THE argument from physics is just about as inconclusive as that from "geological evidence." He says:—
1. "Sir William Thompson, applying Fourier's theory of thermal conductivity, pointed out some years ago (1862) that in the known rate of increase of temperature downward and beneath the surface, and the rate of loss of heat from the earth, we have a limit to the antiquity of the planet. He showed, from the data available at the time, that the superficial consolidation of the globe could not have occurred less than twenty million years ago, . . . nor more than four hundred million years ago; . . . he inclines rather toward the lower than the higher antiquity, but concludes that the limit, from a consideration of all the evidence, must be placed within some such period of past time as one hundred million of years."
2. "The argument from tidal retardation proceeds on the admitted fact, that, owing to the friction of the tide-wave, the rotation of the earth is retarded, and is therefore much slower now than it must have been at one time. Sir William Thompson contends that had the globe become solid ten thousand million years ago, or indeed any high antiquity above one hundred million years, the centrifugal force due to the more rapid rotation must have given the planet a very much greater polar flattening than it actually possesses. He admits, however, that, though one hundred million years ago that force must have been about three per cent. greater than now, yet 'nothing we know regarding the figure of the earth and the disposition of land and water would justify us in saying that a body consolidated when there was more centrifugal force by three per cent. than now, might not now be in all respects like the earth, so far as we know it at present.'"
Thus, first, he contends that if the earth had become solid one hundred million years ago, it would have been much flatter at the poles than it is, yet is willing to admit that had it become solid then, we do not know but that it would have been now just as it is. Then if the result is the same in either case, where is the use of going back one hundred million years, or ten thousand million years, for the start? And so "Professor Tait concludes that this argument, taken in connection with the previous one, probably reduces the possible period which can be allowed to geologists to something less than ten millions of years." "What a falling off is there, my countrymen!" From ten thousand million to simply ten million! May we hope from this that they will finally reach the reasonable limit?
But Mr. Geikie has not yet exhausted his "argument" on the age of the earth; he presents his third from physics, thus:—
3. "The third argument, based upon the age of the sun's heat, is confessedly less reliable than the two previous ones."
But the "two previous ones" themselves are confessedly unreliable, and, if the third be admitted as "confessedly less reliable" than they, how much reliability has geological science for the age of the earth?
The secret, however, of the whole matter is exposed in his last remark on this subject:—
"One hundred million of years is probably amply sufficient for all the requirements of geology."
Yes, the geological ship has been launched upon the tide of speculation, and nothing less than one hundred million years will give her sea-room.
Next in order, we come to Part IV., Structural Geology—Order of Superposition—The Foundation of Geological Chronology:—
"As sedimentary strata are laid down upon one another in a more or less nearly horizontal position, the underlying beds must be older than those which cover them. This simple and obvious truth is termed the law of superposition."
Again, Part V., under "Use of Fossils:"—
"The true order of superposition is decisive of the relative ages of stratified rocks." "For geological purposes, therefore, and indeed for all purposes of comparison between the different faunas and floras of different periods, it is absolutely essential, first of all, to have the order of superposition of strata rigorously determined. Unless this is done, the most fatal mistakes may be made in Palæontological chronology."
And yet again, Part VI., No. 1:—
"In every stratigraphical research the fundamental requisite is to establish the order of superposition of the strata. Until this is accomplished, it is impossible to arrange the dates and make out the sequence of geological history."
This would be all plain and easy enough, if the rocks always and everywhere were lying in their true and original position. But in some places "the rocks composing huge mountain masses have been so completely overturned that the highest beds appear as if regularly covered by others which ought properly to underlie them."
Let us bring some of these statements together in the form of a parallel that we may more readily see their mutual bearing.
"The underlying beds must be older than those which cover them. This simple and obvious truth is termed the law of superposition." "The rocks comprising huge mountain masses have been so completely overturned that the highest beds appear as if regularly covered by others which ought properly to underlie them." In such instances "the apparent superposition may be deceptive."
So then "this simple and obvious truth" is not the truth. And then what becomes of the law of superposition? We rather incline to the opinion that it has been "completely overturned" as well as have been the mountain masses, and at the same time that they were. If, therefore, the apparent superposition may be deceptive, how are we to guard against deception? If huge mountain masses are lying in a directly inverted position to that of the valleys or the plains, how can we tell which is "upside down"? And how is the true order of superposition to be settled?
Just here the geologist's summum bonum, the fossil, comes in, thus:—
"It is by their characteristic fossils that the divisions of the stratified rocks can be most satisfactorily made. Each formation being distinguished by its own assemblage of organic remains, it can be followed and recognized even amid the crumplings and dislocations of a disturbed region."
Again:—
"But it is mainly by the remains of plants and animals imbedded in the rocks that the geologist is guided in unraveling the chronological succession of geological changes."
And further, one of the uses of fossils is plainly stated to be "to furnish a guide in geological chronology whereby rocks may be classified according to relative date, and the facts of geological history may be arranged and interpreted as a connected record of the earth's progress." From these statements it plainly appears that it is by the evidence of fossils that the "order of succession," or "superposition," or "relative age of strata" is made out.
Yet under "Relative Age of Fossils," is this equally plain statement:—
"The chronological sequence of fossils must be determined first of all by the order of superposition of their enclosing strata;" because "there is nothing in the fossils themselves, apart from experience, to fix their date."
Here are two statements that we wish to place side by side, that it may be seen what they really say. And what they do say, although it may appear surprising, can be sustained by a greater number of quotations than are here already given.
"It is mainly by the remains of plants and animals [fossils] imbedded in the rocks that the geologist is guided in unraveling the chronological succession of geological changes." "The chronological sequence [succession] of fossils [remains] must be determined first of all by the order of superposition [chronological succession] of their enclosing strata."
One of these says that the relative age of the rocks is determined by the fossils. The other says that the relative age of the fossils is determined by the rocks.
What is this but reasoning in a circle? Thus, for instance, the geologists say to us, "Here is a stratum of rock that was deposited fifty millions of years ago." But we ask, "How do you prove that?" They reply, "We prove it by the fact that in it are imbedded organic remains of the earliest forms of life that appeared on this planet." But again we ask, "How do you prove that to be 'the earliest form of life'?" The reply is, "We prove that by the simple fact of their being imbedded in that particular stratum of rock." Yes, certainly, prove each by the other, and they will then both be true. All this may be geological, but it assuredly is not logical, nor is it according to established rules of evidence.
A Witty and Candid Answer.
FROM the New York Observer we clip the following quotation and comments:—
"The Philadelphia Press of March 21 has something right to the point. The remark could not be better if it were made for the occasion:—
"That Boanerges of Romanist polemics, the late Louis Veuillot, when charged with impudent inconsistency in demanding toleration at the hands of the French Republic, replied: 'Certainly; we demand it when you are in power, because it is your principle; when we are in power we refuse it, because intolerance is our principle.' The response has become historic, because it was candid, as well as because it was witty. It discloses the attitude of that church in every age and in every country. In full accord with this attitude are the measures now before the New York Legislature, of which what is known as the Gibbs Bill, amended and progressed Thursday in the State Senate, will probably be the residuum that will go to the Assembly and then prove one of the 'features' of the session.'
"That is precisely what we have so often illustrated by examples in the history of the Romish church. It demands favors, never gives them. It expels Protestant worship from Rome, demands admission into private institutions with its own forms of worship. It asks toleration because Protestants believe in it; it denies toleration because intolerance is its own principle.
"Now this is an intolerable assumption. The one thing that must not be tolerated is intolerance. And when it comes to pass that the intolerant church seeks to force its forms upon those who do not want them, we must assert the principle that intolerance is not to be tolerated."
Three Stages in Giving
THERE are three stages in giving: the first where a person gives without feeling it, because he gives a little when asked, and has no interest in it. In the second, the person gives from a sense of duty, and so as to feel it. In the third, he gives and does not feel it, because it is from the heart, and he realizes that he is giving, not of his own, but of the Lord's, that proportion which indicates a recognition that all belongs to God, and he knows he will not suffer for it.
The Swindled Poor.
By Editor
THAT shameless iniquity by which the poor people who trusted three millions of dollars to the Roman Catholic Archbishop Purcell, still cries, like Abel's blood, for vengeance. It is worse than a ghost and will not down. Its latest appearance is in a letter to the late Baltimore Council, a bitter cry of distress that would move any heart that had the smallest sympathy with justice or the least consideration for the poor, swindled out of their money by an unscrupulous priesthood.
Three times those suffering people have appealed to the pope, but they might as well have appealed to the Mahdi. What does he care, or what can he do if he did care? We will copy a passage from this appeal as an exposure of the wrong, an exhibition of the misery it has caused and of the utter heartlessness of the church authorities, which have at this moment in their hands the property which was obtained by the money out of which these poor people were swindled. Nothing more disgraceful was perpetrated by the Church of Rome in the Dark Ages, and the private members were not more helpless at the feet of ecclesiastical despotism in those days than these defrauded people are now. But listen to their groans and pleas for help:—
"Our sole purpose in addressing you on the assembling of this National Council is simply to invoke your aid in having justice done to the many thousands of Archbishop Purcell's creditors and their suffering families. No tongue can tell or pen depict the calamities that have followed in the train of that disaster. It is not alone the poverty that covered the unhappy victims, the hope and belief that have been shattered by years of disappointment, and the mists of uncertainty that hang around the future, that should alarm the shepherds of the flock of Christ, but the doubts of salvation that have arisen in the minds of thinking Catholics, and the absolute denials of future bliss that have pushed aside the faith of many devoted followers of the cross. Three times we appealed to the head of the church for redress, and he has treated each application with silent contempt. For more than five years we have awaited some action. Even the funds subscribed by the generous Catholics of the United States in 1879, in aid of Archbishop Purcell's creditors, were never disposed of as the donors expected, nor was any account ever rendered of the amount or disposition of these contributions. We make this last appeal for justice to the Catholic bishops of America that shall ever be made to any ecclesiastical authority on behalf of Archbishop Purcell's creditors. The appeal of the creditors to the holy father, who alone is gifted with the heavenly prerogative of infallibility, has failed to counsel, cheer, or give us hope that our interests would be attended to here, or joy meet us in the world to come; and if this council of bishops, cognizant of all the facts, follows in the footsteps of the holy father, the case shall be withdrawn from the cloister to the open arena of public opinion."
Poor deluded souls! They think they are addressing men with human sympathies, and American sentiments, with views of moral right that are founded on the ethics of the gospel and the ten commandments. They are wofully mistaken. All that Archbishop Purcell did is justified by the great rulers of the Church of Rome. This money was obtained from "the faithful" who intrusted it to their spiritual guides, who promised to keep it safely, employ it in church purposes, paying lawful interest for it and refunding the principal in due time. The churches and colleges and convents built with the money are there, but the principal and interest of the money are nowhere, and now the people say, in wails of misery, "No tongue can tell or pen depict the calamities that have followed in the train of that disaster."
Not a disaster, it was a stupendous fraud and crime, in which religion was made the instrument to work the ruin of innocent, confiding souls.—N. Y. Observer.
Not To Be Disregarded.
AN institution or an ordinance established or appointed by God himself for his people must have transcendent claims to practical recognition. The Christian church is such an institution, and all who regard themselves as Christians should unite with it and continue in it as consistent members. The possibility of being as good a Christian out of the church as in it may be asserted, but it cannot be proved; and the result of all observation is anything but assuring in regard to the validity of such a claim. Often has the experiment been unsuccessfully made. The reason is obvious. It is not according to the divine plan for Christians to be with the world, instead of in the church. Remaining out of the church involves disobedience to the most imperative commands of the supreme Lawgiver, and deprives those so doing of invaluable privileges.
Those who would cleave unto the Lord should not only unite with the church, but they should give the church the first place in their interest and in their endeavors, caring and doing more for it than any other claimant. If anything must be neglected, let it not be the church; if any meetings must be given up, let them not be those of the church. Never should it be forgotten that the church is a divine institution, and has claims vastly superior to those of any other organization. Whatever comes in competition with it should be regarded with suspicion. It should never be secondary; but always first. Of weighty import is the consideration that there will always be a church, while this cannot be said of any other association. Those who will find the church triumphant, hereafter, in Heaven, will not then and there find any temperance society, or other mutual benefit or benevolent fraternity, or order or lodge, or club, of whatever name. This comparison is not for the disparagement of many other worthy and really excellent bodies, but simply for presenting a distinguishing fact concerning the church, showing its pre-eminence and establishing its superlative claims.
To cleave unto the church is to cleave to its divinely appointed ordinances, the most prominent of which are baptism and the Lord's supper, the one being initiative and the other commemorative, but both positive, as requirements of the great Head of the church. As there is a command to repent and believe, so, also, there is a command to be baptized, and there is that other command, "Do this in remembrance of me." The converts on the day of Pentecost honored the Lord by obedience to these commands, and it is difficult to see how they could have done otherwise in loyalty to their Lord. To neglect the ordinances will never be found a help to any one in cleaving unto the Lord, as enjoined; but on the other hand, such a neglect is almost sure to be followed by a separation from, and a forsaking of, the Lord. They know not what they do, who presume to consult their own inclinations and preferences regardless of a "thus saith the Lord," respecting the steps to be taken after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Poor evidence is thus afforded as to having actually submitted to him in total self-surrender and entire consecration. Not to "do his commandments," in these particulars, is not encouraging as to ever hearing him say, "Well done."
Many may speak lightly, or worse than lightly, of the church, and treat it accordingly; they may make little or no account of gospel ordinances, as though their observance were not at all obligatory; yet the worthy disciple of the supreme Master will say with the ancient servant of God, "Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments." But assuming to be a Christian, and yet having no respect unto the two leading Christian commandments,—to be baptized, and to remember Christ at his table,—has no promise of exemption from being ashamed.—The Watchman.
A Thought about the Prayer-Meeting.
By Mrs. M. J. Bahler
THERE is a thought which it seems to me few of us consider, which, if it were carried into effect, would greatly add not only to the interest but also to the benefit which all may derive from the prayer-meeting. It is this: To go to the meeting with earnest prayer ascending from the heart that the blessing of God may be felt in that meeting, not upon my heart alone, but upon all who may attend.
Let each individual who goes to the prayer-meeting, go there as he would go were the burden of leading the meeting resting upon him. Just consider for a moment what this implies. Were you placed in a position like this, you would not go carelessly to the meeting, as you might go to your dinner when the hour was announced. Carelessly I said; by this I do not mean not caring for what you might there receive; no, you would care, and expect to receive something enjoyable and strengthening; but you would go with no thought in regard to the preparation of the meal. It has already been prepared, and now you go to partake thereof to gain refreshment and strength.
But do not go thus to the prayer-meeting, expecting there to receive much, with no thought or planning on your part, with your mind filled with thoughts and cares foreign to the meeting. Watch yourself, and see if you will not find that too often as you walk along, enter the door, and even as you take your seat, your mind is engaged in planning how to make the children's dresses, how you will trim your new hat, how you will make a successful bargain in buying or selling corn, wheat, or cattle.
Too often you will find that thoughts and plans like these so occupy the mind that you hardly know when the hymn is announced, and sometimes even as your lips take up the words of sacred song, you find that you are not singing with the spirit nor with the understanding. Can we wonder that the meetings are void of interest, and lacking in spirituality, when the thoughts of those who enter them are upon this, that, and the other scheme?
Let each take an interest in the meeting, if not equal to that of him who is to lead, at least akin to his; let us think of it hours beforehand, pray for its success as we engage in the things our hands find to do, and as its hour approaches, turn the buyers and sellers, the carpenters and dressmakers, from the temple of our hearts. Then let the mind make a visit to the treasure-house of God's holy word, and con the jewels of promise, of hope, of trust, or of sweet, though trying experience, therein portrayed, of some faithful One who has gone over the path before us. Or, resting the mind's eye upon the weary Nazarene in his toilsome paths, ever ministering to others, our souls will gain a fresh hold upon such cords of strength that they will be filled to overflowing with rejoicing and glad thanksgiving. Then as we enter the prayer-meeting I think we shall breathe a freer atmosphere, for as each heart reaches out in earnest supplication for Heaven's blessing upon the meeting, it will surely come.
MRS. M. J. BAHLER.
Born in Zion
"AND of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her; and the Highest himself shall establish her. The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there." Ps. 87 : 5, 6.
When Trouble Is Near
"BE not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help." Ps. 22: 11.
"AND that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures." Timothy was certainly one to whom had been fulfilled the injunction of the Lord upon parents. "And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deut. 6: 6, 7. And thus he grew up with an unfeigned faith. But this was only the fruit of the same unfeigned faith that was in his mother Eunice, and also in his grandmother Lois. This faithful mother had made it her work to instruct her child, when a child, in the holy Scriptures. And so effectual was her work that when her child grew to manhood he was one who was "well reported of by the brethren," and was chosen of the Lord to bear his truth to the world. It would seem, too, that this was done by the mother alone, because "his father was a Greek [a Gentile]." Acts 16: 1-3. And as Timothy and his mother are spoken of as believers, and the father simply as a Gentile, it is evident that he did not accept the faith in Christ. This is simply an example of what a faithful mother can do, with the word of God, notwithstanding the adverse influence of an unbelieving husband.
"THE holy Scriptures." What writing is meant by this term? Certainly what is now called the Old Testament. It is impossible that it should be anything else, because when Timothy was a child there was no part written of what is called the New Testament. And in no place in the New Testament are the writings of the New Testament spoken of as the Scripture, but in every instance where that term is used it has sole reference to the Old Testament. Christ, after reading a portion of Isaiah, said, "This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." Luke 4: 16-21. And on the day of his resurrection, on the way to Emmaus "he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." It was out of the Scriptures that the apostles reasoned with the people concerning Jesus, and by which they proved that he is indeed Christ (Acts 2: 14-21, 25-35; 7: 13; 14-41; 17: 2, 10-12; 28: 23); and the Old Testament was the only Scripture they had. We do not say that the New Testament is not Scripture; we simply say that it was not then Scripture, because it was not then written. And even had it been written it could not have been to the apostles a source of appeal, because that would have been simply to appeal to their own words. It is the Old Testament, therefore, to which Paul here refers and which he calls "the holy Scriptures" and which he declares are able to make wise unto salvation.
"ARE able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Christ Jesus is the great central point of the Old Testament as well as of the New. Whoever studies the Old Testament without Christ in view, studies it in vain. He is the one great object of all faith, of the prophets as well as of apostles. As before referred to, he himself "expounded unto them in all the Scriptures" the things concerning himself. Peter, in Acts 3: 22-24, says that Moses, "and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days." And Paul in Rome "persuaded them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." How then can it be that these holy Scriptures can be neglected and a full view of Christ obtained? How can preachers do justice to their calling and despise the Old Testament?
"ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God." It is still the Old Testament to which he refers. It is this that he declares is given "by inspiration of God." We are aware of the other reading that is given to this text to the effect that "all Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable," &c., but the text is correct as it stands. Peter says of the prophets that "the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 1 Pet. 1: 11. And Paul, in another place, says: "When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but, as it is in truth, the word of God." 1 Thess. 2: 13. Notice that this was written to the Thessalonians, and it was with them that he reasoned "out of the Scriptures," and he declares that that was the word of God. So when Paul says that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," that is what he means, and that is what we believe. And when he says that it is all "profitable," we believe that, and would slight none of it, but would reverently use it "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
BECAUSE as it was given of God for this purpose, "that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," no man can be perfect, no man can be furnished unto all good works, who neglects it. We repeat that we do not hold to these things of the Old Testament to the exclusion of the New. We accept the New as being as fully the word of God, and as fully given by inspiration of God, as is the Old. We would take neither to the exclusion of the other. All, Old and New, is the word of God; all is given by inspiration of God; all is profitable. They who accept the Old Testament and reject the New are wrong. They who accept the New and reject the Old are equally wrong. The New cannot be fully understood without the Old, neither can the Old be fully understood without the New. And there is the book of Revelation; that cannot be fully understood without all the rest of the Bible together. We have heard a good deal about keys to the book of Revelation, but the best of all keys is a thorough understanding of all the other parts of the Bible.
"I CHARGE thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. Preach the word." This solemn charge is to all men who enter upon the work to which Timothy was called, as well as to him. In another place he says to him, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." And in another place, "Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all." It is the duty, therefore, of the minister, to study the word of God, meditate upon it, give himself wholly to it, then preach it.
BUT alas! how little the word of God is studied even by the majority of ministers at the present day. It is no unusual thing to hear prominent ministers quote as veritable Scripture that of which there is no hint in the Bible. But as little as it is studied, how much less it is preached! True, the text is taken from the Bible, it may be a verse, it may be only a part of a verse, or perhaps a single word. Then a learned essay is read, or a fine display of rhetoric is made, which is just as apt to be directly contrary to the word as otherwise. As has been well expressed by Moody, "They will find the text in the Bible, and then go all over Christendom for the sermon." And that is supposed to be preaching the word! But it is311nothing of the kind. He who puts the most of the word of God, properly delivered, into his sermon, does the best preaching.
ABUNDANCE of directions are given in the Bible as to how to preach the word. We will transcribe some. "I do send thee unto them, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God. . . . And thou shalt speak my words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear. . . . Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, all my words that I shall speak unto thee receive in thine heart, and hear with thine ears. And go, get thee unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord God; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." Eze. 2:4, 7; 3:10, 11. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" Jer. 23:28, 29. "And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; . . . and Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people (for he was above all the people); and when he opened it, all the people stood up; and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands; and they bowed their heads, and worshiped the Lord with their faces to the ground. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." Neh. 8:4-6, 8. Such as that is genuine preaching. What a happy thing it would be for the people if it were everywhere followed to-day. Paul did so; and Peter did so. Let us do so. Preach the word.
"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine." Considerable objection is made in these days to the preaching of doctrine. And that is the very thing that is commanded to be preached. "Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine." "Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine, continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee." "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine." 1 Tim. 4:13, 16; 5:17. "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." Titus 1:9. "Exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine." 2 Tim. 4:2. "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine." No man can obey the Scriptures and neglect doctrine. The minister must give attendance to doctrine; he must take heed to doctrine; he must labor in doctrine; he must speak doctrine; he must convince gainsayers by doctrine; and he must exhort by doctrine. And this too, at the time, and for the very reason, that they will not endure sound doctrine. When people despise the word, then is the very time when the word must be preached. Speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.
"A CROWN of righteousness . . . at that day." This has reference solely to that one great day,—the day of Christ's appearing. Then it is that Paul, with all other righteous men, dead and living, will be rewarded. "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22:12. "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Luke 14:14. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3:4. "When the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Pet. 5:4. Thus the apostles, the prophets, and all the faithful ones of old, looked to "that day" for the consummation of their hope. Thus they "obtained a good report through faith," but "received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Heb. 11:39, 40. Behold he comes quickly, his reward is with him, his work before him. Crowns of righteousness and of glory are his to give "in that day," to all those who love his appearing. Are you waiting for his glorious appearing? Will you "love his appearing"? To them that look for him, he appears unto salvation. Heb. 9:28.
A. T. J.
The Sabbath-School.
LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JUNE 13.
Inheritance of the Saints.
(Continued.)
CHRIST THE PROMISED SEED.
1. To whom besides Abraham himself was the promise made?
"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee." Gen. 17: 7.
2. When the promise was made to his seed, to whom did the Lord specially refer?
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." Gal. 3: 16.
3. Quote the texts given with Gen. 3: 15 to show that Christ is the one who is to win back the earth. Heb. 2: 9, 14. Since Satan, by overcoming Adam, gained possession of the dominion given to him, Christ, by destroying Satan, recovers it again.
4. What will he then have for his possession?
"I will declare the decree; the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Ps. 2: 7, 8.
5. What persons are also called sons of God?
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Rom. 8: 14-16.
6. What follows from the fact that we are children of God?
"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." Rom. 8: 17.
7. Then to be children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise made to him, to whom must we belong?
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3: 29.
8. How is it that we belong to Christ?
"Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 1 Pet. 1: 18, 19.
"And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. 5: 9.
9. What act marks us as his?
"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 3: 27.
10. What have we before seen to be the characteristics of the children of Abraham?
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John 8: 39.
11. And what were the works of Abraham?
"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. 26: 5.
12. What verse in the New Testament, then, gives a complete description of his children?
"Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14: 12.
Shields of Gold and Shields of Copper.
WHEN Shishak, king of Egypt, returned from the conquest of Jerusalem, in the reign of King Rehoboam, he carried away with him, among other treasures, the shields of gold which Solomon had made. We do not read that before this disaster Rehoboam had set any special value upon these golden shields, or that he had taken any special care of them; but no sooner had they been carried away to adorn the temples or the palaces of Egypt, than he seems keenly to have felt their loss. And so he made for himself shields of copper in their stead, and gave them into the charge of a trusty guard. "And it was so, when the king went into the house of the Lord, that the guard bare them, and brought them back into the guard-chamber."
The picture is true to human nature. Too often when the treasure of pure gold is put into our hands, we lightly esteem it, slight it, and suffer it to be snatched away from us by the enemy. Not till it is gone, do we realize its value. Then we lament, too late, the carelessness which permitted the treasure to be torn from our grasp, and we make a poor attempt to supply its place and to atone for our former negligence by making for ourselves a treasure of copper, and guarding it with that jealous care with which we should have guarded the treasures of gold. But the shields of copper can never fully take the place of the shields of gold; and there is a sense of loss and of unreality in the very earnestness with which we guard the tarnished copper where tarnished gold should have shone. Even if others do not know, we know ourselves, that it is base metal which shines upon our temple walls, and our passionate zeal for what remains to us is less a zealous love for the guarded shields of copper than an undying regret for the vanished gold.
There must have been something pathetic in the sight of these copper shields borne into the temple when the king went up to worship, and then carried back into the guard-chamber to be kept safely under lock and key. And we are conscious of the same pathos in the way in which men guard the copper of life after they have lost its gold. The gold is gone, but they will act as if the copper which they have, were gold. They have lost the simple faith of their childhood; but if they cannot believe as a child believes, they will believe as a man believes who would become again as a little child. Years ago, it might have been possible for them to love all men; it is, perhaps, not possible now; and yet they will act as if they did love all men. The child-like sense of the constant presence of God has passed away; yet they resolve to act as if they always felt God near, and they will cherish with a passionate devotedness whatever reminds them of his presence. What is lost, is lost; they will offer to the Lord God of what they have and will guard it with the more earnest care because it is so little.
And yet it is better not to lose the shields of gold.—S. S. Times.