HE subject of this sketch was born in Maury County, Tennessee, on the 24th of March, 1824. His paternal ancestors were English. His father (EDMUND), grandfather (JOHN), and great-grandfather (MINOR WILKES), were natives of Virginia. His grandfather moved to Middle Tennessee in 1810, and settled in Maury County. His father was the youngest son of a large family, was born in Franklin County, Virginia, in 1797, and was married, in 1819, to C. H. HOUSTON, second daughter of JAMES, the son of CHRISTOPHER C. HOUSTON. The maternal grandfather was of Scotch descent, and a native of Iredel County, North Carolina. The maternal grandmother was the daughter of DANIEL BILLS, of Surrey County, North Carolina, and was of Irish descent. In the spring of 1829, when the son was five years of age, the father left the State of Tennessee, and located in what is now Miller County, Missouri. In that new and growing country, L. B. WILKES spent his boyhood years. As there were few schools, and still fewer churches, within his reach at that time, his educational and church privileges were quite limited till he was twenty years of age. From 1844 to 1848 he spent the time in alternately teaching and attending the best schools accessible to him. During this time he attended an academy at Springfield, Missouri, and made considerable progress in the rudiments of an education.

      It was only a short time before entering this academy that he first heard the Disciples preach. Those he heard were illiterate, and, as he thought, heretical in their religious views; and, to use his own language, he "despised them." But while attending the academy, he heard the Gospel preached in its fullness, simplicity, and beauty, by his relative, J. M. WILKES, and J. H. HADEN. Father HADEN, as he was familiarly called, was one of the best and wisest of the preachers of that country. His preaching had a great influence on the mind of the subject of this notice, who, having heard the truth as it is in Jesus, believed, and was immersed in James River, near Springfield, Missouri, on the second Lord's day in August, 1848, by J. M. WILKES. [145]

      In the spring of 1849 he entered Bethany College, West Virginia; but in the summer of the following year, at the urgent solicitation of Father HADEN, from whom he received temporary aid, he returned to Missouri, and, in 1852, graduated at the State University, then under the presidency of the distinguished JAMES SHANNON.

      In 1853, at the request of the church at Hannibal, Missouri, he became its pastor; and, in February of the next year, he was married to Miss. R. K., youngest daughter of LEWIS BRYAN, of Palmyra, Missouri.

      In 1854 he formed a partnership with Dr. W. H. HOPSON, in the management of "Palmyra Female Seminary;" and, in 1856, he was elected President of "Christian College," now presided over by J. K. ROGERS.

      In 1860 he was again called to the church at Hannibal, Missouri, where he remained for five years, greatly beloved by the congregation for which he labored, and respected by all who knew him. In November, 1865, he located in Springfield, Illinois, which is his present field of labor.

      Both as a preacher and teacher, Brother WILKES has been successful. True, he has never been remarkable for holding "big meetings," and having great success in the evangelical field, though his successes even here have been by no means small; but he has been eminently successful in developing a permanent growth among the Disciples, wherever he has labored. He succeeds better as an instructor of the head, than as a mover of the heart. And yet he is capable of using very powerful persuasive influence, though he seldom resorts to this method, preferring rather to present his subject in the strongest light to the calm judgment, and await the desired result, which, if not so certain, is always more satisfactory when obtained.

      His mind is rigidly logical, and yields only to legitimate arguments. He has very strong and decided convictions, and although somewhat reserved in expressing himself on any mooted question, is, nevertheless, always perfectly willing to share the full responsibility of any position he may occupy, and, if necessary, will defend it in the face of all opposition. He is naturally, however, unostentatious, quiet in his general movements, and "seeks after those things which make for peace."

      He is about six feet high, has light hair, blue eyes, a sallow complexion, and weighs about one hundred and sixty pounds. He is a close, laborious student, and this fact is clearly marked on his physical organization. [146]

      "Come to me, all you that are weary and heavily burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and you shall find rest to your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."--MATT. xi: 28-30.

HIS passage does not say, nor does any one in the Scriptures, that Christ is to come to the sinner, but the sinner is to come to him. Religious teachers are, certainly, some of them, not a little in error on this point. The appliances used, in too many cases, in order to the conversion of sinners, intimate that there is a time to which the sinner is to look and for which he is taught to pray, when God will incline to him, when HE will be gracious. The sinner's effort is, of course, influenced by such teaching, to induce the LORD to have mercy, instead of himself becoming willing to submit, unreservedly and with the whole heart, to terms already plainly propounded, to which he is invited.

      This error in practice is founded upon an error in theory. 1. It supposes that God is not, at all times, willing to accept the sinner, though he should come just as he ought. 2. That some work on the sinner's part is necessary to make HIM willing. But, in truth, God is at [147] all times willing. His nature is love, and Jesus's nature is the same, fully the same. Nor can we conceive what HE would be, if, at any time, he were unwilling to be merciful to a sinner. One thing we can see clearly--he would not be the God of the Bible. It would follow hence that we could have no premises from which to infer that any act on the sinner's part would induce willingness on HIS. All such works are, therefore, works of supererogation, based upon the commandments of men, and not upon the will of God. Notice: I speak of the sinner, not a sinner, and of God's being willing to pardon the sins of such an one. If it should be asked: Why, if God is really willing at all times to have mercy upon the sinner, does he not actually and at once have mercy upon all? I reply: it is because he can not, not because he is not willing. True, in a sense, God can not be willing to do what he can not consistently do. While the sinner is impenitent God can not pardon him; can not will to pardon him. It would be offering a premium for sin to do so. But still God does will the salvation of every sinner, and he has also willed expressly the conditions upon which he saves. Now that a given man is not saved, is not proof that God is unwilling to save him, while as yet the man falls of the conditions upon which the salvation is contingent. But if it could be established that no conditions are imposed upon man, that God's will to that effect is alone the condition of the sinner's forgiveness, then it would follow, that, if a man is a sinner, it is because God is not willing to make him a saint. But, for those who believe that the Scriptures express the will of God, arguments are not necessary. The plain statements and necessary implications of the sacred volume put the question to rest at once. (See Ezek. xviii: 23; xxxiii: 11; 1 Tim. ii: 4, etc.) The passage at [148] the head--"Come unto me," etc., necessarily implies the willingness of Jesus to give rest, life, and salvation. It also informs us that though Jesus is willing, anxious, pleading, bleeding, and dying that the sinner might be saved, yet it is necessary, in order to find rest, to come and take the yoke divine.

      When the faith of the preacher is settled, firmly settled, that God can not be made, nor wished, more ready or willing than he is already, to be merciful to the sinner, then his energies and earnest work will be spent in impressing upon the heart of the poor lost one the awful and calamitous nature of sin. Then will he point him to the Cross of Christ, the best possible expression of the heinous character of that which brought the Savior there. This he will do with earnestness, and with such manifest confidence that, if the sinner will yield in child-like faith and simplicity to the will of God, he shall in nowise be turned away, that he will have good reason to hope the best possible results.

      It is implied in the words "Come to me," that Jesus and the sinner are apart. This separation is one suggesting a space, not that may be measured by yards, feet, and inches, but that must be reckoned by degrees of moral quality. Even the parties whom Christ addressed were not supposed to be absent from him by a literal space, but they were morally apart. Among men, we frequently find persons mingling together, whose hearts are not at all in harmony; who are morally wide apart. The mathematical and logical condition of persons and parties being one, of their being together morally--that they love the same thing, then will they love one another--being wanting, they can not be together. So it was of the parties before us. "The righteous Lord loves righteousness, and hates [149] iniquity; whereas the sinner loves iniquity, and hates righteousness." Hence were they apart. Now, before they can be together, they must be alike; and ere this is possible, they must change, one or both. But Jesus already occupies, morally, the position of righteousness, the rallying point, so far as abstract principle is concerned, for all accountable intelligences in the universe. It follows that there is no change to take place in him of the kind in question; and since a physical change is out of the question, therefore no change at all. Hence the sinner must change if he would be saved.

      Sin is the cause of the separation. Of this God is not the author. If he were, I can not see the reason for holding man responsible for it. If man is not responsible for sin, then there can be no such thing as salvation; and therefore, no Savior, and Jesus was wrongly named. Nor shall I suppose that man is the responsible author, while God is the real author of sin. That God should be the real author of sin, but should so shift the responsibility of it that man--an innocent party--must bear it, is revolting to my common sense; is little, if any, short of the veriest blasphemy. Besides the reason of the case, which I think I have with me, I have something infinitely better--the Word of God. Paul says (Rom. v: 12): "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world," etc. Here it is declared that sin came by man. To say that God is the author of sin, in any sense, is, I think, far from the truth. Some are inclined to make God in some way, or to some extent, responsible for sin, since, say they, HE permitted it. But I do not see that God did, in any proper sense of the word, permit sin. To say that a person permits any given thing, is to say that he could prevent it. Now, before any one should conclude that God permitted sin, and is to [150] that extent responsible for it, he should see distinctly that God could not, in harmony with his nature, with the principles of his government and the nature of man, have prevented its existence. That God's physical power is adequate to the accomplishing of any purpose compatible with his moral nature, I grant, is true. But that his omnipotence would or could be exercised to accomplish that which would be inharmonious with the principles of his moral government, is not true. Before, then, we should allow that God could have prevented sin, and hence that he may have permitted it, we must see that in so doing he would not have outraged any principles of his nature or of his dealings with man. Such knowledge would include a full view of all the principles of God's moral government, which we ought not to presume to have. But do we know any thing of God from which we may infer certainly that he could not consistently have prevented sin? The fact that sin is, to my mind, proves that God could not have prevented it, and that, therefore, he did not permit it. Again, if man was so made, or circumstanced by the Maker, that he must do any given act--must, from no matter what cause--I deny that it was possible in such case that he sinned. The power without him, not himself, was to all human reason really and responsibly the actor, while man should be regarded as only the instrument, the machine. The man did not act; he was acted, rather. The executioner of the criminal is not held to be guilty of murder, only because he is not supposed to be the one who takes the life of his fellow, except in the sense that the machine thrashes the wheat. As well may we say that the machine is the responsible actor, as that man is, where he is absolutely forced to act. I believe it is a dictate of conscience in every case, that, [151] where a man could not have avoided doing an act, he did not sin when he did It. This is a rule of law in the courts of every civilized nation, and savage too.

      Now, if MAN sinned in the Garden--and the Bible says he did--and was responsible for it--and the Bible says he was, in that he was punished for it--it follows that man was the real doer of the deed, and the responsible doer, too, and that God, therefore, was not. It follows, also, that it was not impossible for man to have avoided the sin. But if man had such power in himself that he controlled the event--sin--it follows that it was not another's power that controlled it; that is, it follows that God could not have prevented sin and left man what he made him, and himself the God that he is. So if we allow, as we must, that the creation of man and the manner of his being are but the outcroppings of the Divine nature, we must conclude that the principles of God's government are such that he could not have prevented, and, therefore, did not permit man to sin. This same conclusion may be reached in a much shorter way, thus: God commanded man to not sin. Now, I may assume that God's will, which is the essential feature in his every command, has his entire omnipotence to execute it, so far as his moral government will allow. But his power did not prevent sin; therefore, it could not. And since he could not prevent sin, he did not permit it. Again, remembering that sin is the transgression of Law, it follows that God can not be responsible for it, either as causing it or permitting it, unless we suppose it possible for HIM to violate his own law.

      That the sinner is the responsible agent for his sin, is argued from the fact that he is recognized as being able to come back, the way being opened, the reasons and motives being furnished, and the invitation being [152] extended. That he is able, under these circumstances, to come, is proved from the fact that Jesus calls him, coupled with the fact that the Savior is too good to be so unkind as to tantalize the suffering one with a pressing invitation, to which he knows the sinner to be unable to respond. This tender language from the eloquent lips of the Crucified One is proof enough for me, that the poor, lost ones can come back.

      May all persons come to the Savior in harmony with this call? I do certainly think that all may come, can come, and ought to come, provided they are the characters, and will comply with the conditions precedent to their coming. But I also think that there are persons or characters who are not included in this call; who, in their present condition, ought not or can not come.

      I. The infant is not included for the reason: 1. That it is not capable of understanding the call; of receiving and acting upon it. Now, I reason that Jesus would not invite a human being to perform an act, for the doing of which he is wholly incompetent. That an infant, but a few days old, is entirely incapable of rendering the obedience implied, I shall not attempt to prove. It needs no proof. Therefore, the infant is not included. 2. But this conclusion must be true for another reason: It need not to come. Sin being a neglect, disregard, or violation of law, and the infant being entirely incapable of any one of these things, it has, hence, never sinned, and therefore needs no salvation from sin. Though it does need a Savior, it is not from sin. Salvation contemplates more than simply the remission of sins. It includes the redemption of the body, its resurrection, and preparation for the final and blessed state of the saved. The child, though not a sinner, needs a Savior for these reasons. Moreover, the [153] Lord declares that unless men shall "turn and become as little children, they shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "Of such is the kingdom of heaven." The necessary implication from these sayings is, that the infant child is not a sinner, and needs not to come, and is not, therefore, included in the invitation.

      A second class of persons not invited is the righteous. Jesus says: "I come not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." The "whole need not a physician, but they that are sick." I have long thought that the poorest excuse of the many offered by sinners for not coming to Christ is, "I am not good enough yet;" whereas it is precisely because they are sinners, great sinners, that they need to come. Such language, too, is presumptuous on their part. It implies that they feel themselves capable of, to some extent at least, fitting themselves for acceptably appearing before God for his favor. The more or the better prepared any sinner is for acceptable approach to the blessed Lord, the more plainly does he see and keenly feel that he is all unworthy, all unclean. I would not be understood as intimating that he has no preparation to make. Far from it. He has much of that to do, and it must be thoroughly done, else every attempt must be a failure. I only mean that he can not, of himself, make himself any less a sinner than he is; that he can not deduct from the aggregate amount of sins standing against him. But if, by the phrase, "good enough," he means only preparedness for coming, the act of coming, I make no objections. Let that preparation be well made. What this consists in, and its radical nature, shall be, unfolded as we proceed.

      A third class of persons not included in this invitation of the Savior is the infidel. "He that comes to God"-- [154] and coming to Jesus Christ is the same thing--"must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (Heb. xi: 6.) "Without faith it is impossible to please God." "What is not of faith is sin." (Rom. xiv: 23.) From the first of these quotations we see that one essential condition of acceptable approach to God is faith. From the second, we see that faith is essential in every case in order to please God. Now, since no one would be invited to come who "must" not; and since no one would be invited to come who would not please God in coming; and since no one can please God without faith, it follows that no one without faith is included in this invitation of the Lord. In the last of these quotations we have a principle of broad and universal application. The apostle, having shown what acts would be sinful, and what would not, finally draws the conclusion that though an act should be of such a nature that it might be done or be left undone without sin, still, in either case, faith must necessarily accompany. I shall not try to prove that the stated principle is applicable in cases of purely a worldly nature. I apply it only to acts of religious worship. To all these it does certainly apply, if not to all human actions. Among those acts which the text does certainly include, is that one, or all those, by which the sinner comes to Jesus Christ, and takes his easy yoke upon him. Now, since the Lord Jesus could not, and therefore has not, invited any one to take a step or perform an act that would be sinful; and since it is shown that any act of worship or obedience to God, performed without faith, would be sinful, it follows that the infidel is not included in this invitation. The reasoning will be the same if we should suppose the words, "Come to me," etc., to be a command instead of an invitation. (Rom. x: 14.) [155] Paul says: "How, then, shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?" The answer evidently is, that it shall not, as it certainly can not in sincerity be done. It seems to me that the way from this orthodox, apostolic faith is not long nor tortuous to the conclusion which we would establish. Whether this text speaks of the simple vocal act of calling upon God, or whether it includes, as it most likely does, all that must be done in order to please God and secure his favor, there is one indispensable condition: faith must first be had. Now, I think it easy, leaving the intelligent hearer to exercise but a moment's reflection, to draw the conclusion that the infidel shall not, can not come to Jesus Christ. And what he shall not do, it is morally certain the Savior does not invite or command him to do. I leave those who instruct the sinner to call on God, in whom he does not yet believe, for faith, to settle the conflict which their practice involves, with both reason and the express word of God. There is one mode of escape from this awkward dilemma, to which resort is sometimes made. It is said that there are several kinds of faith; that while it is true that one kind, mere historic faith, is necessary to calling on God, still the faith which is unto salvation may be called for; that the calling may be, nay, must be, BEFORE this saving faith, and in order to it. The first objection that I make to this reply is, that it is not known to be true. The Bible says not one word about kinds of faith. It distinguishes between a dead and a living faith; but this is a distinction not of kinds of faith. It refers only to the fact that a faith that does not work is dead, but makes not even an intimation that there are kinds of faith. Secondly: But suppose that there are kinds of faith, is it known that the Apostle Paul had his eye upon a mere historic faith, a kind [156] of minor importance, which, though needed for calling on God, is, nevertheless, not the faith which is essential to salvation? This is not known to be true, nor is it true. The faith of which Paul speaks, is that without which we can not please God, that is unto salvation. This conclusion will become apparent by a brief reference to the context: "The word is nigh thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart; that is, the word of faith which we preach; that, if thou shalt profess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believes unto righteousness; and with the mouth profession is made unto salvation." (Rom. x: 8-11.) Thus we see (even if we must allow that there are kinds of that which is philosophically and Scripturally a unit), that the faith of which Paul speaks, is that by which we are justified; that it is a faith of the heart; that it is the faith in order to salvation. It is of this faith that the apostle speaks, when, at the fourteenth verse, he says that a man can not call on God without it. We therefore press the question again: How can a man call on God for it?

      A fourth class, not included in this invitation, is the impenitent sinner. Though a man should have faith, if it should not work to the breaking of his stony heart; if it should not bring him in deep poverty of spirit and contrition of soul to Jesus, his faith is not of that degree necessary to his coming acceptably. This state of things is not only possible, but it has actually existed. John xii: 42 says: "But yet many even of the rulers believed on him; but, on account of the Pharisees, they would not confess him, lest they should be put out of the Synagogue; for they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." Here we have persons who did actually [157] believe on HIM, but they lacked that degree of faith that takes hold of the heart; hence, they would not confess him, as, in that condition, they ought not. In such a state they could not draw near to the Christ. He would spurn them from his presence, Such men will appear to come when they may obtain the thing they want--the glory of men. I fear that there are many such half-converted souls in the Church. You will know them by their fruits. They are hard to please. Having itching ears, they are forever clamoring for teachers who will pander to, and pamper their carnal appetites. They have no gift for doing any earnest heart-work for God. They are generally absent from prayer-meeting, and when there, they have no heart to work. They are nearly always late at church; and when there they occupy a seat as far from the speaker as possible, lest his words of burning force should set fire to their stubbly hearts, or unmask their worthless and deformed souls. Let the glorious light of the knowledge of the blessed God flash around them, and beam upon them, that they may be driven from the Church, or to a speedy and deep repentance. Of all the classes mentioned, this one is most unprepared to come acceptably to Jesus Christ. Like the Pharisees, which they are, they are whited sepulchers, fair as to the exterior, but within are full of rottenness and corruption.

      We are now prepared to answer the question--Who may come to Jesus Christ? This we do in the gracious terms of the great Teacher: "Come unto me all you that are weary and are heavily burdened." This language is not ambiguous. No soul need be at a loss for one moment in gathering its meaning. It means what it says, and says plainly what it means. The sinner must see and feel himself a sinner. This implies faith in Christ. For, [158] where no law is, there can be no sin; and where the law is not perceived, sin can not be discovered. But the law is seen to be law only when it is seen to emanate from some rightful source, otherwise it is no more than idle talk. Hence, if the sinner sees and feels himself to be a sinner, it is because he has seen not only the law as LAW, but that he sees the law-giver as LAW-GIVER; that he does exercise faith in the law-giver. But, as already said, this faith must work, must deepen, until the Gospel's light and love shine upon the soul, revealing to the sinner's eye all its enormous pollutions. His mind rests for a moment upon the revealed beauty, purity, and deep loveliness of Jesus's character and life, and especially of HIS sufferings and "death for our sins, according to the Scriptures;" and he feels to exclaim, "O wretched man that I am!" Then he looks into his own sinful heart, and it is as though he looked into the bosom of night itself. Every pain that Jesus felt, which he now sees was for him, he feels. Every groan of Gethsemane and of Calvary wrings from his penitent and burdened heart an echo of grief--deep heart-grief. Like the porter who has carried long his burden, and is almost sinking under its weight, so is he burdened by his sins. He is weary and heavily burdened. Now he may come, because he is invited to come. Now, like the prodigal, he has come to himself, and may arise and go to God, assured that HE will in nowise turn him away. O that ministers, that all Christians, indeed, may more faithfully and effectually point sinners to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. Let them be earnest as those who plead for life; nay, for something that is better than life. But it may be said: The sinner should not "come" till he is drawn, divinely impelled, to "come." But find a sinner burdened and [159] grief-stricken, such as I have described, and you find one already drawn, divinely drawn, to God. No matter how it was done, the work is certainly and rightly done. But the Savior has told us how it is done. John vi: 44, 45, Jesus says: "No man can come to me, unless the Father, who sent me, should draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that hears from the Father, and learns, comes to me." The lesson in this extract is simple and natural. 1. No one can come to Jesus whom the Father does not draw to HIM. 2. The sinner first hears, then learns--is thus drawn, and then comes to the Savior, with the assurance that HE will be raised up at the last day. With this agrees Paul, when he says: "So, then, faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." The sublime story of the Cross is issued by Jehovah in a proclamation to sinful man. He hears and learns the glad tidings of the Father. He learns them, as near as may be, in all their unsearchable depths of meaning; in their bearings upon the questions of sin and holiness, of life and godliness. He learns that this Magna Charta of life and endless joy is so well attested by evidence homogeneous that there is simply no room for doubt. He believes, he feels, he trembles, at God's Word--he comes.

      While Jesus was on earth, men might literally come to him, though this kind of coming is certainly not the one meant in our subject. But, now that Jesus is not here, where is the sinner to go? for I doubt not but that the lesson is in as full force to-day as when first pronounced. Where shall the sinner go? To Jesus, is the answer. With Simon Peter I would say: "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Anciently God [160] dwelt in the Temple. It was his house. There, and not just anywhere, the true worshiper always found him. HE has a house now , also. 2 Cor. vi: 16 says: "For ye are the temple of the living God; as God said: I will dwell in them, and walk among them." This is spoken of the Church. Again, Paul says that the house of God "is the Church of the living God." (1 Tim. iii: 15.) In Eph. ii: 22 it is said of the Church that it is the "dwelling-place of God by the Spirit." In these Scriptures we are taught that the Church is the temple in which God lives.

      So far as place on earth, for receiving and blessing the sinner, is concerned, I doubt not but that the Church is that place. The O. S. P. Confession of Faith says of the Church: "Out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." So I believe. This Church in which God dwells by his Spirit, is the body of Christ. So teaches Paul (Eph. 1: 22,) et al. It is from this stand-point--Jesus's capitol for Divine government on earth--that all his precepts and commandments, threatenings and promises, are issued. It is to the Church--Christ's body, the temple of God, the resident capitol of the Godhood, on earth--that the sinner must come, in order that he may come to Jesus Christ. All the spiritual blessings of Heaven are yea and amen to that man who is in Christ Jesus. This conclusion receives further, and, I think, final confirmation from Hebrews xii: 22, to close of the chapter:

      "But ye are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and Church of the first-born, which are written in heaven, and to God the judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made [161] perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. See that ye refuse him not that speaketh, for if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things that can not be shaken may remain. Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which can not be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire."

      From this passage, it will be seen that the Christians in Paul's day were taught to believe that in being saved they had "come" to Mount Zion, which, I believe, is literally the Church. The term Church, on earth, may not exhaust the idea in the expression Mount Zion; but I confidently believe that it is included therein, else it is not true, as asserted, that the Hebrew Christians "have come to Mount Zion." They had then come to the Church. Here they met the blood of the covenant, the Mediator, the Savior, the Spirit of adoption, the spirits of just men made perfect, and, finally, God, the judge of all. This coming and meeting was, of course, not the literal or physical coming and meeting of persons and parties, as when one man meets another on a journey; but the Christians then and now, in coming to the Church, the heavenly Jerusalem, enter into spiritual and joyous union and communion with all the transcendently glorious persons and privileges [162] catalogued in all the holy oracles of God, so far as they accrue to man in the flesh. Of course, when I speak of coming to the Church, I mean "the Church of the living God." There is, or seems to be, as great a mania for inventing new churches as new machinery, and for about the same reason--to please the dear people. The fashion-mongers of infidel Paris are not more intent upon pleasing the carnal longings of their mammon-worshipers, than are creed-mongers and sect-makers to adjust the Church to suit the tastes of the world.

      The time for the sinner to come is now. When this life is in danger, man never falls to at once avail himself, if possible, of every means of escape or recovery. How strange that any one should be less careful of the true life--of the life to come.

      But I must state the result--rest. Freed from every galling yoke of bondage imposed by the tyrant sin, the soul lifts up its head toward the hills whence its help comes. Now it spreads its wings for an upward flight, and ever and anon it rises. The sense of rest, of the love of God shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us, is the pearl of great price, the very climax of blessing here below. With but little change, the following lines are in point:

And when life has gone on apace, and death's dark, cold shadows are settling around, then the soul needs rest, and feels most blissfully the value of this gift Divine. [163]

      It is when the world recedes and disappears, that the soul whispers to itself: "Tell me, my soul, can this be death?" If so, "O the pain, the bliss of dying."

      "There remains a rest for the people of God." "Let us strive to enter into that rest." [164]

[TLP 145-164]