| 327 facilitate their passage across Kurcistan by his interest with the Paciras of Bajazid and Elzeroum. As the religious fanaticism of these colonists reacted on other colonists, and as the number of proselytes continued to increase, their departure was considered an advantage to the settlements, as families to the peasants who arrived from Germany wanted good land to cultivate. The places left vacant by the pilgrims were soon filled up by the new arrivals. Boston Advertiser.
TIMES AND SEASONS.
CITY OF NAUVOO,
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1843.
MYSTERY OF GODLINESS.
(Continued from page 314.)
If we turn attention to ceremonial law-the divers washings, anointings, sprinklings, sacrifices, feasts and ordinances, that were performed under the Mosaic economy, we find as much difficulty in accounting for it, philosophically; or in other words, according to the limited philosophy of men. If we could comprehend that philosophy which controls the elements, regulates the universe, that organized and sustains the spheres-if we could commune with angels, unravel the secrets of eternity, and comprehend the intelligence that dwells in the bosom of God, the mystery would be solved, the difficulty would pass away, and our skepticism, and ignorance, would be buried in everlasting oblivion.
We here might refer to the atonement of Jesus Christ-his appearing in human nature-his death and resurrection, ascension and glorification, as being necessary for the salvation of the human family-who can comprehend it? Paul exclaims, "great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifested in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on by the world, received up to glory." In fact, the whole plan of salvation, from the first to last, is of that nature which demands our faith in the word, works, and revelations of God-and without which it would, to us, be entirely incomprehensible.
We have been lead to make these remarks on account of the many queries that we frequently hear expressed, both by the world and by the church, concerning the things of God, particularly when anything is advanced with which we are not familiar, which is contrary to our prepossessed opinions, or our long established usages. We try to reconcile everything to our reason; and if we should fail this, we think if we only had a precedent for it in the scriptures, we should have some faith in it.
Concerning the first of these, we are positively told that, "no man knows the things of God, but by the spirit of God." Now, if we do not, or cannot, by our own understanding, comprehend the things of God, and if the productions of our most enlarged capacities; our refined ideas, and the greatest stretch of human wisdom is called folly by God: and if the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of men, how consummate is that folly which would reject the counsel of God, because we cannot comprehend it? And relative to their being no precedent, if any circumstances should transpire, for which there is no precedent, would that alter the course of God? or do away with a correct principle? Verily no. What precedent had Noah for building an Ark? or what scripture testimony? Where was it written in the scriptures that Sodom and Gomorrah should be destroyed? and that Lot and his friends were to leave it? or where could Moses find it written in the scriptures that he was to lead the children of Israel form Egypt to Palestine? If these men had waited until they had some scriptural proof, they never would have accomplished the work which they did. It was by faith that men waxed valiant in fight, escaped the edged of the sword, put to flight the armies of the aliens, received their dead to life, were translated, overcome the world, resisted the fiery flames, and obtained a celestial inheritance; and not by blind unbelief, or the false reasoning of men.
Under these circumstances, what consummate folly it is for men, who profess to believe in the Bible, to reject everything which they cannot comprehend. We had like to have said that this reasoning might become an Infidel-but could not in anywise comport with the professed faith of a Christian. But even here we should fail. The Infidel philosopher could not make his more ignorant brother understand many philosophical truisms that he would be capable of demonstrating. Would this unlearned man be justified in rejecting everything he could not comprehend? Certainly not.
Let us carry the thing further, and we shall find that the most wise comprehend but little. Who can tell us how a blade of grass, or an ear of corn grows? or yet less, how a grain of sand i sformed [is formed]? Who can inform us how this world is organized? point out the chambers of light and heat; or tell us how the body and spirit of man is united? Yet, however inexplicable to us, those things do exist; and if we
(page 327) |
