The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1891-10-03
IGNORANCE or WHAT?

n. F. Burgess, and after reading
that article | also concluded that it
was cougIomeratiou of ignorance,
for the following reasons, wiz
lst--Thu writer does not seem to
know the meaning of the word claw"
Hence concludes that Adam, Noah,
Abraham and all who lived before
Moses had The Ten Commandments
Ii he will turn to any English die
tionary he will find that the word
law simply means SO rule of action"
The laws or "rule of action" for
Adam, Noah and all who lived prior
to Moses were quite different to those
given to the Israelites from Mount
Sinai. If my friend will take the
trouble to ask any Hebrew or Greek
scholar he may readily learn the
thirty Hebrew and twenty-one Greek
words that are used anonymously
for law-decree, commandment, sta
tute and ordinance. To violate any
of these was sin. King Saul lost his
crown because he sinned. Czzah
was killed because he sinned. Adam
and Eve were turned out of the Gar
den Of Eden because they sinned.
But, their sins did not consist IN
violating any of the Ten Command
ments.
2-The writer's definition of the
word "fuIhl" endorses the heading
of his article. lie says the word
fulfil is fully to preach. The
word 'sOw" means to scatter, but
it also means pig, an insect, large
piece of lead and several other
things. And if Mr.. Burgess will
take the trouble to turn up ''fultil'
in common school dictionary he
will find it has several meanings.
He therefore errs greatly when he
uses a definition for word given as
used in Col. :25, and applies it to
word used differently IN Matt, 5;l7.
Christ "tulfilIed" the law to the very
letter--he did not violate, break or
destroy it. He did what we could
not do. So that we might not live
under law but grace. The law was
given by Moses, but grace and truth
came by Jesus Christ. John | ~.
3--lhe comments of Mr.. Burgess
on Rom. 7Lh chapter are in harmony
with the title Of his article.
If he will carefully read the book
of Romans he will find that Paul
most emphatically says, ''Ye are not
under the law but under grace"
Rom IA. Then to the end of that
chapter he retutes an objection made
to that assertion. In the first six
verses he repeats his assertion by a
similIlude that plainly teaches us
that if we or any claim to be under
the law and at the same time under
Christ, we are adulterers, having two
husbands, heads or law-givers.
Hence not under the law.
Then in the 9TH verse Paul states
an objection that had or might be
made against his doctrine, VIZ: If
Christians are not under the law, if
they are dead to the law, is it (the
law a sinful thing? Is the law sin?
This objection against the nature of
the law, the Apostle removes in the
next six verses by showing the util-
ity of the law in himself as Jew,
when not under Christ, but under
the law, and clearly demonstrates
that because we are not under the law
we must not say "the law is sinful"
but "holy, just and good" After
making this statement, the Apostle
gives his experience freed from the
law (8th chap }, and thus nanifests
the excellency of his new nature by
its correspondence to the holiness
of the law. SO that he most eff
fectualIy removes the objection
made against it as being sin, and
at the same time establishes the fact
that Christians are not under the
law. Paul was a devout man before
converted. He kept the law but an
unsaved man, Phil 3:45; Acts %
and 23d chapters.
4-Gross Ignorance, is shown
by Mr.. Burgess where he undertakes
to show that if we do away with
Gods law we do away with His
righteousness. In reading that para
graph, | am reminded of the editor
of one of our newspapers, who wrote
after a similar manner, one week ago
and the next day was taken TO the
Insane Asylum.
5-Mr. Burgess in his letter in
BULLETIN, Sept. 23d, offered-"to
give $1,000 to any man who will
prove, etc" And in his article yes
terday, he says Or. Hammond is
mistaken in regard to my ever offer
ing $1,000 for anything Surely
there is not much use in trying to
put anything into the head of such
mana man who denies his own
statement in public newspaper
within eight days of its publication.
6-Mr B. must have been half
asleep when he wrote his comments
on Acts 20.
What adjective is there strong
enough by half to show wilful
"ignorance" on the part of Mr.. Bur-
CESS when he says CDR Hammond
quotes several authors but fails to
cite US to where or what works they
may be found" | thought that any
school boy, IN this enlightened age,