Earlier text: General ArticlesBishop Chandler's list, professedly made up from Machiavelli's “History of Florence,” is as follows:— “(1) The Ostrogoths in Moesia; (2) the Visigoths in Pannonia; (3) the Sueves and Alans in Gascoigne and Spain; (4) the Vandals in Africa; (5) the Franks in France; (6) the Burgundians in Burgundy; (7) the Heruli and Turingi in Italy; (8) the Saxons and Angles in Britain; (9) the Huns in Hungary; (10) the Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.” So far as the names are concerned this list is correct with the exception of the Huns. As this list is the one which has been most generally accepted, it will be necessary to give quite fully the reasons which have compelled us to reject the Huns as one of the ten. In justification we submit the following facts: 1. It is a fact that the only part of what is now Hungary that was ever within the Western empire, is that portion that lies west of the Danube, and which formed part of the province of Pannonia. 2. It is a fact that the people who formed what is now the kingdom of Hungary, and from whom that country took its name of Hungary, never appeared in Europe till A. D. 884, and in 889 A. D. overran the country which bears their name. 3. It is a fact that they were not Huns, but Magyars (Ουγγροι, Ugri, Wengri, Ungri, Ungari, Hungari). See Encyc. Brit., art. “Hungary,” History; Gibbon, chap. 55, par. 4–8; Hallam, Middle Ages, chap. 1, part 1, sec. 12. Therefore to name the “Huns in Hungary” as though Hungary received its name from the Huns, and as though it were a continuation of the kingdom of the Huns, is decidedly wrong. This is confirmed by additional facts. 1. It is a fact that the real Huns—the Huns of Attila—first entered the province of Pannonia about A. D. 380; that Pannonia was abandoned to them by the patrician Aëtius about A. D. 424, and was confirmed to them by a treaty with Theodosius II. about A. D. 430; that Attila, with his brother Bleda, succeeded his uncle Rugilas in the rule of the Huns in A. D. 433 and died in A. D. 453. 2. It is a fact that shortly after the death of Attila the power of the Huns was broken to pieces. 3. It is a fact that from the battle of the Netad onward, the Huns never possessed any portion of territory within the Western Empire. 4. And it is a fact that the empire, the kingdom, and the nation of the Huns of Attila was “extinguished.” Gibbon states in a single paragraph, these last three facts; he says:— “The revolution which subverted the empire of the Huns, established the fame of Attila, whose genius alone had sustained the huge and disjointed fabric. . . . Ellac, the eldest son of Attila, lost his life and crown in the memorable battle of Netad; his early valor had raised him to the throne of the Acatzires, a Scythian people, whom he subdued; and his father, who loved the superior merit, would have envied the death of Ellac. His brother Dengisich, with an army of Huns, still formidable in their flight and ruin, maintained his ground above fifteen years on the banks of the Danube. The palace of Attila, with the old country of Dacia, from the Carpathian hills to the Euxine, became the seat of a new power which was erected by Ardaric, king of the Gepidæ. The Pannonian conquests, from Vienna to Sirmium, were occupied by the Ostrogoths; and the settlements of the tribes, who had so bravely asserted their native freedom, were irregularly distributed according to the measure of their respective strength. Surrounded and oppressed by the multitude of his father's slaves, the kingdom of Dengisich was confined to the circle of his wagons; his desperate courage urged him to invade the Eastern Empire; he fell in battle; and his head, ignominiously exposed in the Hippodrome, exhibited a grateful spectacle to the people of Constantinople. Attila had fondly or superstitiously believed that Irnæ, the youngest of his sons, was destined to perpetuate the glories of his race. The character of that prince, who attempted to moderate the rashness of his brother Dengisich, was more suitable to the declining condition of the Huns; and Irnæ with his subject hordes retired into the heart of the Lesser Scythia. [The Lesser Scythia—now the Dobrudschæ—was that little piece of country lying between the Black Sea and the Danube, along the course of that river where it flows northward, near its mouth. It contains about 2,900 square miles.] They were soon overwhelmed by a torrent of new barbarians, who followed the same road which their own ancestors had formerly discovered. The Geougen, or Avars, whose residence is assigned by the Greek writers to the shores of the ocean, impelled the adjacent tribes; till at length the Igoans of the North, issuing from the cold Siberian regions which produce the most valuable furs, spread themselves over the desert as far as the Borysthenes [Dnieper] and the Caspian gates; and finally extinguished the empire of the Huns.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 35, par. 16. The “Encyclopedia Britannica” tells of the death of Attila in A. D. 453, and then says:— “Almost immediately afterwards, the empire he had amassed rather than consolidated, fell to pieces. His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance, while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidæ, was placing himself at the head of a general revolt of the dependent nations. The inevitable struggle came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which 30,000 of the Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila's eldest son, were slain. The nation thus broken, rapidly dispersed; one horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia (the Dobrudschæ), others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Servia and Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia. The main body, however, appear to have resumed the position on the steppes of the river Ural which they had left less than a century before.”—Article “Huns.” “Chambers's Cyclopedia” says:— “With the death of Attila the power of the Huns was broken in pieces. A few feeble sovereigns succeeded to him but there was strife everywhere among the several nations that had owned the firm sway of Attila, and the Huns especially never regained their power.” Adams's “Historical Chart” says:— “The fall of the empire of the Huns begins with the death of Attila, A. D. 453. Their power was broken and the nation was soon extinguished.” The very latest authority on the subject says:— “Whilst the Magyars continued to dwell quietly along the Don, the Huns proceeded with an immense army, each tribe contributing ten thousand men, against Western Europe, conquering and rendering tributary, in the course of their wanderings, numerous nations, and finally settled on the banks of the Theiss and Danube. Later on, however, in the middle of the 5th century, when the world-renowned Attila, ‘the scourge of God,’ came into power, the Huns carried their victorious arms over a great part of the western world. The immense empire, however, which had been founded by King Attila, was destined to be but of short duration after the death of its founder. His sons Aladar and Csaba, in their contention for the inheritance, resorted to arms. The war ended with the utter destruction of the nation.” “Whilst the sons of Attila were contending with each other for the possession of the empire, the Germanic populations fell upon the divided Huns and drove them back to the Black Sea,” “All of the followers of Aladar perished; Csaba, however, succeeded in escaping from the destroying arms of the neighboring nations, who had fallen on the quarreling brothers, with about fifteen thousand men, to the territories of the Greek Empire. . . . He returned afterwards with the remainder of his people to the home of his ancestors, on the banks of the Don, where up to the time of his death, he never tired of inciting the Magyars to emigrate to Pannonia and to revenge themselves on their enemies by reconquering the empire of Attila.” “The Gepidæ remained now the masters of the country east of the Danube, whilst the Ostrogoths occupied the ancient Roman province. The latter however, under the lead of their king, Theodoric, migrated in a body to Italy, crossing the Alps, and founded there on the ruins of the Roman Empire, a Gothic kingdom. The Gepidæ remained in consequence the sole ruling people in Hungary.”—The Story of Hungary, chap. 3, par. 5, 6; chap. 2, par. 5, 6. [This book was written by Arminius Vámbéry, Professor at the University of Buda-Pesth, the capital of Hungary, and was printed August, 1886, by Putnam's Sons, New York]. The Gepidæ continued to be the sole ruling people in Hungary, for about one hundred years, until A. D. 566, when that nation was obliterated by the united powers of the Lombards and the Avars. The Avars, who are sometimes called Huns, first heard of the Roman Empire in A. D. 558, and were first seen by Europeans when an embassy came from them to Constantinople, in the reign of Justinian, that same year. After the destruction of the Gepidæ, the Lombards gave up all their Pannonian possessions to the Avars, A. D. 567, and went to Italy. The Avars inhabited and ruled the country until the invasion of the Magyars, A. D. 889, who still inhabit the country which from them bears the name of Hungary. See Decline and Fall, chap. 42, par. 6; chap. 45, par. 2–4. By these evidences it is certain that after the battle of the Netad—A. D. 453.—there was never within the Western Empire a vestige of the power known to history as that of the Huns. Therefore they certainly cannot rightly be counted among the ten kingdoms. And as the Magyars who formed the kingdom of Hungary never appeared in history till they entered Europe in A. D. 884, nor did they ever enter the country that bears their name till A. D. 889, it is literally impossible that they could be counted one of the ten kingdoms which the prophecy demands should be in existence at least 396 years before: that is, in A. D. 493. THE service of God, as required, is very comprehensive, and its demands cannot be met by attending to a few forms and observances. Its standard is the revealed will of God. On this foundation its claims must rest. Whatever comes short of this measure is defective. In all this service supreme love to God is the mainspring. In loving him and by loving him, God is served. Till he is loved, he is not responsibly served. The reason why his service is not found to be hard, is seen in the love with which he is regarded. It is always easy to serve those whom we love, and those who love God as they ought, will not find it hard to serve him as they ought. Here then is the starting-point in becoming the servants of God—love to God. Doing all that he requires, in the case of those who love him, follows as the effect of a cause.—Sel. The Christian and Ripening Corn
By Guthrie
THE Christian is like the ripening corn; the riper he grows, the more lowly he bends his head.—Guthrie. Thy Testimonies Are My Meditation
“Thy testimonies are my meditation.” Liberal Christianity.
By Wm. Penniman
In a sermon published in the St. Louis Globe Democrat, some time since, Mr. Beecher says:—“If anybody wants to go into the Roman Catholic Church, and I think he is good enough, let him come to me, and I will give him a letter of dismissal from this church and send him there. I have done it already in one instance, and I have no doubt the young girl is better off than she would be in this church.” Speaking of the qualities which he terms true spiritual manhood, he says: “Do you mean, then, if a Mohammedan has these qualities of soul he is acceptable to God? I do. Do you mean to say if a man is an infidel, he can be acceptable to God? I do.” Finally, in conclusion, hear this noted theologian, as follows: “If in any way a man has gone up, if any man has found in himself the kingdom of Heaven without knowing Jesus Christ, or ever having heard of him, he will be saved. It is not calling out a name that saves, it is falling in love with the qualities represented by that name. The question is not whether a man has complied with a system. There are a good many heathen Christians that will teach Christians in the other life, I guess.” This very liberal divine would not send any of his members into the Catholic Church unless “good enough.” It is strange that he should make goodness an objection, for he knows very well that sinners can have their sins all forgiven there, and if they happen to die unpardoned, they can have them forgiven hereafter, and even have their souls prayed out of purgatory. There is not much doubt but that some of Mr. Beecher’s church members would be better off in the Catholic Church; for although in the former they are taught the infallibility of the Pope, and that the fires of purgatory are ever burning, yet, in the latter they are taught to deny the efficiency of the atonement, and the conditional plan of salvation in the gospel. If Mohammedans and infidels can be saved according to Mr. Beecher’s plan, then why not everybody? True, they must be endowed with true spiritual manhood; but what kind of spiritual manhood has a Mohammedan, who knows nothing about the spiritual things of God? Neither can he know them, for they are “spiritually discerned.” Again, how can an infidel, who does not believe in either God or spirit, be possessed of this quality? And even if the class to which he alludes had truly this spiritual manhood (moral goodness), it does not follow that they would be saved; for “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.” Again, “if in any way a man has gone up.” How does this accord with the teaching of Christ, who says, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’ But Mr. Beecher seems to think “any way” will do. This position plainly contradicts Christ’s teaching, and proves the truthfulness of his words, that they that “climb up some other way, the same are thieves and robbers.” To which class does Mr. Beecher belong? The great trouble with Mr. Beecher seems to be that he has “gone up” too high; so high that he does not seem to see the plain teachings of God’s word. How can a man find in himself the kingdom of Heaven without knowing Christ, or ever having heard of him? The truth of the matter is, that Christ and the kingdom of Heaven are inseparably connected. It was a part of his mission to teach the world, not only how to become subjects of the kingdom of grace, but also how to become subjects of his everlasting kingdom, to be set up at his second coming. True, as Mr. Beecher says, there is more in the qualities of a name than in calling it out; but what will he do with this text, that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” but in the name of Jesus. Do not the name and the qualities go together, or can we have the one without the other? Certainly it is “guess” work when he talks of heathen Christians teaching Christians in the other life. Wm. PENNIMAN. The great apostle has quoted from Habakkuk, in each of his three great epistles, this declaration: “The just shall live by faith.” If it were necessary to give special emphasis to this great truth, this repetition of it would sufficiently set forth its paramount importance. But all readers of God’s word have already recognized that faith is the fundamental and only working grace of God’s people. Without it it is impossible to please God; and with it all things are possible to the believer, as concerning God and his grace and power. By it, we are told, the weakest saint can move the arm of omnipotence. All the mighty achievements of the ancient worthies were accomplished by it, whether by life or death. Faith was no less conspicuous under the old dispensation than under the new. The head of the Hebrew race was a man of faith; and because of his faith in God he was called “the father of the faithful.” The sole condition of our salvation is “faith.” “Whosoever believeth in him is not condemned,” while “he that believeth not is condemned already, because he has not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.” The gospel is preached because it is believed by those who preach it; and the Christian life is maintained only because these things are surely believed by us. Faith is the laboring oar in our work for Christ. Love may be the inspiration, but faith is the working grace. “Sir, I believe God,” was the sublime answer which Paul made to the centurion and the master of the ship which was going to wreck, and by which he, the little condemned Jew, was placed in practical command of the ship. When Luther saw this truth, as he was laboring up the stone stairway in Rome, seeking peace through bodily penance and human merit, he sprang from his knees and, as some one has said, put that sublime text, “the just shall live by faith,” to his lips, as a silver trumpet, and blew a jubilee blast upon it which awakened a sleeping world from Rome to the Orkneys. It may seem needless to go over these trite truths which some of our readers may feel are mere platitudes; but we find it needful to remind ourselves of fundamental truth oftentimes, and make a further inquiry as to whether our apprehension of the truth is practical or only formal. Now, since faith is the essential grace of the believer, the question arises: “Have I faith; and, if I have, is it a real or vain faith; a theoretical or a practical one?” It must be seen at a glance that, though there are not different kinds of faith, there are different conditions and different objects of faith. For instance, it is very common to hear men say they believe the Bible to be the word of God; but that is not practical faith, so far as salvation is concerned; for the Scriptures are not in themselves saving, they are but the witnesses which testify of Christ. Faith, then, to avail, must take hold on Christ himself, his person and his work. There are a great many persons who believe in Christianity; but are destitute of faith in Christ. Not a few persons are troubled on this score. They are not sure whether their faith is a practical one—that is, a real, saving faith; but there need be no difficulty in settling that point. We may know, as a matter of mental observation, what is the direction and object of our faith. If, when we question ourselves as to the ground of our hope, our thought of faith flies to the church, or to the creed, or to the ordinances, or to any deeds of righteousness which we have done, we may be pretty sure that our faith is not very practical so far as salvation is concerned; for the faith that saves flies straight to Christ, as the needle to the pole; but, again, if our faith is a practical one, it will direct and control our lives. The ancient worthies “saw the promises from afar,” were persuaded of them, embraced them and confessed that they were pilgrims and strangers in the earth, and set out for another country, even an heavenly. Now, is our faith working such practical results in us? Abraham believed God, and, therefore, though sorely tried, did not stagger, but offered up his son. Test your faith. Does it control your life, and is it exercised toward God and Christ?—Independent. WHAT would be thought of a military training-school in which no attention was given to drill and discipline, but where the whole effort of the authorities was to enable the students to get on enjoyably? That is not the sort of schooling which prepares a young soldier for his part in the hardships of camp and campaigning. But every family is, in a sense, a military training-school, if Paul was right when he exhorted the young disciple to endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. There are Christian families, however, where the young are trained in habits of self-indulgence, rather than of self-denial, and where each is taught, in deed if not in word, to seek the easiest place in God’s host, rather than to endure hardship in the path of duty. This may prove a terrible mistake. The parent who fails to train his child in Christian self-denial, not only fails to prepare that child for the battles of life, but gives him the first impulse toward a reckless course of demoralization, and a career of uncontrolled license.—S. S. Times. LOVE to Christ smooths the path of duty, and wings the feet to travel it; it is the bow which impels the arrow of obedience; it is the mainspring moving the wheels of duty; it is the strong arm tugging the oar of diligence. Love is the marrow of the bones of fidelity, the blood in the veins of piety, the sinews of spiritual strength; yea, the life of sincere devotion. He that hath love can no more be motionless than the aspen in the gale, the sear leaf in the hurricane, or the spray in the tempest. As well may hearts cease to beat as love to labor. Love is instinct with activity, it cannot be idle; it is full of energy, it cannot content itself with littles; it is the well-spring of heroism, and great deeds are the gushings of its fountain; it is a giant; it heapeth mountains upon mountains, and thinketh the pile but little; it is a mighty mystery, for it changes bitter into sweet; it calls death life, and life death; and it makes pain less painful than enjoyment.—Sel. The Christian Church and Temperance
It must never be forgotten that the church of Christ is a temperance society, instituted by God himself, and that to it all other temperance societies must be auxiliary. Paul gives us the true key when he tells us that temperance is one of the fruits of the Spirit—that is, a Christian grace or virtue. Religion alone can furnish the strength to resist temptation and save from falling. When men realize this, if they can be brought to repentance and prayer, there may be hope of real reform.—Sel. Threads of Domestic Happiness
By Caroline Gillman
TO REPRESS a hard answer, to confess a fault, to stop, whether right or wrong, in the midst of self-defense, in gentle submission,—these sometimes require a great struggle for life and death, but these three efforts are the golden threads with which domestic happiness is woven.—Caroline Gillman. In the Sunday School Times we find, in answer to a question asked by a correspondent, a little story which we think aptly illustrates the heading of this article. The incident is thus related by the Times.— “A story is told of a New England deacon, who was visited by a committee of the church, in view of his drinking habit. He met the visitors cordially, and said, in substance: ‘I’ve asked the Lord’s help in this thing, and I’ve left the case with him. I was afraid I was drinking too much; so I prayed that, if I was in any danger of that, the Lord would take away my love for liquor. But my liking for it holds good, and so I know the Lord approves my drinking.’” We think all will allow that such a prayer was little, if any, less than insult to God. The Bible declares God’s hatred of drinking habits, when it says that no drunkard shall enter the kingdom of Heaven. A drunkard is one who drinks immoderately; and this man was a drunkard, for he was drinking so much that he was getting alarmed at himself. Then why should he pray for wisdom concerning a thing that is plainly revealed? He knew he was doing wrong; he did not want to stop, and so he made conditions for the Lord, and because those conditions were such that the Lord could not comply with them, his conscience was satisfied. He had his mind made up beforehand what he should do, and might better have gone ahead without the mockery of prayer; the prayer was simply a taking of God’s name in vain, and could not be other than an abomination to the Lord. We think no one will disagree with our conclusion on this matter; and yet there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, who are insulting the Lord in the same manner that the drinking deacon did, yet they cannot see the similarity, because the subject of their prayers is different. We have often heard people say, in substance: “I know that the ten commandments are God’s unchangeable law, and that the fourth commandment requires the observance of the seventh day, and of no other. I know that the Bible does not sanction the observance of Sunday. There was a time when I was considerably troubled over this matter—whether I ought not to keep the Sabbath instead of Sunday. So I prayed earnestly to the Lord that I might know my duty. I prayed that if it was wrong for me to keep Sunday, the Lord would let me know; and since then my mind has been perfectly at rest. I am in the Lord’s hands; if he wants me to keep the Sabbath, he will let me know.” The least that we can say, is, that such a prayer, offered under such circumstances, is an insult to the Lord. It is as though a child, knowing what his father had plainly and expressly commanded him to do, should turn right around and ask for some sign by which he might know what the father meant by what he said. In such a case the reader can readily imagine what that “sign” would be. So God has given us explicit commands in his word. That word is all that he has given us for a guide in this life, and it is a sufficient guide, for it is able to make us wise unto salvation. That word is for a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path. Of the law of the Lord it is said that it “is perfect, converting the soul,” and that to keep the commandments is “the whole duty of man.” These commandments are very plain, so that any child can understand them, and now for anybody to pray to the Lord to know if it is his duty to keep them, is an insult to the one who gave them. The one who offers such a prayer virtually says: “I don’t think the commandments of the Lord are a sufficient guide for me; they may do for others, but I require something better.” Or else he says: “I don’t believe the Lord really means what he says.” In either case, he turns away from the law, and treats it with contempt. Now does God hear the prayer of such? Hear what is said: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9. Then if the answer to such a prayer comes in the shape of peace to the one who persists in violating the commandment, who has answered it? Not God, for “he cannot deny himself.” It must be none other than the great adversary of the truth. But will the Lord give any “sign” to such ones that he means what he says? Yes; numerous instances of this are given, but we will cite only one. Balaam was expressly told by the Lord not to go with the servants of Balak, to curse Israel. But he wanted to go, and so he asked the Lord if he really meant what he said. As the result, he became satisfied in his own mind that he might go, and he went. As a “sign” that the Lord meant what he said, Balaam was all but slain in the way, being saved only by his faithful beast, and was finally destroyed with the sword. Num. 31:8; 2 Peter 2:11, 12; Jude 11. And so all who seek for peace in a way contrary to the law of God, shall perish. “The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” Prov. 21:16. Paul, speaking of those who deliberately turn away from the only source of truth, and try to find peace in a way that God has not appointed, says that “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:11, 12. Reader, do you want Satan, instead of the Lord, to answer your prayers? If not, then pray only in accordance with God’s word. Pray, as did David, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Such a prayer, offered in sincerity, God will not fail to answer. And when the Spirit makes known to us “the deep things of God,” and we delight in the law of the Lord, we have this precious promise: “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.” John 15:7. “And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” 1 John 3:22. Let us never in our prayers take God’s name in vain. IT is a very common thing to speak of the apostles, with the exception of Paul, as uneducated and ignorant men. The enemies of the Bible think to disparage their testimony in this way, and many people who reverence the Bible unintentionally work to the same end by speaking of the apostles as ignorant. Only a short time since we read a statement from a minister, in which “the uneducated Peter” was spoken of. There is just one verse in the Bible which seems to give color to this idea, and that is Acts 4:13, which says that the council heard the boldness of Peter and John and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men. But this is an unfortunate translation. The word rendered “ignorant” means “private,” and the meaning is that the council saw that Peter and John, being Galileans, had not studied in their schools, and they marveled that private citizens who had not sat at the feet of the rabbis, and learned their fine-spun theories, should be able to talk with such power and wisdom. If we consider for a moment who the apostles were, we shall see that it is a mistake to regard them as ignorant men. They were Jews, and every Jew was expected to give his child a knowledge of the law. The commandment found in Deut. 6:7, “Thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up,” was scrupulously obeyed by every pious Jew. Thus Paul says that Timothy had from a child known the Scriptures. Every Jew, no matter how humble his circumstances, had a knowledge of the law. Now think what this implied. It meant that he had a knowledge of the Jewish people, and this comprised also a history of contemporary people. He would know as much about the creation and fall and other events of that time as it is possible for any one to know. The history of the children of Israel in Egypt would make him familiar with the Egyptian people. He would also be familiar with the Assyrians and Babylonians and Persians and the Grecians, with all of whom the Jews had been intimately associated. In short, the humblest Jew must have had a pretty good knowledge of the history of the world. Not only this, but in the Old Testament he would find literature which cannot be equaled in the world. In the psalms and the prophets he would find the choicest poetry and the most sublime descriptions. The one who had made the Old Testament his daily study could not have failed to acquire a good use of language. In the colleges of the present day young men are engaged for several years in studying the writings of the ancient Greek and Roman authors. They do not do this for the history which those writings contain, for they could learn that in one-twentieth part of the time in their own language, but they engage in the study of the classics in order to discipline their minds, and to gain a good style of expression. All this may be gained from the study of the Bible, which, as is allowed even by infidels, contains the finest specimens of literature to be found in the world.7 In addition to this knowledge, every Jew was required to give his child some trade by which he might be self-supporting; thus the theoretical and the practical were combined. The apostles were not exceptions to this rule. They were practical men, able to transact business and to provide for themselves. But all this was the least of their education. For three years and a half they had been in constant communication with Jesus. Day and night they had been with him, listening to his conversation and receiving instruction from him, and this was a schooling such as no other men on earth ever enjoyed. If at the present day a young man could have as his tutor such a man as Dr. McCosh or some other learned professor, and could be with him constantly for three or four years, and could receive daily personal instruction from him, people would envy that young man as one who was having exceptional advantages. But the apostles had the greatest of all teachers, the Son of God himself,—the One of whom even his enemies said, “Never man spake like this man.” To be sure, the Pharisees spoke slightly even of him, saying, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned.” In their selfish bigotry they thought that their schools, which were devoted to sophistry and vain philosophy furnished the sum of wisdom. But as we read the life of Christ we find that the most crafty and subtle and learned men were no match for him. Without any hesitation he answered their most perplexing questions, and always in the choicest and most direct language. In this school the apostles studied for three years and a half, until they had unconsciously to themselves acquired habits of thought and speech similar to his. Then they received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which illuminated their minds and brought freshly to their remembrance all that they had previously learned. And so when they stood before the Jewish rulers, their enemies marveled that plain unassuming private citizens who had never attended the Rabbinical schools should be able to speak with such power and wisdom; “and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus.” In spite of their hatred to Jesus, the Pharisees knew that nowhere else could those men have received the education which they had. Surely the apostles were anything but uneducated men. In this we may find a lesson that will be profitable to us. People are often heard complaining of their lack of advantages. They excuse themselves from responsibilities in connection with the cause of God, because they have not education. Many think that they are excusable for not having a thorough knowledge of the word of God, because in early life they had no educational privileges. But none are excusable for not knowing the things which God has revealed. All may have true wisdom. Says the psalmist, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; a good understanding have all they that do his commandments.” Ps. 111:10. And this means just what it says. The one who studies the word of God with an honest, humble mind, will have wisdom which will be acknowledged even by the unbelieving world. Hear what Moses said to the Israelites:— “Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the Lord my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.” Deut. 4:5, 6.
From this we learn that it was not piety alone that the people were to obtain from the study and practice of the word, for the world does not usually hold that in very high esteem; but in addition to piety they would have wisdom that would be acknowledged as such by worldly-wise men. We find the same thing exemplified to a high degree in the case of Solomon. When he was given his choice of what he would receive from the Lord, he said, “Give therefore thy servant an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and bad;” and the Lord said: “Because thou hast asked this thing, . . . behold, I have done according to thy word; lo, I have given thee a wise and an understanding heart; so that there was none like thee before thee, neither after thee shall any arise like unto thee.” 1 Kings 3:9-12. He who carefully studies the Proverbs of Solomon will be convinced that the Lord fulfilled his promise. All the wisdom of the world, and more too, is condensed in that one book. There is not a thing in human affairs, no business matter of any sort, that is not wisely treated of in the book of Proverbs. The man who makes that book his daily study, and profits by what he learns, will be wise in the sight of both God and man. Thus we profit by the blessing given to Solomon. Leaving out the matter of inspiration,—the special illumination which the apostles had by the Spirit,—we have the same means of education that they had. We cannot see Jesus in the flesh, but we can nevertheless walk with him. In the Old Testament we have the Scriptures that the apostles had, and in the New Testament we have the words of Jesus to the apostles. If we make them our daily study, we may become imbued with their spirit. The Holy Spirit is given to all who ask for it in faith, for “the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.” In Christ “are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Why, then, if we have Christ, may we not have these treasures of wisdom and knowledge? We may if we search for them. We must not suppose that these treasures are to be received without our making any effort to obtain them. If treasures are hid in Christ, they can of course be found only by the one who has Christ; but since they are hid, even he must labor for them. There is no reason why the most obscure Christian should not be well-informed in all matters of which the Bible specially treats; and being thus informed, his judgment in temporal matters must be improved. See 1 Cor. 6:2, 3. “If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.”