“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.”
Thus the two covenants were in the family of Abraham. For “these women are two covenants.” Verse 24, R. V.
But how did the two covenants get into the family of Abraham, and one of these even the covenant from Mount Sinai? “For these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.”
Since Hagar is one of the two covenants,—the one from Sinai, and the one which genders to bondage,—the story of Hagar in the family of Abraham is the story of the covenant from Sinai.
But God had made a covenant with Abraham himself, before ever Hagar was heard of. And this covenant was confirmed in Christ, before ever any mention was made of Hagar.
This covenant was the covenant of God’s promise to Abraham and to his seed—not “seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” This was the covenant of God’s righteousness,—the righteousness of God which is by faith,—for when God had made promise to Abraham, Abraham “believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
This promise was to Abraham, that in him should “all families of the earth be blessed,”—that to his seed would he give the land of promise, which is the world to come; and that his seed should be as the stars of heaven.
This seed, to whom the promise was made, being Christ, this covenant was made in Christ; and, when Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, this covenant was confirmed in Christ. This is, therefore, the everlasting covenant, which answers to Jerusalem which is above; for, in that covenant, because of that promise, Abraham “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
All this came to Abraham when as yet he had no child; and the promise was to be accomplished in his seed. Several years had passed after the first mention by the Lord of Abraham’s seed when as yet he had no child. Abraham was already old when the thought of his seed was first suggested, and was growing older without seeing any seed. Accordingly, he said: “Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.”
“And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness. And he said unto him, I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.” Gen. 15:2–7.
And when Abram asked: “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” the Lord “said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.361And he took unto him all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each piece one against another: but the birds divided he not.” Then it was that the Lord, by passing between those pieces, “made a covenant with Abraham,” a blood covenant, in which he pledged himself to the fulfillment of every promise that had yet been made to Abraham.
Here, then, was God’s own heavenly, everlasting covenant, made and confirmed with Abraham, with God’s own life pledged that everything promised should be accomplished, so that nothing promised could any more fail than that the Lord should cease to exist.
But still the time passed, and no child was seen; for “Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children.” But Sarai “had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar. And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her.” Gen. 16:1, 2. Thus Hagar comes upon the scene, and is brought into the story.
But how was it that Hagar was brought into the story at all? Was it by trusting the promise of God?—No. It was altogether because of distrust. Was it by faith?—No. It was altogether because of unbelief. This is confirmed by the fact that when this part of the program had all been carried through, it all had to be repudiated, and the promised seed had still to be expected by Sarah herself; and “through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.” Heb. 11:11.
This being so at the last, why was it, then, AT THE FIRST, that “Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children”?—It was simply because of her unbelief, and her not judging “him faithful who had promised.”
Then it was that, in this distrust of God, this unbelief, Sarai invented the scheme which brought in Hagar. And this scheme, springing from distrust of God, and unbelief in him, was altogether a scheme of the natural mind—an invention of the flesh—to fulfill the promise of God.
The important consideration in this scheme of Sarai’s, is that it was to fulfill the promise of God. The thought was not merely that the Lord had not fulfilled his promise; but that he had refused to fulfill it. For Sarai said plainly: “Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing.” This straightly charged unfaithfulness on the part of the Lord. And since it was held that the Lord had failed to fulfill his promise, it was naturally concluded that they must fulfill it themselves, by an invention altogether of their own, springing from distrust and unbelief in God.
And even Abram swerved from his trust in God, from his faith in the Lord’s promise. Abram fell in with this scheme of distrust and unbelief, this invention of the flesh. “Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.”
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived.” “And Hagar bare Abram a son.” Gen. 16:3, 4, 15.
“But he who was of the bondwoman was born after THE FLESH.” How could he be born of anything else? The whole scheme by which he was ever born at all, was altogether of the natural mind, in distrust and unbelief of God,—an invention of the flesh.
“Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia.”
The covenant, therefore, for which Hagar stands,—the covenant from Mount Sinai,—is a covenant in which people, in distrust of God and unbelief of his promise, knowing only the natural man and the birth of the flesh, seek by their own inventions, and their own efforts, to attain to the righteousness of God, and to the inheritance which attaches to that righteousness.
But the righteousness of God, with the accompanying inheritance in all its fullness, is a free gift.
Important Lessons from Malachi.
By Uriah Smith
In the Hebrew Bible, the prophecy of Malachi does not stand, as in our version, as the last book of the Old Testament. But Malachi was the last of the Old Testament prophets.
After his voice had been raised in impetuous and fiery denunciation of sin; after resistless exhortations to duty had been given; after stirring and solemn proclamation of the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord had been set before the world, and all men had been reined up to stand face to face with the day that was coming, which should burn as an oven, and in which all that do wickedly, and all the proud should be stubble, and be burned up root and branch,—silence dropped upon the scene,—a silence that continued for four hundred years, till at length in the wilderness of Judea a voice was heard proclaiming, “Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
There is a break in the time, but no break in the continuity of thought; for the New Testament begins in a manner to show that it is but a continuation of the Old; a further development of the great theme which had constituted the burden of psalmists, prophets, and holy men, who had spoken as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The prophecy of Malachi, who was the last of the great line of ancient prophets, gives strong utterance of the “hope of Israel.” In his prophecy there is a culmination of the world’s Messianic hope, so far as it could be given before the appearance of the Messiah himself, to re-affirm the purpose of God, so strongly set forth in the Old Testament, to form a spiritual kingdom in the World, submissive to his government, obedient to his law, and to gather the members and the citizens of this government out of all countries and peoples of the earth.
Such a conception was not possible to the Egyptian, the Greek, or the Roman; and it was possible to the Jew only because he was instructed concerning it by the spirit of revelation given unto him by a long line of divine teachers. The Bible indicates who the head of this kingdom is to be; a personality, supreme both in character and in power. He was at first dimly foreshadowed out of the distance and darkness of remote ages, but is more and more distinctly brought to view through the continually increasing radiance of prophecy, through the voice of psalmists, through the solemn and impressive ceremonies of the sanctuary service, through the office of the priesthood, and through the royal majesty and supremacy of kings.
So the prophecies grow more and more definite concerning him. He is first revealed as the seed of the woman, then as the seed of Abraham, then as the star out of Jacob, as coming out of Judah, and the son of David. Then prophecy, as in the book of Daniel, begins to focus itself upon the very time when he should appear; and, as in Isaiah, upon the very place of his revelation; and then, as in Micah, upon the very character and office he was to fulfill and exhibit, till the Old Testament closes with the last sound of its prophecy through Malachi, predicting the coming of the great Refiner to his temple; the gathering out of God’s jewels from the rubbish of the world; the coming of the great day of the Lord, that shall burn as an oven; and the final rising of the Sun of righteousness, with healing in his wings.
Thus the last voice of the Old Testament declares the coming of the Sun of righteousness, the great orb that shall usher in the eternal day; and the New Testament, five hundred years later, responds, “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” And eighteen hundred years later still, even in our own day, the same cry is echoing through the earth, “Come, Lord Jesus,” “come quickly,” and with increasing fervor; for now the time for the glorious event is almost up.
While many of the exhortations of Malachi were applicable to his own time, they have been pertinent to conditions that have arisen all through the ages, and that exist to-day. Take for example the words of chapter 3, verse 7: “Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of Hosts. But ye say, Wherein shall we return?” Here is a warning and a promise applicable to every age, and a revelation of the excuse which ever hangs on backsliding lips: Oh, what have we done so bad? wherein have we departed from the Lord? and wherein have we occasion to return? But the Lord does not give us much opportunity to grow captious; for he immediately adds, “and I will return unto you.” This disposition to justify self, and argue the case with the Lord, we meet continually in our own time. Although God never changes, yet man does change; and when man changes his attitude toward God, it makes it seem as if God changed his attitude toward him.
The writer once heard a youth ventilating his first crude lessons in skepticism, at the close of a meeting in Michigan. “What use,” he said, “is it to pray? It is all foolishness. Do you think you can change the mind of God, to make him comply with your requests?” A friend answered him, “Does not God often suspend promised blessings upon conditions, in order to draw out our mind and feelings toward him, in such a way that if we comply, we receive the things we desire, but not caring enough about them to comply, God consistently withholds them?—Yes; why, you do that even with your dog. You tell him to ‘speak,’ if he would receive the proffered bone. If he complies, he gets it; if he refuses, he goes without. Did your dog change your mind?—No; you had your mind all made up to that before; if any change took place, it was on the part of the dog. Now would you like to have your dog go away growling about you that it was no use to ask you for a bone, because you would not change?”
So it is not a change on the part of God, but a change on our part toward him. These apparent changes are common to nature. We say that the sun rises and the sun sets. But relatively to our earth the sun does not move, the Rev. Jasper to the contrary, notwithstanding; but the earth moves relatively to the sun. By revolving on its axis, it makes the sun appear to sweep the whole compass of the heavens from the east to the west. The change is not in the sun, but in the earth. Just so with our relation to God, as affected by prayer. If a man looks toward God, he sees the loving face of his Father; but if the man turns his back on God, he misses that loving face; and then he is inclined to think that God has become his enemy. The change is not in God; the change is only in himself. There is only one cure for such trouble as this; and that is for the changeful man to turn back again to the unchanging God.
In answer to the question, “Wherein shall we return?” the Lord puts the searching question, “Will a man rob God?” What! a poor, mortal, dependent man try to defraud and cheat the Almighty! The thought is paralyzing. But how may we rob God? Heaven is not the only domain of God’s vast property. The earth, and all that is therein, belongs to him. Ourselves, and all that we have and are, belong to him. We have feelings, emotions, affections, purposes, and plans. These will run out and fasten on things all around us, lawful or unlawful. In all these things God rightfully comes in for his appropriate share. But how many give, in their minds, to one or all of these things the all-comprehensive and absorbing place, and leave God entirely out! Such are certainly robbing God.
The first installment of that message which is a current living message for the church to-day, is, “Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come.” Fear, of the most filial, reverential, solemn kind, is due to God. Then what of the tenderer, gentler emotions and affections, love, confidence, gratitude, humble dependence on the Giver of all blessings? All these will go out and twine about something. Must they attach themselves to, and be absorbed by, some of the few, and unworthy objects nearest us, and be lost in them, while God, the one thing needful, is passed by unheeded?—To follow this course is indeed robbing God. Must it be that to the perfection of beauty, and excellence, and the supreme goodness, and to these alone, our souls shall be indifferent, and insensible, while trifling toys enlist all our powers?
It is not for his own sake that God requests our homage and obedience, but for our own sake. But the good intended for ourselves we lose in robbing10God. For, through the great and inevitable law of compensation, men iniquitously and fatally rob themselves, by dealing thus parsimoniously with the Lord. The motto of true Christian life is sacrificial surrender, and that to God. Alexander Maclaren says: “Malachi necessarily keeps within the limits of the sacrificial system. But his impetuous eloquence hits us no less. It is still possible to rob God. We do so when we keep anything as our own, and use it at our own will, for our own purposes. Only when we recognize his [God’s] ownership of ourselves, and, consequently, of all that we call ‘ours,’ do we give him his due.”
To the cynical query, “Wherein have we robbed thee?” the Lord replies, “In tithes and offerings.” Then he tells us how to recover ourselves from the wrong, and how to return unto him. “Bring ye all the tithes,” he says, “into the storehouse.” The Revised Version reads, “Bring ye the whole tithe into the storehouse.” We hear considerable said among men about a “dishonest tithe.” The idea is well intended, but the language is hardly accurate; for if there is anything less than a full tenth rendered, it is not a tithe at all. The sin aimed at evidently is that of the reducing or cutting short of that which is offered as a tithe, claiming that that is the whole, when it is only part. Is not that the very thing which Ananias and Sapphira did? We fear, if justice were meted out in the same unswerving and rigid manner to-day, as then, there would be many whom, cut down by the visitation of God, it would be necessary to carry out for burial. The Lord pleads with us through the prophet Malachi, not to act in that way. Do not try to deceive, but bring a whole tithe into the storehouse; and he so longs to bless us, that he challenges us to try him, and prove him, and see if he will not open the sluice-ways of heaven, and pour out such a blessing that there will not be room enough to receive it. Not always, perhaps, will it be fulfilled in increase of outward goods, but if not, it will be in the better riches of communion and of larger possessions of God himself.
In the language of T. L. Cuyler, “Self has got hold of the purse strings; and the Lord is likely to be robbed of his dues. That is the secret of the diminished contributions in our churches; and that accounts for the fact that, while the church is growing richer, so many grand institutions for the spread of his kingdom are often at the starvation point. The lust of the eye and the pride of life steal in, and, under smooth phrases, commit their shameful larcenies of the moneys which God loans to his stewards. When Christians undertake to cheat God, their sin is sure, sooner or later, to find them out.”
In every department of human life, God requires his proprietorship to be recognized. The seventh day is hallowed to his service. The first fruits of the corn were to be devoted to religious uses. The firstborn in the household belonged to God, and was to be redeemed by substitution. And of all yearly gains, one tenth is claimed by God, as his. This is just and right; for he is absolute proprietor, and has simply put us in possession for a limited time to use his property for him. We may keep back part of the consecrated price; but the loss will be ours, not the Lord’s. We may even plume ourselves as being financially very clever, even talented and model financiers in securing increased gains by cutting short the Lord’s portion. But in this the law already referred to—the great law of compensation, which is still operative—will work disastrously for us; for the divine rule plainly stated is this: “He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly.” And the converse of this is also plainly expressed: “And he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”
We may imagine that all God’s benefactions are wholly of a spiritual nature; and so may have shut him out from field and shop and vineyard; but listen to his words: “The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thy hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” God will recognize those who recognize him. All blessings are suspended upon conditions; while we acknowledge gratefully God’s bounty, we should be careful not to make the performance of our religious obligations a matter of commerce. U. S.
There comes a time in the experience of the individual who persists in rejecting the mercy of God, after which there is no hope for him. By his own act he has cut off all possibility of salvation. So it was with Esau: “For ye know that even when he afterward desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected (for he found no place of repentance), though he sought it diligently with tears.” Heb. 12:17, R. V. The same principle holds good in the life of a nation, inasmuch as the fortunes of a nation depend upon the character of those who shape its affairs. So it was with the Jewish nation when Jesus, looking upon Jerusalem, “wept over it, saying, O that thou hadst known in this day, even thou, the things which belong unto peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.” Luke 19:41, 42, R. V., margin. In the same way the end of the world is determined, not by an arbitrary decree, but by the conduct of men. When the gospel of the kingdom shall have been preached in all the world for a witness, and each one shall have fully made his choice for or against the King of heaven, then shall the end come. All this is plainly shown in the simple account of the fall of Babylon of the Chaldees. When king Belshazzar and his thousand lords, the representatives of the whole nation, openly repudiated that gospel of the kingdom which had been preached to Nebuchadnezzar, and which had been both accepted and proclaimed by him, and made themselves drunken with the wine of Babylon from the vessels of the Lord’s house, they finally and irrevocably rejected the protecting presence of the Lord of hosts, and in death and destruction they simply ate the fruit of their own doings. Sudden destruction came upon them, and they did not escape.
“In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. Then the king’s countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and show me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom. Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.”
That law which was originally “written with the finger of God” had been set forth in Babylon as “the law of the Spirit of life” in the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom through human instrumentality, and had been rejected. The present king of Babylon would not allow this law to be written in his heart. Now while the “surfeiting and drunkenness” and “abominable idolatries” were in progress, the result of his rejection of God was written where all the assembled rioters must see it, “over against the candlestick.” And so the fall of Babylon was announced upon the wall of “the palace of the kingdom of Babylon,” the very palace in which Nebuchadnezzar took so much pride before his conversion, which he said he had built “by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty.” How often do what are intended to be the monuments of human greatness become the announcement of impending ruin!
The effect upon the king was most marked, but there was no sign of any repentance for his heaven-daring course. With changed countenance, loosened joints, and smiting knees, he was the very picture of abject fear. How plain it is that he was really king only in name! He had sufficient of what is sometimes wrongly called courage to insult the King of heaven, so long as he kept silence, but when longer forbearance was useless, and the Lord of lords began to let him “see how the case stands,” then the real cowardice of his rebellious heart was revealed. So it will be in the fulfillment of this historical prophecy when “the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man” in the agony of their fear will say to mountains and rocks, “Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne. . . . For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?” “The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day.”
The wise men of Babylon were utterly incapable of dealing with the revelations which were made in Babylon concerning the course of events in the kingdom. Twice had they failed to justify their claims to superior wisdom when Nebuchadnezzar had turned to them for help, and now for the third and last time it was revealed in Babylon that the education which ignores God, and substitutes human speculation for “sound wisdom” can not interpret to man “the mystery of his will” or “declare in Zion the vengeance of the Lord our God.” These men handled words as dead things, and more frequently as a means of hiding thought than of revealing it. It was their task to maintain a reputation for wisdom, not by imparting light and understanding, but by confusing with high-sounding phrase and ambiguous construction the minds of those who sought unto them. When, however, they were asked by the king of Babylon to make known to him the message which had been sent to him in a few simple words of their own language, and as a reward for so doing were promised the highest honors within the power of the king to bestow, “they were unable to read the writing, so as to make known the interpretation to the king.”
How vividly is this history being acted over again in this night of feasting and revelry when the end of all things is just at hand. The impending doom of the world has been plainly declared in the word of the Lord, in language simple enough so that the humble child of God may understand it, but how many professed religious teachers are only juggling with words to maintain a creed or to defend a ceremony, while the people are perishing for lack of knowledge. “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts,” and yet many are unable to read the message for this time so as to make known the interpretation to the people. The Spirit of Prophecy is needed in order to read aright the prophecy: “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. . . . But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
On the walls of all the Babylonish temples of the present time it is written that “there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down,” and yet in many of them rites that are empty and ceremonies that are meaningless are maintained in the name of religion, with a zeal worthy of a better cause. Jesus has “departed from the temple,” but his presence does not seem to be missed. Oh, for men who are Hebrews indeed, who have not forgotten Jerusalem, and who will not shun to declare the whole counsel of God for this time!
The consternation of the king and his lords, and the cause of it, soon became known outside the palace of the king of Babylon, and reached the ears of the queen, who was doubtless the mother of Belshazzar and the daughter-in-law of Nebuchadnezzar.363
“Now the queen by reason of the words of the king and his lords came into the banquet house: and the queen spake and said, O king, live forever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: there is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him; whom the king Nebuchadnezzar thy father, the king, I say, thy father, made master of the magicians, astrologers, Chaldeans, and soothsayers; forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and showing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will show the interpretation. Then was Daniel brought in before the king. And the king spake and said unto Daniel, Art thou that Daniel, which art of the children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry? I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee. And now the wise men, the astrologers, have been brought in before me, that they should read this writing, and make known unto me the interpretation thereof: but they could not show the interpretation of the thing: and I have heard of thee, that thou canst make interpretations, and dissolve doubts: now if thou canst read the writing, and make known to me the interpretation thereof, thou shalt be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about thy neck, and shalt be the third ruler in the kingdom.”
Such genuine revelations of the wisdom which is from above had been made through Daniel in the days of Nebuchadnezzar that he was not wholly forgotten, even though it does not appear that he was occupying any official position under Belshazzar. The great perplexity of the king, and the failure of the wise men of Babylon to satisfy his request for an understanding of the message which the fingers had traced upon his palace wall, would naturally bring to mind those remarkable experiences of Nebuchadnezzar, and the part which Daniel had acted in them. The occasion brought forward the man. This makes it clear that the gospel of the kingdom, and the preacher, had made an impression in Babylon, which the lapse of twenty-five years had not effaced, and shows why it was that the lessons to Nebuchadnezzar were not repeated to Belshazzar. A lesson given to one man and then made known by him to others is just as much a personal lesson to those who hear it as to the one who experienced it. This is true in reference to all God’s dealings with individuals and nations in the past. “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. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”
The Hebrew captive again stood before the king of Babylon, not now to preach the gospel of God’s everlasting kingdom, but to declare that the hour of his judgment is come. The preacher’s reputation had preceded him, and the promise had already been made that he would reveal what was hidden from the king’s wise men. When he interpreted the first dream to Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel frankly said, “This secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living.” He claimed nothing for himself, but acknowledged it all as a direct gift from God, and declared this source of wisdom to be open to all. Thus Daniel set forth in Babylon principles of education which, if they had been followed, would have revolutionized the whole Babylonian system and established the Christian system in its place. Then the wisdom of God would have directed the affairs of the kingdom, and the pages of history would have told a different story. But now that “light and understanding and excellent wisdom” which were found in Daniel could only be used to read the sentence of destruction which was already upon the walls. How much like a mockery must have seemed to Daniel the promise of preferment in the kingdom of Babylon! Being already clothed with the robe of righteousness, and having found that wisdom which is “more precious than rubies,” and “can not be gotten for gold,” and having the kingdom of God within, that kingdom which stands forever, of what value was the scarlet clothing, the chain of gold, and the joint dominion of Babylon, a kingdom which had already fallen beyond hope of recovery? With the same worthless promises does “the god of this world” delude men in these days, offering if necessary all the kingdoms of the world, if they will fall down and worship him. How many hopes of worldly greatness, on which men have staked their souls, will be disappointed in the great day of settlement so near at hand! “Whoso is wise, let him observe these things; and let them consider well the mercies of the Lord.”
W. W. P.
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND PROTESTANTISM.
THE following editorial article in the Christian Advocate of March 29, 1900, is worthy of consideration everywhere. It presents anew, and in a forcible way, the truth that should always be emphasized that the only way in which Catholicism and Protestantism can possibly unite is by the apostasy of Protestantism—by Protestantism ceasing to be Protestant. And, indeed, when Protestantism ceases to be Protestant, it is Catholic, even though it still be called “Protestantism,” for Catholicism is simply naturalism under the name and forms of Christianity—“the form of godliness without the power.” The Christian Advocate says:—
A few weeks ago the New York Sun denied the allegation that its very able editorials, religious, are written by a Roman Catholic. Justice Brewer, of the United States Supreme Court, who has appeared several times in the rôle of a prophet, but on close inspection appears, like many modern prophets, to be predicting merely what it would please him to have happen, says, “It is not unworthy of notice that the ancient enemies, Catholicism and Protestantism, are drawing closer together,” and declares that “the history of the past should be ignored, and each should shake hands and join in the common effort to further the common cause of a common Master.”
Upon this the Sun says, editorially:—
“The Church of Rome, surely, has neither abandoned, nor in any degree lessened, its claims; it still offers to Protestantism no possibility of unity with it, except on the condition of yielding to its authority and rendering allegiance to the papal supremacy. Within a very few years the pope, by refusing to accept the validity of the Anglican orders, has practically pronounced the whole Church of England heretical, schismatic, and destitute of an apostolic foundation for its ministry. The only terms Rome offers in the nineteenth century are the same as those offered in the eighteenth century, and they will be the same in the twentieth century—unconditional surrender.”
“The present pope, Leo XIII, is not one step closer to Protestantism in 1900 than was Pius VII in 1800. Nor is Protestantism in its spirit, distinctive features, its very genius, any closer to Catholicism now than it was then. The strongest Protestant tendency at present seems to be to an even wider separation than in the past, for the new school of Biblical criticism, now so powerful in Protestant theology, tends logically to the exclusion of all such supernatural authority as the Church of Rome asserts. Protestantism is growing more rather than less distinctively Protestant; it is more insistent on the right of private judgment and more intolerant of the domination of church authority. Meanwhile Catholicism insists not less stoutly on that authority than it did in the days of the Reformation; it has shown no shadow of yielding. Individual Protestants, craving such spiritual control, may pass over to the Church of Rome, but Protestantism, in the exercise of its asserted private judgment, is now further from it than ever.”
“The difference is deep and radical, full of great significance, and, as we have said, can not be bridged over by any gush of sentiment. The two can never come together except by Protestants’ yielding and becoming Catholics, or Catholics’ turning into Protestants. You might as well try to mix oil and water as to attempt to bring these two radically conflicting and diametrically and essentially opposing religious systems into harmony, without the complete surrender of the one to the other; and the twentieth century will not lessen that impossibility by one whit.”
This is absolutely true, and such sentiments as those of Justice Brewer, though quite common, are of the same sort as those which have betrayed a large part of Protestantism, at the other extreme, into the hands of the Unitarians, anti-supernatural Biblical critics, and even avowed agnostics.
If the twentieth century obliterates distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the latter will swallow up individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers; while at the other extreme, agnosticism will flourish, and many of the most spiritually minded Protestants, distracted, will react into various forms of fanaticism; and worse, though different, forms of confusion than those that have marked the well-defined conflicts of the past will leave a large majority of the population of adult years drifting into worldliness or agnosticism, protected from suspicion and unpleasant embarrassment by a politic silence.
This is not prophecy, but conclusions based upon an “if.” To say that if dynamite is ignited, there will be an explosion, is not prophecy, but truth.