Faithful words silent accusers of those who heed them not.
In the several paragraphs of this chapter we find that Moses was borne along by the Holy Ghost to take a glance into the future. He had been instructed by God to give a charge to Joshua, and to surrender into his hands the leadership of the host. He had given to the priests their commission to guard the Law for the people. And now there remained but for him to give his final words to the people themselves. The Omniscient One foresaw that, after the death of their leader, they would become corrupt, forsaking the Lord, and ensuring for themselves and their children a heritage of woe. And hence it was mercifully provided that, even in the worst of times, their lawgiver's words should be for them a perpetual standard of appeal; so that, however the people might have fallen from the heights of virtue, they should still have the same trusty words to guide their path, and to direct and restore their life. While at the same time, these words would be a constant and silent witness against them for departing from the ways of the Lord. It is not at all unlikely that our Lord had this passage in mind when he said to the Jews, "Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust." That very Book, which if rightly used is "a lamp" to the feet and "a light" to the path, becomes, if neglected, a perpetual and silent accuser. Very earnestly and solemnly may the Christian preacher press this home "to every man's conscience in the sight of God." That selfsame purpose which was answered by securing permanent records of the Mosaic legislation, is also answered by permanent records of the Christian redemption. The apostles and prophets of the New Testament, like the legislator of the old, spake and wrote as they were borne along by the Holy Ghost. It is, therefore, over the larger sphere that we propose now to illustrate and enforce the truth that neglected teaching becomes a silent accuser.
I. WHEN OUR GOD LODGED IN THE WORLD THE JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN FAITHS, HE LOOKED ONWARD AND FORESAW THE FEATURES OF THE COMING GENERATIONS. (Cf. verses 16-18; see also Acts 20:29, Acts 20:30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3; 2 Peter 3:3; Matthew 24:24.) Whatever developments of ungodliness or of unbelief, of immorality or of heresy, may develop themselves, are all known to him who seeth the end from the beginning.
II. WITH FUTURE EVIL FULL IN VIEW, GOD HAS HAD HIS OWN WORD PUT DOWN IN WRITING. The words of Moses, of the prophets, of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of his apostles are faithfully recorded. They have suffered no material change through all the accidents of transition (Philippians 3:1). Paul felt what a safeguard it would be for after ages to have his words written down, and sent to the Churches, that they might be by them guarded, distributed, and taught (see verse 19).
III. THE WORD OF GOD, SO RECORDED, IS A PERPETUAL STANDARD OF APPEAL FOR EVERY AGE. Whatever corruptions may enter into or fasten on the Churches; however oral tradition may change the original form of Divine communication,—the written Word changeth not. How very soon Churches as Churches may drift far away from the true in faith and the holy in life, the Epistles to the Churches in Galatia, Corinth, Ephesus, Pergamos, Thyatira, Laodicea, tell. We see by them how very soon our faith might be seriously obscured or impaired if dependent merely on the oral transmission of any Church.
IV. BY THE PURE WORD OF GOD, ABERRATIONS MAY FROM TIME TO TIME BE CORRECTED. It is by the Church that the Word of God is kept and transmitted. It is by the Word so kept and transmitted that the Church is to be tested. Hence, whatever respect it may he appropriate to pay to the decision of a Church or of Churches, those decisions are valid only as they harmonize with what the Lord hath spoken in his revealed Word. Whatever will not abide the test of an appeal to the Book of God, with it Christian Churches and people should have nothing to do. Of how much importance our Lord regarded this final test is seen by his frequent appeal to what is written. Whether he was in conflict with the evil one, or was himself exposing or denouncing evil, his ultimate reference was to what God had said.
V. CONSEQUENTLY, BY HAVING IN OUR HANDS A PERPETUAL STANDARD OF REFERENCE, WE HAVE A CONSTANT AND UNVARYING GUIDE TO WHAT IS RIGHT BOTH IN FAITH AND PRACTICE. The accounts which we get of the after history of the Hebrew nation show us plainly enough how far adrift the people might soon have gone, if their faith had not been once for all enshrined and guarded in a book. And so it is in the New Testament. For though we get therein hints of the Church's life for but little more than two generations after they were formed, yet the severe lashings and rebukes which the Churches in Corinth, Galatia, and Colosse required, as well as the seven Churches, show with equal distinctness that our most holy faith might soon have been all but unrecoverable from the mass of corruption, if it, too, had not been recorded in the writings of the apostles and evangelists. But thus recorded it was, and through all the ages it has been guarded for us as a perpetual standard of appeal.
VI. IF, HOWEVER, WE ARE GUIDED BY THE VARYING OPINIONS AND SINFUL PRACTICES OF MEN, AND SO NEGLECT TO TAKE HEED TO OUR STANDARDS, THEY WILL BE PERPETUAL WITNESSES AGAINST US. (Verse 21,) So our Lord tells the Jews in reference to the departures from the faith and the corruptions in life which marked his time (cf. John 5:1-47 :54). And thus it must ever be. The very fact of having a standard of appeal serves two purposes. Which of the two it will serve so far as we are concerned depends on the use we make thereof. If we abide by it and conform thereto, it will verify our belief and justify our life. But if we depart from it, it can only act as a witness against us to condemn us. Every privilege is this two-edged. If used aright, it helps us; if disused or abused, it will be for a perpetual reproof. So it is with parental advice, with a teacher's counsels, with a pastor's pleadings, with a Savior's invitations: accepted and heeded, they will be a perpetual joy; but if made light of, they will plunge daggers into the soul.
VII. THIS SILENT ACCUSATION GOING ON NOW FORESHADOWS A MORE SERIOUS CRIMINATION AT THE JUDGMENT DAY. (Cf. Matthew 11:22, Matthew 11:24; Matthew 12:41, Matthew 12:42.) The whirl of life, and the surroundings of flesh and sense, conceal from many the spiritual world. But it exists. And when we are summoned hence we shall see it and know it. We shall feel ourselves with God—alone. And this—this will be the beginning of that awful process of judgment which, on the last day, is to be consummated and sealed. And what sore condemnation must await those to whom God has spoken in his Word for years on years, but in vain (see Ezekiel 33:1-33.)!
HOMILIES BY J. ORR
Moses the aged.
I. A MAN MAY BE IN HEALTH AND VIGOR, YET PAST CAPACITY FOR A CERTAIN WORK. Moses' "eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated" (Deuteronomy 34:7), yet he felt that he lacked the fire, the activity, the youthful energy, the elasticity of mind and body, which would have made him a suitable leader for Israel in the new period of her history. Greatness is tested by the magnanimity with which a man long used to power is able to lay it down when he feels that his day for effective service is past. Moses had served his generation nobly. There arose none like him. But, as has been said of Luther, who reached his meridian at the Diet of Worms, and whose end, had Providence pleased to remove him then, would have been like an apotheosis, "It is a law of history that every personality bears within itself a measure which it is not permitted to exceed" (Hagenbach). A new age was opening, and new powers were needed to do justice to its calls. The lawgiver, the prophet, the leader of the desert march, the meek, long-enduring, deep-souled man of God must give place to one more distinctively a soldier. The calm gifts of the legislator and statesman were not those which were most required for the work of conquest and settlement. Moses felt this, and felt, too, that he was getting old. The old man cannot enter as a younger man would into the thoughts, circumstances, and feelings of a new time. He belongs to the past, and is limited by it. His powers have lost their freshness, and can henceforth only decay. This was Moses' situation, and he had the dignity and wisdom to acknowledge it, and to arrange for the appointment of a suitable successor.
II. WHEN A MAN'S DAY OF SERVICE IS PAST, IT MAY BE KINDNESS IN GOD TO REMOVE HIM FROM THE WORLD. Moses' removal was a punishment for sin, but there was mercy concerned in it also. Long life is not always desirable. Had Moses lived longer, he could never have been greater than he is. He might have seemed less. Shades appear in the character of Luther after it had reached its meridian above spoken of—things which disturb and annoy us. Certainly, Moses' position, with Joshua as actual leader in the field, would not have been an enviable one. Joshua must increase, he must decrease. The impetuous soldier, the able strategist, the hero of the battles, would have eclipsed him in the eyes of the younger generation. He would feel that he had over-lived himself. Fitly, therefore, is he removed before the decline of his influence begins. The great thing is to have done one's work—to have fulfilled the ends for which life was given. That done, removal is in no case a loss, and in most cases a boon in disguise (2 Timothy 4:6-9).
III. WHEN THE SERVICES OF ONE MAN FAIL, GOD WILL PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF HIS WORK BY RAISING UP SUCCESSORS. So Joshua was raised up to succeed Moses.—J.O.
Joshua.
Joshua a type of Jesus, the true Leader into the rest of God (Hebrews 4:8). God has given him, as formerly he gave the son of Nun, for "a Leader and Commander to the people" (Isaiah 55:4).
I. THE MAN. Joshua as leader was:
1. Divinely appointed (verse 3).
2. Divinely led. "He doth go before thee" (verse 8). The captain had a higher Captain (Joshua 5:14).
3. Divinely assisted. "He will be with thee" (verse 8). Our Leader is Emmanuel—"God with us" (Matthew 1:23).
4. He was to be strong and courageous (verse 7). The ground of true courage is God being with us. It is said of the Savior, "He shall not fail nor be discouraged" (Isaiah 42:4). The perseverance of the Savior is as deserving of consideration as the perseverance of the saints.
II. HIS WORK. While Joshua's and the people's, it was still more God's work (verses 3, 4). With Joshua as leader:
1. The enemy would be overthrown (verses 3-6).
2. All opposition would be overcome.
3. He would conduct the people unto the land of their inheritance (verse 7).
4. He would cause them to inherit it (verse 7), i.e. settle them in their possessions.
Christ in like manner has overthrown the enemy (Colossians 2:15); has won an inheritance for his people (Colossians 1:12); in his victory they are enabled to overcome the world (John 16:33; 1 John 4:4); his cause is steadily triumphing; he is conducting, and has already conducted, many sons to glory (Hebrews 5:10).—J.O.
The authorship of the book.
A clear testimony to the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy. The book, as Moses gave it to the priests, has plainly been re-edited, with the additions of Moses' song, Moses' blessing, and the account of his death; but only the wantonness of criticism can see "a different hand or hands" in Deuteronomy 12-26, from that employed upon the earlier chapters, or discern probability in the assumption that De 4:44-26:19 once constituted a separate book. The unity in style and treatment is so conspicuous throughout—"the same vein of thought, the same tone and tenor of feeling, the same peculiarities of conception and expression"—that unity of authorship follows as a thing of course. The denial of it is incomprehensible. It is less certain whether the "Book of the Law" (verse 26) comprehends Deuteronomy only, or the bulk of the other books of the Pentateuch as well. That Deuteronomy is represented as existing in a written form is plain from Deuteronomy 28:58, Deuteronomy 28:61; Deuteronomy 29:20, Deuteronomy 29:21, Deuteronomy 29:27; and Hoses had probably the written discourses in his band when he delivered them. But Deuteronomy, as a written book, rests so entirely on the history as we have it in the previous books; is so steeped in allusions to it; implies so full and accurate a knowledge of it, from the days of the patriarchs downwards;—that the presumption in favor of that history also existing in a written form, in authentic records, which subsequent generations could consult, is so strong as almost to amount to certainty. It is incredible that Moses should have taken pains to write out these long discourses—discourses based on the history, and inculcating so earnestly the keeping of its facts and lessons in remembrance—and yet have taken no pains to secure an authentic record of the history itself; that he should not have compiled or composed, out of the abundant materials at his command, a connected narrative of God's dealings with the nation, down to the point at which he addressed it; incorporating with that narrative the body of his legislation. Confining our attention to Deuteronomy, there can be no fair question but that it gives itself out as from the pen of Moses. This claim is disputed, and the book referred to about the time of Josiah on grounds of style, of discrepancies with the Levitical laws, and of laws and allusions implying the later date. On the contrary, we hold that the critical hypothesis can be shown to raise greater difficulties than it lays, and that the difficulties in the way of accepting the book as a composition of Moses have been greatly exaggerated. We glance at a few of these difficulties.
I. STYLE. Professor W.R. Smith notes as a crucial instance the laws about the cities of refuge in Numbers 35:1-34; and Deuteronomy 19:1-21. These laws are supposed to have been penned by the same hand within a few months of each other; yet, it is alleged, the vocabulary, structure of sentences, and cast of expression widely differ. But allowance must surely be made for the difference between a careful original statement of a law, and a later general rehearsal of its substance in the rounded style of free, popular discourse. And what are the specific differences? Deuteronomy, we are told, does not use the term "refuge," but "the cities are always described by a periphrasis." But the Deuteronomist simply says, "Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land" (Deuteronomy 19:2); "thou shalt separate three cities for thee" (Deuteronomy 19:7); "thou shalt add three cities more for thee "(Deuteronomy 19:1-21.9); and there is no periphrasis. The phrase, "that every slayer may flee thither" (Deuteronomy 19:3), "the slayer which shall flee thither" (Deuteronomy 19:4), is derived from Numbers 35:11, Numbers 35:15. But Deuteronomy and Numbers use different words for "accidentally." Admitted, but the words used are synonymous, and are only used in each case twice altogether—in Numbers 35:11, Numbers 35:15, and in Deuteronomy 4:42; Deuteronomy 19:4. "The judges in the one are ' the congregation,' in the other ' the elders of his city.'" But Deuteronomy says nothing about "judges," and "the elders" who are once referred to in Deuteronomy 19:12, plainly act in the name of the congregation. "The verb for 'hate' is different." Rather, "the verb for 'hate'" does not occur at all in Numbers 35:1-34; but the noun derived from it does (Numbers 35:20), and is translated "hatred," while in Numbers 35:21, Numbers 35:22, a different term, translated "enmity," is employed, which expresses nearly the same sense. Had these words appeared, one in Numbers and the other in Deuteronomy, instead of standing in consecutive verses of one chapter, they would doubtless have been quoted as further evidence of diversity of authorship. So one book, uses the expression "to kill any person," while the other has "to kill his neighbor—a difference surely not incompatible with identity of authorship. "The detailed description of the difference between murder and accidental homicide is entirely diverse in language and detail." But in Deuteronomy there is no "detailed description" of the kind referred to. There is in Numbers (Numbers 35:16-24); but Deuteronomy confines itself to one simple illustration from concrete life, admirably adapted, it will be admitted, to the speaker's popular purpose (Deuteronomy 19:5). The statement in Deuteronomy, it is evident, presupposes the earlier law, and is incomplete without it, occupying only a dozen verses, as compared with over twenty in Numbers, while even of the dozen, three are occupied with a new provision for the number of the cities being ultimately raised to nine (Deuteronomy 19:8-10).
II. DISCREPANCIES IN LAWS. Considering the number of the laws, the alleged discrepancies are singularly few. On the "tithes," see Deuteronomy 26:12; on the "firstlings," Deuteronomy 15:20; "the priests' due," in Deuteronomy 18:3, seems, like the "fleece" of Deuteronomy 18:4, to be in addition to the provision in Numbers 18:11-18; the law of carrion (Deuteronomy 14:21) is slightly modified in view of the altered circumstances of settlement in Canaan (cf. Le 17:15); and so with other instances. The chief modifications arise from the new legislation in regard to the central sanctuary, with the permission to kill and eat flesh at home (Deuteronomy 12:20-24). On this depends the new tithe-laws (provision for the sanctuary feasts), the additions to the priests' portions, and various minor changes.
III. PECULIARITIES IMPLYING A LATER DATE. We need not delay on stray phrases, such as "unto this day" (Deuteronomy 3:14), or "as Israel did unto the land of his possession" (Deuteronomy 2:12). The instances usually cited are not of great force, and are easily explicable as glosses. More important cases are:
1. The central altar. On this, see under Deuteronomy 12:1-32. It suffices to meet most objections to observe that, on the face of it, the Law bears that it was not intended to be put strictly in force till certain important conditions had been fulfilled—conditions which, owing to the disobedience of the people, who during the time of the judges so often put back the clock of their own history, were not fulfilled tilt as late as the days of David and Solomon. For thus it reads (Deuteronomy 12:10), "When ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place," etc. (cf. 2 Samuel 7:1; 1 Kings 3:2; 1 Kings 5:4).
2. Priests and Levites. The distinction between priests and Levites, which counts for so much in Leviticus and Numbers, is not, it is alleged, recognized in Deuteronomy. The phrase in use is not "priests and Levites" (which, however, as little as the other, occurs in the earlier books), but "the priests the Levites" (Deuteronomy 17:9, Deuteronomy 17:18; Deuteronomy 18:1; Deuteronomy 24:8; Deuteronomy 27:9). They are not distinctively "the sons of Aaron," but "sons of Levi" (Deuteronomy 21:5; Deuteronomy 31:9). "All Levites are possible priests." But the objection is deprived of its force when we discover, what any one can verify, that these same expressions were freely used, and used interchangeably with others, at a time when it is not doubted that the Levitical system was in full operation. This is the case in the Books of Chronicles, written, it is asserted, in the interest of that system, yet using this phrase, "the priests the Levites," without hesitation or sense of ambiguity (2 Chronicles 5:5; 2 Chronicles 23:18; 2 Chronicles 30:27). "The priests the Levites" mean simply the Levitical priests; and when the tribe of Levi as a whole is meant, it is either expressly designated as such (Deuteronomy 10:8), or the designation is appended to the other phrase as a wider denomination (Deuteronomy 18:1). Nor is the idiom a strange one. At first, the priests," the sons of Aaron," stood out from the people with sharp distinctness, as alone invested with sacred office. The case was greatly altered after the separation of the tribe of Levi; when the designation "sons of Aaron" seems speedily to have been dropped for another identifying the priests more directly with their tribe. "Sons of Aaron" is not found in the latter part of Numbers. Priests and Levites had more in common with each other than either class had with the body of the people; and besides, the priests were Levites. So that to the popular eye, the tribe of Levi stood apart, forming, as a whole, one sacred body, engaged in ministering in holy things to God. Sacerdotal functions are attributed to the tribe, but not necessarily to all members of it (Deuteronomy 10:8; Deuteronomy 18:7).. The counter-theory, that this distinction had no existence under the kings, and first originated in the time of the exile, is without a jot of evidence in the Books of Kings, and only escapes foundering on the statements in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, by robbing these books of their historical character.
3. The position of the Levites. Instead of being furnished with cities and pasturages, and enjoying an independent income from the tithes, they are represented as homeless and dependent, wandering from place to place, and glad to be invited, with the stranger, the widow, and the fatherless, to share in charitable feasts. (See on this, Deuteronomy 12:19.) But if a time is sought for the composition of the book when this was the actual position of the Levites, no time is so suitable as that of Moses himself, before the tithe-laws had come into regular operation—when, in truth, there was little or nothing to tithe—and when the Levites would be largely dependent on the hospitality of individuals. The language would have a point and force to Moses' contemporaries, which it would have greatly lost had the circumstances of the Levites, at the time of his address, been more prosperous. They were dependent then, and might from very obvious causes come to be dependent again. Their state would not be greatly bettered in the unsettled times of the conquest. Nothing could be more appropriate in itself, better adapted to create kindly sympathies between Levites and people, or more likely to avert neglect of the tribe by withholding of their just dues, than the perpetuation of these primitive hospitalities. No doubt the Levites suffered severely in the days of the judges and under bad kings, but we are not to forget the power and splendor to which the order attained under David and Solomon, and the revivals it enjoyed under Hezekiah and Josiah. There is no evidence that their condition was so deplorably destitute in the later days of the kingdom as the critics represent.
4. The law of the king (Deuteronomy 17:1-20.). The law, it is thought, is sketched in terms borrowed from the court of Solomon. The objection derives much of its plausibility from not observing that the description of Solomon's court in the Book of Kings (1 Kings 10:26-29; 1 Kings 11:1-4) is, on the other hand, given in terms distinctly borrowed from this law. The familiarity of the writer of the Books of Kings with Deuteronomy is undoubted, and he plainly draws up his account of Solomon's luxury and splendor in such language as will impress the mind by its contrast to the law. We, on the contrary, reading the law, are apt to think of Solomon's reign as if it were the original, and the law the copy. Solomon did what Moses knew too well kings would be prone to do, and there was every reason for the warning that was given. The objections taken to the book cannot, therefore, be allowed to set aside its own decisive testimony to its authorship. If we adopt the hypothesis of the critics, we are involved in graver difficulties than those from which we flee. We must suppose a state of things as existing under the kings, in respect of the Levitical orders, which we have no reason to believe ever did exist, which there is great difficulty in believing to have existed, and which historical documents in the most express language tell us did not exist. We must suppose Josiah and his people deceived about the book, for they unquestionably took it for a veritable book of Moses, grieving that its words had been neglected by their fathers (2 Kings 22:1-20.; 23.; 2 Chronicles 34:1-33.). We must explain away a multitude of the plainest allusions to the book, not simply in Joshua, but in the prophets, particularly in Hosea, whose pages are rich in such references (cf. Deuteronomy 7:13; Deuteronomy 8:7-20; Deuteronomy 11:14-16, with Hosea 2:8; Hosea 12:8; Hosea 13:6; Deuteronomy 12:1-32. with Hosea 8:11; Deuteronomy 18:18 with Hosea 12:13; Deuteronomy 17:12 with Hosea 4:4; Deuteronomy 28:68 with Hosea 8:13; Hosea 9:3; Deuteronomy 29:23 with Hosea 11:8; Deuteronomy 30:1-10 with Hosea 14:1-9.; Deuteronomy 25:13-16 with Hosea 12:7, etc.). We must suppose such a passage as Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8:1-66.), which is saturated with Deuteronomic language, to have been a free and unhistorical composition; though, if this be allowed for Deuteronomy, it need not trouble us with Solomon. Even then we are not out of difficulties, for the book itself is in many respects internally unsuitable to the times to which it is assigned; compare e.g. the mild tone of the book towards Edom—the kindly and brotherly relations which are enjoined—with the hostile tone to which we are accustomed in the prophets, where Edom is a sort of later Amalek, a standing type of implacable enmity to the people of God. If Deuteronomy is not by Moses, it bears false witness of itself, was misconceived by the writers of the later books of Scripture, imposed upon the Jews from the days of its first appearance, and has had its claims endorsed by Christ and his apostles in a way which makes them partners in the general delusion.—J.O.
The written Word.
The Law here put in writing and solemnly deposited in the side of the ark, is the foundation of our present Bible. All Scripture is built up upon it. On this consignment of the first installment of the Word, we remark—
I. THE WRITTEN WORD EMBODIES AND IS THE VEHICLE OF AN AUTHORITATIVE REVELATION. The Law was first given, thereafter recorded. Revelation precedes the record of it. But this line must not be drawn too finely. The record is inspired (1 Timothy 3:16), and is to us the revelation of the will of God. It is, as well as contains, the Word of God. The line must not be drawn too finely:
1. Between revelation and its history. The threads of revelation cannot be picked out from the texture of its history, and exhibited apart. They constitute one whole; the record embraces both.
2. Between revelation and inspired prophetical discourses—with psalms, poems, wisdom literature, etc; which unfold the principles of revelation, apply and enforce them, turn them into subjects of praise, or deal with them reflectively. For discourses, psalms, didactic literature, etc; add to revelation as well as unfold its meaning.
3. Between revelation and the written Word. For that, as above remarked, is the revelation to us. It is clothed with its own authority as inspired—an authority the nature and degree of which is a study by itself—and it is clothed with the authoritativeness (objective) inherent in the revelations of which records are preserved.
II. THE WRITTEN WORD IS NECESSARY FOR THE PERPETUATION OF REVEALED TRUTH. It embodies truth in a form which secures its transmission to posterity without material distortion or corruption. Tradition, however carefully guarded, would have been a most unsafe medium for the conveyance of important revelations. A body of facts and laws such as we have in the Pentateuch, or discourses like these of Moses, could not have been entrusted to it without certainty of mutilation. The Law, accordingly, was put in writing. A written revelation is one great proof of the wisdom and care of Goal. Variations in manuscripts rarely affect the substance of the message.
III. THE WRITTEN WORD IS A WITNESS FOR GOD AGAINST THE APOSTASY OF THOSE TO WHOM THE WORD IS GIVEN. (Verse 26.)
1. If it does not prevent corruption of doctrine, it testifies against it. It was by appeal to the Scriptures that Josiah wrought his reformation in Judah (2 Kings 23:1-37.). It was by appeal to the Scriptures that the Reformers aroused Europe against the Church of Rome.
2. If it cannot prevent apostasy in deed, it remains as a witness against the apostates. It holds up the Law from which they have departed. It convicts them of rebellion. It denounces against them the penalties of transgression. While it invites them to repentance, and promise, s, if they return, healing of their backslidings.—J.O.