A NEW book has been issued with the title, “Passing Protestantism and Coming Catholicism.” In a review of this book, the Outlook says:—
Is it true that Protestantism is passing, and Catholicism is coming? This depends upon what we mean by Protestantism and Catholicism. If by Protestantism is meant individualism in religion,—that is, that religion is a purely personal matter between the individual soul and God, with which no other individual has concern,—then it is passing. If Catholicism means the embodiment in religious institutions of the catholic spirit, broadmindedness in faith, respect in every religious organization for the sincere faiths and the devout rituals of other religious organizations, then Catholicism is coming. But if Catholicism means the doctrine that Jesus Christ established an ecclesiastical organization , then Catholicism is not coming. If Protestantism means that Jesus Christ simply imparted, and still imparts, to all who believe in him a new spiritual life, and that he leaves them perfectly free to form their own organizations, frame their own creeds, and establish their own rituals, then Protestantism is not passing.
It is plain to all that a revolution is taking place in the religious world; but some of the revolutionists seem inclined to avoid the appearance of any change by putting new meanings into old terms. Nevertheless the departure from old paths is just as great as if the old terms had disappeared with the old faith. The Protestantism of the sixteenth century, based upon an appeal to the Bible as the infallible Word of God, and emphasizing faith in the atoning work of Christ as the only means of salvation from sin, has been supplanted by a “New Theology” which substitutes human philosophy for a “Thus saith the Lord,” and faith in one’s own divinity for the righteousness of Christ. There is a crying need now for the proclamation of “the everlasting gospel” of “repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Apostate Reformers
WITH consistent arrogance the representatives of the Roman Catholic Church repeat the hoary claim that the Reformation was the real apostasy, and that the only possible adjustment of religious differences will be on the basis of a return to the Catholic fold. The recent defection from the Episcopal communion is of course viewed with equanimity by the “one true church,” and is interpreted as the beginning of a great movement toward Rome. A recent editorial in the Catholic Mirror (Baltimore) deals with this subject, and contains the following paragraph:—
And behold! the tide keeps turning, and turning towards the Tiber. The present upheaval has been a-brewing for a long time. Nor is it confined to one Protestant sect alone. The reformers are being reformed, and we hope that the return path to the Mother Church will be strewn with roses more numerous than the thorns that have beset the devious paths of the members of a church errant since the days of an arrogant Luther and an amorous Henry.
It requires an astounding degree of assurance to face the history of thirteen centuries with the assertion that the Roman Catholic Church is the original apostolic church, and that all who are not in communion with her are “errant,” the softer word for “heretics.” It is a plain case of the knife both of whose blades had been lost at different times and replaced, and then the handle was broken and renewed; but the claim was still made that it was the original knife. That church is in the apostolic succession which teaches the doctrines of the apostles in the power of the same spirit which attended the work of the apostles.
Socialism and Christianity
WRITING of socialism in the Christian Commonwealth (London), Dr. R. F. Horton, one of the leaders of English Congregationalism, says:—
It is important to point out that state socialism has just as much and just as little to do with Christianity as any other great political or economic conception, such as liberalism or conservatism, free trade or tariff reform. State socialism is a practical proposal, based on a theory of economic development, for realizing a social constitution which many Christians desire; and if Christians believe that this is the way of realizing the kingdom of God, they should feel that the socialist method is approved by their Master. But observe this: No one is entitled to say that Christianity enjoins that method. And still less is any one entitled to say that those who do not believe in that method are to be unchristianized. To identify state socialism with Christianity is not only a confusion of ideas, but it must have a disastrous effect. We are no more justified in identifying Christianity with the principles of socialism than with the principles of the French Revolution.
Some socialists may be professed Christians, but that does not identify the two cults. Christianity is a divine philosophy, but socialism is a human philosophy.
Waiting for Justice(?)
It is the unalterable purpose of the Roman Catholic Church to secure a division of the public funds for educational purposes. Their hope of success in this matter is expressed in a recent editorial utterance in one of their papers:—
That Catholics suffer one great injustice in the United States we frankly admit. The burden of a double school tax is clearly unjust. We have been so declaring for years, and now at least some fair-minded non-Catholics are beginning to see that the Catholic position is warranted by discoverable facts. This gives us hope of a final settlement of the school question which shall be based on justice.
We see no injustice in refusing to tax all the people in order to aid a religious denomination in the support of its schools. The double tax idea is not based upon facts. No denomination is compelled to maintain a school system of its own, but if it chooses to do so, it would be un-American and unchristian to compel others to furnish the whole or a part of the funds needed to carry it on. Seventh-day Adventists maintain many schools of their own, but they do not ask for a division of the public funds, nor complain of injustice because they do not have access to the public treasury. The Catholics have no just ground for complaint.
Trust Is Best
By Adelaide A. Procter
I THINK if thou couldst see,
With thy dim mortal sight,
How meanings dark to thee
Are shadows hiding light,
Truth's efforts crossed and vexed,
Life's purpose all perplexed,—
If thou couldst see them right,
I think that they would seem all clear,
and wise, and bright.
And yet thou canst not know,
And yet thou canst not see;
Wisdom and sight are slow
In poor humanity.
If thou couldst trust, poor soul,
Thou wouldst find peace and rest;
Wisdom and sight are well, but trust
is best.
—Adelaide A. Procter.
Self-Love or Self-Sacrifice
By Ellen G. White
MRS. E. G. WHITE
HUMAN beings belong to one great family,— the family of God. The Creator designed that they should respect and love one another, ever manifesting a pure, unselfish interest in one another’s welfare. But Satan’s aim has been to lead men to self first; and yielding themselves to his control, they have developed a selfishness that has filled the world with misery and strife, setting human beings at variance with one another. Selfishness is the essence of depravity, and because human beings have yielded to its power, the opposite of allegiance to God is seen in the world to-day. Nations, families, and individuals are filled with a desire to make self a center. Man longs to rule over his fellow men. Separating himself in his egotism from God and his fellow beings, he follows his unrestrained inclinations. He acts as if the good of others depended on their subjection to his supremacy.
Selfishness has brought discord into the church, filling it with unholy ambition. If Christians are sanctified through a belief in God’s Word, why do they so often speak words that would bruise the hearts of others? Why do they acknowledge no law but the law of selfishness? Under the baleful influence of selfishness, men have lost the sense of what it means to love one another with a Christlike love.
Love for Christ unites man to his fellow man in unselfish interest. This is the science of benevolence. He whose heart is filled with the love that centers in God, realizes that he must deal justly and tenderly with his fellow beings because they have been redeemed by the blood of Christ. Supreme love for God leads us to seek the highest good of humanity.
Selfishness destroys Christlikeness, filling man with self-love. It leads to continual departure from righteousness. Christ says, “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” But self-love is blind to the perfection which God requires.
How great the love of God is! God made the world to enlarge heaven. He desired a larger family. And before man was created, God and Christ entered into a covenant that if he fell from his allegiance, Christ would bear the penalty of transgression. Man fell, but he was not left to the power of the destroyer. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” To the Redeemer was given all power to impart to fallen human beings for their benefit and blessing.
While on this earth, the Saviour was sorely tried. He was tempted in all points like as we are. He poured out his soul with strong crying and tears as he looked upon the backslidden condition of the people he had brought out of bondage. He saw them full of pride and self-exaltation, full of selfishness and covetousness. All this he must labor to overcome. He must live among them the life that God requires all his children to live. He must stand free from the slightest taint of impurity. Not in the least particular must he deviate from the principles of righteousness.
The gulf made by sin has been bridged. All may come boldly to the throne of grace, seeking help in every time of need. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. He took the place of the sinner, that he might present the repentant sinner to the Father, saying, “Lay his guilt on me. I have espoused his cause.” Holding out his hands, bearing the marks of his crucifixion, the Saviour says, “I have graven that sinner upon the palms of my hands. No longer look upon him as guilty. Let him stand before thee guiltless; for I have borne his iniquity.” At the cross, justice and mercy met together, and righteousness and peace kissed each other. God bowed his head in recognition of the completeness of the offering made for sin, and said, “It is enough.”
As we contemplate the great love of God, shall not our hearts be subdued and softened, yea, broken? Shall we not be filled with patience, long-suffering, and love? Shall we not die to self?
Christ came to this world to reveal the love of God. His followers are to continue the work which he began. Let us strive to help and strengthen one another. Seeking the good of others is the way in which true happiness can be found. Man does not work against his own interest by loving God and his fellow men. The more unselfish his spirit, the happier he is, because he is fulfilling God’s purpose for him. The breath of God is breathed through him, filling him with gladness. To him life is a sacred trust, precious in his sight because given by God to be spent in ministering to others.
“Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. . . . If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God loves his brother also.”
S. N. HASKELL
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
Nehemiah—No. 1
S. N. HASKELL
The character of Nehemiah can be studied with profit by Christians in every walk of life. He was truly an “all-round character.” We find him presented as a business man, a contractor and a builder; an organizer, a governor, and a reformer, and with it all a God-fearing Christian and a Bible student.
The position he held as cup-bearer to the Persian king was a very important one. The artist has represented Nehemiah as a youth standing before the king; instead of that he was a man in the prime of life. The cup-bearer held in his power the life of the king, and none except the most trusted subjects were permitted to fill that office. Like Daniel, he won the respect of the king. This was shown by the king’s refusing to let him go to Jerusalem until Nehemiah set the date of his return.
Nehemiah had grasped the magnitude of the whole work in his mind; he decided it would be of no use to go up to Jerusalem unless ample provision was made for the work; and, in his first request to the king, he asked for sufficient timber to complete the work and for royal authority to carry the whole undertaking through without interruption. Neh. 2: 5-10.
His wisdom is shown also in his taking a critical survey of the whole situation before he began the work. He evidently planned the completed work in his mind before he began to build, thus he was able to make every stroke count when the work was started. Neh. 2: 12-16.
His ability as an organizer, as well as a builder, was shown in the building of the wall. No ordinary mind could have organized the whole force of Israel into one band of workers as Nehemiah did.
When we remember that he accomplished in fifty-two days a work that the various leaders in Israel had been trying to accomplish for nearly one hundred years, we have a faint conception of the magnitude of the work.
Three distinct calls had been sounded throughout Babylon, calling all Israel to leave Babylon and build up the city and walls of Jerusalem; but the mass of Israel slumbered and slept amid the luxuries of Babylon. From childhood they had heard of the broken walls of Jerusalem; but it became to them as a pleasant song, a bit of sentiment, and failed to arouse them from their lethargy.
Daniel over ninety years before had said that the street and walls of Jerusalem9should be built within the first division of the two thousand, three hundred years. The time was drawing near. Thirteen years had passed since the last portion of the famous decree had gone forth, and, judging from the fact that so many years had been consumed in doing so little, it might seem an utter impossibility to complete the work within the prophesied time. But God’s word stands sure; and wherever a man will arise in his God-given strength to fulfil any prophecy God has given, God will stand by that man and work wonderfully through his efforts.
After Nehemiah had spent three months pondering over the report of the desolate condition of Jerusalem and seeking God for wisdom, he was prepared to come into the royal presence and fearlessly request the king to send him to Jerusalem. He had no doubt in his mind; he fully expected to build the wall of Jerusalem, and requested that he be given permission to go, saying, ‘That I may build it.’ Here is simple faith, and God did not disappoint him. If human eyes could have given heavenly vision, I think they would have seen myriads of angels working to help carry out every detail of that great work. What an intensity of interest there must have been in the heavenly hosts when the enemy came up to hinder the work, and persuade Nehemiah to come aside to counsel with them, or hide in the temple for fear! How all heaven must have rejoiced over that man, who stood like an iron wall to carry out the will of God in the face of every obstacle that Satan could place in his pathway! The work that might have been done under favorable conditions was accomplished under the most adverse circumstances. ‘Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.’ 1 Cor. 10: 11.
For more than sixty years the first, second, and third angels’ messages have been sounding, calling God’s people away from the fated plains of Babylon, to build up the work of the Lord in the earth. Many have heard the call and gone out to do the work of God. But history repeats itself, and, like Israel of old, as recorded in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, they are mixing with the world, losing the simple faith of the early message.
Our churches, many of them, are becoming much like the nominal churches around them; some worshipers think the seats are too crowded to kneel before the Lord, their Maker, and formally bow their heads while prayer is offered; and many of the youth do not even do that.
Business cares crowd out family prayers, and few parents among the professed people of God to-day find time to spend, even one hour a week studying the Bible with their households, when they should at least spend that much time daily. As a result of this, the church is weak and the work retarded; but the Lord has sent out the word, ‘He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.’ The work will be accomplished in this generation. The Lord will lay his Spirit upon individuals of simple faith, and, like Nehemiah, they will leave their places of business and go forth with power to accomplish the work. From the workshops and from the plow workers will go forth fearlessly to proclaim the last warning message, and no hands can be laid upon them to stop them. Like Nehemiah they will have one object before them; namely, the upbuilding of God’s cause in the earth, and nothing can hinder their work.
This will be the loud cry of the message. You who think the time is too short, and the work too great, to be accomplished in this generation, study how Nehemiah in fifty-two days built the whole wall that others had been nearly a century trying to build. Judah at that time thought the work was too great and the rubbish would surely hinder the work, but Judah was in communication with the enemy of the work, instead of the God of heaven, the commander of the work.
Be sure that your connection is with the God of heaven and not with the adversary of the work, lest you are among those that fail to come up to do your part in the loud cry of the message.
Oakland, Cal.
The Heritage of a Political Theocracy
By J. O. CORLISS
J. O. CORLISS
The wise man spoke discreetly when he affirmed that “there is no new thing under the sun.” Certainly this is true when studying causes and their effect. So far as these count in the problem, “the thing that has been, it is that which shall be.” It can not be otherwise, since the laws of being are inexorable, and so beyond the reach of argument and entreaty.
When the Massachusetts colonists adopted the “Cambridge platform,” they were then fully organized to carry church-and-state union to its legitimate end. The first step in this order was to decide who were to be counted “freemen,” or bona-fide citizens of the community. This was done by the church. And one desiring to be thus recognized was first privately examined by officers of the church as to his orthodoxy; and if determined sound in this particular, he was afterward brought before the public congregation, where any one could interpose objections to his reception as a member. Thus for months one might be harassed and mortified while attempting to qualify himself to exercise his privilege of citizenship.
To be denied the right of a freeman, and then to be subject to a civil trial by the church for any reported misdemeanor by some prejudiced church-member, meant a biased judgment on every occasion. This could not fail to be so, because such persons were accounted adversaries of the church. (“Plain Dealing,” page 23.)
No department of human affairs was exempt from the interference of the clerical oligarchy of those infamous times. Even the militia was regulated by them. As an instance, one Abel Platts was nominated by his company for the position of ensign. A note was immediately sent from the church, informing the company of the church’s disapproval of the choice, because the said Platts was at the time not a communicant of the church. (“History of Newbury,” page 80.)
Again, a new captain had been chosen for the Hingham militia. Such a stir was made over this independent move that the magistrate decided to hold the matter in abeyance until the general court could meet. In the meantime, the pastor, Mr. Peter Hubbert, excommunicated the man chosen captain, thus making him ineligible to any office whatever. Not being satisfied with these proceedings, Governor Winthrop reopened the whole question, at the next session of the legislature, when the church had him brought to trial for exceeding his jurisdiction as a magistrate. (“Winthrop,” 2, pages 222, 223, 227.)
The Roman Church never exceeded such audacity in the very darkest of the Dark Ages. How could it do so? Was not this the extreme limit to which any church could possibly go? About this same time, when Bradford was governor of Plymouth colony, an attempt was made by a Mr. William Vassal to secure suffrage for all classes without a religious qualification, since that colony was supposed to be more liberally disposed than Massachusetts. In writing of this to Winthrop, Winslow, assistant to Governor Bradford, described the many wretched expedients adopted by him and the governor to prevent the matter coming to a vote. He justified their course in this by saying that the measure would have given “free tolerance of religion” to all well-behaved men, except to Turks, Jews, Papists, and a few others. He then adds that he and the governor showed the sad consequences that would follow, but for all that the matter was ordered to a vote, which the governor would not permit. (“Hutchinson, Collection,” 1, 174.)
With the church for backing, Bradford, as governor, could do such a thing; but when the church and state are separate, no governor could exercise such arbitrary authority. This is but an example of how the church then made a tool of the state to do its bidding. The church went even further than this. It forced Governor Endicott to ship men across the ocean, and away from friends, without a trial by their peers, simply because their religious views differed from those of the dominant faction. And yet while the clergy would not permit the children of these heterodox people the benefits of the church, it freely taxed the parents for the support of the church. The arbitrariness of that system of government is well set forth in what Endicott told the Browns when he shipped them to England. He said10that their adherence to their Episcopal orders tended to “mutiny,” therefore “New England’s Jonas,” Marvin’s edition, pages 13-15.)
The Cambridge platform, in fact, gave the clergy full power of life and death over the community, by making the duty of the laity to be “obeying their elders and submitting themselves unto them in the Lord.” By this also the magistrate was enjoined to punish “idolatry, blasphemy, heresy,” and to coerce any church becoming “schismatical.” (“Cambridge Platform,” chapter 10, section 7.) It is plain that no one could be convicted of any of these things without the witness of the church, and so every one on trial received sentence according to the testimony and decision of the church.
The milk of human kindness changes into the curd of religious intolerance the moment the church and state embark in the same line of work. It was so in early New England; it will be so again, just as soon as the demands of National Reformers are met, to place “all Christian laws, institutions and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” It is useless to say that men are more considerate of each other’s religious beliefs now than in the early dawn of this country, when men still lived in the shadow of the persecution which drove them from their native land.
To show that men are made of the same stuff now as then, we have only to quote from speeches recently made. Here is one: Oct. 13, 1907, at Witherspoon Hall, Philadelphia, the Rev. Robert M. Paterson is stenographically reported to have said to an audience composed largely of clergymen; “If I had my way about it, I would have an executioner called in to deal with all heretics and blasphemers. Burning at the stake would be too good for those who revile religion, and take the Lord’s name in vain. The growth of heresy is such to-day that nothing but measures such as this can stop it.”
These words were not the idle vaporings of some young enthusiast with no ballast aboard, but were the deliberate expression of a well-seasoned man of seventy-five years. This but reveals the religious bigotry of one who, in every other relation in life outside of the church may, so far as we know, appear as kind and gentle as the Saviour of the world, who said: “If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.” John 12:47. But the blighting influence upon this clergyman’s religious life is his belief that the state should enforce his exact faith upon all, whether they will or not, and thus constitute him the judge of the world. Because of Christ’s attitude toward the world as revealed in the words quoted, the Saviour of men was condemned to die through the demands of the church, carried into effect by the civil government. Let the state beware of taking the first step toward legislating in behalf of any religious form or custom.
Mountain View, Cal.
_The Book of Daniel_
By Editor
_The Test and Failure of the Wise Men of Babylon_
THE EDITOR
And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams; and his spirit was troubled, and his sleep went from him. Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams. So they came in and stood before the king. And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit is troubled to know the dream. Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in the Syrian language, O king, live forever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye make not known unto me the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill. But if ye show the dream and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honor: therefore show me the dream and the interpretation thereof. They answered the second time and said, Let the king tell his servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation. The king answered and said, I know of a certainty that ye would gain time, because ye see the thing is gone from me. But if ye make not known unto me the dream, there is but one law for you; for ye have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak before me, till the time be changed: therefore tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show me the interpretation thereof. The Chaldeans answered before the king, and said, There is not a man upon the earth that can show the king’s matter, forasmuch as no king, lord, or ruler, hath asked such a thing of any magician, or enchanter, or Chaldean. And it is a rare thing that the king requireth, and there is no other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh. For this cause the king was angry and very furious, and commanded to destroy all the wise men of Babylon. So the decree went forth, and the wise men were to be slain; and they sought Daniel and his companions to be slain. Dan. 2: 1-13.
_The Chronology_
It has already been shown upon the authority of the canon of Ptolemy that Nebuchadnezzar commenced his reign as the sole king of Babylon B. C. 604. It follows, therefore, that “the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar,” at which time he had the dream told and interpreted in this chapter, was B. C. 603, three years after “the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand.”
_Dreams and Their Interpreters_
It is a fact noted by both sacred and secular historians that the Babylonians attached much importance to dreams, and that they were often guided in matters of the greatest importance by the declarations of the interpreters to whom they resorted, even when their interpretations seemed to be contrary to reason or law. It was therefore in harmony with the spirit of the times that Nebuchadnezzar “commanded to call the magicians, and the enchanters, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, to tell the king his dreams.” The distinction between the four orders of wise men whom the king summoned may be briefly stated thus: the magicians, or sacred scribes, were those “learned in the sacred writings and in literature.” The enchanters, or conjurers, whose name was derived from the Hebrew word signifying “to breathe,” “practised their incantations by movements of the breath.” The sorcerers, or wizards, were “addicted to a sort of imposture yet more pernicious because they worked by poisonous drugs and induced real disease, working upon their dupes by terror also. The fundamental idea of this black art is that material substances may have a moral or supernatural power.” The beginning of this craft was with the arch-tempter, when he told Eve that the fruit of the tree was good to make one wise.” The Chaldeans “appear to have formed the priesthood in a special sense, or to have attended to the duties specially devolving on the priests.” In the well-known passage in Isaiah (47:13), they are further subdivided into “the astrologers, the star-gazers, the monthly prognosticators,” to whom rebellious Israel is referred for help. Such were the wise men of Babylon to whom Nebuchadnezzar turned in his perplexity, and from whom, according to their professions of ability to make known things hidden from ordinary minds, he was justified in expecting communications from the gods.
_Communion With God_
Ever since man was, through sin, cut off from direct communion with God, the longing of the human heart to re-establish communion with unseen beings has been played upon by the arch-deceiver, who has sought to put himself in place of God. Thus in all ages there has been a professional class under various names or titles claiming to be the medium of communication between this world and that unknown sphere where other orders of beings reside. In ancient times they were known as magicians, enchanters, astrologers, soothsayers, witches, etc., and their modern successors are the clairvoyants, the palmists, the fortune-tellers, and the spiritualist mediums of our times.
The gulf which separates between sinful man and a holy God can be bridged only from the divine side, and any attempt to establish communication from the human side, has been urgently and repeatedly forbidden. The reason for this wise prohibition is easily found. Any effort on the part of man to raise himself from earth to heaven is utterly futile, and the attempt to fathom the secrets of the divine mind by this vain search after God would end only in bringing the human mind under the control of those evil spirits which are cut off from God, and allied to humanity by that experience of sin common to both. Any fellowship with God must originate from action on his part. What is known of God must be revealed to man, not searched out by man. The only way of access to God is through the eternal Son, who11has announced himself to be “the Way.” “Through him we both have our access in one spirit unto the Father.” Spiritualism in all its varied forms is only the manifestation of Satan’s determined purpose to frustrate the plan of salvation, which is made effective by renewing the mind, by himself gaining control of the mind, and thus blunting and beclouding those faculties through which alone it is possible to apprehend the revelation of God. Our only safety is in absolutely repudiating all self-effort at finding out the secret things of God in the whole range of occult sciences, from open spiritualism to the reasoning which is merely human, and to accept revealed knowledge through the divinely ordained channel. “Neither doth any know the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal him.”
_Babylonian Occultism_
The attainments of the Babylonians in the occultism through which they professed to make known hidden things, is thus described by a competent authority: “They were good observers of astronomical phenomena, careful recorders of such observations, and mathematicians of no small repute. Unfortunately, they mixed with their real scientific studies those occult pursuits which, in ages and countries where the elements of true science are not known, are always apt to seduce students from the right path, having attractions against which few men are proof, so long as it is believed that they can really accomplish the end that they propose to themselves. The Babylonians were astrologers no less than astronomers; they professed to cast nativities, to expound dreams, and to foretell events by means of the stars; and though there were always a certain number who kept within the legitimate bounds of science, and repudiated the astrological pretensions of their brethren, yet on the whole it must be allowed that their astronomy was fatally tinged with a mystic and unscientific element.”—“Seven Great Monarchies,” Rawlinson, Vol. II, page 166.
_Philosophy and Revelation_
The dialogue between King Nebuchadnezzar and the wise men of Babylon reveals plainly the difference between human philosophy and divine revelation. The dream had made an indelible impression upon the king, and yet he was unable to recall in his waking moments those workings of his mind through which the impression was conveyed to him in his sleep, and his spirit “is troubled to know the dream.” The demand made of the wise men is a supreme test of their professions. Unable to give them any further information than that he has dreamed a certain dream, the king requires of them to make known the very thoughts of his mind. On their part, like all human philosophers, they demand data upon which to base their reasoning, saying, “Tell thy servants the dream, and we will show the interpretation.” The king’s demand is reinforced by the most severe threat; but again the wise men demand some further information upon which to rest their conclusion, and the king in turn, his suspicions concerning the ability of the wise men being now evidently aroused, urges his demand with the further charge that these professed revealers of secrets “have prepared lying and corrupt words to speak,” pending the discovery of some means of making good their claim to penetrate into, and to make known, secret things. Pressed to the last extremity, the Chaldeans assert that no dweller upon earth is able to comply with the demand of the king, and that such a test was never before brought upon any of their cult. They are constrained to declare that what the king requires is beyond the ken of mortal mind, and that “there is no other that can show it before the king, except the gods, whose dwelling is not with flesh.”
_Reading the Thoughts_
In the failure of the wise men of Babylon to recall to the king that which had been in his mind, but which had gone from it, we may note the inability of Satan, the master magician, to read the human thoughts. Although his whole occult art was likely to be discredited, yet he was unable to communicate to his representatives the dream which the God of heaven had given and taken away. He could not penetrate the veil, and look into the sanctuary of the soul. God understands the thoughts of man “afar off;” Satan can read what is printed upon the countenance, or what is audibly expressed. By his control of outward circumstances, the god of this world may suggest doubts concerning the character of God, and evil thoughts concerning the divine government, but he can know of his success only as these thoughts are translated into words or acts. God, who can read the mind, can forgive the thoughts of evil and cleanse the heart before these thoughts become conduct, and therefore known to the prince of evil. In this there is comfort for those who fear lest they shall be reproached for those thoughts of the heart which have come unbidden, but which were neither harbored nor wrought out into life.
_The Creed of Heathenism._
When the wise men declared concerning the gods that their dwelling is not with flesh, they gave expression to the creed of Babylon, and to the philosophy of all those systems of heathenism of which Babylon was the fountain-head. To the heathen mind, the gods who presided over human destiny were messengers of wrath rather than of love, whose anger was to be feared and appeased. Sacrifices were offered, gifts were made, and service was rendered, not as expressions of gratitude for blessings received, but as inducements to withhold threatened troubles or to avert impending disaster. No heathen religion contains the conception of a pure and holy God who hates sin and yet loves the sinner, and whose love leads him to give himself in order to deliver man from the bondage of sin.
_The Essence of the Gospel_
In contrast with all this is the gospel of Christ, the only begotten Son, in whom God and man find a meeting-place. This wondrous truth of an indwelling God is thus declared through the prophet: “For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is holy: I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite.” Of these experiences the temple was both a prophecy and a witness. Jehovah had said, “Let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them,” and of the tent of meeting he had promised, “There I will meet with the children of Israel; and the tent shall be sanctified by my glory. . . . And I will dwell among the children of Israel and will be their God.” And it was to give knowledge of this very gospel that Daniel and his companions, whose spiritual insight had perceived the lesson of the temple and its services, had been brought to Babylon, and in the providence of God had been prepared to stand before the king.
The outbreaking fury of King Nebuchadnezzar, and his decree that all the wise men of Babylon should be put to death, testify to the arbitrary and despotic character of his rule. The lives of his subjects, even of those who occupied official positions, were wholly in the hands of the monarch. Of Nebuchadnezzar’s absolute power, Daniel afterward spoke in these words: “Whom he would he slew, and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he raised up, and whom he would he put down.” To refuse to comply with the request of such a king was to invite death. Inasmuch as Daniel and his companions were now classed among the wise men of Babylon, they came within the scope of the fateful decree, and faced death with the others.