Earlier text: ANSWERTHE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE.
ANOTHER element in the falling away out of which came the Beast, and which was a mighty impulse in the making of the Beast, was the adoption of pagan philosophy. In the second century there was a school of philosophy in Alexandria called the Eclectic, so called because its originator held that there was truth in all the philosophies of the world, and that if this truth was gathered out from all and embodied in one, this one would become the universal philosophy, and would dominate the world. At the beginning of the third century an improvement was made upon this system by a certain Ammonius Saccas, by which the formation of a universal philosophy, one that would dominate the world, should be accomplished more easily and much more quickly. Ammonius held that the essences of all the philosophies in the world were already one if only men understood one another; and he applied himself to the task of forming such a system of explanations as would enable the philosophers to understand all the philosophies just alike. Clement, one of the earliest “Fathers of the church,” adopted the system of Ammonius, and finally established a philosophical school in Alexandria, which at the same time he held under the name and form of Christian. Clement is supposed to have died about A. D. 220, and was succeeded by Origen, who had been taught by both Ammonius and Clement. This is the Origen who became by this very means, and even yet is regarded, one of the greatest of the Fathers of the Catholic Church. By his philosophizing comments in exposition of the Scriptures, to make this perverse Christianity acceptable to the heathen, and by the great success that he had in building up this new system of things, he became the commentator and master not only of his time, but for ages afterward. For “from the days of Origen to those of Chrysostom [A. D. 451] there was not a single eminent commentator that did not borrow largely from the words of” Origen. “He was the chief teacher of even the most orthodox of the Western Fathers.”—Farrar. From the beginning there was in the church earnest protest against this tendency to the heathen philosophy. Indeed, this was certain to be so on the part of all who respected the Scriptures, for there it is plainly written: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” For in Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. And this I say, lest any man should beguile you with enticing words.” And again, it was plainly stated in the Scriptures that by this very philosophy the world had been brought to the point where it did not know God. Therefore Christians were warned against it because it led away from God. But these would-be Christian philosophers were not restrained by this admonition of the Scriptures, because, as in former studies we have seen, it was not disciples to Christ that they were after, but “to draw away disciples after them,” and for this purpose they would even pervert what was plainly written in the Scripture. They wanted a multitude drawn to themselves that they might have power; and whatever means would draw the multitude was readily adopted by them. “The estimation in which human learning should be held was a question on which the Christians were about equally divided. Many recommended the study of philosophy, and an acquaintance with the Greek and Roman literature; while others maintained that these were pernicious to the interests of genuine Christianity and the progress of true piety.” This heathen philosophy and literature were pernicious to the interests of genuine Christianity, and could not be anything else. And the fact that there was any division at all on the subject among the Christians, simply reveals that among the Christians there were those who could not discern that the heathen philosophy and literature were not compatible with Christian principle and Christian literature. And this reveals further that the Christianity of those persons was a mere profession, that it consisted only in outward form. And this shows that the heart had never been touched by the divine Spirit, that these persons had never been converted. The natural mind was still theirs, the mind that “is enmity against God,” that “is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” They never had attained to true faith; to the righteousness, the character, of God, which is by faith; to the mind of Jesus Christ. And the fact that “the Christians were about equally divided” demonstrates that there were a great number at this time in the church who were unconverted, who knew nothing of true conversion, of the righteousness of God which is by faith, nor of the mind that was in Christ. These of course followed the lead of Clement and Origen, were pleased at the great “success” of these teachers and their school in gathering such large numbers to “Christianity;” and so “the cause of letters and philosophy triumphed, however, by degrees; and those who wished well to them continued to gain ground till at length the superiority was manifestly decided in their favor. This victory was principally due to the influence of Origen. . . . The fame of this philosophy increased daily among the Christians; and in proportion to his rising credit his method of proposing and explaining the doctrines of Christianity gained authority till it became almost universal.” Thus, by this means, yet further, “an host was given him” “by reason of transgression.” This system of philosophy, originated by Ammonius and perpetuated by Clement and Origen, was altogether Egyptian, and thence passed to the Greeks, among whom it was preserved in its bad purity, especially by Plato, from whom it was given the title of the New Platonism. The means employed by Ammonius, and from him adopted by Clement and Origen, of finding or making all the philosophies to be one, was a system of allegorization and mystification by which anybody could find whatever he wanted in any writing that might come to his notice. And when this method was applied to the Scriptures, it was easy enough to pervert the word of God so as to make it sanction anything taught in the pagan philosophies. According to it, in every passage of Scripture there are at least three meanings, and there may be from three to six meanings. The basis of this was the immortality of the soul. As every man is composed of body, soul, and spirit, so every Scripture has in it three original senses: (a) a literal sense corresponding to the body; (b) a moral sense, corresponding to the soul; and (c) a mystical sense, corresponding to the spirit, or mind. And as the body is the baser part of man, so the literal is the baser sense of the Scripture. And further, as the body often betrays good men into sin, so the literal sense of Scripture often leads into error. And yet further, as the body is a clog to the soul, and hinders it in its heavenly aspirations, and must therefore be despised and separated as far as possible from the soul; so the literal sense of Scripture, which corresponds to man's body, is likewise a hindrance to the detection and proper understanding of the hidden and mystical meanings of the Word, and therefore the literal sense of Scripture265must be despised and separated as far as possible from the hidden senses, and must be counted as of the least possible worth. Accordingly Origen taught and wrote: “The source of many evils lies in adhering to the carnal, or external, part of Scripture. Those who do so will not attain to the kingdom of God. Let us therefore seek after the substantial fruits of the Word, which are hidden and mysterious. The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written.” This system at once took away the Scriptures from the common people, and shut up the Scriptures to be interpreted solely by these philosophers, who alone were learned in the mystifications and mysteries that were “the true spirit and substantial fruit of the Word.” The common people could understand the Scriptures only as they are written, just as they must any other writing; because they knew nothing of the use of that method of mystification. And as it was settled that those who did understand the Scriptures as they are written would “not attain to the kingdom of God,” it was plainly in the interests of the common people themselves that these leaders in the new philosophic “Christianity” should withhold the Scriptures from them. For it was only in the receiving of the mystifications of these self-exalted teachers that the ignorant—the common people—could attain to the real truth and “substantial fruit of the Word.” In this Egyptiaco-Platonic-philosophic-Christian system of the third century lies the origin and the philosophy of the papacy's forbidding even to this day the common people to read the Scriptures. And when from the common people the Scriptures were shut away, and were shut up exclusively to a perverse-minded hierarchy, who were set on reading into them every pagan doctrine that they chose, in order to be able to class the pagans as Christians—when thus such a sinful and iniquitous “host was given him . . . by reason of” such “transgression,” it was easy, and indeed only natural, that, as the consequence, there should be revealed “that man of sin, . . . the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,” “the mystery of iniquity,” “that Wicked,” “the Beast.” The law that is here under consideration brings men to Christ, that they may “be justified by faith.” Justification by faith is the object in view. But from the example of Abel, and from the ceremonial law of Leviticus, which we have already presented in these studies, it has been demonstrated that the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings was itself the way of justification by faith; so that it is impossible for a law which in itself is justification by faith, to bring men to justification by faith. On the other hand, what is the necessity for justification?—All have sinned; all have transgressed the law; all are shut up under sin, and so kept under the law. And they never can be justified by the law. The only possible escape is by faith of Jesus Christ. Their only hope of justification is in justification by faith. Consequently, this law is the law by which is the knowledge of sin; the law by which all men are shut up under sin; the law “under” which every man is “kept” until he is justified by faith. This law it is that is the schoolmaster to bring men unto Christ in order that they may be justified by faith. One other word just here. The ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings is done away. There is no question of that anywhere. Now if it were the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings that brought men to Christ, that they might be justified by faith—since that is done away, how can men be brought to Christ? and how can they find justification by faith? If that were the law here referred to, then, of all things, that law never should have been, and it never could have been, in righteousness, done away, so long as there remained a single soul that needed to be brought to Christ, that needed to be justified by faith. Consequently, since that law has been done away, and ever since it was done away, men have needed to be brought to Christ, and to be justified by faith, this, in itself, is the most conclusive proof that the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings is not at all, and could not possibly be, the law here referred to. For these reasons that law could be only a law that abides forever—and that law is the MORAL law—the law by which is the knowledge of sin, by which all the world is declared and held guilty before God, until they are justified by faith. For “what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” “But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. “Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay; but by the law of faith. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Rom. 3: 19–28. All this of the moral law. But it was with the very deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings that men were justified by faith. Indeed, no man could be justified by faith without the deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings; because the deeds of the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings were the very expression of faith itself. “By faith Abel offered unto God a . . . sacrifice.” What was the faith worth that brought no sacrifice?—Nothing. That was Cain’s faith. The law, then, that brought men to Christ that they might be justified by faith, is a law, and must be a law, without the deeds of which men are justified by faith. And this is true and can be true only of the moral law. One of the principle sources of misunderstanding of this text, lies in the taking of the word “schoolmaster” in the sense of our everyday word “school-teacher.” Taking it to mean school-teacher, and knowing that the ten commandments do not of themselves teach, instruct, or tell men, about Christ and his work of salvation, while the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings does,—because in figure it was Christ,—it is concluded that this law which was the schoolmaster, must be, and can be, only the ceremonial law of sacrifices and offerings. But the word translated schoolmaster does not signify a school-teacher. It signifies a schoolmaster, in the sense of a master as a disciplinarian; not a school-teacher, in the sense of an instructor. It is true that the schoolmaster, the disciplinarian, might be, and sometimes was, also a school-teacher, an instructor, but that was only an incident. The original and primary thought of the word is that of master, as a disciplinarian, a watcher, a corrector. Accordingly the German of Luther translates it “Zucht-meister—master of a house of correction.” The Greek word corresponds to the Latin and Anglicized word “tutor,” and in some translations is rendered “tutor.” But even as connected with the idea of tutor, the thought of teacher only incidentally attaches; because the original and primary meaning of “tutor” is simply “a guardian; a watcher; a protector.” A guardian may be indeed a teacher also, if he have the ability and faculty to be a teacher also; but that is not the original and primary thought in the word: it is only an incident. The Greek word translated schoolmaster is paidagogos, and signifies “a boy-ward;” “a child-conductor,” or “child-guide;” “the slave who went with a boy from home to school and back again, a kind of tutor.” “Fabius is jeeringly called the paidagogos of Hannibal, because he always followed him about:—generally a leader, demokratias, tyrannidos.” The thought that he was primarily a person apart from the teacher of the boy, is emphasized in the word “paidagogos—the room in a schoolhouse in which the paidagogoi waited for their boys.” The Century Dictionary says: “Among the Greeks and Romans the pedagogue was originally a slave who attended the younger children of his master, and conducted them to school, to the theater, etc., combining, in many cases instruction with guardianship.” If the thought intended to be conveyed in this verse were that of school-teacher, the word would have to be not paidagogos, but didaskalos. The law then here meant is not a law which in itself teaches of Christ; but that which conducts men as children to Christ, that by him they may be taught. The law is not in itself the teacher, but that which watches, guards, corrects, and conducts men as untrained and unruly children to Christ as to the school where by him they shall be taught. And the only law that can possibly fit the thought, not only of the single word paidagogos, but also of the whole context of which verses 24, 25, are only the conclusion and consequence, is the moral law—the law of ten commandments. For “the scripture hath shut up all under sin;” “we were kept under the law shut up unto the faith.” “Wherefore”—consequently—“the law was our paidagogos—watcher, warden, guardian, corrector, and conductor—unto Christ, that [so that, in order that] we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come we are no longer under” the law—no longer “kept under the law,” “shut up under sin.” “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Two correspondents think that this is new doctrine, especially for and in the REVIEW AND HERALD; but wherever and with whomsoever this may be new doctrine, there is one thing certain, and that is that for and in the REVIEW AND HERALD it is not in any sense new. Consider: The first number of the REVIEW AND HERALD ever issued, was Vol. I, No. 1, in November, 1850—forty-nine and a half years ago. No. 5 of Vol. I was issued in January, 1851. In that No. 5 was the first notice of the third chapter of Galatians that was ever made in the REVIEW AND HERALD. It is in an article by J. N. Andrews, on “The Perpetuity of the Law of God.” From that article we quote, just as there printed, enough to make perfectly plain to all now, the position that was held in and by the REVIEW then:— Our faith may be expressed in a single sentence: GOD’S LAW COVERS ALL TIME, and under all dispensations it stands out before men as the rule of their lives, and the sum of their duty to God. The fall of man left “the work of the law” written in his heart, though faintly indeed; then at Mt. Sinai it was written in tables of stone by the finger of God; then, under the new covenant, it is written in the hearts of God’s people, even as it was before the fall. We appeal to men of candor and reason. Are not these things so? Galatians 3. The great doctrine of justification by faith having been lost sight of by the Galatian church, the apostle argues the point with them; and with great clearness shows that it is our only hope of salvation. Hence, the different covenants which God has made with his people are here examined and contrasted. The covenant made with Abraham, which was based on the righteousness of faith, is first introduced. This covenant secured to himself, and to his seed, the inheritance of the earth. Rom. 4: 13. . . . The question now arises, Why does the apostle say that the law could not disannul the promise made to Abraham? Is there anything in the law which is against the promise of God?—No, verily. See verse 21. For the law of God, which embodies his requirements, and man’s duty, can not be contrary to his own promise. Why then is it said that if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise? We answer that God made perfect obedience to his law the condition on which he took Israel, the literal seed of Abraham, to be his people. Jer. 11: 3, 4; Ex. 19: 5–8; 20. This covenant made the works of the law the condition on which they should receive the inheritance, instead of the righteousness of faith, which was the condition of the promise made to Abraham. But it is plain that if the deeds of the law be made the ground of justification, then is justification by faith made void. And as it is evident that fallen, guilty man can not be justified by a law266which already condemns him, he could then have no hope of salvation. . . . Why, then, it may be asked, did God give to Israel a covenant which recognized perfect obedience as its only condition? We reply, He did it that he might exclude all appearance of heirship from the natural seed, except such as should walk in the faith of their father Abraham. Hear the apostle: ‘For if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.’ Such are the only heirs. That article on “The Perpetuity of the Law of God” was concluded in No. 6 of Vol. I; and in this Elder Andrews took up the very verses that stand at the head of this present Study in Galatians, as follows:— Gal. 3: 23–26. . . . How is the law a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ? Answer: The law shows our guilt and just condemnation, and that we are lost without a Saviour. Read Paul’s account of this school, in Rom. 7: 7–25. “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3: 20. “I had not known sin, but by the law.” Rom. 7: 7. Then the instruction of the law is absolutely necessary, that we may know ourselves to be sinners in the sight of God. We find ourselves sinners by past offenses, and unable to render present obedience. The just penalty of the law hangs over our heads; we find ourselves lost, and fly to Jesus Christ for refuge. The same thoughts were published again in Vol. II, No. 4, Sept. 16, 1851; and in Vol. III, No. 7, Aug. 5, 1852; so that it plainly stands as the original doctrine of the REVIEW AND HERALD as to the law of God in Galatians 3. And that it was sound doctrine then, and is sound doctrine now, is certain from the fact that in the REVIEW AND HERALD of April 5, 1898, in the first-page article, under the title of “The Perfect Law,” the Spirit of Prophecy speaks as follows:— The law of God, as presented in the Scriptures, is broad in its requirements. Every principle is holy, just, and good. The law lays men under obligation to God; it reaches to the thoughts and feelings; and it will produce conviction of sin in every one who is sensible of having transgressed its requirements. . . . In his teachings, Christ showed how far-reaching are the principles of the law spoken from Sinai. He made a living application of that law whose principles remain forever the great standard of righteousness. . . . Paul’s testimony of the law is: “What shall we say then? Is the law sin [the sin is in the man, not in the law]? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. . . . Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” . . . There is no safety nor repose nor justification in transgression of the law. Man can not hope to stand innocent before God, and at peace with him through the merits of Christ, while he continues in sin. He must cease to transgress, and become loyal and true. As the sinner looks into the great moral looking-glass, he sees his defects of character. He sees himself just as he is, spotted, defiled, and condemned. But he knows that the law can not in any way remove the guilt, or pardon the transgressor. He must go farther than this. The law is but the schoolmaster to bring him to Christ. He must look to his sin-bearing Saviour. And as Christ is revealed to him upon the cross of Calvary, dying beneath the weight of the sins of the whole world, the Holy Spirit shows him the attitude of God to all who repent of their transgressions. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And all this is—not the law in Galatians, but—the gospel in Galatians—justification, righteousness, by faith,—the Third Angel’s Message. The American Court and Sovereignty
As to that “American court,” with its “court chamber” and “court dress,” that has been established at Washington, D. C., we noted last week that the idea signifies “specifically, the collective body of persons who compose the retinue or council of a sovereign or other PRINCELY dignity.” Only royalty can appropriately hold court. It consists only with “a sovereign or other princely dignity.” The definition of “sovereign” is “supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; not subject to any other; hence, royal; princely; a ruler, governor , chief, or master; one to whom allegiance is due.” Study now this subject in connection with the statements as to these colonial governors being the “personal representatives of the President,” and as such “possessing absolute power,” and “unswerving loyalty to their President,” etc. In his history of “The Fall of the Roman Empire,” Sismondi, tracing the decline from republic to empire, remarks that “the people of the provinces, strangers to the antique liberty, perceived no difference between the republic and the empire; the army, confounding fidelity to a standard with the duty of citizens, and blind obedience with patriotism, attached themselves to the Julian family with implicit and unhesitating devotion.”—Chap. 2, par. 9. THE KING OF BABYLON EXALTS HIMSELF ABOVE GOD.
By W. W. P.
ALL the world was represented at the dedication of this image. It was a world-wide proclamation of the greatness and power of Babylon. And the command that all the people should “fall down and worship the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king hath set up,” was issued in order to compel all the world to acknowledge this greatness and power as supreme. The dedication of the image was really a deification of the kingdom of Babylon, the state, as represented in Nebuchadnezzar, under whose rule Babylon had attained to such a pinnacle of greatness. The refusal to worship the image would thus be regarded as high treason against the state, or kingdom, of Babylon, and was to be punished with death in “a burning fiery furnace.” No opportunity was given to the people to exercise any choice in the matter. In Babylon the people are not allowed either conscience or free will. Their religion is prescribed to them by the state, and consists simply in the acknowledgment of the greatness of the state, and the right of the state as represented by the king to have undisputed control over both the bodies and the souls of men. The right of the individual man to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, apart from the dictation of the state, is wholly ignored, and the king assumes to become the keeper of the conscience of the people. Thus it has always been in all false religions. Substituting the visible for the invisible, the worldly for the heavenly, the human for the divine, they must depend upon the compelling power of the flesh instead of the ‘drawing power of the Spirit; and upon the threat of pains and penalties enforced by the state, instead of the love that gives itself, in order to secure and hold their followers. This is the philosophy of all religious tyranny and persecution. When it is once granted that the state has any right to prescribe to the people what or how they shall worship, or whether they shall worship at all, then the punishment of those who refuse to obey those commands of the state is not persecution at all, but simply a just provision for the enforcement of the laws. So it was in Babylon of the Chaldees, and so it is in the Babylon of to-day. The command of the king, accompanied with the threat of death in case of disobedience, had its intended effect, and “all the people . . . fell down and worshiped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up.” We are facing the same issues to-day, and another world-wide effort will be made to compel all the people under the threat of death to accept man in the place of God, and the commandments of men in the place of the commandments of God, and there is only one way of escape; for “all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Rev. 13:8. And this power of the gospel of life to deliver from the fear of any earthly power was known and proclaimed that day “in the province of Babylon.” “Wherefore at that time certain Chaldeans came near, and accused the Jews. They spake and said to the king Nebuchadnezzar, O king, live forever. Thou, O king, hast made a decree, that every man that shall hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, shall fall down and worship the golden image; and whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, that he should be cast into the midst of a burning fiery furnace. There are certain Jews whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee: they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” The refusal of these men to obey the command of the king was a most flagrant offense, as the Chaldeans viewed the case. Their nation had been conquered by the king of Babylon, and they were captives; but at the request of Daniel, and in recognition of his service rendered to the king, they had been “set over the affairs of the province.” And yet in spite of all this, they refused obedience to the royal decree. Although raised to the dignity of administering the laws of the realm, they themselves disregarded the law in the presence of “all the rulers of the provinces.” And to disregard this particular law on this particular occasion was certainly to show public contempt for the person of the king, and was a most aggravated case of high treason. This is the method of reasoning adopted by those who deify the state, and claim for it supreme authority both in temporal and in spiritual matters. “It is the law,” they say, “and it must be obeyed. Every loyal citizen will regard the law of the land; and to disregard it willfully is to show a spirit of disloyalty which ought to be punished as practically treason against the state.” And this method of reasoning will justify all the persecutions from the time of Nebuchadnezzar until now. It is not persecution to enforce a just law, even though it may bring severe punishment upon the offenders. “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Then they brought these men before the king. Nebuchadnezzar spake and said unto them, Is it true, O Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image which I have set up? Now if ye be ready that at what time ye hear the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and dulcimer, and all kinds of music, ye fall down and worship the image which I have made; well: but if ye worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the midst of a burning fiery furnace; and who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?” The king proposed to deal fairly with these men. It was hardly thought possible that they would persist in their refusal to obey duly constituted authority, and especially when the certainty of the penalty was held before them. Of course there was no suggestion of a change of the law; for was not the king of Babylon the king of all the earth? And had he not conquered all the Jews? And shall he now be conquered by only three of them? If the God of the Jews is stronger than the king of Babylon, why did he not deliver Jerusalem? Nebuchadnezzar was yet to learn of the power of the kingdom of God within, through which one is “strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man,” and by which he experiences the indwelling of “him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us.” But God had committed this gospel to these three men to proclaim in Babylon, by their loyalty to the principles of his kingdom even in the face of death, and this attempt of King Nebuchadnezzar himself to dissuade them from their loyalty to their King only served to give the greater force to this second message from the God of heaven to the king of Babylon. “Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so,267our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.” There is only one answer to be returned to one who seeks to turn a true child of the kingdom from his loyalty to his God, whether it be the king on his throne or the humblest peasant, and that answer is so simple that it can be made at once. The motto is, “Faithful unto death.” These men had heard the voice which fills every loyal heart with hope and courage: “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings. For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness shall be forever, and my salvation from generation to generation.” Isa. 51:7, 8. Nebuchadnezzar might do what he would with their bodies, if he was willing to assume that responsibility; but so long as they had the control of them, they would yield them to be instruments of righteousness, and not prostrate them in worship before any other being than the King of heaven. Their answer was the same as was given in the wilderness when the same temptation was pressed by “the god of this world,” upon the Son of man: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” As faithful and true witnesses, they said, with Job, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him.” W. W. P. JAMAICA
By F. I. Richardson
MAHOGANY GROVE.—Over a year ago, labor was begun at Mahogany Grove by two natives, Brethren A. G. Peart and Frank Hall. The Lord blessed their efforts, and a few persons began the observance of the Sabbath. They called for help, and Elder C. A. Hall went to their assistance with his tent. The result is a membership of sixty-eight, with twenty-five more who have applied for baptism. They have also just finished a chapel eighteen by thirty feet. The walls are concrete, and the roof is shingled, which makes the building cool, a quality much appreciated in this climate. The people say this chapel is an ornament to the place. We are informed that this is the first chapel ever completed in this district. One was begun about eighteen years ago, but got no further than the foundation pillars; so the dedication of this chapel was an important event for the people of this district. Nearly everybody seemed to have an interest in it. The brethren had it nicely decorated with flowers, evergreens, and oranges. There was a large attendance. The exercises passed off well. The Spirit of the great Peacemaker seemed to touch all hearts. As the gathering broke up, many wishes were made for the continued prosperity of the work so well begun. We have several chapels in process of construction in different parts of the island; but our brethren are very poor, and it seems almost impossible to complete these chapels, the work on some having stood still for several months, for lack of money. Our earnest prayer is that some one will give us a little help to finish them. We stand in great need of about three hundred dollars. It seems to us there is no place where this amount of money would do more good to the cause than here. Please send all contributions to W. H. Edwards, Rooms 1905-7, 150 Nassau St., New York, N. Y.