As the view is presented that the ten toes of the image denote the ten kingdoms, we are sometimes met with the objection that Rome, before its division into ten kingdoms, was divided into two parts, the Western and Eastern Empires, corresponding to the two legs of the image; and as the ten kingdoms all arose out of the western division, if they are denoted by the toes, we should have ten toes on one foot of the image, and none on the other; which would be unnatural and inconsistent.
But this objection devours itself; for certainly if the two legs denote division, the toes must denote division also. It would be inconsistent to say that the legs symbolize division, but the toes do not. But if the toes do indicate division at all, it can be nothing but the division of Rome into its ten parts.
The fallacy, however, which forms the basis of this objection, is the view that the two legs of the image do signify the separation of the Roman Empire into its eastern and western divisions. To this view there are several objections.
1. Rome, from the very beginning of its history, was represented by the two legs; and if these denote division, it should have been divided from the very commencement of its history. This claim is sustained by the other symbols. Thus the division, or the two elements of the Persian kingdom, denoted by the two horns of the ram, Dan. 8:20, by the elevation of the bear upon one side, Dan. 7:5, and perhaps by the two arms of the image of this chapter, existed from the first. The division of the Grecian kingdom, denoted by the four horns of the goat and the four heads of the leopard, dates back to within eight years of the time of its introduction into prophecy. So Rome should have been divided from the first, if the legs denote division, instead of remaining a unit for nearly six hundred years, and separating into its eastern and western divisions only a few years prior to its final disruption into ten kingdoms.
2. No such division into two great parts is denoted by the other symbols under which Rome is represented in the book of Daniel; namely, the great and terrible beast of Daniel 7, and the little horn of chapter 8. Hence it is reasonable to conclude that it was not the design of the image to represent such a division.
But, it may be asked, why not suppose the two legs to denote division as well as the toes? Would it not be just as inconsistent to say that the toes denote division and the legs do not, as to say that the legs denote division and the toes do not? We answer that the prophecy itself must govern our conclusions in this matter; and whereas it says nothing of division in connection with the legs, it does introduce the subject of division as we come down to the feet and toes. It says, "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potter's clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided." No division could take place, or at least none is said to have taken place, till the weakening element of the clay was introduced; and we do not find this till we come to the feet and toes. But we are not to understand that the clay denotes one division and iron the other; for after the kingdom was broken, no one of the fragments was as strong as the original iron, but all were in a state of weakness denoted by the mixture of iron and clay. The conclusion is inevitable, therefore, that the prophet has here stated the cause for the effect. The introduction of the weakness of the clay element, as we come to the feet, resulted in the division of the kingdom into ten parts, as represented by the ten toes; and this result, or division, is more than intimated in the sudden mention of a plurality of contemporaneous kings. Therefore, while we find no evidence that the toes denote division, but serious objections against such a view, we do find, we think, good reason for supposing that the toes denote division as herein claimed.
3. Each of the four monarchies had its own particular territory, which was the kingdom proper, and where we are to look for the chief events in its history shadowed forth by the symbol. We are not therefore to look for the divisions of the Roman Empire in the territory formerly occupied by Babylon, or Persia, or Grecia, but in the territory proper of the Roman kingdom, which was what was finally known as the Western Empire. Rome conquered the world; but the kingdom of Rome proper, lay west of Grecia. That is what was represented by the legs of iron. There, then, we look for the ten kingdoms; and there we find them. We are not obliged to mutilate or deform the symbol to make it a fit and accurate representation of historical events.
VERSE 43. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men; but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.
With Rome, fell the last of earth's universal empires. Heretofore the elements of society had been such that it had been possible for one nation, rising superior to its neighbors in prowess, bravery, and the science of war, to attach them one after another to its chariot wheels till all were consolidated into one vast empire, and one man seated upon the dominant throne could send forth his will as law to all the nations of the earth. When Rome fell, such possibilities forever passed away. Crushed beneath the weight of its own vast proportions, it crumbled to pieces never to be united again. The iron was mixed with the clay. Its elements have lost the power of cohesion, and no man, nor combination of men, can again consolidate them. This point is so well set forth by another that we take pleasure in quoting his words:—
"From this, its divided state, the first strength of the empire departed—but not as that of the others had been. No other kingdom was to succeed it, as it had the three which went before it. It was to continue, in this tenfold division, until the kingdom of stone smote it upon its feet, broke them in pieces, and scattered them as the wind does chaff of the summer threshing-floor!"
Yet, through all this time, a portion of its strength was to remain. And so the prophet says, 'And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.' (Verse 42.) How in any other way could you so strikingly represent the facts? For more than fourteen hundred years, this tenfold division has existed. Time and again men have dreamed of rearing on these dominions one mighty kingdom. Charlemagne tried it. Charles V. tried it. Louis XVI. tried it. Napoleon tried it. But neither succeeded. A single verse of prophecy was stronger than all their hosts. Their own power was wasted, frittered away, destroyed. But the ten kingdoms did not become one. 'Partly strong and partly broken,' was the prophetic description. And such, too, has the historic fact concerning them. With the book of history open before you, I ask you, Is not this an exact representation of the remnants of this once mighty empire? It ruled with unlimited power. It was the throned mistress of the world. Its scepter was broken; its throne pulled down; its power taken away. Ten kingdoms were formed out of it; and 'broken' as then it was, it still continues—i. e., 'partly broken.' For its dimensions still continue as when the kingdom of iron stood upright upon its feet. And then, it is 'partly strong'—i. e., it retains, even in its broken state, enough of its iron strength to resist all attempts to mold its parts together. 'This shall not be,' says the word of God. 'This has not been,' replies the book of history.
But then, men may say, 'Another plan remains. If force cannot avail, diplomacy and reasons of State may,—we will try them.' And so the prophecy foreshadows this when it says, 'They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men'—i. e., marriages shall be formed, in hope thus to consolidate their power, and, in the end, to unite these divided kingdoms into one.
"And shall this device succeed? No. The prophet answers: 'They shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.' And the history of Europe is but a running commentary on the exact fulfillment of these words. From the time of Canute to the present age, it has been the policy of reigning monarchs, the beaten path which they have trodden, in order to reach a mightier scepter, and a wider sway. And the most signal instance of it which history has recorded in our own day, is in the case of Napoleon. He ruled in one of the kingdoms; Austria was another. He sought to gain by alliance what he could not gain by force, i. e., to build up one mighty, consolidated empire. And did he succeed? Nay. The very power with which he was allied proved his destruction, the troops of Blucher on the field of Waterloo! The iron would not mingle with the clay. The ten kingdoms continue still."
"And yet, if, as the result of these alliances, or other causes, that number is sometimes disturbed, it need not surprise us. It is, indeed, just what the 'mixed with the clay.' For a season, in the image, you might not distinguish between them. They would not remain so. 'They shall not cleave one to another.' The nature of the substances forbids them to do so in the one case; the word of prophecy in the other. Yet there was to be an attempt to mingle—nay, more, there was an approach to mingling in both cases. But it was to be abortive. And how marked the emphasis with which history affirms this declaration of the word of God!"—Wm. Newton, Lectures on the First Two Visions of the Book of Daniel, pp. 34-36.
Yet with all these facts before them, asserting their power through the overturnings and changes of centuries, the efforts of warriors, and the diplomacy and intrigues of courts and kings, some modern expositors have manifested such a marvelous misapprehension of this prophecy as to predict a future universal kingdom, and point to a European ruler, even now of waning years, and declining prestige, as "the destined monarch of the world." Vain is the breath they spend in promulgating such a theory, and delusive the hopes or fears they may succeed in raising over such an expectation.
VERSE 44. And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. 45. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter; and the dream is certain and the interpretation thereof sure.
We here reach the climax of this stupendous prophecy; and when time in his onward flight shall bring us to the sublime scene here predicted, we shall have reached the end of human history. The kingdom of God! grand terminus of this world's sad, degenerate, and changing career! Transporting change, for all the righteous, from gloom to glory, from strife to peace, from sin to holiness, from death to life, from tyranny and oppression to the happy freedom and blessed privileges of a heavenly kingdom? Glorious transition, from weakness to strength, from the changing and decaying to the immutable and eternal!
But when is this kingdom to be established? May we hope for an answer to an inquiry of such momentous concern to our race? These are the very questions on which the word of God does not leave us in ignorance; and herein is seen the surpassing value of this heavenly boon. We do not say that the exact time is revealed either in this or in any other prophecy; but so near an approximation is given that the generation which is to see its establishment may mark, unerringly its approach, and make that preparation which will entitle them to share in all its glories.
ONE TALENT MEN.
By S. S. Times
THERE is nothing that would add more to the power and influence of the church of to-day than the full consecration of the multitude of one talent men in her fold, to the service of God. We need this more than we do men of genius and brillant parts. Our greatest loss of power is here, and here also is the possibility of our greatest gain. Occasionally we see a man liberally endowed—a five-talent man—foolishly, recklessly, squandering his talents, burying gifts wherewith he might have made his own life glorious, and the world brighter and better,—and we greatly regret the loss both to himself and to ourselves. But the great loss the church and the world experience on account of buried talent is not from this quarter. Great indeed, is the loss that comes through the five-talent and two-talent men; but a hundred, a thousand times greater is the loss we suffer from the one-talent men who compose the multitude, and who more readily yield to the temptation to dig and hide—S. S. Times.
LITTLE THINGS.
By Congregationalist
More depends on little things than we think. It is said that Voltaire when five years old learned an infidel poem, and he was never able to free himself from its effects. Scott, the commentator, when despairing, read a hymn of Dr. Watts, and he was turned from a life of idleness and sin, to one of usefulness. Cowper, about to drown himself, was carried the wrong way by his driver, and went home to write "God moves in a mysterious way." The rebuke of a teacher aroused Dr. Clarke to great action, who had up to that time been slow in acquiring knowledge. Ole Bull, the great violinist, rescued from suicide by drowning and taken to the near residence of a wealthy lady, became her protégé and soon acquired fame. Robert Moffat, the distinguished missionary, reading a placard announcing a missionary-meeting, was led to devote himself to work for the heathen. One step downward often leads men into the greatest guilt. It is the little words and actions that make or mar our lives.—Congregationalist.
Heartlessness and Its Punishment
No BAD quality carries its appropriate punishment along with it more surely than heartlessness.
The Sabbath School.
LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST.—SEPT. 3.
Jesus the Bread of Life.—Forsaken by Some of his Followers. John. 6:41 to 7:1.
LESSON COMMENTS.
THE Jews had assembled to celebrate the passover. In eating the flesh of the lamb, they were to remember that it represented the Lamb of God, and their protection when the first-born of their enemies were slain in Egypt. The blood that the Hebrews were commanded to have upon their door-posts, which was a sign of safety to them, also represented the blood of Christ, which was to be shed for the sins of the world. The Saviour has power to finally raise from the dead all those who, by faith, eat of his flesh and drink of his blood. This spiritual food gives to the believers a well-founded hope of the resurrection to immortal life in the kingdom of God.
He spoke of his future sacrifice in these words: "And the bread which I will give you, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world." He offered his salvation to all who would accept him, clothed in humanity, as their Redeemer, having access to the Father, and being invested by him with divine authority.
But the Jews were displeased that Jesus should claim to be the bread of life come down from Heaven. "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it, then, that he saith, I came down from Heaven?" They so clung to their bigotry and pride that it now seemed impossible for them to believe evidence that was plain as the noonday sun. Their jealousy was aroused that this man of humble birth was able to work wonders that they could not explain away, and teach truths that could not be contradicted. So they endeavored to awaken the prejudice and unbelief of the people by referring scornfully to the lowly origin of Jesus, and by reason of his mysterious birth, insinuating that he was of doubtful parentage.
But Jesus heard their murmurings and reproved them. He again, in more forcible language, declared his connection with the Father, and the necessity for the heart to be enlightened by the Spirit of God before it can feel the need of a Saviour. "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me." He here refers to the prophecy of Isaiah: "And all thy children shall be the taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children."
They had referred him to the manna which their fathers ate in the wilderness, as if the furnishing of that food was a greater miracle than Jesus had wrought; but he now declared unto them that the temporal food then given from Heaven was but a meager gift compared with the blessing of eternal life which he now offered them. The food eaten then sustained the strength, but did not prevent the approach of death, nor insure immortal life. The bread that the Son of God offered to man was death-destroying, giving in the end immortal life to the body. Said he, "Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from Heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from Heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the very person that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world."
Our Lord here points forward to his approaching death, the only true propitiation for the sins of humanity. The Jews were about to celebrate with great display the feast of the passover. The lamb to be eaten there, was a symbol of Christ's body; yet the very person that it represented stood in their midst, presenting himself as their Saviour, whose blood would preserve them from the wrath of a sin-hating God, and they refused his offers of mercy.
The miracle Jesus had performed in feeding the multitude, furnished him a forcible figure by which to illustrate his work upon earth. He declared that, as temporal bread imparts health and strength to the body, so will faith in Christ, and obedience to his teachings, give spiritual vigor to the soul, and life everlasting. But the Jews, determined to misinterpret his words, now engaged in angry contention, asking, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" They comprehended the meaning of Jesus, but were not willing to acknowledge it. They thought it a favorable opportunity to prejudice the people against him, by presenting his words to them in the most unfavorable light. "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from Heaven; and not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead; he that eateth of this bread, shall live forever."
The Jews appeared to be horrified at these sayings of Christ. Their law strictly forbade them to taste blood, and they construed his language into a sacrilegious speech, and contended and disputed over his words among themselves. Jesus gave his disciples, and the people, lessons which they could not at the time fully comprehend, because of their moral darkness. Many things which his followers did not fully understand when he uttered them, were made plain by subsequent events. His words were a stay to their hearts when he walked no more with them.
Even the disciples murmured at these last words of Jesus. They said, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?" The Saviour heard their complaints and answered them: "Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." Thus he instructed them that it was not his human flesh that would give life eternal, but faith in his words and in the efficacy of the sacrifice he was to make for the world. He reproved them because they had murmured when he said that he had come down from Heaven. If they were not able to receive this truth, how would it be when he ascended before their eyes to that Heaven from whence he came?
Jesus knew that many followed him who hoped to receive temporal favors thereby. They looked for him to work some miracle that would benefit them; but especially did they hope that he would eventually free them from the Roman yoke. He also knew that there was one near who would betray him. He told them that there were some among them who believed not. "And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father."
He wished them to understand that their hearts must be open to the Spirit of God before they could be drawn to him by faith. They must be willing to have their errors reproved, to eschew evil, and lead holy lives. The unbelief existing among the priests and rulers influenced the people to be hesitating and doubtful. Jesus had given them sufficient proof of his divinity; but their incredulous minds were ever seeking to explain away his wonderful works. They reasoned that the disciples might have been under a delusion when they saw him walking upon the water.
This discourse of Jesus cooled the enthusiasm of the people. If, by becoming his disciples, they must live righteous lives, deny self, and suffer humiliation, they had no desire to rally under his banner. They wanted the meat which perishes, and not that which endures unto everlasting life. Their ambition was for earthly riches and glory, and they had no relish for the words of Christ that taught personal purity, and a thorough reformation of life.
The murmuring of his followers grieved the heart of the Saviour. In openly rebuking their unbelief before the multitude, they had increased their disaffection, and many of them went back and walked no more with Jesus. He looked after these erring ones with eyes of pitying tenderness. They were greatly displeased, and, wishing to wound Jesus and gratify the malice of the Pharisees, they turned their backs upon him and left him with disdain. In doing this they made the fatal mistake of rejecting God's counsel to them.
The Saviour did not attempt to prevent the disaffected disciples from leaving him, but, turning to the twelve chosen ones, said sorrowfully, "Will ye also go away?" Peter promptly replied by asking in turn "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God." How full of meaning are these words, "To whom shall we go?" The teachers of Israel were slaves to cold formality. The Pharisees and Sadducees were in constant contention concerning the doctrine of the resurrection and other points of difference. To leave Jesus was to fall among sticklers for rites and ceremonies, and ambitious men who sought their own glory. The disciples had felt more peace and joy since they had accepted Christ than in all their previous lives. They had looked back with horror upon their former course of carelessness and iniquity. How could they, whose eyes had been opened to discern the malice and bigotry of the Jews, go back to them who had scorned and persecuted the Friend of sinners? Long had their faith sustained them in looking for the Messiah, and now that he had come, they could not turn from his presence to those who were hunting his life and had persecuted them for obeying him.—Life of Christ, by Mrs. E. G. White, pp. 279-289.
Verse 49. Your fathers did eat manna—and are dead.] That bread neither preserved their bodies alive, nor entitled them to life eternal; but those who receive my salvation, shall not only be raised again in the last day, but shall inherit eternal life. It was an opinion of the Jews themselves, that their fathers who perished in the wilderness, should never have a resurrection. Our Lord takes them on their own ground: Ye acknowledge that your fathers who fell in the wilderness, shall never have a resurrection; and yet they ate of the manna; therefore that manna is not the bread that preserves to everlasting life, according even to your own concession.—Clarke.
SYSTEM IN TEACHING.
A FEW years ago hymn-learning, catechism, and task-lessons formed the staple of even our Scripture-classes. Now there is a demand for good Bible-teaching, that will equal the teaching of our best academies and colleges. The Bible is so adapted and wonderful as to place us on great vantage ground. We want to know how to use it? Mr. J. G. Fitch, of the Normal College, London, has given us an admirable synopsis of the few simple principles which underlie the great art, and which, as he justly observes, "require to be pondered and thoroughly grasped by every teacher:"—
1. "Never to teach what you do not quite understand." Clear knowledge makes clear, pleasant teaching.
2. "Never to tell a child what you could make that child tell you." He will thus remember it ten times as long.
3. "Never to give a piece of information without asking for it again." The mind cannot retain what it does not expect to be called on for again, or to have a future use for.
4. "Never use a hard word if an easy one will convey your meaning; and never to use any word at all unless you are quite sure that it has a meaning to convey." Mark—not "long" word, but "hard" word.
5. "Never to begin an address, or a lesson, without a clear view of its end." Then aim high and at the mark.
6. "Never to give an unnecessary command, nor one which you do not mean to see obeyed." Therefore, few commands; for in case you fail to secure obedience the child rules you, and not you the child.
7. "Never to permit a child to remain in the class for a minute without something to do, and a motive for doing it." A child wants something to do, and cannot bear to be idle. Keep him busy.
Teaching is an art, and like any other art, it has to be learned—learned, too, by study, observation, and practice. It has its rules and principles. He who knows and practices them is a good workman; while he who neglects them is necessarily inefficient.—S. S. Index.
Training Needed to Teach Divine Truth
By Pardee
As well ask a brakeman to run a locomotive, or a spinner to superintend a factory, or an untaught man to teach an academy, as to ask an inexperienced person, or even a classical scholar, to teach divine truth when no one has taught him how.—Pardee.
LAME THEOLOGY.
By Editor
THE Christian Union has very able editors—learned men; yet they who get their theology from the Bible rather than from the schools can but wonder at their crude views on Bible doctrines. In a book review in that paper is the following language:—
“Fully agreeing with the author, that eternal suffering would be proved if eternal sin were proved, and not assuming to deny eternal sin, we yet fail to find it proved that sin will outlast the ‘eternal kingdom’ of Christ. That Kingdom of Messiah, though pronounced eternal in the Bible in terms as strong as those which pronounce the endlessness of punishment, is nevertheless distinctly declared to have an end, when the Son ‘shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father . . . that God may be all in all.’ We do not argue from this mystery that sin is not eternal—thus taking our ignorance as proof.”
There is no “mystery” in this subject to perplex the mind except that which is put into it by the speculations of men—there is none in the Bible. It is true that Paul speaks of “the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom;” 1 Cor. 15:24; and the angel who announced the birth of the Messiah said: “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David; and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” Luke 1:32, 33. Now if these scriptures speak of one and the same reign there is indeed a “mystery” beyond all possibility of explanation—there is a direct and positive contradiction. And it is not surprising that there are infidels among the inquiring thinkers of the day, when learned religious teachers put forth as Bible doctrine that which involves such contradictions. It will take something better than a cover of “mystery” to lead reasoning men to believe that that is consistent with divine truth which is not consistent with itself.
In regard to the reigning of Jesus, let us hear his own testimony: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Rev. 3:21. There are two thrones which the Lord Jesus occupies at different times.
1. The throne of his Father, which is in Heaven, upon which he sits as a priest, and upon which he will continue to sit until his enemies are put under his feet. See Ps. 110:1; Heb. 1:13; 10:12, 13. Of his reign on that throne there must be an end—his priesthood will close. He will deliver up that kingdom to God, even the Father, and come to earth the second time; not, as at his first advent, to offer salvation to his enemies, but “taking vengeance on them that know not God.” 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. Of this there is a prophecy in the second Psalm: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.” Ps. 2:8, 9. No scripture is used more than the eighth verse of this Psalm to prove the conversion of the world, and no scripture was ever more perverted than this when appropriated to such a use.
2. The throne of his father David—not in Heaven, but on this earth, “under the whole heavens.” Dan. 7:27. This he will receive at the close of his priesthood, under the sounding of the seventh trumpet; Rev. 11:15. Of his reign on this throne “there shall be no end.” With him the saints “shall reign forever and forever,” for “the meek shall inherit the earth.”
To make this yet more evident we will notice some differences in the prerogatives of these two thrones.
1. Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, but after the order of Melchisedec. Aaron had no kingship connected with his priesthood; but Melchisedec was both priest and king. After this order Christ is a priest on the throne of his Father. Aaron could not fully typify a priest with a kingship; this element was lacking in Aaron, and supplied in Melchisedec. As a priest after the order of Melchisedec; Christ must have a kingly priesthood. “We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the Heavens.” Heb. 8:1.
2. As Aaron had no kingship, so David had no priesthood. But Christ is to sit upon the throne of his father David, as well as on that of his Father in Heaven. On one he sits as a priest after the order of Melchisedec; on the other he sits a king as son of David—“after the order” of David—to rule over the house of Israel. But on this throne he will not be a priest; his kingly priesthood “he shall have delivered up to God, even the Father,” when he takes the throne of David. Of that kingdom there “cometh the end”—of this “there shall be no end.”
Giving full credit to the Saviour's words in Rev. 3:21, there is no “mystery” in this subject at all. It is all easy of comprehension. It is somewhat mysterious that “Reverends” and “Doctors of Divinity” cannot see these things in the holy Scriptures, but grope as blind men among mysteries and enigmas where all is clear as a sunbeam to the eye of humble faith.
If there were indeed an eternity of sin there could be no question about the eternity of suffering. In this the Union is right. Sin and suffering are inseparable. But they will both have an end. We believe, however, in “eternal punishment.”—“everlasting punishment,”—“everlasting destruction.” “The wages of sin is death,” and they who suffer the penalty of this death will remain dead to all eternity. There is no resurrection from “the second death.”
Ye Are My Friends
“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.”
BAPTISM IN THE GREEK CHURCH.
By Editor
IN meeting the claims of trine immersion in our work on Baptism, we made two statements to which we now call attention. 1. That the Greek Church is not reliable as a guide in the action of baptism; and, 2. That sprinkling, when first introduced into the church, was not practiced as a substitute for baptism, or immersion, but as an addition to it. We have before us a communication to the N. Y. Independent from Athens, by "Rev. M. D. Kalopothakes, Missionary in Greece," which gives information bearing on these points in regard to the present practice of the Greek Church, Mr. K. is also editor of a paper, The Star of the East. His remarks are in reference to some statements by Dean Stanley concerning the standing and practice of that church. We extract as follows:—
"The general practice, so far as my observation extends, is a combination of pouring and immersion, as mentioned by your correspondent, the child being plunged in three times and the priest lifting water with his hand and pouring it over the head. Whether this shall be done or the child plunged completely under the water seems to depend upon the choice of the officiating priest and the size of the font.
"Baptism by water being regarded as equal to regeneration, it is usually administered in early infancy, though in this respect the practice is not nearly so strict as in the Roman Church. If, for any reason, baptism is delayed (the most frequent reason being to secure the service of the most desirable person as sponsor), fonts of the usual size would not admit of entire immersion. Through the rural districts the rite is usually administered in the church, though occasionally in the house of the parents, as is the nearly general custom in the city, the font or vessel used in baptism being easily carried.
"My friend must have misunderstood my English when he got the idea that I said the common people prefer to have their infants baptized in the nearest river, as I have never known this to be done in the case of infants. When adults are baptized, it of course, becomes a necessity either to do it in the sea or in a large cask, as in the case of a Scotch lady who united with the Greek Church some years ago."
In their present practice, pouring water with the hand is substituted for sprinkling, which was the earlier practice. But this pouring does not displace immersion; they are practiced together, as sprinkling was united with immersion when it was first introduced into the church.
In regard to the standing of the Greek Church Mr. K. testifies as follows:—
"I regret to say that Dean Stanley has, according to my judgment, fallen into far more serious errors than this in his 'History of the Eastern Church,' failing to get at its present corrupt condition, and thus leading Christians in other lands to feel, by his unwarrantably favorable representations, that there is less need of radical reform than exists in the case of the Roman Church."
We should be very sorry to accept the Greek Church as our example in Christian practice.
"ALWAYS BE ON TIME."
By Editor
WHO wants to hear a slack, dilatory preacher? Diligence is so often and so strongly inculcated in the word of God that we cannot believe that any person can be an accepted minister of Christ who disregards it. Some ministers will let trifling obstacles prevent their keeping their appointments; but after a few such instances their congregations have so far lost confidence in them that any appeal from them in behalf of promptness in the discharge of duty has lost its power. Sometimes there is seen a congregation which is notably slow in assembling—lagging along a half hour late; but the fault is almost always with the minister. We never knew a minister who was early at the place of meeting, and began promptly at the time appointed, and who was earnest in giving his message, who had to complain of a dilatory congregation.
In an article passing through our exchanges, we find the following description of a tardy minister:—
"At length, however, Mr. D— would put in his appearance, and, as is the custom, kneel down for a moment's private devotion, preparatory to public duties. Then he would take his seat and survey the audience, evidently to see if there were enough persons present to warrant him in proceeding with the services. This done, he would reach forward and take down on his lap the great new Bible and proceed to fumble its pages—'searching the Scriptures'—for a long while to find some suitable selection for the lessons of the day. Next, to the disgust and horror of a score or more of young ladies who, by considerable effort, had purchased that beautiful book, with its morocco and gilt, and presented it to the church on the day of its dedication, he would deliberately turn down the leaves, making the worse kind of 'dog's-ears' so as not to lose his place. This portion of divine service over, he would reach forward and grapple with the new and beautiful hymn-book in the same way. He would seemingly search it through and through for his hymns, and, as each one was found, down would go a leaf or two right in the middle, smoothed down with a good pressure with religious care. By this time all would be in readiness, the ecclesiastical cannon would be loaded and primed ready for firing off.
"But once more the audience must be surveyed from one side to the other, as if he were looking for some particular individual. Then he would rise and announce his first hymn. But alas! nearly or quite a half-hour had elapsed since the last stroke of the bell. The precious time had gone; the congregation had grown impatient; the freshness had died out of all who were there; the young ladies were mortified and nervous over the ill-usage to which the new Bible and hymn-book had been subjected, and, in short, everybody was in a non-devotional state of mind."