Earlier text: General Articles1. By what names is the adversary of souls represented?
"The dragon, that old serpent, which is the devil, and Satan." Rev. 20:2. 2. What exalted position did he once occupy in Heaven?
"Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire." Eze. 28:14. 3. What especial favors had God bestowed upon him?
"Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty." Verse 12, last clause. 4. What trait of character did he at length manifest?
"Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness." Verse 17. 5. What blasphemous design did he conceive?
"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." Isa. 14:13, 14. 6. How does God regard the proud?
"Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; though hand join in hand, he shall not be unpunished." Prov. 16:5. 7. What took place through Satan's apostasy?—There was war in Heaven. 8. How is this event described by the revelator?
"Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." Rev. 12:7-9. 9. In what work is Satan engaged on earth?
"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour." 1 Peter 5:8. 10. What are his especial characteristics?
"He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44. 11. What was his first great deception on earth?
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die; for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil." Gen. 3:4, 5. 12. What was Satan's object in deceiving our first parents?—To gain dominion over the earth. 13. To what extent did he succeed?—Our Saviour calls him the "prince of this world." John 14:30. 14. What was the consequence of Adam's sin?
"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken." Gen. 3:22, 23. 15. What curse was pronounced upon him?
"Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Verse 19, last clause. 16. Was Adam's sinful nature transmitted to his posterity?
"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. 5:12. 17. How was the serpent cursed?
"And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field." Gen. 3:14. 18. What is the only ray of hope for fallen man, presented in this dark picture?
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Verse 15. 19. Who is the seed that is to bruise the serpent's head?—The Lord Jesus Christ. CHRIST BETRAYED.
By Francis N. Zabriskie
WHO are the professed Christians that deliver up Christ and betray their Master? They are not alone the men of expediency, like Pilate. They are more often the lovers of self-gratification, like Herod. For awhile they seem to run well. Their crucial test does not come till they reach Vanity Fair, where are displayed on every side the lusts and pleasures, the honors and preferments, the gold and jewels, of the world in glittering profusion. Little by little their hearts relax their vigilance, and their eyes wander over the "delights of all sorts" which are heaped around. They begin to reason themselves out of their scruples, and to indulge a little, and a little more, in things which their hearts tell them are not favorable to piety—till, at last, they quench and grieve away the Spirit. They adopt the principle of self-indulgence, and seek not so much to fit themselves for Heaven as to get all they can out of the earth on the way. They cease, in a word, to be pilgrims, and become permanent residents in Vanity Fair, which is only the City of Destruction in its gala dress. Wheresoever their god of pleasure and the pleasure of God present conflicting claims, they hold to the first and reject the other. They sink down before the eyes of the world to its own level, and perhaps far below the level of its best names. Men draw an unfavorable testimony from their career to the reality and power of religion, and unbelievers adduce them as arguments and hold them up as objects of ridicule. They crucify the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.—Rev. Dr. F. N. Zabriskie, in Christian Intelligencer. "As the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool." Eccl. 7:6. "DONKEY parties," are becoming quite popular among some of the churches. The young people are said to be captivated with them, and the monthly social is a greater success than ever. The thing is done up in something like this fashion. A picture of a donkey without any tail is put on the wall. Then pins and paper tails are distributed to the trustees, deacons, Sunday-school teachers, and young ladies present. In turn each is taken to the opposite side of the room from the other donkey, and blindfolded, and made to turn around three times and then walk across and pin the tail on the part of the donkey's anatomy where it belonged. When the tail is put on the donkey's nose, or back, or hung up in the air, everybody roars and brays and fairly screams with laughter. We don't know whether the social closes with prayer or not. We do know that only a donkey church would permit such a performance.—Michigan Advocate. Happiness Comes from Within
LEARN in childhood, if you can, that happiness is not outside, but inside. A good heart and a clear conscience bring happiness which no riches and no circumstances alone ever do. REMEMBER LOT'S WIFE.
By Arthur Tappan Pierson
Lot's wife looked back. The command was explicit: it forbade looking behind—and the word for "look" implies a deliberate contemplation, steady regard, the look of consideration, desire. She looked back wistfully, longingly. The fact was, her heart was yet in Sodom, where all her treasures were. She had become identified with her home there, and even the threatened wrath of God could not avert her eyes or quicken her steps. Abraham also "looked" toward Sodom, but the word signifies a rapid, and even unintentional, or casual, glance. He glanced with grief and awe: she gazed with longing and regret. She doubtless looked back, as the Israelites did toward Egypt, longing to return, more willing to stay there amid the sins of the Sodomites than to abide apart with God. And so her heart's wish became a fact; her real prayer was strangely answered: where she lingered, there she should stay. She would look back, and henceforth should never look ahead. So sins become habits, and habits incrust us with fixedness, and transform us into immovable pillars, monuments of wrath. God fixed and rooted her where she was; his curse transfixed her, as it blighted, blasted, withered the barren fig-tree; and so Lot's wife, to this day, is herself the personification of Sodom, its sins, and its punishment. The only safe obedience is a prompt, implicit, and exact conformity to God's command. No part of his word can be unheeded without risk; we may run from one peril only to fall a prey to another. A divided heart is like the "double" eye, and singleness of aim is as important as singleness of vision. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways. Religion at bottom means renunciation. We cannot serve God and mammon. We are to give up what is sinful, selfish, sensual, devilish, leave them behind, and not even look back. God will have the whole heart or none. The narrow gate compels him who would enter to drop from his shoulder all worldly incumbrances. We go into God's Eden as naked as we come into life; we may not wear even the goodly Babylonian garment or bear the wedge of gold. A heart separated unto God is the prime necessity. Backward looks betray backward longings, and beget backward steps. Lot's wife has always had more followers than God's angels have. Look at the worldly-minded disciples in the church today. Roused by fear to flee from the wrath to come, stirred by the warning of some special providence, or by the pressing entreaty of grace, they profess to leave Sodom behind. But they linger about the edge of destruction. They look back with longing, and linger and loiter on the way. And you may see them all about you, mere pillars of salt, without life or action, motion or emotion. The world has turned them to salt, not of the saving and savoring sort, but that which represents sterility. If they are saved from the fire, it is so as by fire, and their works are burned up. They have lost their testimony for God, and have become only a warning to backsliders. Oh, ye who are making homes, where are you choosing to pitch your household tent? Where are you, husbands, leading your wives, and you, parents, your sons and daughters, to find their social and moral atmosphere? And you who have professed to flee from Sodom lest you partake of her crimes, look not back lest you partake of her plagues!—A. T. Pierson, D. D. Grace According to Our Need
God gives us grace according to our need. An exchange says: "Many persons seem to think that because the ten commands were done away, we have no moral precepts to guide us. I will, therefore, in a few words, show that nine of the commands—all the moral part—are adopted or reenacted in the new law (New Testament) which is now our authority in place of the old law that it supersedes and annuls." There are many people who entertain just such ideas as are expressed in this quotation, and therefore before we examine that which the writer gives as a substitute for the decalogue, we wish to show how erroneous such assumptions are. 1. It is assumed that the ten commandments were done away. But this is in direct contradiction of what the Scriptures say of God's purpose concerning the law, and of its nature. First read a few statements: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them forever." Ps. 119:152. "Thy word is true from the beginning; and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever." Verse 160. "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand [margin, "are established"] fast forever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness." Ps. 111:7, 8. Again, our Saviour said: "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. If it is asked how this can be, the briefest examination of the nature of the law will give the answer. (a) The law of God is the righteousness of God. This is indicated in Isaiah's prophecy: "The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honorable." But Isa. 51:6, 7 shows beyond all question that the law is God's righteousness. We read: "Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath; for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner; but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished. Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law." The people who know righteousness are they in whose heart is the law of God; the obvious meaning is that they know righteousness because the law is in their heart; and this will be made still more evident further on. The righteousness which is known by the law of God is God's righteousness; and when that truth is grasped, we scarcely need to be told that it will not be abolished, for that would be to tear God from his throne. Now we can understand how it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for a particle of the law to fail. (b) The law of God is his will. Paul says: "Behold thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent [triest the things that differ], being instructed out of the law." Rom. 2:17, 18. This is perfectly in harmony with the statement that the law is God's righteousness, for God is righteous, and his will must be righteous. That the ten commandments are referred to by "the law" is evident from verses 21-23. Now since the ten commandments are the righteousness of God, and his will, it necessarily follows that they cannot be abolished. Be it understood that when "the law" is mentioned, there is no discrimination, but the whole law is referred to. David had reference to the whole law when he said: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Now if a part of the law were abolished, it would be no more perfect. But it is useless to speak about the possibility or probability of the abolition of any part of the law; for it would be impossible to abolish any portion of it. God himself could not abolish any portion of it; for that would be to abolish his own goodness, and "he cannot deny himself." So long as God's throne is in Heaven, and his kingdom rules over all, so long must the ten commandments, the law of his kingdom, remain intact. 2. It is assumed that only nine of the ten commandments were moral, and that the fourth was not. But this assumption is itself fatal to the assumption that the ten commandments were done away; for a moral law cannot be done away. Moral duties grow out of the nature of God, and they cannot be done away so long as God is God. He who admits that nine of the ten commandments are moral thereby admits that they cannot be abolished. Let us make this point a little more clear. If a law is abolished, then the duty which it once enjoined is no longer a duty, and that which it forbade is no longer a crime. Now take the seventh commandment. If that were ever abolished, even though it were afterward re-enacted, there must have been a time when it was not an immoral act to commit adultery! So also of the eighth commandment: if that were abolished, then it was not wrong to steal. But no right-minded person can conceive of a time when it would be right to kill, steal, or commit adultery. Now if it could never be right for all people to live promiscuously, as to persons and property, or for human life to be considered as of no value, or for God's name to be held in no repute, then it follows that the commandments which forbid such things must always be in force. It is impossible for anyone who has any just conception of morality to imagine such a thing as a moral law being abolished. Having seen that moral commandments cannot be abolished, let us consider the fourth commandment in particular. It is claimed that it is not moral. Did it ever occur to anyone to wonder why God should insert a non-moral commandment in the midst of moral precepts? It would be much easier to answer the statement that it is not moral, if those who say so would tell us what is necessary to constitute a moral precept. "Moral" is defined as "relating to duty or obligation." Well, the Sabbath commandment was given by the Creator of the universe, and375 certainly it is man's duty to obey. We cannot conceive of anything that could have more effect in making a commandment moral than that it came from God, for he is the source of all morality. As with the other commandments, so with the fourth: we cannot conceive of a time when to violate it would not be sin. The Sabbath commandment is the first of which we have the record of its being given to man. In Eden at the close of creation it was sanctified. It "was made for man." It was based on the unalterable facts of creation (Gen. 2:2, 3); so that the only way it could be abolished would be to abolish the fact that the earth was created, which is of course impossible. It is sometimes claimed that the fourth commandment is not like the others, because, while they are to be kept every moment of time, it requires a duty only once a week. Such have read the commandment to little purpose. The very first word, "remember," covers every moment of a man's life. Not only during the twenty-four hours of the Sabbath is the fourth commandment to be kept, but during all the hours of the week. The man who does not remember the Sabbath every working day, will not keep the Sabbath when it comes. The fourth commandment covers the six days of labor as well as the seventh day of rest; and when we consider that it alone of all the ten, names and specifies the giver of the law, we cannot fail to see that it is the very heart of the moral law. Take it away, and there would be nothing to point out the authority of the lawgiver. We will now examine the new law, as given by our exchange. It is as follows:— 1—One God; Eph. iv, 6, and 1 Cor. viii, 6.
2—Idolatry forbidden; 1 Cor. vi, 9; x, 7-14, and 1 John v, 21.
3—Swearing forbidden; Jas. v, 12.
4—Sabbath; nowhere enjoined, either by precept or example.
5—Obedience to parents enjoined; Eph. vi, 1-2, and Col. iii, 20.
6—Murder forbidden; Rom. xiii, 9; Gal. v, 21; 1 Pet. iv, 15; 1 John iii, 15.
7—Adultery; Rom. xxxi, 9; 1 Cor. vi, 9; Heb. xiii, 4; Jas. iv, 4.
8—Steal not; Rom. xiii, 9; Eph. iv, 28.
9—False witness; Rom. xiii, 9.
10—Covetousness forbidden; Rom. xiii, 9; 1 Cor. vi, 10; Eph. v, 5. We have copied the above exactly, and are not responsible for the reference to Rom. 31. The first "commandment" of this new law tells us that there is one God. Very well, we can believe that, but the mere statement that there is one God does not involve any duty. The devils themselves can and do keep such a commandment as that. See James 2:19. The fact is, the texts cited contain no semblance of a commandment, as anybody can see for himself. Those scriptures which are referred to as containing the second commandment, refer simply to the first. The second commandment forbids bowing down to images, or the representation of God, by something in heaven or earth. Nothing to this effect is found in the New Testament. Without the Old Testament it would be utterly impossible to convict the Catholic of sin when he makes obeisance to the image of the Virgin Mary or of Christ. The sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth commandments, as given in the "new law," are simply quotations from the decalogue given upon Sinai, and do not purport to be anything else. We are told that, just as the new constitution of California contains many things that were in the old one, so the new law contains many things that were in the decalogue of Sinai, and that therefore we must consider these commandments as part of the new law. But now that the new constitution of California is in force, men do not quote anything from the old one; whereas Paul is quoting directly from the ten commandments of Sinai, and is not giving a new law, nor quoting from some other law in the New Testament. Moreover he declares (Rom. 7:7) that long before this was written, he was convicted of sin by the law which says, "Thou shalt not covet." As to the fourth commandment, we find it taught by the example of Christ and the apostles (Luke 4:16; Acts 13:14; 17:2; 18:4), and also by precept. Matt. 24:20. But this is not why the Sabbath should be kept. It should be kept because "in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed it." One more point should be noticed concerning this alleged new law. That is, that it is quoted from four different men, who wrote about thirty years after Christ. Allowing that they had a right to make laws, and that the scriptures quoted constitute the new law, we should have a period of about thirty years between the crucifixion, when it is alleged that the old law was done away, and the giving of the new law. Thirty years in which there was no moral law whatever! Thirty years in which it was not wrong to swear, kill, steal, lie, and commit adultery! To such lengths of absurdity will men go in their attempts to evade a plain but unpleasant duty. But the simple fact is that Peter, James, John, and Paul had no more authority to enact or re-enact moral precepts than the Pope of Rome has. "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy." James 4:12. Isaiah tells us who this "one lawgiver" is: "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us." Isa. 33:22. If any of the apostles had presumed to speak anything on their own authority, or to enact or re-enact any moral precept, they would have been acting the part of the "man of sin," "the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." To say that the apostles presumed to institute moral precepts, is to basely slander them. From this examination of the matter, and if space allowed it might be made much more thorough, we find that if there is any moral obligation in the world at the present time, it is by virtue of the ten commandments. If they have been done away, then there is no such thing as morality or immorality; there can be no such thing as character. But they have not been abolished; they cannot be abolished; and therefore to fear God and keep his commandments still constitutes the whole duty of man. He who presumes to sit in judgment on the law, and to absolve himself from obedience to any part of it, will find to his sorrow that there is one Lawgiver who is able to destroy. W. EFFECTS OF ERRONEOUS OPINIONS.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
It is very common for those who are quite loose in their belief, or who do not believe much of anything, to ease their consciences by saying, "God will never condemn a man on account of his opinions; it is how a man lives that determines his condition at last." How these people acquired such intimate knowledge of God's plans, so as to be able to speak so definitely of what he will or will not do, is not apparent; for it is very evident from the Bible that a man's opinions have a good deal to do in deciding his final destiny. It seems never to occur to those who use the expression quoted above, that they are strangely inconsistent with themselves. The very ones who use such language will speak very slightingly of one who "has not the courage of his convictions," that is, one who holds opinions which he dare not act out. Such a man they justly accuse of leading a double life; and yet they seem to think that God will be perfectly satisfied with a man who leads such a life. But the great mistake is in supposing that a man can hold opinions which will not to a greater or less extent influence his actions. The statement by Watts, that "the mind's the standard of the man," is but another way of expressing the truth uttered by Solomon, that as a man "thinketh in his heart, so is he." A man cannot entertain vile thoughts and still have all his actions pure. Neither can a man entertain erroneous opinions without acting in accordance with them, unless his circumstances hinder him; and in that case he is entitled to no more credit than the thief in prison is to be commended for not stealing. In times past people have suffered severely on account of their opinions. When Paul says, "By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace," he says in effect that the inhabitants of Jericho perished because they believed not. If they had believed, they might have been saved as well as the harlot Rahab. But they were of the opinion that their gods were stronger than the God of Israel. Somebody might have said to them, "It doesn't make any difference what ideas you have about God; it is your actions that will determine your final lot." But their ideas of God had everything to do in shaping their actions, and their erroneous ideas led them into practices which caused their ruin. Again, we read of the children of Israel: "For some, when they had heard, did provoke; howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he [Christ] grieved forty years? Was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." Heb. 3:16-19. Here we have the plain declaration that it was the unbelief of the Israelites that shut them out of the promised land. "They could not enter in because of unbelief." But would they not have been allowed to enter in if they had not sinned? Certainly; and they would not have sinned but for their unbelief. Their sin was a necessary consequence of their unbelief. How was it with the inhabitants of Sodom? When Lot, who believed the warnings of the angels, went out to tell his relatives that God was going to destroy the city, "he seemed as one that mocked." They regarded him as a fanatic; very likely they thought he was losing his mind, and would have to be cared for. But the Lord did destroy the city, and all those who disbelieved perished with it. It was their opinion that they were safe enough, and in consequence of their erroneous opinion they perished. We may learn a lesson from them. Indeed their case is recorded for our admonition. Christ says: "As it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed." Luke 17:28-30. All over the land the coming of the Lord is being proclaimed. The sure word of prophecy foretells that his coming is now very near. Yet these things are to thousands as idle tales. Those who preach the nearness of the second advent are regarded as fanatical. It is the common opinion that the world is just in its infancy. Men say, "Well, it doesn't make any difference how we believe in regard to the coming of the Lord, if we only live right." But still the truth exists that only "unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Heb. 9:28. Why will this be so? Simply because those who do not believe that his coming is near at hand, will not be getting ready for it. Let no one delude himself with the idea that he has "a right to his own opinions," and that he can believe what he pleases and still be safe at last. It is true that so far as other men are concerned, he has a right to his own opinions; that is, he is not answerable to any man for what he believes; but all men are answerable to God for their opinions. No man has a right to hold an opinion contrary to what God has revealed in his word. And those who shall cling to their self-assumed right to believe what they please, will find at the last that it was a dearly-bought privilege. Among those who "shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death," the unbelieving occupy a prominent place. "Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God." W. THE NEED OF EVANGELISTS.
By Editor
ONE of the associations of Congregationalist Churches in New England lately passed a resolution "objecting to the licensing as evangelists for home missionary service, of men who have not taken a full theological course." The Christian Union decidedly objects to this objection, saying that the colleges and theological seminaries cannot do more than supply the demand for pastors and teachers over established churches, because the graduates from these schools are barely more than enough to fill the vacancies caused by death and departure to non-clerical professions. But the strongest objection made by the Union is stated in the following words:— "The education which culminates in a theological course does not prepare men for this evangelistic work. A young man who has spent three or four years in an academic course, four in college, and three in a theological seminary, is by the very process of such an education unfitted for the work of an evangelist. He is trained away from the people whom the evangelist wishes to reach. He is prepared to teach cultured Christian households, but not to herald the gospel to pagan populations. The greatest evangelist of our times, Dwight L. Moody, not only did not have a college education, but it is safe to say would have been spoiled for his particular work if he had received such an education. We want in our great cities men of the people, educated with the people, accustomed not only to use the language but to think in the thought of the people. Scholastic training which is admirably adapted to prepare the teacher of an up-town church is equally admirably adapted to unfit a preacher to a street or a hall audience." We do not doubt in the least that this is the exact truth of the matter. But what a deplorable condition of things it reveals? The highest effort to train8 men for the work of the gospel, only ends in unfitting them for that work! Ten or eleven years' study by a young man in a theological course undoes him! That is to say that the most thorough educational course furnished by the theological schools of the country, unfits a young man for the very work which, above all others, demands the most thorough and fully rounded education. And for the very good reason that "he is trained away from the people whom the evangelist wishes to reach." Now the evangelist wishes to reach all people, for so the Lord commanded, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature." Therefore no stronger indictment need ever be brought against the theological training of to-day to condemn it utterly, than that it trains men away from the people whom the evangelist wishes to reach. Such education is miseducation, and is worse than no education; such training is worse than no training. Any system of education or training that educates or trains men away from the common people is only a curse, for its only tendency is to develop pride, self-righteousness, and bigotry; its sole tendency is to Pharisaism. "He is prepared to teach cultured Christian households," says the Union. That is to say that he is prepared to teach persons who are trained away from the people just as far as he is himself. But whoever cannot receive the kingdom of Heaven except as a graduate, will never receive the kingdom of Heaven at all. For, said Jesus: "Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein." And whoever is trained to such a pitch that he is disqualified to present the kingdom of God so that it may be received thus, is trained away from the gospel of Christ. And if it be true that the "scholastic training which is admirably adapted to prepare the teacher of an up-town church is equally adapted to unfit a preacher to a street or hall audience," then the fact of the matter is that the "up-town church" is just as far estranged from the real gospel of Christ as is the street or hall audience. The Union thinks that Dwight L. Moody "would have been spoiled for his particular work" if he had received a college education. We very much doubt it. We have an idea that Dwight L. Moody has common sense enough to have kept him from becoming so puffed up by the little knowledge that is imparted in a theological course, as to unfit him for helping the common people to a knowledge of the gospel of Christ. Yet if the inevitable result of a college education be to unfit men for such work, then of course even Mr. Moody would have been unfit for it. We venture the assertion, however, that nobody ever heard Dwight L. Moody say that a college education would have spoiled him for his particular work. Is it then in truth better not to have a college education? Is it true that an uneducated man is better fitted for the work of the gospel? Not by any means. It is not one of the offices of the Spirit of God either to sanction or to sanctify ignorance. Nor does a lack of education commend a man even to uneducated people. There is nothing more interesting nor more attractive to uneducated people than to listen to an educated person speaking in a language that they can understand, and—not condescendingly nor patronizingly but, as it were—unconsciously adapting himself to their capacity. While on the other hand there is nothing that will repel the common people more quickly than to find a man talking to them in language entirely beyond the comprehension of anybody but a lexicographer, and with a manner that seems to be constantly saying, "I am a graduate in theology. I have been trained to teach cultured Christian households in 'up-town churches,' and it is a great condescension on my part to preach to 'a street or a hall audience.'" This last is precisely what makes so objectionable the college education of which the Christian Union speaks. The fault lies not at all against a college education, but against such a system of education. There never was a more highly educated person on this earth than was Jesus of Nazareth, yet "the common people heard him gladly." True, his teaching was not adapted to "cultured" Jewish households in "up-town" synagogues, but this was not the fault of either the matter or manner of his teaching. The fault lay in the proud hearts of the cultured up-town class. And everybody knows that if he had drunk in the spirit of the theological schools of his day, he too "would have been spoiled for his particular work," and he never would have been the Saviour of the world. The education of those schools was precisely such as the Christian Union says it is in these. It unfitted for evangelistic work every man that was taught there. Their students were all "trained away from the people." There was a way, however, by which they could be brought back to the people, and taught "not only to use the language but to think in the thought of the people." That way was by conversion. There is on record a notable instance of this, written, no doubt, as an example to be followed by these very theological schools that are now so admirably successful in unfitting men to preach the gospel. Saul of Tarsus was educated in the chief theological school, and by the chief theologian of his day. In that school he was trained so far away from the people whom the evangelists reached, that he thought he was doing God service by breathing out threatenings and slaughter against them and persecuting them unto strange cities. But he was converted after a while; then he became all things to all men, that he "might by all means save some." Though he was free from all, yet he made himself a servant to all that he might gain the more. He could preach in the street, or in a hall, just as well as in an "up-town" synagogue. He could preach to "pagan populations" just as easily as to "cultured" Jewish households. But whether he preached in the one place or in the other, he preached "Jesus Christ and him crucified." He preached "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." And although he was learned in all the wisdom of the schools, his speech and his preaching was not to make a display of his eloquence, it was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power. He spake too in the language of the people, that he might be understood. To the church at Corinth he said: "Except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." "I speak with tongues more than ye all; yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue." If the instructors in these theological schools should become converted to Christ, and should lead to Jesus those committed to their charge, and have them learn of Christ, the young men would not then be trained away from the people; they would not then be unfitted for the work of an evangelist; then an education instead of spoiling them for the work of Christ, would only the better fit them to obey the Scripture injunction, to "do the work of an evangelist," and "make full proof of their ministry," as it did for Paul, and Luther, and Wesley, and Finley, and Asbury, and Finney, and Simpson; as, in short, it ever has done for those who have made Christ and his salvation supreme, and have subordinated to his will themselves and their education. J.