Earlier text: SOWING FOR PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL HEALTHTHE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE: IT MUST BE GIVEN.
Last week we closed the study on this subject with the following words: “It is the truth that, in the change of the Sabbath, this tearing down of God's memorial and exalting in its place the papal counterfeit, by the government of the United States, in 1893, under the threats of the apostate Protestantism of the National Reform combination, the government of the United States was delivered over to the spirit of disorder and lawlessness, as really as was the Roman Empire in the fourth century. And that lawlessness, individual and national, will here increase, as it did in the Roman Empire of the fourth century, until it shall swallow up in ruin this nation, as it swallowed up in ruin the Roman Empire.” It is written in the Scriptures of truth that the things which happened in old time were for examples, and “are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” This is true more fully of Rome than of any other ancient nation. Indeed, it is so fully true of Rome that, in telling what is to come in this nation of the United States in the time when the ends of the world are come, the Scripture does it in the expressive phrase “the Image of the Beast;” the Beast itself being the culmination of all that was Rome. Therefore of all times in the world's history, now is the time in which the things written in the Scriptures concerning the nations and kingdoms of the world are of importance to the world, and must be told to the world. And of all parts of the Scripture which relate to the nations and kingdoms of the world, those parts which relate to Rome are of the most particular interest, especially to the people of the United States, in this time of our day. There is much scripture that touches individual experience: this is of equal value at all times and to all persons. There is also much scripture that concerns national experience and destiny: this, in the case of each particular nation, in its own particular time in the past, was all-important for that time as the message of God; and being a national example, is of particular interest in instruction and warning to every nation that follows. And when the world has come to the time of the end, then all these national examples cited in the word of God stand with their lessons of instruction and admonition as a manifold message to the nations of to-day, whose guilt and ruin must be the greater as they despise and reject the manifold message of the word of God. The history and fall of Israel, of Assyria, of Babylon, of Medo-Persia, of Grecia, and of Rome have all been recorded in the Bible for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world have come, and for the admonition of the nations of the earth in this time of the end. And the lessons of instruction and admonition, which are in these historical records in the Bible, must be, and they will be, given definitely and distinctly to the people and the nations that are upon the earth in this time of the end. God has put into his word messages that concern nations, as well as messages that are to individuals. It was so in Israel; it was so in the empire of Assyria; it was so in the empire of Babylon; it was so in the empire of Persia, of Grecia, and of Rome. Some of the kings of Judah; one of the kings of Assyria; Nebuchadnezzar, of Babylon; Darius the Mede; and Cyrus and Darius, and Xerxes and Artaxerxes, the Persians, listened to the messages of God. The kings of Israel, and the last ones of Judah; Belshazzar, the last one of Babylon; the last ones of Persia; none of the Greek Empire, and none of the Roman, paid any attention to the messages of God to them, nor to those concerning their time. It came about, in the order of God, that the rulers of all these nations met the truth of God in such a way as to be responsible for its rejection, and for the consequences which followed to themselves and to their respective nations and empires. Belshazzar, Alexander, and Nero are but examples in bold relief on the one side,—as are Nebuchadnezzar, Darius, and Cyrus on the other,—of what the Lord has ever done, and is ever doing, to rulers, and especially in times of crisis. But the great difficulty has ever been, and still is, that in the vast majority of instances these messages of God are passed by as nothing more than mere incidents, and many times as hardly even that. Nevertheless, those rulers in so doing rejected the message of God to them, and for their day and nation, and were responsible for the consequences that might have been avoided, and which at the very least were hastened by their unheeding course. And the United States to-day is not an exception. Evils are flooding this nation to-day, concerning which the national responsible authorities were plainly and repeatedly warned. Those authorities were told of these things at the opportune time, when by heeding the message they could have cleared themselves of all responsibility for any coming evil, could have honored God, themselves, and their position, and at the very least could have stayed the tide of evil. And this must, and will, still go on. It is true that there will be those who will say, as there have been those who have said, that this is “meddling with politics.” But it is nothing of the kind. Was Daniel meddling with politics when he gave to Nebuchadnezzar, to Belshazzar, to Darius, and to Cyrus the message of God as it was in the word of God? Was the high priest at Jerusalem meddling in politics when he gave to Alexander the Great the message of God written for that very time? Were the Christians in the Roman Empire meddling in politics when they gave the message of God as in his word, concerning the coming ruin of that empire and the planting of the ten kingdoms? Were they guilty of treason in telling to all people that the empire would certainly go to utter ruin, that the barbarians would certainly triumph, and that every person must seek God with all the heart to escape that certain ruin? They were so charged, of course; but was it fair so to charge? Were they guilty? No more were these men in our day meddling in politics when they presented time and again to State legislatures and governors, and to the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress, and to the President, the message of God in counsel and warning against the evils that would certainly come, upon the rejecting of the law of God and the principles of justice and human liberty. And still this work must go on. And still it will not be in any sense meddling in politics. To hold forth, by tongue and pen, to people and rulers, the message of God as he has given it in his word concerning “the Beast” and “the Image of the Beast,” and as he has portrayed it in the course and end of the great empires of history, can not possibly be meddling in politics. It can not possibly be treason, nor can it truly be said that it is interfering in affairs of government with which religion has nothing to do. It can be done, the message of God can be given, without having anything at all to do with politics. On the contrary, not to give the message is nothing less than to see the sword come, and the people be not warned. But God has set watchmen to see the sword coming, and to warn the people; and he says that “if the watchman see the sword come, and,” because of a cry of “meddling in politics” or for any other “reason,” he “blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned,” whosoever is taken away by the sword, “his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.” And if the watchman be such, or if he stand in such an attitude, as not to see any sword coming, the result is the same to him as to the other wicked. No, history has not occurred in vain. Neither have its vital lessons been set down in the word of God in vain. And if, in this all-important time, those who know these things should hold their peace, the very stones would cry out. And if those who in this time profess to know these things, or have opportunity to know them, be yet unknowing, then shall the message and deliverance arise from another place, and these will be overwhelmed in the destruction that overtakes all them that are asleep in this startling time. Blow the trumpet, and warn the people. Tell them “Thus saith the Lord God,” whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. And in so doing thou hast delivered thy soul. MORE ON THAT “NEEDED EDUCATIONAL REFORM.”
On the subject of the “Needed Educational Reform,” we have given, on authority, the process of education in general, to the effect that “doubt is the pedagogue that leads to knowledge,” with the consequence that students “lose their religion while gaining an education.” We have seen that, in the realm of education in theology, the process is still one in which doubt is the means of attaining unto knowledge, and that he makes the most progress who has best learned the art of doubting well; and the admitted consequence is that the one who follows this course, never really knows that he knows anything. There is yet one other field that is worthy to be noticed, and that is the field where the children are taught until they become old enough to enter upon a course of education, to be finished, perhaps, in theology. And the statement with respect to this field we have upon the highest authority; that is, the authority of the United States Commissioner of Education, Hon. W. T. Harris. In his annual report for the school year, 1896-97, he says:— The secular school gives positive instruction. It teaches mathematics, natural science, history, and language. Knowledge of the facts can be precise and accurate, and a similar knowledge of the principles can be arrived at. The self-activity of the pupil is before all things demanded by the teacher of the secular school. The pupil must not take things on authority, but, by his own activity, must test and verify what he has been told. He must trace out the mathematical demonstrations, and see their necessity. He must learn the method of investigating facts in the several provinces of science and history. The spirit of the secular school therefore comes to be an enlightening one, although not of the highest order. But its enlightenment tends to make trust in authority more and more difficult for the young mind.
On the other hand, religion, which gives the net result of the wisdom of the race in the form of authority, omits, and must omit, the long lines of proof which have established it. The experience of thousands of years shrinks to a mere point, and is stated in the dogmas which seem to be immediate spiritual facts resting on external authority, the substructures of thousands of years being almost entirely concealed. Not only are these long periods of experience kept out of sight, but also the vast layers of religious thinkers who have grappled with psychology and philosophy, and assisted in making the religious results systematic and without contradiction. Religious education, it is obvious, in giving the highest results of thought and life to the young, must cling to the form of authority, and not attempt to borrow the methods of mathematics, science, and history from the secular school. Such borrowing will result only in giving the young people an overweening confidence in the finality of their own immature judgments. They will become conceited and shallow-minded. It is well that the child should trust his own intellect in dealing with the multiplication table and the rule of three. It is well that he should learn the rules and all the exceptions in Latin syntax, and verify them in the classic authors; but he must not be permitted to summon before him the dogmas of religion, and form pert conclusions regarding their rationality.
All this is an excellent reason why religion can not be taught in the public schools. To make up for this lack, the Sunday-school has been employed in this field where the children are425 taught. But instead of the managers of the Sunday-school really employing the true process of religious education, and so holding the children in the field of religion, they actually adopted the methods of the public school, and made them the process in the Sunday-school: they adopted the secular method in religious education. This, with its results, is also well stated by Commissioner Harris:— With the spectacle of the systematic organization of the secular schools and the improvement of methods of teaching before them, the leaders in the church have endeavored to perfect the methods of the religious instruction of youth. They have met the following dangers which lay in their path; namely, first, the danger of adopting methods of instruction in religion which were fit and proper only for secular instruction; secondly, the selection of religious matter for the course of study which did not lead in a most direct manner toward vital religion, although it would readily take on a pedagogic form.
Against this danger of sapping or undermining all authority in religion by the introduction of the methods of the secular school, which lay all stress on the self-activity of the child, the Sunday-school has not been sufficiently protected in the more recent years of its history. Large numbers of religious teachers, most intelligent and zealous in their piety, seek a more and more perfect adoption of the secular school method.
On the other hand, the topics of religious instruction have been determined largely by the necessities of the secular school method. That method is not adapted to teach mystic truth. It seeks everywhere definite and especially mathematical results. But these results, although they are found everywhere in science and mathematics, are the farthest possible from being like the subject-matter of religion. Hence it has happened that in improving the methods of the Sunday-school, greater and greater attention has been paid to the history and geography of the Old Testament, and less and less to the doctrinal matters of the New Testament.
And thus the professed Christian church, instead of employing the Christian process in her teaching in the schools designed especially for religious instruction, has adopted and drawn into these schools the secular process. Instead of keeping herself in her own distinct field of religion, and upon her own true Christian foundation, and teaching religion by a distinctly religious process, the church abandoned all that, and stood only on the worldly foundation, and employed a process in religious instruction which is “the farthest possible” from being like the process in religious instruction. And this being so on the part of the church even in the teaching of the children, it is not by any means to be wondered at that it should be continued through the higher education, even to its culmination in the theological seminaries.
Since, therefore, it is upon the highest authority made evident that neither in the public school nor in the Sunday-school do the children receive truly religious teaching, it is equally evident that, for the children, and in the field of the education of the children, there is a sorely needed reform, just as certainly as in the higher education, in the theological colleges and seminaries, there is a much-needed reform, in education. American Rule in the Philippines
In the Independent, Mr. Albert Gardner Robinson, writing of the present situation in the Philippines, says:— In no other place in the islands are America and American rule so unpopular as in the city of Manila, the place of longest experience. . . . Personally, the mass of Americans, as individuals, make no favorable impression on the mass of Filipinos. The same is the case in Porto Rico, in Cuba, and in Hawaii. It is somewhat humiliating, but it is a fact. Politically, we have given the Filipinos nothing that was really better than that which they had before. We have promised something unofficially, and offered something—with a string tied to it. The old system of Spanish laws has been continued, with few, if any, modifications; while some, petty but notably objectionable, have been enforced where Spain had allowed them to fall into disuse. The same applies in the matter of taxes and tariffs. The United States officials have obtained from an impoverished people a greater sum, by taxation, than was obtained by Spain in their more prosperous days. And since this was written, it has been most impressively confirmed, especially as to Cuba, by the exposure of a complicated system of robbery that had been conducted by United States officials in the postal service in that island for more than a year. Of this the Independent says:— We undertook to organize for the Cuban people a complete postal service, in which, as the postmaster-general said 'only a few weeks ago, there should be a substitution of American integrity for the old corrupt administration. . . . What are the American people to say to the Cubans who have been told so many times that they should learn from our example the difference between American honesty and Spanish corruption? “TELL me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” The scheme invented by Sarai, and agreed to by Abram, which brought forth Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, who was born after the flesh, proved unsatisfactory to the whole company, from the first step taken toward carrying it out. “Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes.” Gen. 16:3, 4. And although, as the record says, Sarai was the first to propose this plan, and that “Sarai . . . took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, . . . and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife,” yet, as soon as she found herself despised by Hagar, and this because of the success of Sarai’s own plan, she turned in reproach upon Abram, and said: “My wrong be upon thee: I have given my maid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes.” Verse 5. “But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee.” And Sarai dealt so “hardly with her” that Hagar ran away. And though the Lord told Hagar, “Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands,” it is evident that all was not peaceful and pleasant afterward. Further, as we have seen, when, after Ishmael was born, Abram said to the Lord, “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” he was not heard; but Ishmael was plainly set aside, and Abram was told that Sarai his wife should bear him a son indeed, and that he should call his name Isaac; “and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.” Gen. 17:18, 19. “Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.” “And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had borne unto Abraham, mocking. Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. And God said unto Abraham, Let this not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice: for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Gen. 21:2, 8–12. But not yet was the record clear. Abraham had swerved from the clear promise of God, and had put dependence in the flesh; and not only must the bondwoman and her son be cast out, but every item of that whole scheme which had brought in the bondwoman and her son must be utterly renounced and abandoned. Accordingly, the Lord said to Abraham: “Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.” Gen. 22:2. Isaac was the child of promise. There was no other promise of a child, there could be no other such promise; and there could be no other child without another promise. And now for Abraham to offer Isaac for a burnt offering was, so far as could be seen, to take away all that had been promised. But when Abraham had looked thus far, he looked yet further, even back to the original promise of God, and trusted and expected that when he should offer Isaac, God would certainly fulfill his promise by raising him from the dead—by bringing him back from the ashes when he should have been burned in sacrifice. This call of the Lord, therefore, to Abraham to offer Isaac for a burnt offering, brought Abraham back to the night of the original promise, when God had said to him: “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; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Gen. 15:5, 6. Thus Abraham was brought to depend upon and trust in the naked promise of God alone, for all that the promise contained. And if Abraham had stood there from the first, and refused Sarai’s suggestion with regard to Hagar, there would have been no such family trouble as came between Sarai and Hagar; Ishmael never would have been born; and Abraham would never have been called to offer Isaac. Had he from the first “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (Rom. 4:20), but been strong in faith, giving glory to God, fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform, righteousness might have been imputed to him throughout. “These are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” The covenant at Sinai was the fruit of the flesh, of distrust and unbelief in God, just as was the plan that introduced Hagar and brought forth Ishmael. And just as Hagar and Ishmael, the bondwoman and her son, had to be cast out, and the whole scheme that brought them in had to be utterly repudiated, so the covenant from Mount Sinai had to be cast out, and all that brought it in had to be utterly repudiated. As Abraham and Sarah had to cast out Hagar and Ishmael, and repudiate the whole scheme that had brought them in, and themselves come back to the original promise of God, to depend wholly upon that for all that was in it, so must the covenant from Sinai be cast out, and all that brought it in must be utterly repudiated by Israel and everybody else, and God’s original covenant with Abraham be depended upon and trusted in, wholly and alone, for all that it promises. And so we read:— In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal to them his power and his mercy, that they might be led to love and trust him. He brought them down to the Red Sea—where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible—that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of divine aid; and then he wrought deliverance for them. Thus they were filled with love and gratitude to God, and with confidence in his power to help them. He had bound them to himself, as their deliverer from temporal bondage. But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption, they had no true conception of the holiness of God; of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts; their utter inability, in themselves, to render obedience to God’s law; and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.426 God brought them to Sinai; he manifested his glory; he gave them his law, with the promise of great blessings on condition of obedience: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” Ex. 19:5, 6. The people did not realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God’s law; and they readily entered into covenant with God. FEELING THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, they declared, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Ex. 24:7. They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which they had broken, and NOW, seeing their sinfulness and their need of pardon, they were brought to feel THEIR NEED OF THE SAVIOUR REVEALED IN THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, and showed forth in the sacrificial offerings. NOW by faith and love they were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin. NOW they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of THE NEW COVENANT.—“Patriarchs’ and Prophets,” pages 371, 372. IN THE BORDER LAND.
By Uriah Smith
There is a border land to the kingdom of God. While in this border land, one is not in the kingdom; but he may be not far off. It is possible for one to be in the kingdom, even here, in the condition described by Paul in Col. 1:12, 13: “Giving thanks unto the Father, . . . who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son.” This is a good experience to have, and a good condition to be in. But there is another condition which is well set forth by the words of Christ to the scribe, who, in conversation with him, made a statement that showed a profound acquaintance with the principles of the gospel, and to whom Christ said, “Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” This man was not in the kingdom, though he was not far from it. This shows that there are different degrees of relationship to the kingdom. Some may be actually in it, as Paul declares: some may be far off: and some, as in the case here brought to view, not far from it; that is, near to it. In some respects this may be an encouraging position, with hopeful prospects; but it is one full of responsibilities and dangers. It is a position that one should occupy, only for a moment, in passing. One should not be satisfied with it, and settle down, making it his abiding-place; for if one never goes beyond that position, if he never crosses the line, and so never becomes a member of the kingdom really, he might as well, so far as his eternal interests are concerned, have remained all the time “afar off.” The case of this scribe, as disclosed by the narrative, is worthy of special notice, and serious meditation. Let us look at the circumstances as set forth in the narrative, in Mark 12:28–34: “And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O 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 thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.” Many noble characteristics are revealed in this statement. The young scribe was a man of a truthful spirit. He showed that he had read the law with attention, to be able thus to summarize the grand utterances of the prophets, which show that love to God and love to man are better than whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. “The answer of Christ in verses 29–31,” says William Smith, D. D., “was the last lesson of positive doctrine that our Saviour taught in public. He had begun his ministry by declaring that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets, and closed it by announcing that love is the fulfilling of the law. Scarcely less interesting than the truth itself, is the effect it had on the hearers. The very scribe who had proposed the question, seeing the harmony of the answer with the Scripture, and catching a glimpse of the spiritual meaning, which all his learning had never given him before, was the first to confess the truth, in words worthy of being adopted as the Christian creed, and with a heartiness which called forth from Jesus the words, ‘Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.’ In this he intended no more and no less than the words themselves conveyed. Had he considered an earnest and moral striving, such as this man expressed, sufficient, he would have acknowledged him as not only near but as in the kingdom of God. He tells him, however, that he is on the way to it, because he was freed from the pharisaic delusion of righteousness by works, and knew the nature of genuine piety. He could, therefore, more readily be convinced of what he still lacked of the spirit of the law which he so well understood.” We are led to form a favorable opinion of the man to whom these words were addressed. It is what was expressed in verses 32, 33, that drew from Christ this remarkable judgment; but this was not sufficient; that is, just to be near the kingdom of God, and not to be in it. Many characteristics this man had in his favor. He had great spiritual perception, and he spoke with great discretion, or it would not have called forth this commendation from the Lord. He was more than the Romanist, who makes everything of ceremonies; he was more than the doctrinalist, who puts the barren convictions of the head above the genuine transformations of the heart, and holiness of life; he was more than a moralist, who forgets that all service to be genuine must be prompted by love. He who is acquainted with the law, who sees the unity, spirituality, and breadth of its demands, is in a hopeful condition. Much more are they in a hopeful condition who perceive that their own love is far short of those demands, and who grieve on that account. “Blessed are they that mourn”—they who “hunger and thirst after righteousness.” Other good things appear about this young man: he had a teachable spirit, and was willing to learn the truth, though the one who advocated it was unpopular. He knew that Christ was the object of opprobrium and censure from the members of his own class, the scribes and Pharisees; and he directed his inquiry with an evident desire to learn the truth, as is shown by the apparent readiness and gladness with which he received and acknowledged it. He not only showed a high regard for holy things, but a practical interest in them. But all this was not enough. He did not enter into the full privilege of the gospel. He did not commit himself to the truth by crossing the bridge, and burning it behind him. Bengel says, “If thou art near, and not afar off from, the kingdom, enter in; otherwise it were better that thou wert afar off all the time.” With indifference and lukewarmness Christ is especially displeased. To the Laodicean he says, “I would thou wert cold or hot.” To live in this border land of the kingdom, this lukewarm, indifferent state, is a position of danger. One is not safe until he is not merely “not far from the kingdom,” but is actually in it; for there is no standing still. A state of hopefulness may be easily lost. The Laodicean feels very well contented where he is; and the danger is that he will be inclined to stop there, and never rouse himself to press forward and reach the goal. From a consciousness of having made some attainments, it is easy to come to think that “greater are not necessary, and to grow proud and self-righteous. From simply being candid, we are in danger of becoming indifferent; and our probation may suddenly end before we have made our calling and election sure. How lamentable that so many who sometimes seem not far from the kingdom should never enter therein; that many whose cases seem so hopeful should stop short of saving faith, and be at last cast away. To enter the kingdom of God is to become true Christians: first to understand, and then to obey habitually, the laws by which God endeavors to govern our hearts. A man is qualified to become a member of any earthly kingdom by acknowledging its government, and yielding willing obedience to its laws. So in the kingdom of God. There is a state of mind which fits a man to be a loyal subject to that government. To be Christlike, to acknowledge Christ’s person, to love him, to try to find out what he wishes, and to do it, in humble dependence on him,—this is to have entered the kingdom of God, in the sense in which Christ used the term, and to be an active citizen in support of his government. And the words of the scripture before us remind us that there are approaches leading to this holy state. There are states of mind in which we are almost citizens of the household of God, but not quite; when we have not actually entered the kingdom of God, but are not far from it. And it seems from the language that there are vast differences among those who are not far from the kingdom. There are some who deserve credit for the progress they have made, and others who seem to deserve censure for having pushed no further along in the way of fellowship with the kingdom. The scribe to whom our Lord spoke, evidently belonged to the first class. He had done what so few of us, living in the full blaze of Christian light, are able to do; he had seen that religion is essentially an inward, spiritual thing, a thing of the heart, and that, however correct a man’s acts or belief may be, he is not a religious man, unless, with every power of his body, his intellect, and his soul, he loves God and his fellow men. The deepest interest must ever attach to those utterances of Christ, in which he pronounced upon the moral and spiritual state of those who came before him. He knew what was in man. He speaks of his kingdom as a definite actuality. It is a distinct sphere, or region, with a frontier line marking it off from all else. Between the profession that the scribe made, and the gospel that Christ was offering, there was a sharp, intelligible boundary which he must cross, if he would pass from one to the other. But while this boundary is distinct and clear, it is evident that Christ recognizes every approach toward that kingdom. He does not look upon all as distant from God before they have obeyed his call and arrayed themselves as his disciples; wherever conscience is awake, wherever any man is cherishing the light, and is fearful lest by his unfaithfulness he should turn it into darkness, he is surely near, and is coming nearer, to the kingdom of God. “There is nothing more touching,” says Buckworth, “or more admirable, in the ministry of Christ, than his untiring outlook for what is hopeful in human nature.” Still there was a higher state for this scribe to reach. He was on the verge of the kingdom, but still he was outside. He had not yet learned to love. When a man comes to realize that his weakness must be re-enforced by supernatural strength, and casts himself upon the Deliverer, who is mighty to save, then the passage takes place from the natural and earthly to the divine and heavenly; the boundary line is crossed, and he who was nigh no longer outside, but is within, the kingdom, and is a fellow citizen with the saints, and of the household of God. C. H. Spurgeon remarks: “Among those who have turned out to be the most determined enemies of the gospel, are many who once were so near to conversion that it was a wonder that they avoided it. Such persons seem ever after to take vengeance upon the holy influence which had almost proved too much for them. Hence our fear for persons under gracious impressions; for if they do not now decide for God, they will become the more desperate in sin. That which is set in the sun, if it be not softened, will be hardened. I remember well a man who, under the influence of an earnest revivalist, was brought to his knees, to cry for mercy, in the presence of his wife and others; but never afterward would enter a place of worship, or pay attention to427 religious conversation. He declared that his escape was so narrow that he would never run the risk again. Alas! that one should graze the gates of heaven, and yet drive on to hell.” The following words are credited to a Christian minister: “When, after safely circumnavigating the globe, the ‘Royal Charter’ went to pieces in Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Wales, it was my melancholy duty to visit, and seek to comfort, the wife of the first officer, made by that calamity a widow. The ship had been telegraphed from Queenstown, and the lady was sitting in her parlor expecting her husband, with the table spread for the evening meal, when the messenger came to tell her he was drowned. Never can I forget the grief, so stricken and tearless, with which she wrung my hand as she said, ‘So near home, and yet lost!’ That seemed to me the most terrible of human sorrow. But, ah! that is nothing to the anguish which must wring the soul that is compelled to say, at last, ‘Once I was at the very gate of heaven, and had almost entered in; but now I am in hell.’ Agrippa said to Paul, ‘Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.’” “Almost can not avail;
Almost is but to fail!
Sad, sad, that bitter wail—
Almost,—but lost!” It is a trite saying that “to be almost saved is to be entirely lost;” but it will never lose its terrible truthfulness. — U. S.