Review and Herald, Vol. 42, No. 14. (9/16/1873)

Review and Herald

Sep 16, 1873

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 16, 1873

THE ONE HOPE;

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Or the Promise to the Fathers.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

Text.—“The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s, but the earth hath he given to the children of men.” Ps. 115:16.

There can but one objection be raised against the future fulfillment of the promise of the land to Abraham and to his seed, which has any degree of plausibility. That objection is based on Josh. 21:43–45.

“And the Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it and dwelt therein. And the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers; and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not aught of any good thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.”

Now, while it is admitted that all that was promised to them as a separate people when the Lord brought them out of Egypt, or that was promised to them as the natural descendants of Abraham, was fulfilled, we cannot admit that the promise to Abraham was fulfilled. To claim that, is to deny the promise itself, as well as a number of the plainest declarations of the New Testament. Let us bear in mind that the promise looked to two parties: (1) To Abraham; (2) To his seed. If it can be shown that it was fulfilled to one party, and yet was not fulfilled to the other, then, as God’s word is truth, it awaits a future fulfillment. Notice the passage in Joshua; it says, “The Lord gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers.” And if it can be shown only that it was not given unto their fathers, then it remains to be fulfilled, or it must fail entirely. That it cannot fail, we refer the reader again to Paul’s words in Heb. 6, on the immutability of God’s promise to Abraham.

But first we notice Paul’s quotation of, and argument on, Ps. 95. “So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.” Heb. 3:11. The term “rest” is here applied to the peaceable possession of the land. This is plainly referred to in the quotation from Joshua. The points of the averment are these:—The Lord gave them the land; he gave them rest round about; and there stood not a man of their enemies before them. The same is referred to by Jacob in his blessing of Issachar, Gen. 49:15: “And he saw that rest was good, and the land that it was pleasant.” And by Moses, in his charge to the two tribes and a half which took their possession on the east of Jordan:

“The Lord your God hath given you this land to possess it; ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war. But your wives, and your little ones, and your cattle (for I know that ye have much cattle), shall abide in your cities which I have given you; until the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which the Lord your God hath given them beyond Jordan; and then shall ye return every man unto his possession, which I have given you.” Deut. 3:18–20.

Again, Moses said to Israel, before they passed over Jordan:

“For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there.” Deut. 12:9–11.

Joshua reiterated the same thing in his address “to the Reubenites, and to the Gadites, and to half the tribe of Manasseh,” as follows:—

“Remember the word which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, saying, The Lord your God hath given you rest, and hath given you this land. Your wives, your little ones, and your cattle, shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side Jordan; but ye shall pass before your brethren armed, all the mighty men of valor, and help them; until the Lord have given your brethren rest, as he hath given you, and they also have possessed the land which the Lord your God hath given them: then ye shall return unto the land of your possession, and enjoy it, which Moses the Lord’s servant gave you on this side Jordan toward the sunrising.” Josh. 1:13–15.

Thus it is made plain beyond the chance of doubt, that the rest which was promised and given to the children of Israel, was the peaceable possession of the land. Moses refers to it as “the rest and the inheritance.” To this David refers in Ps. 95:7–11:—

“To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness; when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways; unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.”

Paul’s comment in Heb. 4:1–9, is to this effect: That the Holy Spirit appeals to Israel, in the days of David, not to harden their hearts, as their fathers did, to whom the Lord sware they should not enter into his rest. And, accordingly, their carcasses fell in the wilderness. They were not permitted to see “the rest and the inheritance.” But Paul argues that the same hope that was set before Israel in the wilderness was held out to their children in the days of David, from which he concludes that Joshua did not give them the rest contemplated in the promise; that “there remains a rest to the people of God;” and that this rest bears the same relation to that given to Israel that Moses and Joshua bore to Christ, and that Israel, the literal descendants of Abraham, bore to the church of Christ, the members of which are children of Abraham by faith in Christ. From this argument, it is quite evident that the apostle did not consider that the children of Israel had received the rest—the inheritance—which was the subject of the promise; for, as he well says, “If Joshua had given them the rest” (so Whiting’s translation), “then would he not afterward have spoken of another day;” that is to say, that, although the children of Israel were then in the land which Joshua gave to their fathers, they were yet warned to beware of the example of their fathers whose provocation kept them out of the inheritance. His conclusion is, that the true rest is remaining to be possessed. And this establishes our declaration that the land of Canaan bears the same relation to the true rest and inheritance that Joshua bears to Christ. One is the figure or type of the other.

But we are not left to mere deductions on this subject. We have the plainest and most positive statements to the effect that the promise to Abraham was not fulfilled. The reader will bear in mind that the promise was to two parties: to Abraham, and to his seed. The argument in Heb. 4 goes to show that it was not fulfilled to the descendants of Abraham. We will now consider the positive statements of the New Testament in regard to Abraham and his seed, as related to the fulfillment of this promise. Said Stephen:

“Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran, and said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall show thee. Then came he out of the land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charran; and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell. And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” Acts 7:2–5.

This testimony of Stephen is decisive so far as Abraham is concerned. But Paul confirms it, thus:—

“By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. * These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Heb. 11:8, 9, 13.

In these verses, Paul denies that the promise of the land was fulfilled to Abraham, or to Isaac and Jacob; and, though he should “after receive it for an inheritance,” he did not, for he “died in faith, not having received the promises.” And that the promise of the land was a part of “the promises” which were not fulfilled to him, is still further shown in that he and others to whom the same promise was made, lived as “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” This language certainly does not apply to those who lived in the possession of an inheritance which was said to continue forever; to be to them for “an everlasting possession.”

But Paul goes much farther. After enumerating the most faithful of Abraham’s descendants, including Moses, Joshua, David, Samuel and the prophets, and many others who dwelt in the land of Canaan after the time of Joshua, he says, “And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.” Heb. 11:39, 40.

This does not mean that God has provided some better thing for us than was promised to them; but that he has provided some better thing for us than they received before their death. For they are perfected, not without us, but with us; and our hope is inseparably connected with theirs, for we are constantly referred, in the Scriptures, to the promises given to them, as the basis of our hope.

But it has been objected that “the promise” which they did not receive was not the promise of the land, but the promise of Christ; that they did receive the former, but not the latter.

The first part of this objection has been sufficiently answered by the words quoted from Stephen and Paul. The second part is answered with equal certainty in Gal. 3:16.

“Now to Abraham and to his seed were the promises [plural] made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.”

And thus it appears that the promises were not so much of Christ as to Christ. And as Abraham, to whom the promise was first made, dwelt in the land as a stranger and pilgrim, not having conferred upon him a title to land enough to “set his foot on,” so Christ, the seed, the heir of the same promise, dwelt in that same land, not having “where to lay his head.”

Thus it is expressly declared that Christ is heir to the promises made to Abraham; and if we are his, we must share in his blessings; as it is said:

“We are the children of God. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.” Rom. 8:16, 17.

That this heirship with Christ takes hold of the inheritance promised to Abraham is proved by a text before quoted:

“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:29.

But it may be asked if we believe that the inheritance of the saints will be confined to the literal land of Palestine. To this, we answer that it will embrace the land of Palestine, but not be confined to it. That the promise embraces “the land” cannot be denied. And there is a significance in the assertion of Paul in Heb. 11, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, dwelt in the land of promise as in a strange country, confessing themselves strangers and pilgrims on the earth. Though all was theirs by promise, they actually inherited nothing on the earth. And to the same intent are Paul’s words to the Romans:

“For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom. 4:13.

Here the heirship is said to be “of the world.” This construction does no violence to the promise; for in the promise, as made in Gen. 12:7; 13:15, 17; 15:7, 18; etc., the word rendered land is the same that is rendered earth in Gen. 1:1, and in a multitude of other cases. While this, of itself, would not be decisive as to the extent of the inheritance, it does admit of the apostle’s construction, as in Rom. 4:13.

There is an argument of analogy that is very conclusive on this subject, and must be admitted by all who claim any relation to Abraham, and to the covenant made with him. In that covenant were three prominent points, as follows:—

There was a promise of the land.
It was to him and to his seed.
Circumcision was given as a token or surety of the faithfulness of God to fulfill his promise, as well as the token or evidence of their relation to the covenant as heirs.

Now, the second and third points are

universally acknowledged to have been brought over into this dispensation, with this important truth in connection: They are changed or enlarged so as to embrace more than was included in the first meaning of the terms given. Thus, it was at first believed that “the seed” embraced only the literal descendants of Abraham. But in the New Testament, we learn that this term refers primarily to Christ, and then to all who are Christ’s by faith. And that the literal descendants, merely as such, are not heirs at all. Thus it is said:—

“He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; . . . But he is a Jew which is one inwardly.” Rom. 2:28, 29.

And again:

“For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.” Rom. 9:6–8.

And therefore the true heirs to the promise are not counted by natural descent, but are of all nationalities, as the apostle says:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal. 3:28, 29.

“Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.” Eph. 2:11–13.

“That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Chap. 3:6.

The Saviour taught the same doctrine before the apostle wrote. To them who claimed Abraham as their father, who yet rejected him, he said:

“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.” John 8:44.

Thus it is fully established that “he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly,” and that the children of the flesh are not counted for the seed; and that all who are of faith are the children of Abraham and heirs of the promise. This will be universally admitted; and so far the covenant with Abraham is embraced by Christians.

But the statement of the third point is equally evident, and is also acknowledged. Notice the following:

(1.) The true circumcision of the covenant is not outward. “For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.” Rom. 2:28, 29.

“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ.” Col. 2:11.

(2.) Circumcision was given as a “token of the covenant,” Gen. 17:11; and is also called a “sign” and “seal” in the New Testament; Rom. 4:11; and this seal is explained as follows:—

“In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.” Eph. 1:13, 14.

The earnest is the same as the seal or token. Again it is written:

“Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Eph. 4:30.

“Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.” 2 Cor. 1:22.

This is the circumcision of the heart; made without hands; in the Spirit; the true token or sign of our heirship. And as it was said to Abraham that the uncircumcised man child should be cut off: he had broken, or had no part in, the covenant; so it is now said: “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Rom. 8:9. Such have not the seal or token of the covenant, and hence have no part in the covenant.

(3.) Circumcision was given to the male descendants of Abraham; but in the gospel, with the change that is effected, whereby circumcision becomes an internal, instead of an external, seal, a change is also made in respect to the subjects of the rite. Of this, Paul speaks:

This reference is unmistakable. The Greek, or Gentile, by the circumcision of Christ, has the seal of the covenant made with Abraham; and so also the female. The distinctions which formerly existed in this respect exist no more.

Now, as before remarked, all classes of New-Testament believers accept these truths, and so far acknowledge their relation to the Abrahamic covenant. But it seems strange that so many who claim to be the children of Abraham reject the promise made to Abraham. While they earnestly claim to be “heirs according to the promise,” they as earnestly claim that the inheritance belongs to somebody else, and not to themselves.

But to the analogy. If the seed, and if circumcision, be found plainly recognized in the New Testament, should we not expect that the subject of the promise—the inheritance or the land—would also be found in the New Testament? And again, if the second and third term of the covenant are enlarged in the New Testament, should we not expect that the first term, when found, would be equally enlarged? Certainly we should. And consistent with this, we have seen that Paul speaks of Abraham as “heir of the world.” Rom. 4:13. And the Saviour makes this one of the beatitudes in his “Sermon on the Mount,” saying, “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.” Matt. 5:5.

This promise looks to the future; it is, indeed, a promise—not the statement of an existing fact. Of this present world, we may say with the poet,

“This groaning earth is too dark and drear For the saints’ eternal home.”

If Christ is to “destroy the works of the devil;” if the covenant to Abraham is to remedy the effects of “the fall,” then we may look for a “restitution,” a restoration of that blessed “dominion” which was given to man in the beginning.

But here another objection is raised. It has been claimed that this promise of the Saviour is fulfilled in this present life: that the blessings and enjoyments of this world belong to the righteous. But it seems strange that learned men, eminent Bible teachers, should ever advance such a proposition, so directly is it at variance with all the Scriptures. On this we notice:—

“The poor of this world” are “heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love him.” Jas. 2:5.
The prophet said, “The meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Ps. 37:11. This is not the case at present, as we all know by observation or experience, and as is proved by our Saviour’s words, as follows:—
“In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” John 16:33. The enjoyment or blessing of the Christian is not from the world, but from Jesus’ work of overcoming the world for us. So far from the meek having “abundance of peace” in this world, they have persecutions and afflictions; their life is only a “warfare,” in which they are speedily overcome if they lay off the armor.
The wicked inherit more of this world than the righteous, the latter being “the poor of this world.” This, if the promise is fulfilled in this world, would invalidate the scripture which says: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.” Gal. 4:30. If the inheritance is in this present world, the son of the bondwoman has the largest share.
As Abraham did not inherit the land, so it is very evident that he does not possess it now. Hence the promise to him is assuredly to be fulfilled in the future.
Paul says that Abraham and others did not possess the land, but were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. But Peter says that Christians are “strangers and pilgrims” even now. 1 Pet. 2:11.

This prophet says the Lord created not the earth in vain. Isa. 45:18. When he made the earth, he pronounced it very good. But through Satan’s wiles and man’s rebellion it was brought under a curse, and now it is not “very good,” as it was at first. According to the terms of the curse it now brings forth “thorns and thistles.” Poisonous herbs grow out of it, and deadly miasmas rise from its surface. It refuses to “yield its increase” to man’s toil, causing him to pine away; or with convulsive throes swallows up its inhabitants in a sudden destruction. Instead of being a place of only beauty and life, it is a scene of corruption and of death, with but here and there traces of its original loveliness. But this shall not continue forever. If God created it not in vain, then his original purpose will be fulfilled, and Satan’s triumph shall come to an end.

We have read in the Scriptures that the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; but we have seen that this has not been, and is not now, fulfilled. The Saviour said the meek shall inherit the earth; but they are strangers in it yet, even as their father Abraham was. As Abraham had to buy a burying place in the land of promise, so his faithful children now are only suffered to abide in the land on their paying tribute to wicked men. The psalmist said the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace; but now the wicked possess the earth, and the life of the just is a life of persecution and affliction, and “he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.” Isa. 59:15. But we toil and suffer in hope, for there remains a rest for the people of God; a rest, or resting-place, which they have not yet reached. This is no other than the peaceable possession of “the land of promise” which shall yet be given “to Abraham and to his seed.”

We turn again to Paul’s words respecting the circumcision of the covenant—the token or earnest of the faithfulness of God to his promise. He says:—

“After that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance.” Eph. 1:13, 14. And this is just the light in which it was presented in Gen. 17. It was the assurance to Abraham that God would fulfill to him the promise of the land. The object of circumcision is not changed; it is still the token, the earnest, or the assurance, “of our inheritance.”

But here another objection is urged on 1 Pet. 1:4, where it is said our inheritance is “reserved in Heaven.” Abraham, said Paul, “looked for a city which hath foundations, whose maker and builder is God.” Heb. 11:10. This is that “Jerusalem which is above.” Gal. 4:26. John, in prophetic vision, saw it “coming down from God out of Heaven.” Rev. 21:2. Therefore, Peter’s words are true as referred to the city, but they do not apply to the earth which the meek shall inherit, and upon which the holy city comes down. Look once more at Paul’s words in Eph. 1:14. He says this circumcision of the heart, the seal of the Spirit, “is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession.” While Peter’s words will not apply to the earth, these words will not apply to the city of God in Heaven. But they will apply to the earth, which was made very good; and is to be given to the children of men; upon which the righteous shall be recompensed; which the meek shall inherit; but which is now under the curse, and is groaning for redemption. Rom. 8:22. The subject of the redemption of God’s creation is a most glorious one; the mere thought of it fills the heart of the pilgrim with “joy unspeakable.” But this must be reserved for future consideration.

(To be Continued.)

JESUS LOVES EVEN ME.

I am so glad that our Father in Heaven Tells of his love in the Book he has given; Wonderful things in the Bible I see; This is the dearest, that Jesus loves me.

Why should he look on a rebel like me, Granting a pardon so full and so free? Well might we wonder that such things could be, Only that Jesus in mercy loves me.

Now since he loves me I’ll try to obey, Love him and serve him and please him each day; Living so, all my dear neighbors may see How I love Jesus, and Jesus loves me.

Though I forget him and wander away, Kindly he follows whenever I stray; Back to his dear, loving arms would I flee, When I remember that Jesus loves me.

I know he will keep me in hope while I sleep, And kindly watch o’er me tho’ others may weep; And on that bright morn when the shadows all flee, I’ll wake in his likeness because he loves me.

Oh! if there is only one song I can sing, When in his beauty I see the great King, This shall my song in eternity be, Oh! what a wonder that Jesus loved me.

Psalm XXIII.

By Thomas Driffill

The Lord my shepherd is; I shall not need. He maketh me to lie in pastures wide, He bringeth me the waters still beside, And in the paths of righteousness doth lead. Yea, though I walk with death, I take no heed Of evil things, for thou art still my guide; Thy rod and staff shall comfort and provide For all my wants, and bring me forth with speed.

Thou dost my table set before my foes, My head anoint'st with oil, and as a river My cup of life with bounty overflows. Goodness and mercy shall forsake me never, But follow me till all my days shall close, And I shall dwell in the Lord's house forever.

—Thomas Driffill, in Independent.

“Forgive us our Sins,” Luke 11: 4.

By S. A. H. Lindsey

“We ought to live so well that we need not continually be praying for the forgiveness of our sins,” was the substance of a few remarks I listened to not long since. Amen, my heart responded, but quickly inquired, Who does? “Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.” And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in Heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins.”

The great Teacher better understood the human nature of his humble disciples than they themselves did. And the form of prayer that he delivered to them was to be a reminder to them of their great need as long as they were exposed to the temptations of Satan. As, day by day, we need a portion of bread to sustain our physical nature, we are taught to pray for a supply. We need, day by day, a renewed evidence that all our sins are forgiven, therefore, we daily pray, as Christ has taught us, “Forgive us our sins.”

We have a powerful and experienced enemy to contend with, besides our own deceitful hearts, which often beguile us into sin; and where are the days, leaving out weeks, months, and years, over which we can take a pleasing, satisfactory review, and say, as evening draws on, “To-day, I have not sinned.” “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” 1 John 1: 8. Between what we do and what we ought to do, there is a great difference in this world, where sin and evil so largely abound. Our deceitful hearts incline toward wrong, and in ignorance or unbelief, or both, we do it. “I verily thought with myself, that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth.” Acts 26: 9. Saul of Tarsus ought to have accepted Christ, who was crucified and risen again, instead of imprisoning his humble followers, and persecuting them unto death; but he did not thus accept him until he had a vision of the Holy One.

We ought to love the Lord our God with all our heart, with all our soul, with all our strength—we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves; and until these principles are rooted, and grown, and perfected, and bearing daily the rich fruits described in Gal. 5: 22, 23, it will continue our duty to pray, “Forgive us our sins.”

A mere form of prayer, however, uttered by the lips, unaccompanied with earnest desire, will avail nothing. We must feel our extreme need, our unworthiness, and our helplessness. Said the excellent missionary, George Dana Boardman, near the close of his toilsome, self-denying life, “As to my hope and my confidence of acceptance with God, if any man has reason to renounce all his own righteousness, and to trust entirely and solely to grace, sovereign grace, flowing through an atoning Saviour, I am that man. A perfectly right action, with perfectly right motives, I never performed, and never shall perform, till freed from this body of sin.” Thus have the most eminent Christians had the severest warfare with sinful human nature, and with anguish have they uniformly prayed, “Forgive us our sins.”

S. A. H. LINDSEY.

An Experiment that Failed.

I am not sure whether I did right or not. I am sure that I meant right. It was in this wise:

Believing implicitly that the bending of little human twigs should be accomplished during the early stages of their growth, I concluded to commence on Vieve. My intention was to give her a lesson in firmness. Accordingly, I filled a box with chestnuts, and placed it within her reach, saying, “Now, Vieve, dear, you must not touch them without my permission.”

“Well, den, I dess I’ll not,” was the reply, while the brown-eyed three-year-old gazed wistfully toward the sweet temptation. I gave her six or eight.

“In my dear little pocket, fank oo!”

I went to my work, and labored with all the cheerfulness of an inventor who is pretty sure his machine will be a success.

During the afternoon it occurred to my mind that those eight nuts were lasting a remarkable time. Assuming my blandest tone for the occasion, I asked:

“Vieve, have you eaten all your chestnuts?”

“No, I think not.”

“Come here, darling. Where do you get so many?”

“Oh! I dets ’em out o’ my pocket.”

“Well, but here are more than I gave you at first,” I said, as I examined the dainty receptacle.

“O Vieve! have you been disobeying me, and getting more out the box?”

“I ’pects p’r’aps I have.”

“But are you sure?”

“Yes, I’se pretty sure.”

“O, dear Vieve,” I cried, with the feeling of one who discovers his invention to be a failure, “this makes poor mamma feel so sad. I do not like to punish you, but what must I do? I must have my little girl obey me. Oh! what shall I do?”

The small sinner looked reflective.

“Well, mamma,” she presently said, in solemn tones, “I dess oo had better pray.”

Believing her suggestion a wise one, embodying about all the wisdom of the entire affair, I acted upon it.

Returning to my occupation after our session had adjourned, the first thing that caught my attention was a scrap of old newspaper, containing this sentence:

“He who through intention or neglect throws before another a temptation, is, if he be overcome, equally guilty.”

I put away the box of chestnuts, and am awaiting further light.—National Baptist.

The Israelites.

SURELY, if any race ever earned a right to a free and honorable existence, it is to the Hebrew. The undying faith and constancy displayed by that people through centuries of persecution, outrage and unjust discriminations of all sorts in nearly every country in Europe, have no parallel in history. They are not a warlike race, and yet they have shown most heroic persistence and undaunted courage in upholding the traditions and faith of their fathers, and in clinging to their own ways, when by a few words of apostasy they might have won protection and all the rights of citizenship. For many centuries, to be a Jew on the continent of Europe, was to be the prey of every plunderer, an outcast debarred from all the rights even of the humblest Christian minds. In most cities, the Jews were penned up in teeming hives in a portion of the town set apart for their use, and they were locked up for the night, as dumb beasts might be. This practice has only ceased in Rome within a very few years. But times have changed, and the proscription of the Hebrew race is every day becoming more the exception and is surely destined to utter extinction. It is matter for congratulation to every American that no such cruel and bigoted legislation as that so long prevailing against the Jews in Europe has ever disgraced the statutes of this country.

At the present day, the Hebrew population is a large and valuable element in all the cities of Europe and America. They are invariably industrious, prosperous, and law-abiding citizens. In Europe, they are carrying off the highest prizes in politics, music, and commerce, and winning social distinction by their merits, wealth, and influence. A gentleman of Hebrew extraction is the only person the great Conservative party in England can trust with its leadership. In a crisis, the brilliant Disraeli is instinctively looked to for counsel, and his word is law in party consultations. The Rothschild family is so well known that comment is unnecessary. It is far more powerful than nine-tenths of the royal families of Europe. And here is Baron Reuter, who doles out news to the press of Great Britain and a part of the continent, and leases Persia for twenty-seven years, as he would a shop! The news autocrat of Central Europe is a Hebrew also, named Wolff. The press of Vienna is for the most part owned and worked by Jews. A correspondent writes that “in Vienna there are more Jews than crossed the Jordan with Joshua to smite the tribes of Canaan. In the Austrian Empire there are as many Jews as there were in Judea in the time of Titus—far more than there were in the captivity.”

It would seem that in a fair field without discrimination, the ancient race is sure to win its full share of the wealth, honors, and emoluments of this world. Its faith and patience are likely to be rewarded materially, and its intellectual force is making a deep impress on the times.—Buffalo Express.

A Skeptic Answered.

A gentleman, strongly inclined to skepticism, visited the infant-class of a Sunday-school, and listened with fixed attention to the lesson. At the close of the exercises, he turned to the teacher with an incredulous look upon his face, saying, “Is not this time thrown away trying to teach babies about a Christ? Or, supposing you may impress them with some kind of knowledge, of what use will it all be, seeing that they will not be able to remember anything of the character you are now telling them of?”

“Pardon me, sir,” returned the teacher, “but may I ask if your mother is living?”

“Ah! no; she died when I was a mere infant,” said the visitor, a cloud of sadness passing over his face. “But,” he continued, “I was told all about her as soon as I could learn anything. I was told how loving, patient, and self-sacrificing, she was; and so clearly and well was my mother represented to me that I love and revere her memory.”

“Then, sir,” broke in the teacher, with a warm smile upon her lips, “if you at that early age could be so taught about the mother whom you had not seen, may I not be sure that Jesus can be made as plain to the mind and lasting to the memory of these little ones?”

The gentleman’s cheek flushed, but he made no reply, and shortly after took his leave.

The good teacher supposed she had given offense, but knew that her motive had been pure, and so simply lifted her heart in prayer that good might come of the words she had spoken.

To her great surprise, the next Sunday the gentleman again presented himself, this time holding by the hand a lovely little girl of about four years of age. Leading the child to the teacher, he said simply: “I have brought you my child: she is motherless, as her father is, also; but I cannot endure the thought that she should be Christless.”—S. S. Times.

Unprofitable Discourse and the Christian's Speech

Unprofitable discourse robbeth us of much time. Some simply employ their tongues in telling fabulous and filthy stories; others, in discoursing of parties and opinions, and in talking of the faults and miscarriages of other men; some, about the times, and inquiring after news. But let Christians, when they converse, imitate their Lord; the words that proceeded out of his mouth were gracious words.

A Cheerful Home.

A SINGLE bitter word may disquiet an entire family for a whole day. One surly glance casts a gloom over the household, while a smile, like a gleam of sunshine, may light up the darkest and weariest hours. Like unexpected flowers, which spring up along our path, full of freshness, fragrance, and beauty, so do kind words, and gentle acts, and sweet dispositions, make glad the home where peace and blessing dwell. No matter how humble the abode, if it be thus garnished with grace and sweetened with kindness and smiles, the heart will turn longingly toward it from all tumults of the world, and home, if it be ever so homely, will be the dearest spot beneath the circuit of the sun.

And the influences of home perpetuate themselves. The gentle grace of the mother lives in the daughter long after her head is pillowed in the dust of death; and fatherly kindness finds its echo in the nobility and courtesy of sons who come to wear his mantle and to fill his place; while, on the other hand, from an unhappy, misgoverned and disordered home, go forth persons who shall make other homes miserable, and perpetuate the sourness and sadness, the contentions, and strifes, and railings which have made their own early lives so wretched and distorted.

Toward the cheerful home, the children gather “as clouds and as doves to their windows:” while from the home which is the abode of discontent and strife and trouble, they fly forth as vultures to rend their prey.

The class of men that disturb and disorder and distress the world are not those born and nurtured amid the hallowed influences of Christian homes; but rather those whose early life has been a scene of trouble and vexation—who have started wrong in the pilgrimage, and whose course is one of disaster to themselves, and trouble to those around them.—Friends' Intelligencer.

Continue reading: Cultivating a Pure Expression