HUMAN nature in all ages worships its greatest need—that in which its greatest hope is centered. In order to understand the Jewish attitude toward Christ, and the causal forces culminating in His rejection, we must know the character of the truths regarding the expected One, with which their minds had been saturated for generations: truths which were destined to invest Him with a certain fixed personality and definite character. When we perceive the picture of Christ which was painted upon the canvas of the national mind, and see that the real Christ did not conform to it—did not measure up to the standard which interpretation of prophecy had created, one phase of His rejection is explained.
There are multiples of prophetic references to Christ ascribing an imperial character and mission.
Isaiah says in 7:14 that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be “Immanuel.” Jeremiah in 23:5, 6 refers to Him as the King who shall save Judah, and cause Israel to dwell safely. Isaiah again apostrophizes Him as “Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” And again, the “Shepherd of Israel.”
The epithets and titles applied to Christ in these and many kindred prophecies are such as to impress the mind with the idea of royalty, and in looking for the Man to fulfil them, the Jews naturally expected a regal personality—5especially so as their greatest national need, from their point of view, was a leader capable of re-establishing the shattered kingdom.
It is only natural that, during their heart-broken wanderings from their ancestral home, when the chiefs gathered the tribes about them by the camp-fire and places of clandestine worship, encouraging them with the sure promises of God concerning their nation—it is only natural that they should have dwelt most eloquently upon the prophetic references to Christ as King and sovereign Shepherd, and invest Him with all power to alleviate their suffering. It was this idea in which their whole intense hope was centered, for which their whole life was a supplication, that God would, at the end of their allotted term of punishment, raise up for them a Messiah who would deliver them from the hardships, shame, and ignominy of allegiance to the hated Gentiles, and place them under a pre-eminent sovereignty worthy of God’s people. This misconception of personality was one of the most potent forces operating in Christ’s rejection. The idea that they were distinctively God’s people, sole heritors of His favors and blessings, had been instilled into their minds from generation to generation, gaining strength, tenacity, and irresistible force, until it had become an unalterable conviction—an axiomatic certainty. The fruit of this sentiment was that national bigotry which characterized them, and blinded them to divine realities. Another cause of His rejection was unconscious defection from the true religion, a gradual transition from the worship of God and the national religion, to a worship of national destiny. They worshiped their religion as a national tradition, foreshadowing a brilliant national destiny, instead of holding the spiritual principles and divine essence.
This transition was an unconscious one, and left them with the unalterable conviction that they were still perpetuating the God-sanctioned worship of their fathers. Hence with a religion inflexible and incapable of adaptation to changing conditions and new spiritual conceptions, modified by corruption and misconception, requiring a particular personality for its vindication, rejection of Christ was a logical certainty.
The reasons for His rejection were both intellectual and moral; intellectual because of a false conception of Christ’s character and personality; moral because in their depravity, their decadence from pure religion, they had lost that subtle spiritual sympathy and sensitiveness by which they might have perceived intuitively that the anticipated One and He whom they rejected were identical.
While the people may have been honest in their rejection of Christ, there is abundant evidence of the dishonesty and perfidy of the priests. Two conspicuous motives which actuated them were bigotry and cupidity. Bigotry induced a hatred of religious innovation—a bitter opposition to any interference with their immemorial institutions. Cupidity incited them to violent opposition for fear of losing their prestige and the perquisites of their religio-official positions. As self-announced mediator between God and man, Christ robbed them of their distinctive and exclusive function.
They displayed their insincerity in repudiating Christ prematurely, and maliciously refusing to exercise their superior wisdom in trying to reconcile Christ with prophecy. Not only were they criminal in a latent sense, but actively so when they incited the people to demand Christ for crucifixion. For he who fires the brain of the perpetrator should be held responsible for the crime.
A thoughtful analysis of these causes reveals a subject replete with valuable lessons for us. There is to each individual the necessity of careful introspection to avoid lapsing into the worship of a misconception instead of the true religion. History records numerous instances of grave crimes having been committed in the name of holy religion, owing to this unfortunate tendency of religious enthusiasts.
Of equal significance is the lesson that we can not comprehend the deep meaning of the Scriptures except by the aid of the Holy Spirit revealing them to our minds. Sensuous ears are deaf to its voice. It is only when our spiritual sensitiveness is acute that the ears of the soul are delicate enough to catch its promptings. If we would hear God’s voice we must keep our spiritual natures attuned to His divine utterance. R. F. SMITH, B.S.
Pasadena, Cal.
IS IT TRUE?
By Ethan Lanphear
A Roman Catholic tells me that the Sunday sabbath, or Lord’s day, so called, belongs to their church; that the Protestant church has no right or title to it, as they profess to take their Bible for their faith and practise; and that “every intelligent Protestant knows that there is not a word or syllable in their Bible from Genesis to Revelation indicating that the seventh-day Sabbath was changed to Sunday, or the first day of the week; or that the term Sabbath, or Lord’s day, is or ever was applied to the first day of the week; or that Christ or any of the disciples ever used the word ‘Sabbath’ as applied to any other day but the seventh day of the week; nor did they ever indicate that such a change was indicated or needed.”
Another person has handed me the following statements in relation to this matter:—
1. Take the testimony of Eusebius, one of the most eminent fathers of the Catholic Church, the contemporary, the apologist, and the deifier of the corrupt Constantine. He says: “All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, them we have transferred to the Lord’s day (Sunday).” The “we” to whom he refers are Constantine, Pope Sylvester, and such bishops as Eusebius.
2. In Butler’s “Catechism,” a work used in Catholic schools, the first and second commandments are counted as one, and the fourth is counted the third. Upon the third, or Sabbath, commandment are the following questions and answers:—
“Question—Say the third commandment?
“Answer—Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
“Q.—What is commanded by the third commandment?
“A.—To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious duties.”
But all know that that is not what is commanded by the Sabbath commandment.
3. The “Doctrinal Catechism,” pp. 174, 351–355, offers proof that Protestants are not guided by Scripture. We present two of the questions and answers:—
“Q.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
“A.—Had she not such power, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.”
“Q.—When Protestants do perform work upon Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith?—do they find this permission clearly laid down in the sacred volume?
“A.—On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for the practise. In profaning Saturday they violate one of God’s commandments, which He has never clearly abrogated,—‘Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.’”
4. In another Catholic work, called “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” the Catholic Church asserts its power to change the law, in the following manner:
“Q.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?”
“A.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.”
“Q.—How prove you that?”
“A.—Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church’s power to ordain feasts, and command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.”
5. The following letter, written by the Rev. Father Enright, a Catholic priest in charge of the Redemptionists’ College, Kansas City, Mo., to Mr. E. F. Franke, 43 Bond Street, New York City, is to the point:—
“January 11, 1892.
“Dear Friend: Your letter reached me only a few days ago. The paper you speak of I’ve not seen. My words were: ‘I have repeatedly offered $1,000 to any one who can prove to me from the Bible alone that I am bound to keep Sunday holy. There is no such law in the Bible. It is the law of the holy Catholic Church alone. The Bible says, “Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.” The Catholic Church says: “No! By my divine power I abolish the Sabbath day, and command you to keep holy the first day of the week.” And, lo! the entire civilized world bows down in reverent obedience to the command of the holy Catholic Church.’ Excuse delays in answering. Yours respectfully,
“T. Enright, CSS. R.”
In the face of such direct testimony from the Catholic Church that they alone changed the seventh-day Sabbath to the first day of the week, and their statement that there was not a word of evidence in the Bible for the change, is it not an imposition upon God, Christ, and the apostles for Protestants and the Protestant church to still insist that the change was made by Christ and the apostles? Dear friends of the professed Protestant or apostolic church all over the land, is your Protestantism as far out of the Catholic Church as you imagined? Are you not still bowing down and worshiping Baal or the sun-god? “Turn ye, turn ye; for why will ye die?” “Ye can not serve God and mammon.” ETHAN LANPHEAR.
Plainfield, N. J.
GOOD LOGIC.
A PARENT asked a priest his boy to bless,
Who forthwith said that he must first confess.
“Well,” said the boy, “suppose, sir, I am willing,
What is your charge?”—“To you it is a shilling.”
“Must all men pay, and all men make confession?”—
“Yes, every man of Catholic profession.”
“Then whom do you confess to?”—“Why, the dean.”
“And does he charge you?”—“Yes, a whole thirteen.”
“Then do the deans confess?”—“Yes, sure they do,
Confess to bishops, and pay smartly, too.”
“Do bishops, sir, confess? If so, to whom?”—
“Why, they confess, and pay the pope of Rome.”
“Well,” quoth the boy, “all this is mighty odd.
And does the pope confess?”—“O, yes, to God!”
“And does God charge the pope?”—“No,” quoth the priest,
“God charges nothing.” “O, then, God is best!
God, then, is able to forgive, and willing;
To Him I will confess and save my shilling.”
—Selected.
EFFECTUAL PRAYER.
By John G. Woolley
Prayer and fasting is prayer that “settles it”—conclusive prayer. . . . Pray so earnestly that the demands of the body will go unheeded. Pray, while the breakfast bell rings unheard. Pray, denying yourself to wife or child. Pray, while the rich and powerful visitor waits in the drawing-room. Pray, when your salary is in jeopardy. Pray, when offices are being given out by the boss. Pray, when flattery is ringing in your ears. Pray, when curses mutter all around you. Pray until God and you are square on the subject; and then go out with your face shining, and men will follow you. The saloon will perish like the viper that it is under the heel of the church whenever, and never before, she prays like that.—John G. Woolley.
BAPTIZED INTO HIS LIFE.
“BAPTIZING them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Baptized into the name of the Father is baptized into His character, having His righteousness as a garment, in the place of our own filthy rags of self-righteousness; His healing of holiness, instead of our wounds and bruises and putrefying sores of sin.
Baptized into the name of the Son is consecration of soul and body to God. It is the emptying of self, the giving up of all, even as the Son of God gave Himself. He kept back nothing. He poured out Himself, even to death, to vindicate the Father’s love, and for the sake of lost souls. These wonderful truths we have already considered.
What is it to be baptized into the name of the Holy Ghost?
We need not quibble about the terms used to denote the mighty Spirit of the blessed God. The Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, and the eternal Spirit, each and all mean one and the same, and are so used throughout the Word. For there is “one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling.”
The Spirit of God everywhere stands for power, the power of God, manifested always in love; for “God is love.”
When the earth was brought from chaos to cosmos, from emptiness, desolation, and darkness, it was when the Spirit of God brooded—moved—over the dark waste. Light, arrangement, vegetation, order, and beauty in earth and sea and sky followed.
“For He spake, and it was done;
He commanded, and it stood fast.”
His word was Spirit and life (John 6:63) to the dark void. “By His Spirit He hath garnished the heavens” in all the wondrous grandeur of circling orbs, blazing in many-hued beauty.
By His Spirit He creates again and renews the face of the earth, after it has been swept by the besom of destruction.
By His Spirit God is everywhere present, whether in sun or in satellite, in the darkness of night or the light of day, in the depths of the sea or in the open light of the public gaze. “Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thy presence?”
By His Spirit the Lord convinces, convicts, instructs, converts, regenerates, sanctifies.
By His Spirit the prophets and apostles spoke His Word.
By His Spirit Jesus preached good tidings, spoke liberty to the captives, sight to the blind, and wrought all His wondrous miracles. By the same Spirit was He brought from the embrace of death to the glorious triumph of life.
The Spirit is God in operation, the life force of the universe, the only power the Christian possesses by which he rises above the common mass of sinful humanity. It is life; it is growth; it is victory over sin; it is fruit-bearing—everything which makes for the upward life is the power of the Spirit of God.
The Spirit is that by which we know God and are fitted to witness for Him. The disciples were chosen and ordained that they might bear witness for Christ and bring forth fruit in His name, and yet before they were fitted to truly witness for Him, they must tarry in Jerusalem until they were “clothed with power from on high.” Luke 24:49. “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” Acts 1:8. This was the baptism of “the Holy Ghost not many days hence,” of verse 6.
This was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, preceded on the part of the disciples with ten days of the study of the will of God, confession and forsaking of sin, earnest seeking of God, and emptiness and consecration of self. Then when the antitype of the day of Pentecost came, God poured out His Spirit, baptizing them and filling them with His own fulness. “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” Acts 2:1–4. Then were they indeed witnesses for Christ.
The essential and important things about a witness are that he shall know, that he shall be able to tell what he knows, and that he shall tell the truth.
The baptism, the complete interfusion of the Spirit, made the disciples know Christ. His life was in them. The divine electric current, charged, filled, with a plenitude of power, flowed free from the “Fountain of Life” into the apostles. The life of God, the fruit-bearing life, the power of an endless life, possessed them. They knew God; they were known of God. There was complete vital union.
That Spirit is the Spirit of might and wisdom. It took the vessels of clay, emptied of self, and filled them with life, and fitted them to be witnesses for God. Their minds were enlarged. Their souls were unbound. Their tongues became as the pens of ready writers. They could tell what they knew of God, “not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.” 1 Cor. 2:13.
That Spirit of might and wisdom, which fitted them for their work, which made them know God, is “the Spirit of truth,” the Spirit of “the faithful and true Witness.” They therefore testified to the truth.
They met all the requisites of witnesses for God; and if we, upon whom the ends of the world are come, are to be witnesses for God, we also must be baptized and filled with the Spirit.
If we do not witness for Christ, we witness for self, and, while professing His name, are false witnesses. Therefore, O church of God, “receive ye the Holy Ghost,” that ye may be true witnesses for Him!
Baptism into the name of the Holy Ghost is baptism for service. When Jesus entered upon His ministry, beginning with the fiercest temptations, the Spirit of God descended and came upon Him (Matt. 3:16), “and it abode upon Him” (John 1:32), and He was “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1). So “God anointed Him with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with Him.” Acts 10:38.
There is no other fitting for the service of God, no other way by which we may do acceptable work for the Master. And, O beloved in Christ, by whatever name ye are known, if we wish to serve Him acceptably, and He freely fits us for His service, why not receive the Holy Ghost?
“WHEN THEY SHALL SAY, PEACE.”
The proposal of the “Great White Czar” for a conference of the powers of earth with a view to disarmament must bring to the devout student of prophecy many things which God has said concerning this very time. He has given us, in the “more sure word of prophecy,” “a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn.” He has revealed the dangers to His people in the past; He will not cease to do it now.
He warned the world of a coming deluge. He sent His messengers to save Sodom. Repeatedly He warned Jerusalem, while the false prophets cried, “Peace, peace.” He foretold the first advent of our Lord, and predicted the captivity and rejection of the Jewish people. And “surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.” He has light for the solemnly important, pregnant times in which our lot is cast.
What means now this cry of “peace”? Is the dream of the prophets of peace to be realized? Are the swords to be beaten into plowshares and spears into pruning-hooks? Is the note of the czar of Russia the first strain of a melody of peace soon to swell into a grand chorus by all the nations of earth?
Would that it were so. Every heart, it seems to us, could wish it; but the true student of God’s Word can not expect it. “Why?”—Because there is no true peace, no lasting peace, apart from righteousness. And the nations of earth are not righteous. No national decree, no international protocol, can make them so. Peace is the effect of righteousness, and righteousness comes only by faith in Jesus Christ. There will be one “righteous nation,” but it will be “the righteous nation which keepeth the truth,” gathered through the Gospel, one by one, from all nations and kindred and tribes and tongues and people. But the nations of earth, which know not the peace of Christ, will be destroyed in the forthshining of Christ’s presence when He comes to reign.
But does not the prophet say that in the last days swords will be beaten into plowshares, spears into pruning-hooks, and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”? The prophet says that “many people shall go and say” (Isa. 2:3–5), and another, “many nations shall come and say” (Micah 4:2–5) all this; but the prophet also declares because of this false cry, “For Thou hast forsaken Thy people the house of Jacob, because they be filled with customs from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they strike hands with the children of strangers.” Isa. 2:6, R.V. The soothing cry is a deceptive one.
On the other hand, the Lord reveals through7His prophets that the last days will be days of battle and war, of trumpet and alarm, of beating plowshares into swords and pruning-hooks into spears, in preparing for the great conflict of Armageddon, the battle of the day of the Lord. See Joel 3:9–14; Isa. 24:1–3; Jer 4:19–26; 25:27–33; Rev. 16:14–16; and others. There may be lulls of peace and quiet to precede, but the fearful storm is gathering over a world in rebellion against God.
Even tho the men do cry, “Peace;” even tho the great powers of earth do meet in conference, and do pledge themselves to disarmament, partial or wholly, and join in a universal world cry of “peace;” yet know, O child of earth, that even this is no evidence of coming peace! God has foreseen that thus they would do; He has foreheard their cry; and He forewarns all—mark the forcible illustration—“When they are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in nowise escape.” 1 Thess. 5:3, R.V.
There are other warnings of like import in the “more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed.
CATHOLICISM AND PROTESTANTISM.
A DEFENDER of the Roman Catholic Church, the Rev. Henry A. Stimson, D.D., of New York City, has an article in The Independent of September 1. The particular subject is “Spain and the Catholic Church.” Dr. Stimson admits that as to Spain “there is no country in which the Catholic Church has had such unlimited control for more than a thousand years. It is true that the pope has found frequent and recent pleasure in sending there his Golden Rose as to his ‘most Christian adherent.’”
But the defense put forth for that church is that it has changed. Mr. S. continues:—
But it is, nevertheless, entirely unjust to speak of the Catholic Church to-day as the church of Alva and Philip II. It would be no more true to characterize the various branches of the Protestant church as the church of Laud; or of the Anabaptist fanatics, or of Calvin and Servetus, or of Oliver Cromwell and the men who hung witches.
Herein the writer, like many others, utterly fails to see the difference in principle between Roman Catholicism and true Protestantism. One of the bases of authority, in fact the basis of authority, of the Roman Catholic Church is tradition, as taught by an “infallible church.” We know that it is often said that it is Scripture AND tradition, but tradition rules; for the Scripture is always authoritatively interpreted by the traditions and decrees of the continuous ecclesiastical body. To admit the fallibility of the “infallible” decrees and decisions of the church would on the part of the church be fatal to her claim. And every logical Roman Catholic knows it. For that reason we are told repeatedly that that church never changes, that she can not change. Her policy may change. She may proclaim herself a monarchist to-day and a republican to-morrow, but her doctrines remain unchanged.
Not so with true Protestantism. Its inherent principles are thus well and truly stated by D’Aubigné, the great historian of the Reformation:—
The Reformation was accomplished in the name of a spiritual principle. It had proclaimed for its teacher the Word of God; for salvation, Faith; for king, Jesus Christ; for arms, the Holy Ghost; and had by these very means rejected all worldly elements. . . . The Gospel of the Reformers had nothing to do with the world and with politics. . . . The Reformation was destined to exercise no other influence over princes and people than that which proceeds from the Gospel of peace.—Hist. Ref., bk. 14, chap. 1.
The principles contained in this celebrated protest [of Spain] of the 19th of April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this protest opposes two abuses in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate, and the second is the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these two abuses, Protestantism sets up above the magistrate the power of conscience; and above the visible church, the authority of the Word of God. It declines, in the first place, the civil power in divine things, and says, with the prophets and apostles, “We must obey God rather than man.” In the presence of the crown of Charles the Fifth, it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ. But it goes further: it lays down the principle that all human teaching should be subordinate to the oracles of God. . . . Protestantism rejected the authority of man solely to place Jesus Christ on the throne of the church, and His Word in the pulpit.—Id., bk. 13, chap. 6.
These are the principles of Protestantism, the principles of Biblical Christianity.
It is just to hold Roman Catholics responsible for the past, because they make those who formed the church, promulgated the decrees, and did the deeds, their “fathers.” They count the church which was responsible for the teaching and the religious persecutions of the medieval ages, the time of Philip and Alva, the time of the Roman and Spanish Inquisitions, the true, infallible, unchanging church. Indorsing the teaching and deeds of the “church” and “fathers,” they become responsible therefor. Roman Catholics would not for a moment admit that the Catholic Church of to-day was not the Catholic Church of the whole Christian era. It is their contention that the Catholic Church is one and unchangeable from Peter down.
But not so with true Protestantism. A true Protestant may regret the differences between Luther and Carlstadt, between Luther and Zwingle; he may regret Zwingle’s appeal to the sword and Luther’s roughness and grossness; he may regret the union of the feeble Protestant church with the State in England and elsewhere; he may deplore the connection with it of Henry the Eighth; but in not one of these particulars does he hold himself responsible for the deeds or errors or faults of the men or times.
He praises God that the Reformers held so much truth amid the errors imbibed from the traditions of the past. He looks upon their errors as “times of ignorance” which God winked at; for their faith was demonstrated, not so much on account of theological error discarded or truth accepted, but by the fact that the little truth they did see was accepted with the whole heart, and changed and dominated their lives, despite their error.
A true Protestant Baptist will never seek to defend a religious dogma or practise by the customs of the Baptist “fathers.” Neither will a true Protestant or Christian anywhere. What did Jesus Christ practise? What does the Word of God teach? These are the vital questions of His creed.
It is no evidence of the truth of a theory or the scripturalness of a creed that good men have held it in the past. Neither because the “fathers” did not know it is it evidence of the falseness of a thing. That clearer, fuller light shines from the Word upon our pathway to-day is evidence of God’s leading. But let us be sure that it shines from the Word. To turn from the light of that Word, however new and strange it may seem, to the centuries of tradition-blinded eyes, is to adopt the principles of Catholicism. And is not the great professed Protestant Church doing these very things to-day? Is it not because of this that we find so many apologists for Roman Catholicism?
Roman Catholicism changes not; she is the same to-day as in 1492. Therefore be not deceived. If you wish to apologize for her past deeds, do so; if you wish to become of her fold, do that; but in either case do it with eyes wide open, that you may know what you are doing: that when you apologize for the church of the medieval ages, you are apologizing for the same church of the modern age; and when you defend the church of Leo XIII., you are defending the church of Innocent III. and Leo. X.
You need not apologize for the sake of the true Protestant. He needs not your commiseration nor pity. His creed is the Word of God; his Teacher and King, Jesus Christ; his power, the Holy Spirit. Men may stumble and bear false witness; he mourns their fall, but pauses not, falters not. He does not serve men, but God, the living God, who is ever revealing more and more of His living Word in and through the fruit-bearing life of faith.
WHAT was the mark put upon Cain? Some say he was made black; others, idiotic. I. E. H.
What difference does it make? The Lord does not minister to our curiosity. There are not less than nine different suggestions made as to what mark was placed upon Cain, from the letter tau to a long horn, all of which are well termed by Clarke, “frivolous.” The Revised Version reads, “And the Lord appointed a sign for Cain,” that is, as an assurance that he would not be killed.
WILL you kindly explain Gen. 8:22 and Gen. 10:25? These were questions raised in Sabbath-school. C. E. A.
We do not know how language could tell any more clearly the facts stated in Gen. 8:22. It simply says that while the earth remains, the seasons shall pursue their accustomed rounds; and have they not ever since? Gen. 10:25 informs us that in the fifth generation from Noah—Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Peleg—the earth was divided, that is, as recorded in Gen. 11:9, when God scattered mankind over the earth.
863. Abram’s Birth—Terah’s Age.
HOW CAN you say in lesson 11, “Additional Study,” that Terah was born in A.M. 1879, and Abraham in A.M. 2009, when it is said, “And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran” (Gen. 11:26)? 1879+70=1949 instead of 2009. A. E. K.
Notice: Terah was born, according to the record of Genesis 11, in A.M. 1879. When 70, he begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran. Terah died at the age of 205. Gen. 11:32. Abram went to Canaan when 75 years old. Gen. 12:4. But he did not go to Canaan till his father died. Acts 7:4. If he went the same year his father died, Abram must have been begotten 75 years before, or when Terah was 130, instead of 70. This is harmony if we understand that Abram was not the first begotten, but mentioned first because of his after career. Terah did not beget any boys till 70, and then begat three. Abram may have been the youngest, begotten when his father was 130 years old; 1879+130=2009.
THE CRY OF “PEACE, PEACE.”
By Editor
Last week we printed the note of the czar to the powers, calling for a disarmament of the nations, and a conference of the powers to consider the matter. There has been a general and wonderful response to this from both the secular and religious side. A few sample utterances are given below:—
“The proposal of the Emperor Nicholas for a reduction in the armaments of the Old World, which we print on another page, is a document of extraordinary interest, in whatever way we view it. His suggestion, if carried out in good faith, would result in the abolition of militarism, that terrible and ever-increasing burden whose weight is crushing out the life of the nations of Europe. That such a proposition should emanate from the czar of Russia, the leader of the powers, and the head of an army of three million soldiers, must certainly be recognized as a most auspicious event. He is the one man who can most effectively promote the object sought, and if he undertakes in earnest to carry it through, without doubt the other nations, groaning under the oppression of their military systems, will only too gladly second his endeavors. . . . Every lover of peace, every friend of humanity, should devoutly pray that the proposed conference may be held, and that it will prove, in the words of the czar’s manifesto, ‘by the help of God, a happy presage for the century which is about to open.’ May God grant it!”—The Examiner, Baptist.
The above journal sees two enormous difficulties, the immense naval equipment of England, and the position of France relative to Alsace-Lorraine.
“Light comes to us from the East. It has been left to the czar of Russia—that least civilized of the world’s great powers, as we have been told—to sound a bugle blast for the world’s peace. . . . The czar’s proposition comes like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. But there is no reason for questioning his perfect sincerity. He has nothing to gain by dissimulation in this matter; but he has everything to gain by pursuing the path of peace. . . . Her imperative need to-day is peace, a chance to reduce the burdens of taxation, a chance to develop her resources and her trade. These she can get if the other powers will agree; and there can be little doubt that with Russia taking the lead in such a mighty step, Great Britain, France, and Germany will be ready to follow. . . . But whatever be the results flowing from the czar’s action, it is clear we have fallen upon new times, and that at last the world is coming to realize that not only hath peace her victories, but they are more glorious than can be achieved by evoking the passions of war, with their awful sacrifice of human life and the rich harvests of misery and wretchedness that follow in their train. The world is indeed seeing new light. The czar’s encyclical is assuredly one of the most striking documents of the century. It could only have been more dramatic if the Kaiser had issued it from the birthplace of the Prince of Peace. But it comes to us at a time when the world is growing weary of war. It comes, too, let us hope, to place a lasting crown of glory upon the dying nineteenth century, and to place the honored name of Nicholas II, high on the roll of those monarchs who have made the world better by their rule.”—Christian Work.
Yet this same paper a week or two ago had a strong editorial, the alpha and omega of which was, “Now for the Turk,” “Send the boats.” Is there more inspiration in the message of an earthly potentate than in the Gospel of peace of the King of kings?
“The proposal of the czar of Russia to call a conference of the nations of the world to provide for disarmament and the preservation of peace, is like a breath of heaven blown across the open pit of hell. For ‘war is hell,’ and the armaments of war are the steam and sulphur smoke of hell. To prevent war, to make it impossible, is the noblest task that Christian statesmanship can attempt. To restore to the employments of peace the life and wealth wasted in preparation for war, is divine work for kings, emperors, and presidents. We are glad to believe that this proposal of the young czar is perfectly sincere. . . . But is it quixotic? It ought not to be. Europe sees what is the mighty progress of the United States made possible by having no standing army. Europe sees that a nation with no standing army can make war, if need be. Europe must see that partial disarmament is possible if the nations will trust each other. Why can they not? Whether it accomplishes its end or not, this declaration of the czar is one of the most important events of the closing century.”—The Independent.
The New York World thus sums it up:—
“The world’s symposium of the opinions of European thinkers and statesmen seems to indicate that the czar’s appeal for peace and for the relief of the European masses has fallen on deaf ears. In England apparent willingness to listen barely conceals deep suspicion and distrust. France, ever thinking of her captive children, Alsace and Lorraine, is angry and terrified. Germany is derisive. The dual monarchy, racked by internal dissensions, is of course willing but hopeless. But all of this discouragement can not change the central facts, from which may be drawn a lively hope that the czar will accomplish something.”
Even those who speak suspiciously and doubtfully, grasp at the proposal of the czar as a drowning man seizes a straw.
True it is that the czar’s arguments are strong ones,—the immense and ceaselessly increasing burden of war expenditures, and the constantly growing menace of increasing armaments, hastening the very cataclysm they are designed to avert.
What will all this amount to?—Nothing, except to stay for a time the great battle of Armageddon till the work of God is done in the earth. The Word tells us that God’s messengers are bidden to hold the winds of war till He finishes His work. Moving upon the mind of the czar to do what he has done is one of the means the Lord is using to stay the conflict. But the conflict will come, and will be the more terrible when it comes. There can be no lasting peace in the world till men are at peace with God.
