accept it, are his children; and are on the way to
hell. But your system is false. It involves the absurdity of
serving two masters. This no man can do. No man can
serve God and mammon. In sin, one is free from righteous
ness. Living the holy life, sin has no dominion over him —
he hates it. There is no middle ground. We are God's
children, or the devil's. Man is so constituted that he can
not pursue two essentially dissimilar enterprises at one and
the same time. God demands absolute obedience, and all the
time. And so does the devil. How can one comply with de
mands the converse of each other? It can not be done. Our
spiritual interests require our constant, unremitting, zealous
attention. They are of vast importance. So much so, that
one has not a moment to spare for anything else. The most
difficult enterprise that man ever engaged in, is that of fitting
an immortal spirit for the presence of that God, who can not
look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. He de
mands our time, our talents, our all. He requires that we
subject mind, spirit and body to His will; and that we use
their every power in His service. May God enable us all to
measure up to His requirements !

CHAPTEB XVIII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
EOMANS VIII.
P. — When systems of science, government, or religion are
set in opposition, the excellence of the one over the other is
shown, in a most powerful way, by the contrast. My oppo
nent, in his last lecture, admitted that the system of relig
ion, for whose defense he stands, is powerless to enable him
or his friends to observe the laws of God. He has, also, ac
knowledged that that inability gave him and them the great
est unhappiness. He cannot fail in seeing that the Christian
system is incomparably the superior of the two. It does just
what Judaism is powerless to do — it gives peace as already
noticed — takes away all sense of condemnation — all con
sciousness of guilt in the sight of God — releasing alike from
the penalty and dominion of sin. Into this state of assured
acceptance by Jod, man is brought by his compliance with
the law of the spirit of life — repentance with a godly sor
row, and faith in the atoning merits of the blood of Christ.
Into this state, my opponent concedes that he has never come ;
and that, though complying rigidly with the requirements of
his system. As he admits, the law is powerless to control
man's sinful emotions. The law is the strength of sin. And
as we have seen, is perverted by the devil, who dominates
the outer man, to the fearful work of the man's destruction,
The Jewish system provides no way to arrest Satan in the
work of death. The Christian does.
Owing to the strength of man's sinful emotions, the law
is powerless to control the man's conduct. What the law
could not do, God does through Christ. Having incarnated

The Argument. 293
Him, He made Him an offering for sin — laying on Him the
sins of the race. Through His death, in man's stead, God
became reconciled to man. By it, man was released from
the penalty of the law. Upon his compliance with the terms
of salvation, man is baptized into Christ. Thus baptized, he
dies to sin — the old man with his lusts is crucified. Through
the death of Christ, he is released from the penalty of the
violated law. Through- his baptism into Christ he is relieved
from the power of the devil dominating his sinful emotions.
Thus relieved of the penalty and power of sin, and put in
spiritual union and communion with Christ, he is strength
ened, spiritually, and enabled to bring his body into perfect
subjection to his spirit — to be led by the Holy Spirit in all
things. Thus led, he leads a holy life — keeps the righteous
ness of the law — walks after the spirit and not after the
flesh. With the penalty for sin remitted; with its power de
stroyed, and with his spirit cleansed purified, and strength
ened, God deprives man of all excuse for sinful indulgence
in thought, word or deed — condemns sin in the flesh. So cir
cumstanced, he ean no longer plead his inability to keep
God's holy law. That is to say. The law of the spirit of
life in Christ Jesus, hath made him free from the law of sin
and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was
weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the
likeness of sin and for sin condemned sin in the flesh; that
the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in him that
walks not after the flesh, but after the spirit. Living this
holy life, man has peace with God. In giving a man peace
with God, and enabling him to live in perfect obedience to
the will of God, my opponent will himself admit, that the
Christian system is far superior to the system that he is ad
vocating. It does, what he concedes Judaism cannot do —
what it never has done. It empowers man to walk after the
spirit, and not after the flesh — to fulfill the righteousness of
the law — to measure up to the standard of holiness erected
by God. It was to enable man to so live, that God, through
Christ, condemned sin in the flesh. Such is what this dis-

294 The Argument.
cussion has thus far developed. We will now proceed to
point out other excellencies of the Christian system.
We notice next the lives led by men under the two systems.
Under the Jewish system there is nothing to distinguish a
sinner from the man embracing it. The lives of the two are
the same. The doings of the flesh occupy the entire time and
attention of both the one and the other. The lusts of the
flesh, the lusts of the eyes, and the pride of life, are indulged
by each alike. Under the Christian system the life of a
Christian is in marked contrast with that of the ungodly
man. The Christian lusts after the things beyond this life.
He is endeavoring to lay up treasures in heaven, where moth
and !rust'do;thnor>corrupt — where thieves cannot break through
and steal. He is indifferent to the applause of men, and as
pires alone for the praise of God. Being after the things
that pertain to life eternal, he gives his whole mind to the
things of the spirit. Keeping his body under, he runs the
race of life with every weight laid aside.
Again. The Jewish system leaves one with a mind that
is carnal — a mind that is not, and cannot be, subject to the
law of God. Under the Christian system that mind is en
tirely removed — and a spiritual mind — a mind that is sub
ject to the law of God — a mind that yields a cheerful will
ing obedience to the law, is given in its place. Carnally
minded, one cannot please God. He lives for the gratifica
tion of his selfish appetites and desires. He hates alike God
and His laws. He lives, in consequence, in constant dread
of death — always having a spirit of profound unrest. Spirit
ually minded one does please God. So living and so lust
ing, he has, as noticed, peace that flows like a river. That is
to say. Under the Jewish system, man lives in the flesh —
dominated by its lusts and its appetites. Under the Christ
ian, he lives in spiritual union and communion with Christ.
Again. Under the Jewish system, the spirit of evil dwells
in the man. So doing, he controls absolutely his thoughts,
words and deeds. The body becomes a mere machine; and
is used by the devil to do his hellish work. Under the Christ-

¦ The Argument. 295
ian, the Spirit of Christ — the Holy Ghost — dwells within the
body — the heart being cleansed and the devil driven out.
The body is but a temple for the indwelling of the spirit.
Led by the Spirit the body of man is dead to all sin, whilo
his spirit led by the Spirit of God, is exercised alone in right
eousness. Summing up : 1. The Christian system relieves man of all
sense of guilt; 2. Frees him from the penalty of death, and
relieves him of the dominion of sin; 3. It enables him to keep
the righteousness of the law; 4. Eemoves the carnal mind,
and makes the man spiritually minded; 5. Brings into per
fect subjection the sinful emotions; 6. Causes him to love
God and His holy law ; 7. And enthrones in his heart, Christ.
E. — It being in order to point out the defects of our res
pective systems, I urge against Christianity, that it gives
neither evidence nor assurance of the resurrection of the body,
P. — You are mistaken. The Christian has the Holy Spirit
— the Spirit of Christ dwelling within him. With the Spirit
of Him that raised up Christ from the dead dwelling within
him, he has the most satisfactory evidence possible, that he
shall be resurrected. He knows that he is Christ's servant;
has His Spirit; lives in obedience to God's law — lives as
Christ lived. He needs no other evidence that he, who raised
Christ from the dead, will raise his mortal body — will quick
en that mortal body into life by His Spirit that dwells within
him. Since, therefore, the religion of Christ not only fits man
for this life, but gives him a positive assurance that though
his outer man die, it shall live again — since it qualifies for
life and affords the greatest possible comfort in the hour of
death; its superiority must be again conceded. No Christian
is under obligation to the flesh. For, if he lives after the
flesh, he shall die; but, if he, through the Spirit, mortifies
the deeds of the body, he shall live.
E. — I object to the Christian religion that it affords no
evidence that one is a child of God.
P. — Here again you are at fault. The Christian has the
positive evidence of his sonship. For (1) he has the Holy

296 The Argument.
Spirit dwelling within him; (2) He is led by that spirit.
With the spirit dwelling in him and led by it, he has prima
facie evidence that he is a child of God. Nor is this all.
Baptized into Christ, he receives the spirit of adoption — is
taken from under the law by which minors are held — the
law of bondage and fear — the law of servile subjection; and
God, sending the Spirit of Christ into the heart, enables him
to realize that his relation to him is now no longer that of a
servant, but of a son. So realizing, the Christian cries, Ab
ba, Father. Besides. God's Spirit witnesses with his spirit
that he is a child of God; and if a child, then an heir — an
heir of God, and a joint heir with Christ, if so be that he
suffers with him, that he may be also glorified with Him.
But what evidence does the Jewish system afford? It will
not do to urge circumcision in the flesh; for that is not cir
cumcision. It will not do to plead descent from Abraham,
for sonship is not a matter of descent from man. It will
not do for a Jew to contend that he has the spirit of adop
tion; for he concedes that he is still in the condition of a
minor — in bondage under the elements of the world — under
the Sinai covenant.
E. — You alluded a moment ago to suffering with and
for Christ. The fearful suffering and ignominious death of
your Master, Christ, and the terrible persecutions and suffer
ings that all who accept of His system of religion undergo,
shows that the system is heresy. The curse of God rests
upon it.
P. — The suffering feature in the Christian system is evi
dence of the strongest character that it is of God. The point
you urge is nothing new. The friends of Job so construed
the calamities that had befallen him. They urged, as you
are doing, that he was obnoxious to God — a vile sinner — a
hypocrite — a wolf in sheep's clothing; that the judgments
that had overtaken him so witnessed. But what said God?
"There is none like him in all the earth — a perfect and an
upright man — one that feareth God and escheweth evil."
The book of Job, to say nothing of the other scriptures,

The Argument. 297
teach that affliction is evidence of the strongest character of
the love of God for His people. Do not the scriptures say:
"Whom He loveth, He chasteneth, and scourgeth every one
whom He receiveth"? As the crude ore is exposed to the
seven times heated furnace, that it may be purified of its
dross, so is the Christian exposed to a baptism of fire. Ee-
eeiving it, his faith is tried, his love is tested, his loyalty
to God is proven, as was Job's. In suffering for Christ the
Christian has proof positive that he is a child of God. "It
is sufficient for a servant that he be as his master." Christ
suffered all the ills that flesh is heir to. In every age, his
servants have been called upon to do likewise. And this they
gladly do, knowing that if they would wear the crown, they
must bear the cross — that if they suffer with Him, they shall
be glorified with Him in the great day of God.
But again. The Christian knows that the sufferings of
this present time, be they what they may, are not worthy to
be compared with the glory which shall be revealed to him
on the resurrection morn. He knows that his light afflic
tion, which is but for a moment, will work out for him a far
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Thoughts such
as these, comfort him, and enable him to bear, rejoicingly,
the trials and afflictions of this life.
But suffering brings with it yet other blessings to a child
of God. Weighed down with suffering — worn out with per
secution and affliction, trial and disappointment, the cords
that bind him to this life are parted ; and he waits, in a state
of earnest expectancy, longing for the arrival of the hour,
when delivered from the bondage of corruption, he shall
enter upon that state of glorious liberty enjoyed by the chil
dren of God — for the hour when the sons of God shall be
manifested. E. — The penalty of the law is death. You have alleged
that, justified by faith, the Christian is freed from the penal
ty of death. This is untrue.
P. — I have never taught that Christianity exempted those
who embrace it from physical death. It does not offer im-

298 . The Argument.
munity from vanity; i. e., death. Man was made subject to
it. The fiat went forth against him on the morn of creation :
"Dust thou art; and unto dust shalt thou return." Such
was the decree. Men must pay the penalty of the violated
law. The truth of God requires it. He was not sub
ject to death willingly— because God took delight in his hu
miliation. It was for good reason that God subjected him
thus to vanity — suffering and death. It operates as a check
on man — it restrains him from violation of God's laws. He
knows that he may die at any moment, and be called upon
to,give an account of his deeds. But while God has subjected
man to vanity, he has not done so without leaving him the
anchor — hope; hope, that the hour will come, when he shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption. How comfort
ing is this hope to a Christian! The whole creation groan-
eth, and travaileth in pain together until now. Not simply
the wicked and all the animal creation suffer and die; but
the people of God likewise — Christians, who have the first
fruits of the spirit — who have already experienced the peace
and joy of eternal life — even they groan within themselves,
while waiting for the adoption; to-wit, the redemption of
their bodies — earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with
houses which are from heaven — that mortality might be
swallowed up of life. While it is true, that the Christian
has no exemption from vanity — death, he, we repeat, is sus
tained by hope. He sees as yet no resurrection of the dead,
save that of Christ. Christ resurrected, he is assured that
he shall be. The indwelling spirit of God so witnesseth. On
this testimony he bases his hope. He does not realize as yet
that for which he hopes; for in that event he would no lon
ger hope for it. No man hopes to realize that that he has
already in his possession. Hoping for what he sees not, the
Christian patiently waits for it.
Nor hope alone. The child of God has not simply this
hope based upon the facts of Christ's resurrection, and the
indwelling of his spirit to sustain him in his suffering, afflic-

The Argument. . 299
tions, death encounters. He has besides, the active co-opera
tion of God's spirit helping him in his infirmities.
E. — I notice that you Christians pray a great deal; but
your prayers are not answered. I conclude that it is be
cause you are not of. God.
P. — I spoke a moment since of our infirmities. Ignorance
is an infirmity that Christians share in common with their
fellow beings. Even in their prayers they not unfrequently
make petitions that are wrong. Moses besought God thrice
that he might be allowed to enter Canaan. This God could
not grant without compromising his veracity. The sons of
Zebedee prayed for what could not be granted. I, myself,
besought Christ time and again to remove this thorn in my
flesh, this messenger of Satan that buffets me continually.
He would not. He replied : "My grace shall be sufficient for
thee; for My strength is made perfect in weakness." While,
therefore, it is so, that the Christian does not always get that
which he prays for, he knows that his prayers are not granted
because God knows what is best for him. He is frequently
sorely exercised because his petitions are not granted; but the
Spirit of God helps his infirmities, enabling him to bear the
cross. Nor is this all. The Holy Spirit makes intercession
for him with groanings that cannot be uttered — praying God
to pardon his improper petitions on the score of his igno
rance; and that he would bear with his infirmities. God,
who searchetlf the hearts, knoweth what the desire of the Holy
Spirit is, though his groanings are unuttered ; and He grants
His intercessions for the saints, they being made according to
the will of God. The knowledge that the Christian has that
God's spirit is actively engaged in his behalf; and that he is
offering his resistless petitions with unuttered groanings, is
comforting in the highest degree. Thank God for such an in
tercession! Thank God for such help for Christian infirmi
ties ! For such a friend to intercede with God to pardon our
infirmities !
But the Christian is comforted by the knowledge that all
things work together for good to those that love God — to

300 The Argument?
those who are the called according to his purpose — to those
who by repentance, confession of sin, and faith in the blood
of the atonement have passed from death unto life. Yes, he
knows that whatever in the providence of God he is called
upon to pass through, though it be affliction, torture, suffer
ing, trial, pain, disease, death — it shall redound to his good.
For whom he did foreknow would become his people, he also,
did predestinate that they should be conformed to the image
of His Son in all things — holiness, devotion to the cause of
God, suffering, death, resurrection, and ascension — that he
might be the first born among many brethren. How comfort
ing to the Christian amid all his sufferings, aye, even in
death, is the knowledge that the Father predestined that he
should be conformed to the image of His Son — that there
should be this brotherhood in suffering, death, and resurrec
tion between Christ and his disciples! Stayed by hope, as
sisted in his infirmities by the Holy Spirit, interceded for by
Him, knowing that all things work together for hi3 good
and that God predestined that he should be like Christ in
all things, the Christian, with all weights laid aside runs
with patience the race set before him. Having set forth the
perfections of the Christian system we resume our argument.
We have elaborately shown that what the race lost in Adam
it gained in Christ; aye, far more. We have seen, too, that
God predestinated that his people should be conformed to
the image of His Son. Now whom he did predestinate them
he also called; and those whom he called, those he also justi
fied; and those whom he justified, those he has glorified, in
making them heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. He
made no discrimination in providing for the salvation of all,
Gentiles as well as Jews. Such being God's arrangement,
what shall we say to these things? If God be for Gentile
salvation, who dare oppose it? Who can be against it? He
that spared not his Son, but delivered Him up for us all,
shall he not- with him also freely give us all things? Having
Christ to die for Gentiles as well as Jews, there is nothing

The Argument 301
that he won't give to those that accept of salvation through
Christ. The gift of Christ argues the gift of all else at
the disposal of God. God elected to save the Gentiles. Who
shall arraign God for so electing? Who dare still to hold
that those whom God has elected are reprobates? It is God
that justified them. Has not God a perfect right to elect
whom He will to salvation ? Who is he that will presume to
sit in judgment on God's acts? Who will dare to condemn
God for pursuing such a course? It is Christ that died for
all mankind; yea, rather, that is risen again, who is even at
the right hand of God, that is also making intercession for
us. Remembering the unspeakable love of Christ for His peo
ple; his suffering and death in their stead; his resurrection
as an earnest of theirs; his intercession in their behalf, what
shall separate the Chritian from the love of Christ? What
shall cause him to cease loving the Saviour? Shall the trib
ulations that he is called upon to endure for his sake do it?
Shall distress, however grievous? Shall persecution, though
extreme? Shall famine, the most severe? Shall nakedness,
destitution, want, extreme poverty? Shall peril, however
great ? Shall sword drawn and uplifted for his death ? Nay,
in all these things, he is more than conqueror through him
that loved him. The Christian knows that he is called to
suffer for Christ's sake. The scriptures so teach him: "For
thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as
sheep for the slaughter." (Ps. 44:22.)
Finally. The Christian, remembering God's course to
him; and knowing that he is a child of God, is fully per
suaded that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principal
ities, nor powers (infernal spirits), nor things present, nor
things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,
shall be able to separate him from the love of God — a love
which is witnessed by the gift of Jesus Christ our Lord.
Such are the perfections of the Christian system. It must
be admitted that the religion of Christ meets all the exi
gencies of this life — prepares us for all its chequered scenes.

302 The Argument.
Even, my friend the Rabbi, must see its excellencies as con
trasted with the system he is advocating. That the perfec
tion of the religion of Christ may be more perfectly seen, we
will now present in brief, the theory that is known as the
Jew's religion. It will be seen to be in striking contrast with
the system I am advocating. We make this contrast that my
opponent may see in all its deformity the imperfection of the
heretical system that he is supporting. May God enable him to
see his error and may he be persuaded, as I lay bare the ab
surdities of his system, to renounce it !
But to the imperfections of the Jewish system.
And (1) the endorser of Judaism is wretched — he feels
condemned in the sight of God; (2) He can not keep the
commandments of God; (3) He walks after the flesh and
not after the spirit; (4) He is conscious that he is not deliv
ered from the law of sin and death; (5) He knows that the
law does not restrain him from the indulgence of his sinful
lusts; (6) He minds the things of the flesh; (7) He has a
carnal mind, hates God, rebels against his holy law; (8) He
is in the flesh and can not please God; (9) He has not the
Spirit of Christ dwelling within him; (10) With no Christ
dwelling within him, he is using his members in the service
of the devil — his spirit being dead to righteousness; (11)
With no spirit of Christ within him, he has nothing upon
which to found a hope of the resurrection of the body; (12)
He is not led by God's Spirit; and, therefore, has no evi
dence that he is a Son of God; (13) He has no Spirit of
God witnessing with his spirit that he is a child of God; (14)
He has no spirit of adoption, whereby he is enabled to cry;
Abba, Father; (15) He dreads the manifestation of the sons
of God; (16) He has never suffered with Christ and has no
hope of being glorified with him; (17) He has no Spirit of
God to help his infirmities, or to make intercession for him;
(18) He prays ignorantly if at all; (19) He is not one of
God's called; has never accepted offered mercy; does not
love God; (20) He has no firm persuasion that all things

The Argument. 303
shall work together for his good; (21) He is not sustained
amid his trials, his suffering, or his death by the reflection
that God predestined that he should be conformed to the im
age of His Son; (22) He holds to the heresies of sins of the
flesh ; that he is a child of God, while doing all manner of
meanness — while violating all God's laws ; that he will be saved
because descended from Abraham, is circumcised in the flesh,
and has God's laws; that he is justied by sacrificing lambs
and goats; that God owed him salvation as a debt; (23) He
repudiates the doctrine of Gentile salvation in any way, other
than by his becoming, constructively, a Jew. He rejects with
proud disdain the thought of his being saved on the same
plan with a Gentile dog; (24) He denounces Christ as an
impostor, and glories in his death as a common malefactor;
(25) He has no mediator between God and himself; (26) In
his sufferings and death he has not the comfort of reflecting
that Christ loves him and gave himself for him — that God's
people must expect to be dealt hardly by, by a wicked world ;
and without this comforting reflection, he is continually cry
ing out in the bitterness of his soul, 0 wretched man that I
am! (27) Lastly. He has no deep conviction that God loves
him; and that there is no power on earth, in heaven above, or
in hell beneath, that can separate him from the love of God.
In concluding this chapter, friend Rabbi, I wish to call
your attention, particularly, to those things by which the
Christian is assured that he is a child of God. They are:
1. He has no feeling of condemnation; 2. He sees and knows
that he is doing just what the scriptures teach as righteous
ness before God — he walks not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit; 3. His mind is not exercised in earthly, but in spir
itual things; 4. He is not carnally minded, but spiritually
minded; 5. He has no fear of death; but, being spiritually
minded, he has already entered upon eternal life, and enjoys
the peace that passeth understanding; 6. He has no feeling
of enmity against God's holy law, but renders it a most hearty
and cheerful obedience — he delights in meditating thereon —
he prizes it as above "the gold of Ophir," or the wealth of

304 The Argument.
Ormus or of Ind;" 7. The life that he lives, it is not he that
liveth; but Christ that liveth in him— the Spirit of God
dwells within him; 8. He realizes that his outer man is dead
to sin — all his lusts have been crucified ; while his spirit de
lights in righteousness ; 9. With the Spirit of Christ dwelling
within him, he knows that He that raised up Christ's body,
shall in the resurrection morn quicken his mortal body into
life — cause mortality to be swallowed up in immortality; 10.
Being led by the Spirit of God, he has the witness of the Holy
Ghost with his spirit that he is a son of God; 11. He has the
spirit of adoption, whereby he cries Abba, Father; 12. From
this experienced sonship, he rejoices in the reflection that by
and by, he will heir with Christy heaven and all its joys;
13. While he suffers, he knows that chastening is an evi
dence of God's love for him; 14. He rejoices that when he
has suffered with Him, he shall reign with him in glory;
15. He looks upon the ills of this life, recalls its thorns and
its crosses, its sorrows and its griefs, its pains and its disap
pointments, its disease and its death agonies — but even these
are sources of joy. For he knows that they are not worthy
to be contrasted with the glory which will, after awhile, be
revealed to him and realized by him; 16. He looks forward
earnestly expecting and waiting for the hour when the Sons
of God shall be manifested — be exhibited in all their glory of
crown, and jewel, and new name, and white raiment, and en
throned splendor; 17. Though like the race, he must pay the
pronounced penalty — death, yet he has an abiding hope in
the resurrection of his body; 18. He has God's Spirit dwell
ing within him, and is conscious of imparted strength by that
Spirit, that enables him to bear up amid all the ills that flesh
is heir to; 19. He is comforted in hours of devotion, that
though his prayers are unwisely offered, ignorantly presented,
that God's Spirit living and dwelling within him knows what
is in his mind, and he maketh his prayers in such a way as
meets with the approbation of God ; 20. He knows that what
ever befalls him in this life it will redound to his good — shall
work for his betterment, who loves God — for the called, ao-

The Argument. 305
cording to his purpose; 21. He finds joy in suffering and
death, for he knows that God has predestined that he shall
be conformed to the image of Christ in suffering, affliction
and death ; 22. He has comfort unspeakable in reflecting that
he has not simply the Holy Spirit, but Christ as his inter
cessor — Christ with hands uplifted, and bleeding — Christ
with lacerated brow and pierced side — Christ with marred
visage and agonized heart, interceding in his behalf; 23. He
sees in the death of Christ his unspeakable love; 24. He sees
in the death of Christ the measureless love of the Father for
him ; and in the light of that love of Father and Son does he
rejoice, knowing that there is no power in heaven, earth, or
hell that will restrain that love, or force him to forego his
love for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Such is but a brief of the evidences by which the Christ
ian assures himself of his acceptance with God and partici
pation in the unspeakable glories of the heavenly state. In
this conviction he goes forward, caring nothing for the ills
of life; but rejoicing rather in his tribulations, and in the
reflection that he is considered worthy to suffer thus for
Christ and with Christ.
As the Christian religion prepares man for all the ills of
life — as it arms him against the direst calamity — as it nerves
him amid the storms of life — as it thrills his heart with dar
ing ardor — as it enables him to peril life and meet death in
its most appalling form — as it causes his soul to rejoice in
the very article of death — as it enables him to shout on the
bed of death, what more is needed to complete its excellen
cies and enhance its perfection?

CHAPTER XIX.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
ROMANS IX.
P. — I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also
bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heav
iness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish
that myself were accursed, as was Christ — hanged on a tree
— for my brethren, my kinsmen, according to the flesh. Who
are Israelites — to whom pertaineth 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, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Now I would not be understood as taking the position, that
the entire Jewish nation is in the awful state of God's ene
mies — that none of them have accepted the true religion, that
is to say, Christianity. We repeat, we would not be under
stood as teaching that the word of God had taken none effect.
R. — Your speech allows of no other interpretation. It will
he so taken, notwithstanding your declaration. In response,
I lay down this proposition, that you cannot refute, viz. : All
are Israelites that are of Israel. That is to say, I hold that
salvation is a matter of descent from Abraham. If I under
stand you, your position is that no Jew can be saved unless
he accept of Christianity. You speak as though the Jewish
nation have all been lost — the great mass of them at least.
Is not such your holding? You have all along stressed, and
that with great emphasis, "conditional election" — salvation
through faith in the atoning merits of the blood of Christ.
In your last lecture, you asked, after speaking to this very

The Argument. 307
point: "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect?"
meaning, who shall dare arraign God, for exercising his sov
ereign will and pleasure in providing such a plan of salva
tion as He chose — a plan based on faith in the blood of atone
ment — a plan providing for all men, whether Jews or Gen
tiles? We would not presume to arraign God for any course
that, in the exercise of His sovereign right, He might elect.
His right to do as He wills is a great cardinal of our system.
But we hold that God made no such election as you are
pleased to contend — that He did not provide any such plan as
you are teaching. No. We do not arraign God. But we do
most positively hold that your theory is false, and as such
repudiate it, and arraign you as teaching the baldest heresy.
Our scriptures do not teach as you claim. God elected Abra
ham and his descendants, and them alone as his people. I a
the covenant made with Abraham — a covenant solemnly ratifi
ed by circumcision — God used this language : "I will be your
God; and ye shall be my people." Time and again, as the
ages rolled by, did God renew that covenant with His people
— with the Israelites. If salvation be- not by descent, why
did God limit the covenant to Abraham and his descendants ?
In view of this solemn obligation, oft repeated, dare you
teach that none of the Jews have been saved, or will hereafter
be, save those that have accepted, and may hereafter accept
salvation through faith in Christ? God's promise certainly
makes salvation a matter of lineage. Dare you presume to
teach to the contrary? You do. You will not deny that you
do, and have denied, throughout this discussion. Your theory
falsifies God's word. So doing, it is a base heresy. That our
hearers may know where you stand, answer this question : Is
salvation through Christ, and Him only?
P. — Such is my position — no one has ever been saved who
rejected Christ. The scriptures do not teach that salvation
is a matter of descent from Abraham. They teach precisely
the opposite. They, in the plainest manner, declare, that they
are not all Israel that are of Israel. There is not a single
Bible writer that so teaches. Does not the Rabbi remember

308 The Argument.
the scriptures referred to in another connection ? Has he for
gotten the argument based on God's course to Israel in the
wilderness? There were, as noticed, no less than a million
and a quarter, taking male and female, that crossed the -Red
Sea under the leadership of M'oses. Of that number only
two ever got into the land of promise. What became of the
rest? The history shows that they were put to death in ways
divers and horrible. This he will not deny. Has he forgot
ten God's proposition to Moses? To destroy the entire na
tion? Has he forgotten the numerous quotations made from
the prophets, showing that a bare remnant were accounted as
the Israel of God ? Does he not remember that God, through
Hosea, declared : "For ye are not my people, and I will not
be your God"? (Hosea 1:2, 6, 9.) Has he no recollection
of what God, speaking through Isaiah, said? "The whole
land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end." (Isa,
54:10.) Hear God through Jeremiah: "Thus saith the
Lord : If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations
of the earth be searched out beneath, I will, also, cast off all
the seed of Israel, for all they have done." (Jer. 31:37.)
"Thus saith the Lord: If my covenant be not with day and
night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven
and earth ; Then will I east away the seed of Jacob, and Da
vid, my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed, to be
rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (Jer.
33:25, 26.) Hear God through Moses: "And yet for all
that (their sins), when they be in the land of their enemies,
I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them, to de
stroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them ; for
I am the Lord their God." (Deut. 26:44.) If these scrip
tures do not teach that all are not Israel, that were of Israel
— if they do not declare that those only are Israel that are
spiritually of Israel — if they do not teach adversely to the
holding of the Rabbi, that all are of Israel that are descend
ed after the flesh from Israel — then, am I incapable of un
derstanding any proposition, that has ever been couched in
language. They clearly teach that a vast per cent. — the

The Argument. 309
great mass of the Israelites — were destroyed in all the ages
from Moses to Malachi. This being so, then does it not
follow that no such doctrine is scriptural as that salvation
is a matter of descent after the flesh. They show that the
vast mass of the Jewish nation were disowned as his people
by God — that he renounced and denounced them as a most
wicked and ungodly people — as a people that had done worse
than the heathen. I refer the gentleman to the many scrip
tures quoted in another connection as evidencing the falsity
of his position. They show that salvation is not of lineage.
But they also teach, that none are the people of God, that
do not believe and obey him. They show, too, that salvation
is through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. The sacrifi
cial system has no meaning other than that. Christ, salva
tion through him, is the one great and unmistakable truth
that the entire system teaches. It was the letter of the sys
tem to teach vacarious suffering for the sins of the people —
that without shedding of blood was no remission of sin. Does
the gentleman believe that the blood of lambs and goats can
take away sin? The blood of the sacrifices pointed to the
blood of Christ, in the sheddng of which man was to receive
remission of sins. The gospel as preached by all the proph
ets, was, as we have seen, that justification was through faith
in the blood of the Lamb of God.
But returning to the Abrahamic covenant. As remarked,
that covenant does not teach salvation by descent from Abra
ham — descent lineal or constructive. It teaches that all are
• not Israelites that are of Israel. Has the Rabbi never read :
"In Isaac shall thy seed be called"? Hear God to Abraham:
"And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed;
and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish 'my
covenant with him, for an everlasting covenant, and with
his seed after him." (Gen. 17.) Here God expressly limits
the Abrahamic covenant "to Isaac, and his seed after him."
Had Abraham no son at the time God made this covenant
with him? Had he not a son by Hagar? Ishmael was at
that time over twelve years of age. What request did Abra-

310 The Argument.
ham make of God, as to his son by Hagar? Did he not
earnestly beseech God to let Ishmael's be the chosen line?
He certainly did. He said: "0 that Ishmael might live be
fore thee!" But what said God? "And as for Ishmael, I
have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him and will make
him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve
princes shall he beget; and I will make him a great nation.
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah
shall bear unto thee, at this set time in the next year." (Gen.
17:15-21.) Here it is evident that an election of line was
made of God. He in the exercise of his sovereign will and
pleasure chose the line of Sarah's son, rather than Hagar's.
Now it is a well known fact, that God's course in electing
Isaac's rather than Ishmael's line was not arbitrary. He
was induced so to do by the fact that Ishmael was begotten
in a natural way. At the time Abraham went in unto Ha
gar, he had all the vigor of a matured manhood; while
Isaac's begetting was supernatural, Abraham and Sarah be
ing both' old and well stricken in yeears, and consequently in
capable of procreation. That is to say, Ishmael was a son
after the flesh, while Isaac was a child of faith. This chap
ter, in the history of Abraham, teaches, that all his descend
ants were not counted as the seed. It shews that none but
those that are children of faith — those that have Abraham's
faith, and live, as he did, a life of holiness — are counted as
the seed. In other words, it proves conclusively, that "All
are not Israel, that are of Israel." That is to say, it shows
that salvation is not a matter of descent, but of faith.
Eabbi. — I had no allusion to the line of Ishmael. He was
a bastard, and his mother was an Egyptian woman. I meant
Abraham's descendants of the pure Syrian stock, who were
legitimately his heirs.
Paul. — Your position is unscriptual though limited to the
pure Syrian stock. The children of Isaac by Rebecca, were
certainly of pure blood, and legitimate. This you will con
cede. Now the scriptures tell us that "when Rebecca had
conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, that the children

The Argument. 311
struggled together in her womb." This, we read, troubled
her, and she went to God to inquire what this meant ? Where
upon it was said to her : "The elder shall serve the younger."
— Esau shall serve Jacob. As bearing upon this point of
God's election of Jacob, rather than Esau, we read where God
speaking through Malachi saith: "Jacob have I loved, and
Esau have I hated." Now, bear in mind, that what God said
to Rebecca, was before the children were born, and, conse
quently, before they had done good or evil. And, why at
that time ? That the purpose of God as to election might be
evident. That we might understand, that election was not a
matter of descent, but of Him that calleth, that we might
know further, that election was not a matter of works, but
of faith — that God's purpose as to the grounds of election,
was unchanged. God knowing all things, knew of course
how Esau would act. He knew he would despise his birth
right. God knew, too, the course Jacob would pursue. He
knew that he would earnestly desire the distinction con
veyed in the promise: "In thy seed shall all the nations of
the earth be blessed" — of being one of that illustrious line
that should link the descent of the Redeemer of the world.
He knew, in a word, that Jacob would have faith in the
promise. Thus knowing, God, who is ever guided by the
unchangeable principles of his government, that of rejecting
the unbelieving and disobedient, and accepting those who
have faith and obey, informs Rebecca, in advance — before the
children were born — which he had elected to the honor of Mes
sianic ancestry and oracular commitment. Who can fail in
seeing, in the course pursued by God towards Esau and Ja
cob, the correctness of our position, to-wit : Salvation is not
a matter of descent, but of faith ? Who is so blind as not to
see, that "All are not Israel, that are of Israel?" Who can
fail to see that God elected Jacob, rather than Esau, because
he foresaw that Jacob would comply with the conditions of
the covenant, faith and obedience, made with Abraham ; and
that Esau would not ? Of this history there can be no doubt-
Being true, what then? Three conclusions are forced: (1)

312 The Argument.
All Abraham's descendants, of pure blood, were not counted
as the elect; (2) That election is conditional; (3) That those
conditions are faith and obedience. So, friend Eabbi, your
proposition that "All are Israel that are of Israel," is mani
festly false. The conditions of salvation are not lineage and
oracular commitment, but faith and obedience — faith in the
promised seed, which seed is Christ.
E. — If your exposition of the history of Isaac and Eebecca
be true, then must God be unrighteous. Your claim is that
God rejected Esau and accepted Isaac before either had done
good or evil. If God loved Jacob and hated Esau before they
were born, while yet they were in their mother's womb, how
can he truthfully claim to be impartial? Pursuing such a
course, then does he falsify his word. For does he not claim :
"I am no respecter of persons?" By such an exposition of
the history of Isaac and Eebecca, you set aside, it is true, our
claim; but, in so doing, you virtually impeach God's veracity
and divest him of his claim. Such is certainly the logical
conclusion from your exposition of that scripture. Such a con
clusion is all that is necessary to the rejection of your inter
pretation of it.
P. — God forbid, that I should so expound his word as to
impeach his veracity, or shadow his claim. My interpreta
tion of that scripture, necessitates no such conclusion as you
have drawn. God was under no necessity, whatever, to wait
until Esau and Jacob were born. God is omniscient. Being
so, he knew before they were born, what course they would
pursue. He simply foretold their future, and informed the
mother, that he should respect the principles of his govern
ment, in his course toward her sons. In acting in harmony
with his government, God displayed his righteousness — his
immutability and his truth.
But you urge, "Such an interpretation makes God to falsi
fy his word — makes him a respecter of persons." To this we
reply : Such an exposition of that scripture involves no such
conclusion. It does not reflect upon God's word or his claim.
The very course that God pursued showed that he was no re-

The Argument. 313
6pecter of persons in the administration of his government.
Esau did not regard the well established principles of the di
vine government. He did not believe God; and neither did
he obey him. He regarded not the distinguished honor of be
ing one of that illustrious line that should link the descent
of the Eedeemer of the world. So acting he despised God's
Son, Jesus Christ. He, in a word, rejected Christ ; and there
by brought upon himself the indignation, wrath, and judg
ment of God.
Nor is that all. After he had solemnly bartered away,
and that for a mess of pottage! the unspeakable honor of
Messianic ancestry, he was guilty of the disgraceful course
of seeking to have his father to confirm to him what he had
sold all right to. As an honorable man, when Isaac said to
him : "Go and kill venison, and make me a dish of it, so that
after eating of it, I may bless thee before I die," — he should
have informed Isaac, that he had parted with his primogen
iture, and all rights pertaining to it. He took advantage of
his father's ignorance as to his sale of his birthright. He
knew well that had he informed Isaac of his sale, he would
never have proposed to bless him — to give to him the bless
ing which of right went with his primogeniture. How dis
honorable to thus deceive his old blind father! How dis
honest to try to trick Jacob out of what he had sold him!
In view of his foreseen course of conduct, God did not,
could not, respect Esau. He could not have acted otherwise
without making himself a party to his dishonesty in attempt
ing, by deceit and treachery, to obtain what he had not one
particle of claim to. So far, therefore, from, in the expo-
sion given, reflecting on either God's character or his claim,
we, by such an exposition, set both in the clearest light —
show that God is no respecter of persons in the administra
tion of his government. It was precisely on these grounds
that God rejected Cain's offering and accepted Abel's. Cain
had disobeyed God in not providing a lamb for his sacrifice.
In doing so, there was nothing that pointed to Christ, th'j
Lamb of God. It was a refusal to concede that he stood in

314 The Argument.
need of remission of sin, through faith in the blood of atone
ment. It was a rejection of Christ. Therefore was it, that
God passed by, as in Esau's case, Cain's claim of primogeni
ture, and vested in Abel, what of birthright belonged to Cain.
When in the line of duty, man may expect God to honor
and bless him; but not otherwise. In rejecting Esau, God
stood by his claim, maintained his veracity, and taught that
he would not vary the principles of his government through
regard for primogeniture; but would see to it that all the
rights, honors, and blessings incident to birthright pass to
Jacob to whom they belonged by purchase, and, in conse
quence of faith in the promises of God. Besides. It has al
ways been an unalterable principle of the divine government
to punish the unbelieving and disobedient. In view of
Esau's course — a course foreseen — God punished him by
making him observe his contract. Having sold his birthright,
he must take the place of second born; and with it the obli
gation of servitude. It was in view of this fact that God said
to Eebecca: "The elder shall serve the younger." This was
tantamount simply to saying: "I will punish Esau for his
wickedness." I will remark here, that the punishment went
no further than above mentioned. There is no intimation by
God, that he would punish Esau, in any other way, than by
making him serve "Jacob. All this stuff as to God's electing
Jacob to salvation and Esau to damnation is but a perversion
that criminates God. The words of God convey no such
monstrous proposition as that of Esau's damnation. Esau
was just as much a subject of grace, as was Jacob. While
he was, by reason of his own act, debarred of the prestige of
Messianic ancestry, and the distinction of having the great
blessings, named in the covenant, conferred on his descend
ants; yet, in no other way, was he a whit the less acceptable
to God, than his brother.
But accept the theory of my opponent, and the unright
eousness of God cannot be otherwise than conceded. For, if,
as he claims, salvation is a matter of descent, then should
Esau and his descendants have been of the elect. But they

The Argument. 315
were not so reckoned by God, as we all know. And what
then? What conclusion is forced? Certainly, that of God's
unrighteousness — that of his untruthfulness. Again. God
was not unrighteous in the course that he pursued towards
Esau and Jacob. God is sovereign. So being, he has a per
fect right to decide as to what principles he will be guided
by in the administration of his government — to lay down
the conditions upon which he will have mercy and extend his
grace. He so claimed, when he said to Moses : "I will have
mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will have compas
sion on whom I will have compassion." The course that God
pursued, illustrated his claim. Isaac wanted Esau to have
the blessing, and he ran to get the venison. But God willed
otherwise. He had decided that Jacob should have the bless
ing. What are we taught by God's course? This: That it
is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth; but of
God that showeth mercy. In so doing, God always respects
the principles of his government. He shows mercy to those
that believe and obey. The scriptures, therefore, warrant the
conclusion, aye, force the conviction, that your theory of sal
vation by descent is without foundation — that the only elec
tion they teach is that based on faith and obedience.

CHAPTEE XX.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
ROMANS IX.— Continued.
R. — Admitting that you have reasoned with some plausi
bility, and that your construction of the scripture's passed
in review seemingly supports your theory, I pass to an exam
ination of God's course in his dealing with the Egyptians
and the Gentiles in the days of Moses. That Pharoah was
a representative Gentile, that he was king of the most pow
erful nation on earth at that day — you will not deny. You
will concede, also, that the Israelites, in Egyptian bondage,
were Abraham's descendants. Now what was God's course
towards Pharoah and his people? Did he not punish them
with fearful judgments, and finally destroy the king and his
army at the Red Sea ? Such is the unquestioned record. And
what was his course towards his own people, the Israelites?
He sent no plagues upon them, though they were living in a
part of the same country. And not only so. He signally
blessed them, and that in every way. Here we have God
cursing the Gentiles, while lavishing mercies on our ances
tors. Who can fail too see, in this course of God, the clear
est evidence of both Jewish election and Gentile reprobacy?
You will not deny that such a conclusion is warranted from
that history. And I think you will scarcely presume to call
in question its correctness, or dare controvert its justness.
P. — Your conclusion reflects upon the claim of God to be
no respecter of persons. Do I understand you to teach that
God's course was entirely arbitrary? Did God disregard the
established principles that he had observed for twenty-five

The Argument.- 317
hundred years — principles that he has never deviated from
since that day — principles that govern him at this very hour ?
Does God not claim immutability as one of his attributes?
Will you construe that history so as to reflect upon the word,
the character, and the government of God?
R. — God did not act, on that occasion, in harmony with
the established principles of his government. His course
was entirely arbitrary. He acted as he willed. Because
such was his sovereign pleasure, did he pour out the vials of
his wrath on Pharaoh and his people. And for the same
reason he blessed and protected Israel.
In support of my position, I appeal to the word of God.
Hear Moses : "The Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth." (Ex. 9:16.) Now what are we
to understand God to mean, when he declares: "Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up?" Why, certainly,
he had arranged that Pharaoh should live at that day, and
sit on that particular throne, and with the design of : 1. Show
ing his power in his dealing with the king;. 2. And thereby
declare his name throughout the earth as a God that repro
bated the Gentiles, while saving his elect people. Did not
God show his power in punishing the Egyptians with fear
ful judgments, and finally destroying Pharaoh and his army ?
But not only in that particular. Time and again, were
the king and his subjects repentant. Pharaoh would have
yielded, and would have let Israel go; but God would not
let him do so. He, as often as the king and his people would
repent, would harden their hearts and cause them to resist
yet more. And this course God kept up till he finally forced
them into the s^ea and destroyed the king and his army.
P. — If you are right in your exposition, then God is re
sponsible for Pharaoh and his people's disobedience and re
bellion. Do I understand you as teaching the damnable doc
trine that God hardens a man s heart, forces him to sin and
punishes him for what He made him do? I deny that God

318 The Argument.
harden's a man's heart, thereby forcing him to be rebellious.
E. — Deny it as you will, the Scriptures so teach. What
did God say to Moses when commissioning to the work of
Israelitish redemption? "And I am sure that the king of
Egypt will not let you go, no, not by a mighty hand. And I
will stretch out my hand, and smite Egypt with all my won
ders which I will do in the midst thereof; and after that
he will let you go." (Ex. 3.) Here God tells Moses before
hand how Pharoah would act, and what he would do in the
way of punishment. Now God intended that we understand
that Pharaoh would pursue his course of rebellion, he being
compelled to do so by reason of his heart's having been har
dened by Him. That such was his plain meaning I appeal
to scripture after scripture in proof. We read: "And the
Lord said unto Moses, when thou goest to return into Egypt
see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I
have put into thine hand ; but I will harden his heart that he
shall not let the people go." (Ex. 4:21.) Here God ex
pressly declares, "I will harden his heart.' In addition to
that positive declaration, we have God declaring at another
time : "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my sign^
and my wonders in the land of Egypt. But Pharoah shall
not hearken unto you." (Ex. 7.) Besides these positive de
clarations of God in person, we have Moses saying, time and
again, that "God hardened Pharaoh's heart. After the mir
acle of the rods, that, thrown down turned to serpents, we
read : "And he hardened Pharaoh's heart that he hearkened
not unto them, as the Lord had said." (Ex. 7.) After the
plague of the locusts, we again read, "But the Lord hardened
Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of
Israel go." (Ex. 10:20.) Again, we read : "And "the Lord
hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the chil
dren of Israel go out of his land." (Ex. 11:10'.) Again.
God, after telling Moses that he would send one more plague
on Egypt, goes on to say: "And I will harden Pharaoh's
heart, that he shall follow after them, and I will be honored
upon Pharoah and all his host, and the Egyptians shall know

The Argument. . 319
that I am the Lord." (Ex.-14:4, 17.) In this same chapter,
we read : "And the Lord hardened the heart of Pharaoh, king
of Egypt, and he pursued after the children of Israel." (Ex.
14:8.) Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mer
cy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Is my opponent an
swered? My hearers will not fail to see, that God does har
den men's hearts — the hearts of those, that like Pharaoh, he
designs to destroy. God, while thus destroying the Egyptians
and their king, we repeat, blessed and protected Israel, his
own people.
P. — If I understand your position, it is that God created
Pharaoh and his people for no other purpose than their de
struction; that he made them sin and rebel, and then pun
ished them for doing as they did. If God did as you allege,
then he was the author of their sins, we repeat. If he crea
ted them to do as they did, made them do it, why did he
find fault with them for doing what he constrained them to
do? Does God punish men for what they must needs do?
Had Pharaoh and his people any power to resist his will?
any power to avoid doing what he forced them to do? Away
with such a theory! away with such an exposition of God's
word ! Dare you interpret it so as to make God a monster ?
Again. You hold, it seems, that God was pursuing this
course with the design: 1. Of teaching the Gentile world
that he had reprobated them; 2. The Israelites, that they
were the unconditionally elect. This being so, then was God
teaching that he was a respecter of persons — a partial God.
Was God designing to teach that, in claiming impartiality,
he was not to be believed? Was he intending to teach Gen
tiles and Israelites that he was devoid of truth?
Again. God, you allege, was designing that the world un
derstand — Gentiles and Jews, that he had unconditionally re
probated the Gentiles, and elected the Israelites. Admitting
this to be so, what then ? Then God was designing that they
believe a palpable falsehood. For, take the Israelites. Did
he not put to death well nigh all adult Israel in the wilder
ness? His conduct towards those very Israelites showed that

320 The Argument.
they were not unconditionally elect — he put them to death
for their unbelief and disobedience. Again. Take the Gen
tiles. Can it be believed that God had unconditionally re
probated them? Does his course towards them in all the
ages so show ? Certainly not. Will you insist on construing
the Scriptures so as to make him the impeacher of his own
character ? the shadower of his own claims ? the repudiator
of his own attributes? the proclaimer of his own infamy?
the herald of his own diabolism?
R. — Nay, but 0 Man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed, say to him that formed it,
why hast thou made me thus ? Dare you sit in judgment on
God's acts! What if he did elect to reprobate and destroy
the Gentiles? What if he did choose Israel as his people
and exclude all others? God is sovereign. As such he has
a perfect right to create human beings. You will concede so
much, friend Paul. As he has the right to create, he has
the further right to create subject to such conditions, as he,
in his sovereign judgment, and in the exercise of his own
will, may elect. This you will also concede. What then ? He
has the right to create them, and leave them uninstructed as
to the course he would nave them pursue, whether as respect
to himself, or to their fellows. And when they, ignorant
though they be, violate his laws, he has the further right, if
such be his pleasure, to punish them here and damn them
hereafter. Who, we repeat has any right to sit in judgment
on his acts ? Who dare find fault with God, for pursuing any
course he may choose? Having made the Gentiles, he has
an absolute property in them, and may, in consequence, dis
pose of them in any way he may will and decide.
Again. God having a perfect right to create human be
ings, and subject them to such conditions as he may desire,
may, if he so elect, create other human beings, give them the
most perfect instructions as to his character, laws and gov
ernment, and the course he would have them pursue. He
may then, if such be his pleasure and will, permit this fa
vored class to violate all of his laws — worship idols, and

The Argument. 321
plunge to the lowest depths of crime; and, though thus rebel
lious and vile, bless them in every way here, and save them
hereafter. God is absolute sovereign. Being so, he may pur
sue any course that he may choose ; and no one has the right
to sit in judgment on that course. To find fault with him
is the height of iniquity and presumption.
My opponent will concede that a potter has power over
his clay to make one vessel to honor, and another to dis
honor. Will he concede to a potter, what he denies to his
God ? He will grant, too, that the potter has a perfect right
to make out of his clay whatever kind of vessel he may
choose — that he has a perfect right to do as he pleases with
his own — with what he has an absolute property in. Has
God less right? He will, also, concede that a potter has an
undoubted right to destroy any part or the whole of his pot
tery, if he chooses so to do. Has God not the same right?
It is useless to argue this question. There is no injustice
in God's creating Gentiles with no other design than their
damnation; and the Israelites with precisely the opposite
purpose. My opponent admits the depravity of the Gentiles.
He acknowledges that fearful judgments have been sent on
them, and justly so, in all the ages. In this, we are agreed.
These judgments declare the design of God in their creation.
We have now shown that Gentile reprobation rests upon
the strongest facts, the plainest scripture, the positive decla
ration of God, and his undoubted right to dispose of them
as he may in his divine judgment elect. When, therefore, the
advocates of the Christian system, dare to offer salvation to
all Gentiles, without distinction, they antagonize fact, scrip
ture and the decree of God. The Christian system is, there
fore, so far as it bears on Gentile salvation, and Jewish elec
tion manifestly heretical. It is to be hoped that my oppo
nent will at last see his error, and renounce his heretical
holding. Using his own words, I beseech him to remember,
"that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
11

322 The Argument.
in unrighteousness. He needs another Ananias to remove
the scales from his eyes.
P. — My friend has delivered himself as I would have him.
He -has, at length, set forth what is the main ground upon
which the baldest of heresies rests — the main pillar that up
holds the Jewish system. We will now proceed to remove
his pillar and topple his contemptible theory to its founda
tion stones.
We will notice, after passing in review the history of God's
dealing with Pharoah and his people, his exposition of the
celebrated Pharoah text.
The following is a brief of that history:
We read, that God sent Moses to the Egyptian court, com
manding Pharoah to let his people go, that they might serve
him. To this command, Pharoah returned a positive refusal,
asking, with look of scorn, and porte of pride, "Who is this
God of Israel? I know him not; and neither will I let Is
rael go." Could anything have been more insulting than
the manner and reply of this king? It was nothing less
than a defiance of God. It was a challenge of God to try
conclusions with him. It was tantamount to saying to God,
"You can get them when you are able to take them by
force." To this challenge God promptly responded. He
first turned all the water of Egypt into blood. What did
Pharoah ? He hardened his heart. God next sent the plague
of the frogs. What did Pharoah? He sent for Moses and
Aaron, and said: "Intreat the Lord that he may take away
the frogs from me, and from my people, and I will let the
people go, that they may do sacrifice unto the Lord." His
request is granted. The frogs are all removed. Not one
remains. Did Phoraoh let the people go as he had promised ?
We read: "But when Pharaoh saw there was respite, he
hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them, as the
Lord had said." (Ex. 8.) God then turned the dust of the
land into lice. Did the king relent? Nay. He hardened
his heart, as before. God next sent swarms of flies through
out all Egypt, Goshen excepted, where were his own people.

The Argument. 323
What did Pharaoh now? He again sends for Moses and
Aaron, and promises, in the most solemn manner, that he
would let the people go, if God would remove the flies.
Thereupon, he entreats Moses and Aaron to intercede for
him. The flies are removed. What did the king now? We
read: "And Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also;
and neither would he let the people go." (Ex. 8.) God
then sent a fearful murrian on all the stock of the Egypt
ians. What did the king? He hardened his heart and did
not let the people go. (Ex. 9.) God sent boils and blains
upon man and beast, throughout all Egypt, except Goshen.
What did Pharaoh? He hardened his heart at this time
also. (Ex. 9.) God then sent the fearful hailstorm. Such
a storm never had been seen before. Hail and fire mingled
with hail that ran along the ground, was accompanied with
terrific thunderings, and the fierce glare of lurid thunder
bolt and bickering shaft. Before sending this storm of fire
and hail — this storm of death — God in his mercy notified
all the Egyptians to get under shelter with their stock. Go
shen is again excepted. What did this rebel king now? We
read: "And Pharaoh sent and called for Moses and Aaron,
and said unto them : I have sinned this time ; the Lord, he is
righteous, and I and my people are wicked. Intreat the
Lord (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thun
derings and hail; and I will let you go, and you shall stay
no longer." (Ex. 9.) His prayer for mercy was heard.
What did he then ? We read : "And when Pharaoh saw that
the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned
yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants." (Ex.
9.) God then sent the locusts. What did Pharaoh? The
account is: "Then Pharaoh called for Moses and Aaron, in
haste, and he said : I have sinned against the Lord your God
and against you. Now, therefore, forgive I pray thee, my
sin, only this once, and entreat the Lord your God, that he
may take away from me this death only." (Ex. 10.) The
locusts are removed; and Pharaoh again forfeits his promise
— hardens his heart, and will not let the people go. God

324 The Argument.
then sends a darkness of three days and nights upon all
Egypt, Goshen again excepted. Still Pharoah will not yield.
He hardens his heart as before. God then sent the angel of
death throughout the whole of Egypt, Goshen excepted, and
slays the first born, from the throne to the hovel. What now
did this arch-rebel? "He arises at midnight and sends for
Moses and Aaron and said : "Else up and get you forth from
among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and
go serve the Lord, as ye have said, Also take your flocks and
your herds, as ye have said, and be gone ; and bless me also."
(Ex. 12.) The Israelites start on their journey. Scarcely
have they done so, when Pharaoh marshals his army and sets
out in pursuit, determined to prevent their leaving the coun
try. It was at this point in his rebellion that God withdrew
his Spirit. Pharaoh and his people had, at last filled up the
cup of iniquity. The Spirit of God withdrawn, they rush on
in mad pursuit. Even the pillar of fire guarding the rear ¦xi
Israel, and the divided sea for their deliverance and escape,
deter them not. On they go. They*, too, in daring defiance
of God, descend into the path through the waters. It was
the path to them of death, long delayed. They are over
thrown — Pharaoh and his army. Not one escapes to tell
the tale of their march to death. Such is the account given
by Moses.
E. — My hearers will perceive that the gentleman misquotes
the Scripture. Moses expressly says: "And God hardened^
Pharaoh's heart.' I quoted passage after passage to that
effect. The gentleman has demanded of me that I stick to
the record — that I quote the Scriptures. We cannot permit
him to translate the word of God to suit himself. Manufac
turing evidence to support his theory cannot be allowed.
The scripture must not be wrested. "They that do it," he
says, "do so to their own destruction."
P. — The gentleman charges me with wresting the Scrip
tures, in rendering it in every place. "And Pharaoh hard
ened his heart." By consulting Exodus, it will be seen that
the language is, as I have quoted it in five different places.

The Argument. 325
In as many other places the rendering is "And God hardened
Pharaoh's heart." My opponent will take notice that ths
Hebrew is "vai-ye-chazak leb Paroh." Now, what is the
proper translation? "And Pharoah hardened his heart."
As the Hebrew is "vai-ye-chazak leb Paroh" in every place,
it follows that, "And Pharoh hardened his heart is the cor
rect rendering in every place. We repeat, the Hebrew is pre
cisely the same in every place; and, therefore, must be ren
dered the same way in every place. It is absurd to talk of
rendering "vai-ye-chazak leb Paroh," "And God hardened
Pharaoh's heart." The same Hebrew cannot be rendered in
ways so opposed as "And Pharaoh hardened his heart," and
"God hardened Pharaoh's heart." The best Hebrew scholars
give it, "And Pharaoh hardened his heart" in every place,
just as I have rendered it. There is not a Hebrew scholar
in the world that would translate "vai-ye chazak leb Paroh,"
"And God hardened Pharaoh's heart." The Eabbi is himself
the party that is culpable in the matter of wrong-doing — or
rather, of wrong rendering. Such a translation was neces
sary to his theory; and he has rendered it so as to meet the
exigency. The gentleman will certainly hesitate before tak
ing issue with the most learned scholars of the ages, as to
the proper rendering of the Hebrew, "vai-ye-chazak leb
Paroh." Seeing that he values his reputation as a scholar,
and a disputant, I would suggest the propriety of his remem
bering, that his rendering of the Hebrew will be somewhat
discounted by the fact that it is indispensable for the support
of his theory.
E. — I rendered the passages, I have quoted, in harmony
with the oft repeated declaration of God to Moses: "I will
harden Pharaoh's heart." Time and again did God so de
clare to Moses. Granted that you have given the literal
translation of "vai-ye-chazak leb Paroh," still the free ren
dering that I have given it, is certainly justified by God's
declaration to Moses. Before I will surrender my version,
I must have something beside your rendering; which I

326 The Argument.
would remind you is really necessary to the support of your
theory. P. — Will the Eabbi explain what he holds to be God's
course in hardening the heart of man, conceding it to be in
deed so, that God does harden man's heart — did harden
Pharaoh's heart? Let us underdstand in what sense he
holds that God hardens a man's heart.
E. — Certainly. In the closing account of the liberation of
Israel by God, we have his declaration emphasized, and that
several times: "I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and I will
get me honor on the Egyptians." Here God is alluding to
his hardening Pharaoh's heart to follow in pursuit of the
liberated Israelites. He removed all fear of the consequences
that might attend on his pursuit. He induced Pharaoh to
believe that he could with his great army, prevent, even
then, the emancipation of the Hebrews. He knew they were
entirely unarmed — without organization — without drill as
soldiers, and concluded, very naturally, that he could with
such a great army, force their return to bondage. Pharaoh's
reasoning and his conclusions were alike of God. He could
have come to no other conclusion. It was forced on the part
of God, and absolutely necessary on the part of the Egypt
ians. It was impossible that the king and his courtiers
should have eome to any other conclusion.
P. — The Scriptures teach no such monstrous doctrine as
that God constrains rebellion and disobedience. We wero
thus desirous of having the gentleman put himself on re
cord plainly, so that he could not be misunderstood. The
authorities, David, Solomon, and Isaiah and others do teach
that God's forbearance and mercy, his patience and long-
suffering do tend to the hardening of man's heart. But such
hardening was not the design of the forbearance, mercy and
goodness exhibited by God. He continues to bear with man,
through earnest desire, that induced by his forbearance and
mercy, the man may turn, and thus escape the destruction
threatened. David saith: "His ways are always grievous;
thy (God's) judgments are far above out of his sight: as

The Argument. 327
for all of his enemies he puffeth at them." (Ps. 10':5.)
Solomon saith: "Because sentence against an evil work is
not executed speedily, therefore, the hearts of the sons of
men are fully set on them to do evil." (Ex. 8:11, 12.)
Isaiah saith: "Let favor (mercy) be shewn to the wicked,
yet will he not learn righteousness." (Isa. 26:10.) The
mercy and goodness of God is always designed to lead to re
pentance. That it is attended with hardening on the part
of the sinner, is solely the fault of the man himself. The
Scriptures cited enable us to see what God meant, when he
said to Moses, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." He meant
to say simply, I will shew him mercy and forbearance. Pre
suming on my long suffering and my exhibition of forbear
ance, he will continue his wickedness. "Because sentence
against his evil course is not executed speedily, he will set
himself fully to do evil." "Though I shew him mercy, yet
will he not learn righteousness." Such is the teaching of
God's word. In no other way does God harden the heart of
man. And this is what is in the clearest manner taught, in
the history of God's dealing with Pharaoh and his people, a
brief of which I have already given. From it, we learn : 1.
That God bore long with the king and his people; 2. That he-
shewed them mercy, removing the plague, as often as they
intreated mercy and promised obedience; 3. That God in his
desire to save them from further plagues, notified them in
each instance, what they might expect, if they did not obey;
4. That he went so far as to send them word to seek shelter
with their stock, when about to send the fearful devouring
storm of hail and fire mingled with hail; 5. That Pharaoh
and his advisers continued to lie to God, till they had filled
up the cup of their abominations; 6. When they had ex
hausted mercy, and reached the limit of divine forbearance,
God withdrew his Spirit from them; and suffered them to
rush headlong into the jaws of death — into the depths of the
sea. In waiting till Pharoah and his people had let Israel go,
before giving them over to hardness of heart and reprobacy

328 The Argument.
of mind, God only acted in harmony with his course toward
all sinners. From the foundation of the world, have sinners
pursued the course of Egypt's king and his people. Any
number of instances could be easily cited. The antedilu
vians pursued such a course. And God treated them as he
did Pharaoh and his people. The Israelites pursued such a
course in the days of Moses, Joshua, Judges, and indeed all
down the ages. Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and other
wicked kings, have done the same. Babylon, Nineveh, Je
rusalem, and hundreds of other great and notable cities have
pursued the same course. The history of the past is replete
with instruction on this point. That same history is but a
vast volume of testimony in proof that God has ever acted
in the same kind of forbearing way with the entire race. It
shows God's reluctance to destroy — his desire to reclaim
and <av? from the consequences of sin and rebellion. How
monstrous in any one to charge God with decreed damna
tion, with all this evidence historical and otherwise before
him! How utterly inexcusable in any one to attempt to
blacken the character of God, under any circumstances!
How outrageous, in the face of sixty centuries' teaching t>
hold to a theory that makes God the arch fiend of the uni
verse !
The Eabbi will see that God did not give Pharaoh and
his people over to destruction, until he had tried, by th3
most stupendous miracles, and the most appalling judg
ments, to induce them to yield obedience to his commands —
until he had left them utterly without excuse for their re
bellion and disobedience.
Again. It is the work of God's Spirit to strive with men.
He strives to convince them of their sin, of the obligation
to be righteous, and of the danger of running on the thick
bosses of Jehovah's buckler. He urges repentance. He ex
horts to turn in with the overtures of mercy. Time and
again did Pharaoh repent and plead for mercy and pardon.
This was the effect of the work of the Holy Spirit. Who
sent the Spirit thus to strive with Pharaoh and his people?

The Argument. 329
God, must be the answer. How could God have sent the
Spirit on such a mission, had he decreed the destruction of
the king and his people? Would not this have been the
height of absudity m God? Does God unconditionally rep
robate and then send his Spirit to strive with the reprobate ?
Again. Take the facts of the case — God's forbearance,
long-suffering, mercy — his sending his Spirit to strive with
the Egyptians, and who can fail to see that the Eabbi's theo
ry is sacreligious, impious, contrary to the character of God,
his claims, his word?
Again. It will bo further noticed, that Pharaoh takes th3
sin of his course on himself and his people. He does not
intimate in excuse for his and their conduct, that they were
constrained to so act — that God hardened his heart and made
him do as he and they did. He says: "God is righteous; I
and my people are sinners." He acquits God of all blame,
for his and their conduct. The very fact that Pharaoh
concedes the guilt of himself and his people, is proof posi
tive that the hardening of his heart, and of theirs, was the
act of himself and his people — is proof positive that the ren
dering cf the text examined — the rendering we have given
it — is most certainly the correct one. What then must be
the conclusion? Why, that the theory of unconditional rep
robation of the Gentiles, is a pure fiction — a Babbinical fab
rication — a bald heresy. This view of the subject bears with
great weight on the rendering I have given: "And Pharaoh
hardened his heart" — a rendering vouched for by the ablest
Hebrew scholars of the age.
E. — What rendering do you give of the sentence: "Even
for this same purpose have I raised thee up ? "
P. — As before, your rendering of the passage is wrong.
Here is the exact translation of the Hebrew : "And the Lord
said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand
before Pharaoh, and say unto him : Thus saith the Lord God
of the Hebrews: Let my people go, that they may serve me.
For I will at this time send all my plagues upon thine heart,
and upon thy servants, and upon thy people; that thou

330 The Argument.
mayest know that there is none like me in all the earth. For
now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and
thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from
the earth. And in very deed for this have I made thee stand
up, for to shew thee my power; and that my name may be
declared throughout all the earth." (Ex. 9:13-16.) Hence,
the clear meaning is, that God made Pharaoh to stand up,
that is to say, forebore to cut him down — lengthened hii
life, though rebellious — that he might shew Pharaoh his
power, etc. And this rendering is in accord with God's
treatment of Pharaoh after that he bore long with him and
his people, that they might be fully taught that
there was none like God in all the earth — an om
nipotent Being. There is nothing in the Hebrew that
justifies such a rendering as you have given the pas
sage, friend Eabbi. There is nothing in it when
rightly translated that intimates that God gave Pharaoh ex
istence at that particular period, and put him on the first
throne of the world, that he might, by his appalling judg
ments on him and his people teach the doctrine of Gentile
reprobacy. Neither is there the slightest evidence that God
designed by his course towards Israel at that day, to teach
Jewish election. God simply observed the principles of hk
government in his dealing with the Egyptians and their
king, and his people. He had always punished the disobe
dient and rebellious; and blessed and preserved the righteous
— the believing and obedient. He so acted in Noah's day.
He so proceeded in destroying "the cities of the plain;" and
he so acted towards the Israelites in the wilderness, and ever
afterwards, as we have before noticed. In forbearing to cut
Pharaoh down — in causing him to stand after repeated re
bellions — God shewed himself to the Egyptians and to the
whole world — declared his name — as not simply an Omnipo
tent Being, but as a God of longsuffering, a God of mercy, a
God that pardons and forgives the penitent,- and blesses and
protects the believing and obedient. In all this, the course
of God was worthy of him. In all this, God acted as he had

The Argument. 331
ever acted. In all this, God acted as he had acted ever since
the days of Pharaoh. There was nothing that reflected on
God, in his course towards Pharaoh and his people, and the
Israelites. It was eminently becoming in God to utilize the
liberation of Israel, in declaring his name throughout all the
earth. His whole course was designed as an educational one
to Pharaoh and his people, and the whole world. God him
self expressly so declares.
But the question comes up, supposing the correctness of
the Jewish theory, to-wit: that he had decreed Gentile rep
robacy; Why did God wish to declare his name and charac
ter throughout the world? Why did he want to educate the
Gentile world as to his attributes? What good could such
knowledge effect? What mattered it to the Gentiles who or
what God was, if he had decreed their damnation? It is
when we take the position that we hold that God had never
unconditionally reprobated the Gentiles, that we see the rea
son for the course that God pursued in dealing with the
Egyptians and his own people. Here we see God manifest
ing the greatest desire to declare his name throughout the
world. And the reason is obvious. And that reason repu
diates the Jewish heresy of Gentile reprobacy by decree. The
world was steeped in wickedness to the lips — all nations had
well nigh lost sight of God. It was, we repeat, eminently
becoming in God, to attempt, through his dealing with a
powerful monarch, a representative Gentile king and his
people, to shew who he was, what was his character, and what
the principles of his government, that he might remind the
whole world that be was alone God ; that they, taught of him,
might turn unto him and live.
What then? The history shews that God, wishing to shew
his wrath against sin, and to make his power known to all
the world, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of
wrath (the Egyptians and their king) fitted to destruction
(by their lying, treachery, wickedness, hypocrisy, and rebel
lion), and that he might make known to the world the riches
of his glory on the vessels of his mercy (the Israelites)

332 The Argument.
which he before prepared for honor, blessing, and glory. It
further shews, that God, in his effort to educate the Gentile
world, had not reprobated the heathen; but called upon all
to repent and turn unto him. Even us, not of the Jews
only, but also of the Gentiles. And this construction of
that part of the Jewish history, is warranted by the follow
ing Scriptures:
"I will call them my people, which were not my people;
and her beloved which was not beloved. And it shall come
to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye
are not my people; there shall they be called the children of
the living God." (Hos. 1:10.) Esaias also crieth con
cerning Israel : "Though the number of the children of Is
rael be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved."
(Isaiah 10:22.) "For he will finish the work, and cut it
short in righteousness, because a short work will the Lord
make upon the earth." (Isaiah 28.) And as Esaias said
before, "Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed we
had been as Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomor
rah." (Isaiah 1 :9.) These Scriptures are, but a few of
many, that repudiate Gentile reprobacy; and that "All are
Israelites that are of Israel." They shew to a demonstration,
that my friend, the Eabbi, has misrendered the celebrated
Pharaoh text; and that the exposition that we have given it
is undoubtedly correct. That is to say, it repudiates the
Jewish theory and teaches the Christian system.
But there are yet points, in the Eabbi's speech, that I
must notice. It will be remembered that he took the posi
tion that God made Pharaoh to do as he did ; made him sin.
That time and again, when Pharaoh and his people were on
the point of yielding and obeying God, by letting the Is
raelites go, that God hardened his heart, and would not let
him yield. It will be further remembered that I in replying
to this position, hell that if my friend, the Eabbi, was right.
then was God and not Pharaoh and his people, the sinner —
the responsible party for their rebellion. Again. That if
God acted as the Eabbi taught, he was a partial God — be

The Argument. 333
gave up his claim to be "no respecter of persons," and im
peached his veracity. To those points he replied by asking,
"Who art thou that repliest against God?"
It is to this question that I wish to make answer. I have
an undouted right to challenge the work of God in making
men and subjecting them to such conditions as that they
must violate his laws; and when they have done what he
made them do, punish and destroy them. I claim the right
to arraign God when He pursues a course in utter disregard
of His character and His claims. His acts must be in har
mony with His claims and His character, or else He ceases
to be God. Away with such an exposition of the Bible ! A
holding that makes God to create human beings, force them
to pursue a certain course, and then punish them for what
he made them do, is monstrous. Talk about arraigning
God! Why such a construction not simply arraigns, it ab
solutely annihilates God! It makes Him out the worst de
mon in the universe!
But the gentleman not only made God do such arch
fiendish acts; but he actually attempted to make it appear
that He was guilty of nothing wrong in making some men
with no other design than their damnation, while making
others with no purpose but their salvation. He seriously
endeavored to justify God in pursuing such a course — in dis
criminating between the two classes of His creatures. His
argument, if such it could be called, amused, while it aston
ished me. Here it is in brief : "God has an unquestioned
right," said he, "to create human beings. This right carries
with it that of subjecting them to such conditions as He, in
His sovereign pleasure, may elect. This being so, He has
a right to leave a part of them uninstructed, thereby making
it impossible to know Has will; arraign them for their vio
lation of His laws; and damn them for their violation."
Could anything be more montsrous? What! God can
create human beings and damn them for not doing the im
possible! For not obeying laws they never heard of! And
yet be a just God ! Could anything be more absurd ! Think

334 The Argument.
of it. God a just Being — a Being arrogating infinite jus
tice — and yet, create beings by the million, subject them to
the impossible, and destroy them for not doing an impossi
bility of His own origination ! And that, too, when He was
making other beings, giving them the most positive instruc
tions, thoroughly indoctrinating them in His laws, and sav
ing them though violating them all and singular! And
that in the face of His claim to infinite justice! Supposing
that God had pursued such a course, He could have given no
stronger proof of the falsity of His claims. What other evi
dence would we need,: that He was a Being of infinite in
justice? What further proof that He was a moral monster?
My opponent replies: "God is sovereign, independent, and
therefore, has the right to pursue such a course, if such was
His pleasure — that having made them, He has an absolute
property in them, and may dispose of them in any way He
may elect." This we deny. God, we repeat, has a character
to sustain. Not only does He arrogate justice infinite, but
love, mercy, goodness, holiness. My opponent claims what,
to be true, would divest God of every claim to morality. We
have only to accept His theory and follow it to its logical
conclusions, to make God the greatest demon in the universe !
A theory involving such absurdities, is itself absurd. I ofier
this as a truism : No theory of religion can be true that is in
conflict with the character and claims of God.
The Eabbi pretends to say that his theory of religion is
sustained by Moses and the Prophets. Why did he content
himself with an assertion? Why did he not accommodate us
with the proof? Why did he not quote from the scriptures
in proof of his claim? Why did he content himself with
his potter illustration? He had no scripture. His potter
illustration was nothing but a ridiculous attempt to conceal
the outrageously slanderous aspersion of the character of
God, that his theory logically involved. It was made with a
view to sanding the eyes of the thoughtless, uncultured
masses. A potter has the right to make one vessel unto
honor and another unto dishonor. He does this that he may

The Argument. 335
have a complete assortment. He has a variety of customers.
Some wish fine pottery. They buy nothing but the finest
class of goods. Others, with less means, buy a different
grade. They must content themsleves with goods of an in
ferior quality. Again. He may make pottery for ornament,
or for the most ignoble uses. No one questions his right to
make up his clay as he may elect. There is no reflection
upon his moral character in his making it up in any form,
or for any purpose, he may choose. There is no parallel
whatever between clay and human beings. Clay remains
clay, make it into what you may. It is senseless — without
life. A human being has life; and with it, a well, nigh in
finite sensibility, physically, morally, intellectually. His il
lustration fails to illustrate. But whoever heard, pray, of
a potter that made up a part of his pottery with no other
design than that of destroying it? What would be thought
of such a potter ? Hfe would soon find himself an inmate of
a lunatic's cell, in an insane asylum. Can anything be more
absurd than that an infinitely wise God should be employed
in making only to destroy? Who - can conceive of Omni
science so employed ? But to conceive of an infinitely humane
Being so employed ! Who but a brute of the most heartless
kind, could take pleasure in creating with no other design
than gloating over the agonies and death struggles of the
poor beings that he had made? Eabbi, such a theory as you
advocate is the most monstrous that my mind ever dwelt
upon. Such a character would grace hell, but not heaven.
It suits the Archfiend, but not an infinitely perfect God.
Allow me, sir, to pray that God would open your eyes to the
fearful heresy you are advocating.
We insist, friend Eabbi, that you support your theory by
proof and not by absurd illustrations. But such an illus
tration is in keeping with such a theory. Why did you not
appeal, sir, to your scriptures? The reason is obvious. You
had none to which you could refer, as remarked.
But why press this exposure of my opponent's attempt at
defending his theory? Our readers will remember that, in

336 The Argument.
the very opening speech of this discussion, we proved to a
demonstration that the Gentiles were perfectly instructed as
to God, His character, laws and the principles of His govern
ment. He did indeed, as we admitted, punish and destroy
those Gentiles that had filled up the cup of their iniquity;
but only those. We will not task your patience, my hearers,
by even a brief of the argument. We also showed that there
were Gentiles that had lived the holy life and been saved;
they having the laws of God written on their hearts, and
consciences which approved when holy and reproved when
unrighteous. But to conclude. If this discussion settles anything, it
is: That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness,
have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which
is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of
righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith; but, as it
were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that
stumbling stone — justification by faith in the atoning merits
of Christ's blood. And in so doing they have fulfilled proph
ecy, which saith: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone
and a rock of offence."
But were anything needed to show that Jewish election,
and Gentile reprobacy by decree, are alike unscriptural, it
is supplied by this scripture: "Whosover believeth in him
(Christ) shall be saved." (Isaiah 28.) "Whosoever" is a
compound personal pronoun, and means : "Any one who," or
"Every one who." We have but to notice its signification to
see that salvation was never limited to any particular nation
of people. Again. It will be perceived that scripture makes
salvation to be conditional; and that to all, whether Jews or
Gentiles. Further. It teaches that justification is by faith
and not by the deeds of the law. What then? The entire
Jewish theory must be discarded, as in conflict with the
claims and character of God, the unalterable principles of
His government, and the express teaching of his word ; while

The Argument. 337
the Christian system must be accepted as in haraony with
each, or the writings of Moses and the ProphetsNnust be
repudiated.

CHAPTEE XXI.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the
truth in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans X.
P. — I propose in this lecture to present other scriptures
bearing upon the subjects thus far presented — the true
ground of justification — salvation through Christ alone —
conditional election for Gentiles, as well as for Jews — that
all are not Israel that are of Israel; and close their discus
sion. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel
is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that
they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Being ignorant of God's righteousness — justification by faith
in the atoning merits of Christ's blood; and going about
to establish their own righteousness — justification by the
deeds of the law — they have not submitted themselves unto
the righteousness of God — holiness of life. They are blind
to the fact that Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,
as already explained, to every one that believeth in Him..
They will not see, that the law was an educational system
simply, whose design was not to justify the observer of its
requirements; but to present Christ in all His offices and
functions — to bring to Him that they might be justified by
faith. Deeply do I deplore the gross ignorance of Israel as
to the religion of their fathers.
E. — The Jews have ever embraced the doctrine of legal
observances for salvation. They have never understood that
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. They have
never seen that the sacrificial system was an educational

The Argument. 339
one, whose only object was to teach salvation through faith
in Christ's blood. It cannot be that they will be lost, when,
in_all honesty, they have looked to observing the ceremonial
law for justification. God will certainly not damn them for
not doing what they never understood as required of them.
Moses, our great lawgiver, certainly taught that the doers
of the ceremonial law should be justified. He never taught
any such doctrine as justification through faith in Christ.
No Jew has ever conceived of him as teaching such a theory
of salvation.
P. — No Jew can be said to endorse the heresy of legal
observance for justification honestly. His not seeing that
Christ is the end of the law for righteousness, is a piece of
wilful blindness, or inexcusable ignorance as to what his
sacred writers teach. He will not see that an observance
of the letter of the sacrificial system avails nothing. He will
not listen to his prophets, who, without dissent, condemn
legal observance for justification as stark hersy. Could
anything be more absurd than the claim that the blood of
lambs and goats can take away sin? It is the spirit of the
system whose observance is acceptable to God. I restate
my position. Salvation is through Christ alone; and all who
will not accept of it, whether Jew or Gentile, on the terms
proposed, will, we repeat, be inevitably damned.
But the Rabbi says : "Moses taught no such doctrine."
Did he not? An examination of his writings will show to
the contrary. Does he not describe the righteousness which
is of the law? Does he not make justification by the deeds
of the law dependent upon a perfect observance of its re
quirements? Hear him, God speaking through him: "Ye
shall, therefore, keep My statutes and My judgements ; which
if a man do, he -shall live in them : I am the Lord." (Levit.
18:5.) Here certainly a perfect obedience in all things
and at all times, is required, if one would be saved. Who
has ever done that, save Christ? Not one. All have sinned
Every Jew will admit that he does not keep the laws of God.
Without exception do they claim that they cannot keep them.

340 The Argument.
That Moses did teach justification by faith is evident. For
after describing the righteousness which is of the law, he
saith : "For this commandment which I command thee this
day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is
not in heaven that thou shouldest say, who shall go up for
us to heaven and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and
do it ? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say,
Who shall go over the sea for us and bring it unto us, that
we may hear it, and do it ? But the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do
it." (Deut. 30:11-14.) Now what did Moses mean to teach?
He is drawing a distinction between the righteousness of
the law, a righteousness which consists in hearing and do
ing; and the righteousness which consisted of the word that
was nigh unto them — the word that was in their mouths and
in their hearts, that they must, hearing, believe and confess.
As it was the word, that, hearing, they must believe and
confess, then was Moses teaching the word of faith which
we preach to-wit. : That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth
the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath
raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with
the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
mouth confession is made unto salvation. It is evident then,
friend Rabbi, that Moses did teach justification by faith.
R. — In the passage you cite, Moses saith nothing about
Christ, or His resurrection from the dead. Admitting that
he taught that rightousness consisted in belief and confession,
we fail to see from his language any reference whatever to
Christ or His resurrection.
P. — Your failure to understand him is inexcusable. What
did he mean by commanding: "Say not in thy heart, Who
shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we
may hear it and do it?" Why did he command them.. not
so to speak? Because so to speak, would be tantamount to
denying that Christ had already come from heaven'^nd
taught them that justification was not a matter of legal ob
servance, but of faith in him. That is to say, he meant to

The Argument. 341
forbid their questioning the fact that Christ had come from
heaven, and taught them what they must do to be saved.
"Say not in thine heart, who shall ascend into heaven to
bring Christ down, that He may teach us, what we must
do, that we may be justified," is the plain purport of the
command. Again. When he said, "Neither is it beyond the sea, that
thou shouldest say: Who shall go over the sea for us, and
bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the
word is nigh thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou
mayest do it," he meant to forbid their so speaking; because,
by so doing, they would reject not simply the fact
that Christ had come from heaven and taught them justifi
cation by faith and confession; but it would be to repudiate
the evidence upon which He rested his claim to be a teacher
sent from God, to-wit : His resurrection from the dead. "Say
not in thine heart, Who shall descend into the deep?" For
to do so would be to repudiate the fact that Christ had de
scended into the grave and risen from the dead, in evidence
of His mission as a divine Teacher. He forbade their so
speaking, in a word, because it would be equivalent to de
manding that Christ come again from heaven, die and rise
again from the dead, to teach them what they already knew
that they must do to be saved.
R. — We have never so understood Moses. Our prophets
certainly never so understood him; for they never taught
any such doctrine, as salvation through faith in Christ.
P. — Here again you are at fault. In our last lecture, we
quoted Isaiah as teaching this same doctrine that Moses
taught. "Behold," saith he, "I lay in Zion a stumblingstone,
and rock of offence; and whosoever believeth on him shall
not be ashamed." (Isa. 28.) But not alone Isaiah. David
taught : "Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from
the way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed
are all they that put their trust in Him." (Psa. 2:12.)
Solomon said: "Whoso trusteth in the Lord, happy is he."
(Prov. 16.) Jeremiah saith: "Blessed is the man that trust-

342 The Argument.
eth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is." (Jer. 17:7.)
We need not multiply quotations. The prophets taught as
did Moses. This shows that our interpretation of the pas
sage quoted from Deuteronomy is correct.
R. — Granting that Moses and the prophets taught as you
hold, we contend that their teaching was designed to be
confined to Jews only. For are not the Jews the parties ad
dressed by Moses, David, Solomon, Jeremiah and others?
We hold that they had no reference to any other people.
You have all along contended that there was no difference
between the Jew and the Greek; that the Lord is God over
all — the God of the Gentiles as much as of the Jews — and
was rich in mercy unto all that call upon him; but you have
by no means satisfied us of the truth of the position that
you have taken. Before we can concede it, we must have
other and more overwhelming testimony. You have quoted
the familiar text: "I made thee (Abraham) a father of
many nations," and claimed that it must be taken in a
spiritual sense only. So important a matter was certainly
not left with no other evidence. Your claim to be true ought
to have been supported by overwhelming testimony; and not
have been left dependent upon a single text that may be
construed in a way entirely different from the sense in which
you have presented it.
P. — The scriptures quoted make no such distinction. You
say that I have brought forward no other text than that of
God's promise to Abraham — "I have made thee a father of
many nations." Did I not quote, in my last lecture, from
Isaiah ? "Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."
Did I not draw your attention to the fact that "whosoever"
is a compound personal pronoun, and that it means, "any
one, or every one who ?" Such being its clear meaning then
must the prophet be taken to mean Gentiles as well as Jews.
And to this agree the words of the prophet Joel: "For
whosoever shall call upon the Lord shall be saved." (Joel
2:32.) The scriptures quoted show, conclusively, that the

The Argument. 343
prophets did not understand that salvation through faith in
Christ was confined to the Jews only.
But the gentleman wants overwhelming evidence of the
truth of the holding. He shall have it. Hear God speaking
through David: "Thou art my Son, this day have I begot
ten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for
thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for
thy possession." (Ps. 2:7, 8.) "All the ends of the world
shall remember and turn unto the Lord ; and all the kindreds
of the nations shall worship before thee. For the kingdom
is the Lord's; and He is the governor among the nations."
(Ps. 22:27, 28.) "Yea, all kings shall fall down before
Him: all nations shall serve Him (Christ)." (Ps. 72:11.)
Again. "All nations whom thou hast made shall eome and
worship before thee, 0 Lord; and shall glorify thy name."
(Ps. 86:9.) Hear Isaiah: "And in that day there shall be
a root of Jesse (Christ), which shall stand for an ensign of
the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and His rest shall
be glorious." (Isa. 11:10.) Again. "Behold my servant,
whom I uphold: mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth.
I have put my spirit upon Him: He shall bring forth judg
ment to the Gentiles." (Isa. 42:1.) "I, the Lord, have call
ed thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will
keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a
light of the Gentiles." (Isa. 42:6.) "It is a light thing
that thou (Christ) shouldest be my servant to raise up
the tribes of Jacob, and restore the preserved of Israel:
I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou
mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isa.
49:6.) "I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like
the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came
to the Ancient of Days (God the Father), and they brought
him near before him. And there was given unto Him do
minion and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations,
and languages should serve Him." (Dan. 7:13, 14.)
"And His (Christ's) dominion shall be even from sea to sea,

344 The Argument.
and from the river even to the ends of the earth." (Zech.
9:10.) What need we multiply scriptures? The word of
God is explicit. The plan of salvation was to include the
Gentiles. Returning to the quotations from Joel: "Whosoever shall
call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Joel 2.32.)
How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not
believed ? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they
have not heard? And how shall they preach except they be
sent? R. — Do I understand you as teaching that the doctrine of
salvation through Christ has been taught in all the ages and
to all nations? That the preaching was not confined to the
Jews. P. — You certainly do. David saith : "The Lord hath made
known His salvation: His righteousness hath he openly
showed in the sight of the heathen. He hath remembered
his mercy and his truth toward the house of Israel: all the
ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God." (Ps.
98 :2, 3.) Again. "The Lord hath made bare His holy arm
in the eyes of all nations; and all the ends of the earth shall
see the salvation of our God." (Isa. 52:10.) Joel saith:
"All shall be saved that call upon the name of the Lord."
If this doctrine of salvation through faith in Christ had not
been preached to all the nations, how could they call on Him
in whom they had not believed? And how could they be
lieve in Him of whom they had not heard ? Must they not,
we ask, have heard the word before they could be expected
to believe? And must they not have believed it before they
called upon the Lord? Is it not written: "How beautiful
are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and
bring glad tidings of good things !" (Isa. 52 :7 ; Nah. 1 :15.)
R. — Do you really hold that the Jews have ever been
taught this gospel? That the prophets all taught salvation
through faith in Christ to our people?
P. — I certainly do. For what saith Esaias? "Lord who

The Argument. 345
hath believed our report?" What does he mean by report?
The gospel of salvation through faith in Christ. So then
we learn from Esaias that faith comes by hearing and hear
ing by the word of God. Aye, more. Esaias not only
teaches that he preached it to the Jews, but that they almost
to a man rejected it. "Lord, who hath believed our report."
R. — 'And that this gospel has been preached to all men?
Do you intend that we understand that this doctrine that
you are teaching, of salvation through faith in Christ, has
been the theme of the prophets in all the ages? You aston
ish me.
P. — You are slow to understand. "Have they heard this
doctrine in all the ages?" you ask. Yes, I say, they have
heard it. Preachers have been sent to all the world. Yes
verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words
unto the ends of the world.
R. — You teach, it seems, that this salvation is as free to
Gentfles as to Jews; and that the Jews were to be saved in
the same way as the Gentiles. This being so, then Jews and
Gentiles have ever been taken into the same church. Your
teaching would lead us to believe that God has never had
but one church. It can not be that these things have been
taught in all the ages by our prophets. You must be mis
taken, Paul.
P. — Nothing so astonishes me, Rabbi, as the ignorance
that you display of what your own scriptures teach. You
seem astonished that this doctrine that we teach, is the very
doctrine taught by your prophets, in all the ages. Did not
Israel know? They did. For first Moses saith, "I will pro
voke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by
a foolish nation I will anger you." (Deut. 32.) Who had
Moses reference to? Who were the foolish nation that God
proposed to anger the Jews with? The Gentiles, of course.
And how did he propose to anger them? By having the
gospel preached to them— the very gospel that He had
caused to be preached to the Jews — the gospel that they had,

346 The Argument.
for the most part, rejected. This gospel the Gentiles would
accept. Accepting it, they would be received by God as
Bjis people — be jrecognized as members (c»f His Church;
while the Jews that rejected it, would be cast out, excom
municated. Accepting the Gentiles and rejecting the Jews,
would as a matter of course, anger the Jews. Moses certain
ly teaches that the Gentiles were to be taken into the church
that the unbelieving Jews were expelled from.
R. — You astonish me. Did any other prophet so teach?
P. — Yes. Esaias so taught, and that with a plainness that
cannot be mistaken. Hear him, God speaking through
him: "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made
manifest unto them that asked not after me." But to Israel
he saith : "All day long I have stretched forth my hands un
to a disobedient and gainsaying people." (Isa. 65:2.) Now
who were those that God was found of? Who were those
that He proposed to manifest Himself unto? There can be
no mistake. God certainly meant that He would manifest
Himself to the Gentiles; and that He would reject the un
believing Jews. Hosea teaches the same as we have seen
in the last lecture.
E. — Your position being true, is it not very astonishing
that so few of the Gentiles ever accepted of salvation through
Christ? P. — Our means of knowing what per cent, of the Gentiles
have embraced the Christian religion, is of the most meager
character. Could we know the facts, there is no doubt that
the per cent, is far greater that we, at present imagine.
There, in all probability, will be a vast multitude that will
sit down with Abraham and the fathers in the kingdom of
God. Multitudes, no doubt, that, like the seven thousand in
the days of Elijah, were deterred from fear of the personal
consequences from letting it be known where they stood —
multitudes that no one dreamed of as God-fearing people —
multitudes of whom the prophets knew nothing and of whom
h, rtory gives no account.

The Argument. 347
It is not astonishing that more did not accept of the true
..eligion. Not more so, at least, than that so few Israelites
availed themselves of offered mercy through Christ. Isaiah
asks: "Lord, who hath believed our report?" Who have be
lieved the gospel that I preached to them? We learn from
him that the per cent, of the saved was merely nominal,
looked at from his standpoint.
Summing up, we reach the following conclusions from
Moses and the Prophets : 1. The Gentiles always knew of the
existence of the true God and his character; 2. They have
known of His laws ; 3. Have had revealed to them the unal
terable principles of God's government — that of rewarding
the righteous and punishing the wicked ; 4. That justification
was a matter of grace on the part of God, and of faith in the
blood of atonement on the part of the justified or pardoned ;
5. That holiness of life was indispensable, after justification,
to acceptance by God; 6. That salvation, on those conditions,
has been taught in all the ages; 7. That it has been taught
to all men, Gentiles, as well as Jews; 8. That the true re
ligion has been rejected by the great per cent, of the race,
though possibly by no larger per cent, of the Gentiles than
of the Israelites; 9. That while God had poured out His
wrath on the rebellious Gentiles in all the ages — had cursed
them with wars, famine, pestilence, and fearful diseases; yet
had He pursued the same course towards the Israelites, spar
ing only a remnant of all the rebellious of Israel that lived
between the days of Moses and the present; 10. That, while
in consequence of their wickedness — because they had sinned
against light — God had expelled the great mass of the Gen
tiles the communion of the church; yet had He done the
same with the Israelites ; 11. That though the Gentiles had
been expelled the church, in the last days the gospel would
be again offered them and they would accept it, and he re?
stored again to the pale of the church; 12. That the Jews in
the last days, would be in turn excommunicated.

CHAPTEE XXII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans XI.
E. — Then you hold that God has cast away His people
and taken the Gentiles in their stead?
P. — What ! God hath cast away His people ! God forbid !
For me to so teach would be to hold that I myself am a cast
away. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham,
and of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not cast away those
whom He foreknew as His people. Don't you remember
how Elijah, in his day, made intercession to God against Is
rael — besought God to put Israel away and no longer regard
them as His people, saying: "Lord, they have killed Thy
prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone,
and they seek my life." But what saith the answer of God
unto him? "I have reserved to myself seven thousand men,
who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal." This
quotation shows, that, in what is confessedly one of the dark
est periods of Jewish history, there was a small per cent, of
the Israelites that were saved. The great mass of the nation
were corrupt at that time; and were without doubt lost. The
per cent, saved was evidently a very small one. Elijah
thought that he only was left. Even so at this present time
there is a remnant according to the election of grace. The
scripture plainly teaches that the seven thousand reserved by
God were so reserved as a matter of grace. There is, we re
peat, a remnant so reserved at this day. Now if they were
reserved then and now as a matter of grace, then it is evi-

The Argument. 349
dent that salvation was not then, nor now, a matter of debt
— a payment for work done. To hold, that salvation is of
works and not of grace, is to falsify the word of God. To
so hold is to do away with the doctrine of salvation by grace
— grace is no more grace. The reverse of this proposition is
equally true. If salvation be of works, then it is not of grace ;
otherwise work is no more work. It is one or the other. It
ean not be of both. If it is of grace, it is not of works and
vice versa. The scriptures teach that it is of grace. What
then? Israel did not obtain what he sought for in the ages
past. They have not even until this day. Any why? Be
cause they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works
of the law. A small per cent., that of the election according
to grace, hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded — given
over to hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind even down
to this day. The scriptures so teach. Esaias saith: "God
hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should
not see, and ears that they should not hear." (Isaiah 29 :10.)
The same condition of things existed in David's day, that we
find in the days of Elijah, and Isaiah. They insisted on re
jecting the doctrine of justification as a matter of grace —
contended that God owed them, and must save them as a
compensation for their works. So far from accepting Christ,
they gave Him gall for His meat; and in His thirst they
gave Him vinegar to drink. It was in view of this rejection
of Christ, that David prayeth: "Let their table be made a
snare before them; and that which should have been for
their welfare, let it become a trap and a stumbling block and
a recompense unto them. Let their eyes be darkened that
they see not; and make their loins continually to shake —
bow down their back always. Pour out thine indignation
upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
Let their habitation be desolate ; and let none dwell in their
tents. For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and
they talk to the grief of him whom thou hast wounded. Let
them be blotted out of the book of the living, and- not be

350 The Argument.
written with the righteous." (Ps. 69:21-28.) In this quo
tation, David, who foresaw the course that the Jews would
pursue towards Christ — that they would reject Him, giving
Him gall for meat and vinegar for drink — prays God to re
compense them by rejecting them, and thus feeding them
with meat that would prove to them as gall, and giving them
for drink, what would be to them as vinegar. As they re
jected Christ, he prays, in a word, that they may be cast off
as his people. What the prophets foretold has come to pass ;
and what they prayed for has been granted. The great mass
of the Jews, because they rejected justification through faith
in the atoning merits of Christ's blood, have been rejected as
the people of God.
E. — Do I understand you to teach that they have been
forever rejected? Have they, in their rejection of Christ, so
offended God, that they have fallen under the wrath of God,
forever ? Is their restoration to His favor forever precluded ?
P. — God forbid! I would not be so understood. The
scriptures foretell their blindness and deafness and their re
jection in consequence; but they do not teach that they have
been forever east off. Qod forbid that they should have
fallen under the displeasure of God forever. What I do teach
is, that salvation, through their rejection for the time being,
has come unto the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. The
Jews, that is to say, have been, for the time being, rejected
and the Gentiles have been taken into the church of God, in
their place, with the design of provoking them to jealousy.
I simply teach what Moses foretold. They would persist in
the heresies of unconditional Jewish election, Gentile repro
bacy by decree, justification by the deeds of the law, sins of
the flesh. To show them their errors in a way they could not
mistake, God makes the Gentiles His elect, because of their
acceptance of the doctrine of justification through faith in
the atoning merits of Christ's blood; and puts them, the
Jews, out of the church, thereby rejecting, alike, their claims
of unconditional election and justification by the deeds of

The Argument. 351
the law; and that in a way they could not mistake. In so
acting, God has been actuated by the one desire of their re
jection of their heresies; and their acceptance of salvation in
the only way that it is possible for Him to save any one.
Nor that alone. God saw that the casting away of the un
believing Jews would eventuate in enrichening the world —
all Gentile nations. They would see in his course towards
the Jews the heresy of Judaism. They would see that the
Gentiles were not the reprobate by decree as the Jews had
ever taught. They would see that God was their Father ; and
had arranged for their salvation. That He was as much the
God of the Gentiles as He was of the Jews. So understand
ing, the Gentiles would, by the million, gladly turn to God.
This rush among the Gentiles into the fold of God, coupled
with Jewish rejection would, God foresaw, be followed by
jealousy on the part of the Jews, and their return to the
church, upon the conditions of salvation offered by God. In
so doing, it will be a clear case of life from the dead — they
being provoked into a return to God by nations that were in
the sight of God dead. How much more will be their full
ness of blessing, when it comes to them through the salva
tion of millions of Gentiles! For if, we repeat, the casting
away of them (Jews) be the reconciling of the world, (even
tuate in the world's salvation), what shall the receiving of
them (the Jews) be — what will their restoration to the favor
of God be, but life from the dead ? In thus speaking about
you Gentiles — in thus making you instrumental in the salva
tion of the Jews, two reasons actuate me: (1) Inasmuch as
I am commissioned apostle to the Gentile, I should magnify
my office; (2) I pursue this plan, that I may provoke to
emulation those which are my flesh, and save some of them.
But to further explain. Be it understood that I do not
hold that God has given over the great mass of the Jews to
permanent hardness of heart and reprobacy of mind; they
having filled up the cup of their iniquity in rejecting Christ.
I -am far from believing or teaching any such thing. Abra-

352 The Argument.
ham, the head, or root of the Hebrew nation, its first fruit,
was a holy man. If the first fruit be holy, then the branches
that grow from that root are holy, in part at least; for "a
good tree bringeth forth good fruit." Some of the branches
have been broken off, it is true; and you Gentiles, branches
from a wild olive tree, as it were, have been grafted in among
the remaining branches (the Jews that have accepted of
Christ), and with them partakest of the root and fatness of
the true olive tree, to-wit, the old Abrahamic stock. See to
it that you boast not against the branches (broken off). For
remember that you do not bear the root or stock, but it, thee.
You will perhaps say: "The branches were broken off that
we might be grafted in." Well, admit it. It was because of
unbelief that they were broken off, and you stand by faith —
were received because of your faith. Therefore, be not high-
minded, but fear ; for if God spared not the natural branches,
take heed lest he also spare not thee. Let not the lesson be
lost on you. See in it, on the one hand, the goodness of God ;
and on the other, His severity. On the Jews have come
God's severest judgment. They have been excommunicated.
While to you Gentiles, God has shown great mercy and good
ness. And this He will continue to do, if you will follow the
way of righteousness; but if you do not, you also shall be
cut off. If the Jews do not continue in their unbelief, they
shall be grafted into their own olive tree; for God is able to
graft them in again.
For if you Gentiles were cut out of a wild olive tree, how
much more shall these which are the natural branches, be
grafted into their own olive tree ? For I would not, brethren,
that you be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise
in your own conceits ; that blindness, in part, is happened to
Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.
God hath not cast away His people. When the fullness
of the Gentiles is brought into the church, then will He
again set His hand for the reformation and restoration of
Israel. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written.

The Argument. 353
"And the Eedeemer shall come to Zion, aDd to them that
turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord. As for
me, this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away
their sins." (Isaiah 59:20.) . As concerning the gospel they
are enemies for your sakes ; but as touching the election they
are beloved for the father's sake. God has not cast away
His people forever; for God is immutable. Having called
Abraham and his descendants to the dignity of His preferred
people, and having honored them as the repository of His
people, and having honored them as the repository of His
oracles; having distinguished them as the people through
whom his Son was descended, God still regards them^as His
people. For the gifts and calling of God are without re
pentance — without change. God still loves the Jews; and
when they shall accept of the gift of salvation through Christ
— when they shall give ear to His call to faith in the atoning
merits of the blood of Jesus Christ for justification, and
shall give their lives to holiness of life in thought, word and
deed, he will again accept them as His preferred people. The
substance of what I have written is this. In times past the
great mass of the Gentiles did not believe God — did not ac
cept of Christ as their Saviour. As a consequence they were
exp?iled the church. Now the Israelites did the same thing.
Even at this present time they are doing the same; and that
though they have had Christ incarnated among them — have
seen Him perform the most wondrous miracles — have known
of His resurrection from the dead, and ascension to heaven
in the presence of hundreds. In consequence of their hard
ness of heart and reprobacy of mind — because they have re
jected their Messiah, you have been restored again to the pale
of the church. For long ages, God treated the great mass of
the Gentiles as enemies, and took the descendants of Abra
ham as His chosen people. And why did God so act? To
provoke you Gentiles to jealousy; that angered by their elec
tion and your rejection you might again turn to God, and
ask to be reinstated in His favor — given your old place in
12

354 The Argument.
the church of the ages. This is now reversed. The Jews in
consequence of unbelief and disobedience have been, in turn,
expelled the communion of the church, and you Gentiles have
been taken into it as God's preferred people. And why?
That through God's mercy to you Gentiles they, provoked to
jealousy, might be induced to turn from their heresies, and
be again readmitted to the church of their fathers. God in
cluded Jews and Gentiles in unbelief, that He might have
mercy upon all.
0 the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and the
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments,
and His ways past finding out! For who hath known the
mind of the Lord? Or who hath been His counsellor? Or
who hath first given to Him and it shall be recompensed to
him again? Or who hath laid Him under any obligation to
save him by reason of anything that he hath done or can do ?
For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. To
whom be glory for ever. Amen.
R. — I am not quite satisfied, friend Paul, with your posi
tion in regard to the enlargement of the church of Abraham,
Moses, and the prophets by Gentile accession, in the last days.
Have you other scriptures that so teach?
P. — Many more. Isaiah saith : "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 ex
alted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."
(Isaiah 2 :2 3.) Again. "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and
let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations:
spare not, lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes, for
thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left : and
thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make desolate the
cities to be inhabited." (Isaiah 54:2, 3.) Again. "Arise,
shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is
risen upon thee. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light,
and kings to the brightness of thy rising." (Isaiah 60:1-3.)
Joel saith : "And it shall come to pass that I will pour out
my Spirit upon all flesh." (Joel 2:28.) Hear Amos: "And

The Argument. 355
in that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is
fallen, and close up the breaches thereof ; and 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 of all the heath
en, which are called by My name, saith the Lord that doeth
this." (Amos 9:11, 12.) "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." (Mic. 4:2.)
"And I will shake all nations; and the desire of all nations
shall come." (Hag. 2:7.) "Behold the Man whose name is
the Branch: and He shall grow up out of his place, and He
shall build the temple of the Lord; Even He shall build the
temple of the Lord; and He shall bear the glory, and shall
sit and rule upon his throne. * * * And they that are
afar off (Gentiles) shall come and build in the temple of the
Lord." (Zech. 6:12-15.)
Such are the main scriptures that teach the enlargement of
the church by Gentile accession in the last days.

CHAPTEE XXIII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Romans XII.
P. — In another part of this discussion, I have argued the
question of holiness in Christians, and given many reasons
why they should live lives of absolute sinlessness. It will be
remembered that I urged as reasons why Christians should
not sin, that they were dead to sin — baptized into Christ —
planted in His likeness — crucified with Him — that Christ
was not only man's Redeemer, but His Exemplar — that as
He lived holy, so the Christian must — that he could do it,
being no longer under the law, but under grace — that to sin
is to serve the devil, one being the servant of him whom he
obeys — that the wages of sin is death.
Resuming the discussion of this subject, I wish to insist,
brethren, upon your being and remaining holy, day by day.
How manifold are the mercies of God every moment ! Life !
At what a price do men value it ! What will they not give in
exchange for it ! Is it not exposed to casualties on every
hand? The heavens are charged with thunderbolt, and the
air laden with death-dealing malaria! Our bodies are fear
fully and wonderfully made. Every part is exposed to dis
ease, and liable to death. To protect our bodies from the
ravages of disease and embrace of death requires the con
stant care and watchful providence of God. Aside from all
this how boundless are His mercies in supplying our every
want, and meeting our every necessity ! But His mercies are
by no means confirmed to this life and its temporal wants —
this body, its careful nourishment, protection, etc. For above

The Argument. 357
all these, are the spiritual blessings that God has conferred
upon us. Eestoration to His favor as a matter of grace,
through faith in the atoning merits of the blood of His only
Son — the life and death of that Son — the gift of eternal life,
through Him — the gift of the Holy Spirit — 'His peculiar
work in redemption — the peace and joy of realizing that God
loves us — the hope of heaven — the prospect of escaping hell
— these and ten thousand more mercies are each so many
reasons why we should live lives of perfect holiness — why we
should present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and ac
ceptable to God. This, indeed, is but a reasonable service in
return for the inestimable blessings that embrace time and
eternity — that are showered without stint and lavishly upon
us from our cradles to our graves.
And particularly have you Gentiles that are at Rome cause
to regard yourselves as obliged to holiness in thought, word
and deed. Through the mercy of God you have been restored
to the communion of the church — have been given fellowship
with His people — have been taken into the fold of Christ. I
beseech you, brethren, to recall all God's mercies to you — to
remember that you have been bought with no less a price
than the blood of the Son of God ; and as you remember His
goodness, His love, His longsuffering, His forbearance, be
diligent to reciprocate such love — give yourselves soul and
body to the service of God.
E. — Paul, you counsel holiness of life. Do you really be
lieve that it is possible for a man to live without sin ?
P. — I would scarcely counsel men to do an impossibility.
The Christian religion does enable a man to live a life of
absolute purity. Therein it is distinguished from Judaism
and other heresies. Believed from the penalty of the viola
ted law, and from the dominion of sin, and put in union and
communion with Christ, who is stronger than all the powers
of darkness combined, the Christian ean live holy — must do
it. There is no salvation without holiness ! What then ? I
exhort, earnestly plead, brethren, that you be not conformed

358 The Argument.
to the world — love not it or the things pertaining to it. If
any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
But be ye transformed — changed in every particular — having
your minds renewed — directed to things above and not on the
earth — being diligent to show yourselves as of those who live
only to prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect
will of God.
E. — What about self-conceit, Paul? Does the Christian
religion condemn that in them that embrace it ? Our system
allows to its endorsers the indulgence of the greatest possi
ble vanity as to person, place, powers.
P. — Humility is one of the cardinals of the religion of
Christ. The humbler a man becomes — the more perfectly
that he becomes emptied of self — the higher does he ascend
in the estimation of God. The standard of God in estimat
ing greatness is humility. Without a perfect emptiness of
self no man ean be a child of God — no man is considered
great by God. Man's way of estimating a man, is what may
be called his success. If he has achieved renown — if he has
filled some great position — if he has amassed an immense
fortune — the world says, "he is a great man." But not so
God. Therefore, do I say to each of you, brethren, that are
at Eome, not to think of himself more highly than he, in
structed of God, ought to think; but to think soberly remem
bering how God has conferred upon each of you the true
measure of belief — the true standard for estimating self.
E. — Paul, you have expressed yourself as believing that
there never was but one church. What relation do the mem
bers of that church sustain to each other?
P. — As near and intimate as that of the members of our
bodies. For as we have many members in our body, and all
members have not the same office ; so we, being many, are one
body in Christ, and every one members one of another. Such
being our relation to each other in Christ, we should love
each other, and be as attentive to the wants of each other as
each member of the body is to the wants of all the other
members.

The Argument. 359
E. — Do you believe that all men are accommodated with
gifts differing according to the position they are to. fill in the
church ? Does, in a word, God call each man to a particular
place in the church and fit him for it with gifts suitable to a
proper discharge of the duties depending on that office?
When called to that office, be it what it may, is the man not
bound to a faithful discharge of its duties ?
P. — The members of our bodies have their respective offices
and each has gifts that fit it for the discharge of the func
tions of its peculiar office. So, in the church. God has a
place for every member, and a work for that particular party
— a work that no one else can do. One member of the body
cannot do the work of another member. Each must do its
own peculiar work. So, in the church. The members are
given different gifts, that each may assist in the edifying of
the body of Christ, that is to say, the church. God confers
on one the gift of prophecy — on another, the ministry — on
still another that of teaching — on another the gift of exhort
ing — on another alms dispensing — on another the office of
ruler. All these have gifts differing; and each should be
diligent in the exercise of the gifts conferred — in the im
provement of the talents given him or her. I exhort, there
fore, that he that is called to the prophetic office, that is called
to the ministry attend strictly and constantly upon that of
fice — he that is called to the place of teacher do likewise —
he that is called to exhort let him give his time and talents
to that peculiar part of the work of the church — he that dis-
penseth alms, let him be liberal in giving — he that ruleth
with diligence — he that showeth mercy with cheerfulness.
So much for the offices of the church and the imperative ne
cessity there is for those filling them to be found at all times
in the faithful discharge of their respective duties.
E. — What do you hold, Paul, should be the course that
each individual member should pursue towards every other
member ?
P. — Let there he love between the members — actual love,

360 The Argument.
no dissembling. Let them be kindly affectioned one toward
another, with brotherly love — in honor preferring one an
other. Let them rejoice with them that do rejoice ; and weep
with those that mourn. Let them ever be ready to "contrib
ute to the necessity of the saints — ever ready to show them
hospitality. Be of the same mind one toward another.
E. — What course should a Christian pursue towards those
that are not mmebers of the church?
P. — The Christian should bless them that persecute him —
should bless and not curse them. If he be a poor man, he
should treat him with every respect and the utmost conde
scension. If he has an enemy, he must feed him, if he is
hungry — he must give him drink, if he is athirst— he must
clothe him, if he be naked — he must minister to him, if he be
in prison or in any distress — for in so doing, he will heap
coals of fire on the head of that enemy — his course towards
him will be as deeply painful as though each act of kindness
were in reality a coal of fire placed on his head. He must
under no circumstances, for one moment, think of avenging
his own wrongs — he must leave that to his God, who hath
said: "I will repay."
R. — What should be his daily life?
P. — Abhor that which is evil — cleave to that which is
good. Be diligent in business, fervent in spirit, serving the
Lord, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing
instant in prayer, providing things honest in the sight of all
men — living, as far as possible, peaceably with all men — he
should never be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with
good. Such is practical godliness. Such is what God re
quires of every soul that names the name of Christ.

CHAPTER XXIV.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans XIII.
R. — Is it right that Jews should submit quietly to a for
eign yoke ? What do you teach on that subject ?
P. — Let every soul be subject to the ruling powers. For
there is no power, but is permitted of God. The powers that
are in authority here in Palestine, are ordained of God. See
ing that they are appointed of God, we must render them
obedience. For whosoever resisteth the appointed power,
resisteth the ordinance of God. They that resist his ordin
ance, will bring on themselves damnation — destruction.
There is no reason why you should not obey the powers
that be. Rulers are not dreaded by those that live as they
"should — who live holy lives. They do not punish the good,
but the doers of evil. Wilt thou not be afraid of the powers
that be? Do that which is right, and thou shalt have praise
of the same; for he is sent of God as a minister to thee for
good. But if thou do that which is evil, thou mayest well
be afraid; for he beareth not the sword of authority in vain.
He is commissioned of God to execute wrath upon him that
doeth evil. Two reasons, therefore, urge submission to the
appointed powers: (1) You must submit as a matter of
conscience, because it is God's appointment; (2) Because if
you do not, you will subject yourselves not only to the wrath
of the appointed powers, but to the judgment of God, who
will surely punish those that resist his appointment.
E. — Should Jews pay tribute to foreigners? Have they
any right to demand it of God's elect?

362 The Argument.
P. — They should. Every government must have a reve
nue to defray its expenses. The men sent out as tax gath
erers, are likewise the ministers of God, commissioned of
him to attend continually upon this very thing. To refuse
to pay tribute is to refuse to do what God demands — is to
resist God. So doing, he that resists brings down upon him
the wrath of God. Aye, and that of the powers that be.
Paying tribute should be done as a matter of conscience, and
because refusal to do so will be followed by the punishment
of God by his appointed ministers. Therefore, render to all
their dues. Pay tribute to whoever tribute is due ; custom, to
whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor.
Owe no man anything — tribute, custom, fear, honor. Ren
der to all their dues. You should observe your whole duty
to your fellow man ; and that may be summed up thus : "Love
one another." Such is God's law. The whole of the Second
Table of the Moral Law, to-wit: "Thou shalt not kill; Thou
shalt not commit adultery; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt
not bear false witness; Thou shalt not covet;" — and if there
be any other commandment setting forth our duty to our fel
low man, it is briefly comprehended in the saying, namely:
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Love worketh
no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the
law. Knowing that our salvation is nearer now than when we
believed; knowing that the night is far spent, and the day is
at hand, it is now high time that we awake out of sleep. Re
membering that we shall be called upon to give account of
the deeds done in the body, let us cast off the mask of dark
ness, and put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly,
while it is day — not in rioting and drunkenness, not in
chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. But
let us put on the Lord Jesus Christ ; and make not provision
for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof. Let us, in a word,
walk as did Jesus, please God in all we think, say and do.

CHAPTER XXV.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans XIV.
R. — It has been the custom of the Jews from time im
memorial, to observe the sumptuary law with the greatest
particularity. They have ever regarded the imposition of
this law, on Jews only, by God, as another and a distinctive
mark of their being the chosen people — his elect. They have
ever regarded its violation as an offence of the greatest
gravity, holdng that it was a defilement of soul and body to
eat of those things prohibited by the law of Moses.
When Christ was on earth, he taught in direct opposition
to our theory as to the sumptuary law. His position was
a most astonishing one. He held that eating of, it mattered
not what, did not defile. What is your position, friend
Paul? Is it, or not, right, for a Jew to observe the sump
tuary law found in Moses ? Is not a converted Jew, one that
has accepted of Christianity, contaminated, if he eats of those
things proscribed by the Mosaic law? What do you say?
P. — The idea entertained by the advocates of the Jews' re
ligion, as to this sumptuary law given by Moses, is heretical.
It was never designed as a mark of Jewish election. It was
intended as a partition wall between the Jews and all other
nations, lest by association they should be led astray. "Evil
communications corrupt good manners." At the time of the
reimposition of this sumptuary law, God used this language:
"For I am the Lord your God; ye shall, therefore, sanctify
yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy; neither shall
ye defile yourselves with any creeping thing that creepeth

364 The Argument.
upon the earth. For I am the Lord that brought you up out
of the land of Egypt, to be your God; ye shall therefore be
holy; for I am holy." (Levit. 11:44, 45.) God was, from
this language, designing to teach them by another object les
son simply that they must be a clean, a holy people. The
law did not evidence election. It was designed to teach holi
ness. It was a new test of obedience. It was not the flesh
eaten that defileth. It was the violation of the sumptuary
law, that rendered them unclean.
The law given Noah was, "Every moving thing that liveth
shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given
you all things." (Gen. 9:3.) Such was the original law, as
to diet. To fence off the Jew from surrounding nations,
some of the laws were suspended till Shiloh came. It was
never designed, this sumptuary law given the Jews, to be
permanent. This partition wall, was, along with the entire
sacrificial system in letter, removed when Christ came.
R. — Is God not immutable? Does he not declare: "All
my commandments are sure; they stand fast forever?" (Ps.
111.) Paul. — The removal of the sacrificial or ceremonial code,
with the sumptuary regulations, does not evidence that God
is not immutable ; but the contrary. We repeat. The dietary
law given Noah was not repealed by the Mosaic sumptuary
legislation. There was a suspension of some of the pro
visions of the law given Noah, for the time being, "until the
time of reformation;" and for the purposes mentioned. As
God had declared that the ceremonial and sumptuary legisla
tion was for the time being only, its repeal at "the time of
reformation," evidences the immutability of God; for he
had said it was temporary.
There are many Jews that have become Christians. They
have been raised up with the idea that it was defiling to eat
of the kinds of flesh forbidden by Moses. They are weak in
the faith, that it is lawful, now that Christ has come, for
them to eat of any kind of meat — to go back to the law given

The Argument. 365
Noah. My advice is that you receive them that are weak in
the faith; but not to judge his doubtful thoughts — not to
condemn him because he is in doubt as to the propriety of
eating of all things. There are some among you that are
rightly informed as to the dietary law. You believe that you
may eat anything you like without defilement — without vio
lating the law of God. In this you are right. I know, and
am persuaded by the Lord Jesus Christ, that there is nothing
that is unclean of itself. To him that esteemeth anything to
be unclean, to him it is unclean. Again. There are others,
people who are weak in their conception of the truth as to
sumptuary legislation who consider it wrong to eat any kind
of meat — people who eat herbs only. Now, let not him who
eateth all things, despise him who eats herbs only. And let
not him who lives on a vegetable diet exclusively despise him
that eateth certain kinds of meat, or him that eateth all kinds
of flesh as well as all kinds of herbs; for God has received
one as much as the other. Brethren should not condemn one
another, therefore, in these matters. The law forbids it.
God alone is judge. Who art thou that condemnest another
man's servant? To his own Master he standeth, or falleth.
Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him
stand — to sustain him in his belief so that he shall be stead
fast; though man condemn him. Each is accepted of God.
He that eateth all things, does so with the firm persuasion
that God's law allows it. He eateth to the Lord; for he giv-
eth God thanks. He that eateth herbs only, is equally eon-
scienseious. He does it believing that God's law forbids eat
ing meats of any kind. He, too, eateth to the Lord; for he,
also, giveth God thanks.
I would have you remember, brethren, that no man that
is a Christian liveth to himself, or for himself. He must
live so as to please God, his Master. To do this, he must not
presume and usurp the prerogatives of God. His business in
the world is to please God, we repeat. To do this, he must
never act so as to offend his fellow man. For one servant to
sit in judgment on the acts of another, will always give of-

366 The Argument.
fence, both to God and the servant whose course is con
demned. Aye, more. No man dieth to himself. Our rule of
life should be this : If we live, we will so live as to please
God in all things; and if we die, we should endeavor even in
death, to be God's servant. Whether we live or whether we
die, therefore, we should ever remember that we are the
Lord's servants, and act accordingly. For to this end Christ
died, rose, and revived, that he might be the Lord both of the
dead and the living.
Seeing, then, that ye are servants, why do you judge (con
demn) your brethren? and why do you set them at naught?
As God's servants, you must all stand before the judgment
seat of Christ, to give an account of yourselves, and not of
your fellow servants. Therefore, I repeat, condemn not your
brother simply because he does not observe the same dietary
regulation that you do. The word of God saith: "As I live
saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue
shall confess to God." (Isaiah 45.) As then every one of
us must give an account of himself to God, and not for oth
ers, none of us should condemn our fellows, for in condemn
ing them we condemn ourselves, by usurping the divine pre
rogative. Let us, therefore, not judge one another any more.
Let us be the rather careful, that none of us put a stumbling
block in our brother's way ; or be the occasion of his falling
away. We repeat. My master has taught me that nothing
is unclean of itself. It is only unclean to him that so es
teems it.
In serving meat, Christian people should never put before
a visiting brother what they know such a brother does not
think should be eaten or drunken. To put such things be
fore him will give offence. But if thy brother be grieved with
thy meat, then walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him
with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Eemember that many
a man has begun wine drinking by seeing Christian people
indulge; and has eventually found a drunkard's grave.
Never act so as to bring reproach upon the cause of Christ.

The Argument. 367
In using any kind of meat, you are not to be blamed, unless
its use gives offense to your brother. Let not your good con
duct, or right action, be evil spoken of. Let it not be said
of you, that you were indifferent as to what effect your legiti
mate conduct might have on others. Let it ever be remem
bered, that no man liveth to himself.
I would have you bear in mind, that meat commendeth
us not to God; for neither, if we eat, are we the better; nei
ther if we eat not, are we the worse. For the Kingdom of
God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace,
and joy in the Holy Ghost; and he that in these things serv-
eth Christ — he is righteous before God — is acceptable to God
and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after the
things which make for peace, and things wherewith we may
edify another. For meat destroy not the work of God.
We repeat. All things, indeed, are pure; but it is evil for
that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat
flesh; nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast
thou faith ? Have it to thyself before God ? Do you believe
that it is lawful to eat all kinds of flesh? When to yourself,
and no one is present that will be grieved, eat as you believe.
Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which
he alloweth ! Happy is the man that is so circumspect in his
conduct that he will not do anything, even though lawful, if
by so doing he gives offence to his brother for whom Christ
died. It is a good rule to never eat a thing when you are in
doubt as to its propriety. If you eat, doubting your right to
do so, you condemn yourself as a wrong-doer, for whatsoever
is not of faith, is sin. Let Jews converted to Christianity
observe the Mosaic sumptuary law, if they in doing so, are
actuated by a desire to please God. They are under no obli
gation to observe it, for Christ is the end of the law, of right
eousness. Let them understand, however, that God had no
design in imposing the sumptuary law to evidence Jewish
election, and that they are not defiled by eating.

368 The Argument.
E. — May not converted Jews, keep holy the sacred days
that Moses prescribes — days that they have been brought up
to believe are holy ?
P. — Many Jews even among the converted, have, from ed
ucation, eome to esteem holy the sacred days of the Mosaic
canon. If they prefer to keep such days holy still, regarding
them with the design of pleasing God, they are at liberty to
keep them as they have been taught. They are under no
obligation to do so, however, the entire ceremonial law, as to
its letter, having been set aside at the advent of Christ. If
converted Jews prefer to keep those days sacred, let no Gen
tile despise or condemn them for so doing. The Jew is doing
it to pleasure God. It is not required that they so keep
them ; but let them alone in their weakness.
E. — There are Gentiles that keep all days holy. They
esteem every day in the week sacred ; and so observe them.
Have they the right to so consider them and to observe them ?
P. — Let no Jew despise his Gentile brother for his holy
observance of all days. His design is to pleasure God. It is
not required of him that he so observe any day as a Sabbath
but the Sabbath. Let him alone in his weakness. He is
God's servant. He alone has the right to judge as to his con
duct. He and not you, is to give an account of the deeds
done in his body. Let every man in observing holy days, do
so as a matter of conscience, he being fully persuaded in his
own mind. Again, we repeat, let us follow after the things
that make for peace, and things wherewith we may edify
another.

CHAPTER XXVI.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Rom. 1:18.)
Romans XV.
P- — In my last lecture, I was insisting that it was the duty
of all Christians to bear with the infirmities of their weak
brethren, and not to please themselves by indulgeneies that
would in all probability lead to the loss of those for whom
Christ died. Resuming. I exhort every one of you to labor
to please his neighbor for his good to edification. I do so, by
the example of Christ. He did not seek to please himself,
but God. In his Gethsemane agony, Jesus prayed that : "this
cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou
wilt." (Matt. 26:39.) "And he that sent me is with me;
the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those
things that please him." (Isaiah 8:29.) The reproaches
that wicked men heaped upon God, fell on him; because he
did what pleased God. It was so predicted. (Ps. 69.) In
deed, whatsoever things were written aforetime, were written
for our instruction, that we through patience inculcated by
the scriptures and the comfort that they impart, might have
our hope strengthened. The Scripture quoted as to Christ
was intended to teach us the great lesson of pleasing others
and not ourselves. He bore with the infirmities of men. He
suffered their reproaches. God sent him and required that
he so act. Now the God of patience and consolation grant
that you be like-minded one toward another ! grant that you
have his mind ! that you follow his example of pleasuring
others, rather than yourselves ! that you may with one mind
13

370 The Argument.
and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren beloved, do you, Jews and
Gentiles, receive one another, as Christ received you to the
glory of God. He treated all alike. He glorified God in be
ing no respecter of persons. I repeat. Follow after those
things that make for peace, and things wherewith one may
edify another. Such was Christ's example. See that you fol
low it. Avoid giving offence.
R. — You have taken the position that the church was to be
enlarged by Gentile accession. You have so taught through
out this discussion. I concede that the texts you quote, may
be so interpreted. I am, however, rather loth to believe such
a doctrine, without more evidence. Can you give us other
Scriptures that so teach?
P. — I can. I lay down this proposition, to-wit: Jesus
Christ was a minister of the church of circumcision. He had
to be. The truth of God required it. He must be to fulfill
prophecy — to confirm the promises made unto the fathers.
On one occasion Jesus said : "I am not sent but unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel," quoting not the words of
prophecy, but of the received interpretation, at that day,
among the Jews, who claimed that Messias would be sent to
the Jews only. In healing the daughter of the Syro-Phoene-
cian mother, the next moment, he repudiated the Jewish
heresy. John says of Christ: "He came unto his own and
his own received him not." (John 1:11.) He was the prom
ised seed predicted in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
He was the Shiloh of whom Jacob spoke. His ministerial
life was typified by Aaron. Now, what prophecies were made
as to the official career of Messias? Was it foretold of him
that he would be sent to minister to the Jews only? Was he
to be the High Priest of the Israelites only ? Certainly not.
The Gentiles were foretold as participating in the ministerial
labors of Messias. Esaias, speaking of him, saith : "And in
that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for
an ensign of the people ; to it shall the Gentiles seek, and his
range upon the platter and over the turkey.

The Argument. 371
rest shall be glorious." (Isaiah 11:10.) "Behold my ser
vant. * * * * He shall bring forth judgment to the
Gentiles." (Isaiah 42:1.)' "It is a light thing that thou
shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and
to restore the preserved of Israel; I will also give thee for a
light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation to the
ends of the earth." (Isaiah 49 :5, 6.) "And there was given
unto him * * * a kingdom, that all people, nations, and
languages, shall serve him." (Deut. 7:14.) The Scripture
saith : "For this cause, I wdl confess to thee among the Gen
tiles, and sing unto thy name." (Ps. 18:49.) "Praise the
Lord all ye Gentiles, and laud him all ye people." (Psalms
117:1.) Moses, saith: "Rejoice ye Gentiles with His people."
(Deut. 32:43.) Scriptures could not teach more plainly the
enlargement of the church by Gentile accession; and the joy
in consequence of their restoration to their place in the
church of God, when Shiloh should come.
My own ministry is in point. I am sent to the Gentiles.
My ministry has been attended with great miracles. Why
should God send me to minister to the Gentiles, and evidence
the truth alike of my mission and the gospel that I preach,
by great miracles, if the Gentiles were not as much subjects
of his mercy and grace as are the Jews? If any other evi
dence was needed in proof of the enlargement of the church
by Gentile accession it is furnished by God's course in com
missioning me to preach the gospel to the Gentiles and Jews
alike. Now, may the God of hope fill you with all joy and
peace in believing that you Gentiles were to be restored to the
pale of the church in the last days, and grant that you may
abound in hope of salvation through Jesus Christ, through
the power of the Holy Ghost. While I thus pray, I am al
ready persuaded that you, my brethren, are filled with knowl
edge, and righteousness, and able as a matter of course, to
admonish one another. I have written you with great plain
ness and boldness, putting you in mind of these things, be
cause of the grace that is given to me of God — because I am
sent to the Gentiles. God commissioned me to preach the

372 The Argument.
gospel of Christ to the Gentiles, that the offering up of the
Gentiles might be acceptable, it being sanctified by the Holy
Ghost. I have much whereof I may glory through Jesus Christ,
in these things which were committed to me of God. I do
not deem it necessary to speak of those things at this time —
of those things that Christ hath wrought by me to make the
Gentiles obedient by word and deed — of the mighty signs and
wonders that he hath wrought through me by the power of
the Spirit of God. Suffice it to say, that I have fully
preached the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, round about
to Illyricum. Yea, I have endeavored to preach the gospel,
not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another
man's foundation. In so doing, I have been fulfilling the
prophecy which saith : "To whom he was not spoken of, they
shall see; and they that have not heard shall understand."
(Isaiah 52:15.) For which cause (preaching from Jerusa
lem to Illyricum), I have been hindered from visiting you
that are at Eome. But now that my work is over in these
parts ; and my desire is great, and has been for years, to visit
you, when I take my journey into Spain, I will call to see
you; for I hope to see you at that time, and to be brought on
my journey thitherward by you, after I have been somewhat
filled, with your company.
At this writing, I am about to start to Jerusalem, to carry
unto the saints there a certain contribution sent them by the
church in Macedonia and Achaia. It was their pleasure to
make this contribution; and that I should carry it to them.
It gave them great pleasure thus to contribute to the wants
of the saints at Jerusalem. It is eminently proper that they
should take pleasure in ministering to their wants. They
are their debtors. As the Gentiles have been made partakers
of their spiritual things, it is nothing short of their duty to
minister unto them in carnal things. When I have delivered
this largess to the saints at Jerusalem, and I have sealed to
them this fruit of true Christian sympathy, love and grati-

The Argument. 373
tude, I will come by you into Spain, and I am sure that when
I come to you, I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of
the gospel of Christ.
In concluding this lecture, I beseech you, my brethren, for
the sake of Christ, and for the love of the Spirit, that you
strive together with me in your prayers to God for me, that
I may be delivered from them that do not believe in Judea;
that my contribution which I have for the saints at Jerusa
lem may be accepted by them, and that I may eome unto you
with joy by the will of God, and may with you be refreshed.
Now the God of Peace be with you all. Amen.

CHAPTEE XXVII.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth
in unrighteousness." (Eom. 1:18.)
Eomans XVI.
P. — Allow me, my brethren, to commend unto you our
Sister Phebe. Eeceive her in the Lord as becometh saints,
and assist her in whatsoever business she hath need of you;
for she has been a suceorer of many, myself included. De
liver, if you please, our message of love to the saints that we
name. Salute one another with a holy kiss.
Now I beseech you brethren, work and avoid those persons
that would cause a division among you. Especially would I
guard you against Jewish Eabbins, that teach contrary to
the doctrines which I have taught you in this epistle. For
such men serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, hut their own
bellies — by good words and fair speeches, deceiving the hearts
of the simple. Observe this injunction strictly. I hear of
your obedience on every hand, and it fills my heart with glad
ness. In advising you to work and avoid those teachers of
heresy, I am actuated alone, brethren, by the desire that I
have, that you be wise concerning all good, and simple con
cerning all evil. No good can possibly come from association
with heretical teachers; but possibly much evil. Hence my
advice. Ptess forward. And the God of Peace shall shortly
bruise Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ be with you. Amen.
Many here desire to be remembered to you in love. May
God's peace, we repeat, with the love of our Lord Jesus Christ
be and abide with you all. Amen.

The Argument. 375
In conclusion. Eemember that according to my gospel —
a gospel that was preached by our Lord Jesus Christ, and by
Moses and the prophets — that which has been a mystery and
was not understood since the world began, to-wit : That the
Gentiles would be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and
partakers of the promise in Christ by the gospel," (Eph.
3 :6) is now understood as being plainly taught by the proph
ets; and is by the commandment of God made known to all
nations, they being required to obey the doctrine of salvation
through faith in the atoning merits of the blood of Christ.
Now to him that has power to establish you — to 'confirm and
sustain you in the faith — to God only wise be glory through
Jesus Christ forever. Amen.

Finis.

3 9002