Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 19, 1880
General Articles.
By Ellen G. White
THE SIN OF MIRIAM AND AARON.
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
WHEN it was known in the camp of Israel that seventy elders had been chosen to assist Moses in the government of the people, Aaron and Miriam became jealous because they had not been consulted in the matter. They had not felt reconciled to the act of Moses in so readily receiving the counsel of Jethro, his father-in-law. They feared that his influence over Moses was greater than theirs. And now, seventy elders had been chosen without consulting with them; and as they had never themselves felt the responsibility and burdens which Moses had borne for the people, they did not see any real necessity for the help of the seventy elders. "And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord heard it."
Aaron and Miriam thought that, as they had been chosen to aid Moses, they bore the burden of the work as well as he. And as the Lord had spoken by them, as well as by their brother, why should he complain of such heavy burdens as to need seventy of the judges and elders appointed to the work of aiding him. Moses realized his weakness. He felt the importance of the great work committed to him, as no other man had ever felt it. Aaron had shown his weakness by yielding to the clamors of the people, and making a molten calf, in the absence of their leader. But God had ever been Moses' counselor.
As Miriam became jealous of Moses, she was disposed to find fault with the events of his life which God had especially overruled. She complained of her brother because he had married an Ethiopian woman, instead of taking a wife from among the Hebrews. The wife of Moses was not black, but her complexion was somewhat darker than that of the Israelites. She was of a timid disposition, tender-hearted, and was greatly affected upon witnessing suffering. This was the reason why Moses had consented that she should return to Midian instead of accompanying him to Egypt, that she might not witness the terrific plagues which the Lord was to bring upon the Egyptians. After she met her husband in the wilderness, she saw that his burdens and anxieties were wearing away his strength, and in her distress she acquainted her father with the matter. Jethro had marked that the care of all the people was upon Moses, and therefore he counseled him to look after the religious interests of the Hebrew host, while worthy men, free from covetousness, should be selected to attend to the secular concerns of the people.
As Miriam began to cherish a spirit of jealousy and faultfinding, she imagined that Aaron and herself had been neglected, and that Moses' wife was the cause—that she had so influenced the mind of her husband that he did not consult them in important matters as much as formerly.
The Lord heard the words of murmuring against his faithful servant, and he was displeased; for Moses was very meek, above all men that dwelt upon the earth. And God called suddenly to Miriam and Aaron and Moses, and bade them come out to the tabernacle of the congregation. And God spoke to Miriam and Aaron from out of the cloud. "Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the Lord shall he behold; wherefore, then, were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses? And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and he departed." And Miriam became leprous, white as snow; and Aaron besought Moses that he would not lay the sin to their charge, wherein they had done grievously and sinned. He prayed that Miriam might not be as one dead, and Moses cried unto the Lord for her, and she was healed. She was, however, shut out of the camp seven days, and the people journeyed not till she was brought in again.
The cloud was removed from the tabernacle because the wrath of God rested upon Miriam, and it did not return until she was removed out of the camp. God had chosen Moses, and put his Spirit upon him; and by her murmurings against God's chosen servant, Miriam was guilty of irreverence, not only to Moses but toward God who had called him. Aaron might have prevented the evil if he had presented before Miriam the sinfulness of her course. But instead of this he listened to her words of complaint, and shared in her spirit of jealousy. The murmurings of Miriam and Aaron, and the signal manifestation of God's displeasure that followed, are left upon record as a rebuke to all who will yield to jealousy, and complain of those upon whom God lays the burden of his work.
Contention among God's people is offensive in his sight. In union and harmony alone is there strength. Pride, selfishness, envy, and jealousy originated with Satan, and lost for him his Eden home. He now urges his temptations upon the followers of Christ, and the most frivolous pretense excites a prejudice and jealousy which is as cruel as the grave. Jesus is enshrouded in light unapproachable, independent in his working, and righteous in his judgments, and yet he taketh cognizance of all the actions of the children of men. No secret act of wrong is passed by unnoticed, and no deed of righteousness is forgotten,—all are recorded in the Ledger of Heaven.
Would that every heart could be impressed with the exceeding sinfulness of cherishing suspicion and jealousy against those whom the Lord loves. He is ever ready to take the part of all those who are made to suffer unjustly. Over all his servants his hand is ever spread as a buckler. No man can wound his chosen without wounding the hand of the Lord. Although he may long bear with the perversity of man, and not punish his unjust course, yet he has said that he would remember their wrongs, and punish them; for his hand bears the sword of justice.
THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.
By William Henry Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
FROM remote antiquity, the parable, or, as it might with propriety be called, the word picture, has been largely employed in the illustration and enforcement of moral truth. Twelve hundred years before the advent of our Lord, Jotham, the son of Gideon, reproved the men of Shechem for having chosen Abimelech to be their king, in the use of that most graphic and apposite fiction, wherein the trees sought to make a king over them. Subsequently to his effort, and clear down to the commencement of our era, there were found among the Jewish Rabbis, as well as among those of other nations, learned men whose skill in the use of this rhetorical figure demand our most enthusiastic commendation. But of all persons known to the historic age, our Lord himself attained to the highest perfection in the construction and use of the parable. In his hands it was on various occasions employed with telling effect, and so largely was it used by him that the record which has preserved for our benefit the numerous fictions of this nature which he employed, occupies no insignificant place in the gospel account of his ministry. But from his day to the present time, there seems to have been a steady decrease in the use of this rhetorical method.
Why the Holy Spirit should have worked so radical a change in the style of the New Testament writers, who followed Christ, it would be difficult to state. But it is nevertheless true that the parable is almost, if not quite, lost sight of in their more prosaic productions, whether oral or written. So far as authors and orators are concerned, this side of the first century, it is possible that the desuetude into which this popular method has fallen may be attributed, measurably, to the fact that the poverty of the more recent efforts, when compared with those of the great Master, becomes so apparent that the more modern disciples of the art have become dissatisfied with their own productions to that extent that discouragement has ensued, and a change of style been found desirable.
But beyond this consideration, it is doubtless true that the natural defects inherent in the parbolic method have contributed largely to its decadence, and almost universal disuse at the present time. For, while it is true that it presents some marked advantages over the more direct and less ornate style of logical induction, it is also true that its use is attended by certain very grave disadvantages. As regards the former, little can be said, except that, being more dramatic in its character, it holds the attention and commands the interest of a class of hearers who could, with difficulty, be held by the more logical style. Possessing, as it does, somewhat the character of romance, it readily fascinates those who would shrink from the mental effort of either making or following a logical deduction. So true is this that even children, incapable of appreciating the moral which the speaker is seeking to impress, are immediately attracted and held in rapt attention by the array of figures or characters which are presented in his narration.362All, therefore, which is necessary to this form of argument is that the speaker, having got possession of the ears and intellect of his hearers, make the conclusions which are to be drawn so obvious that they cannot be mistaken. This done, either by full explanation or otherwise, he has carried his point and reached the hearts and judgments of individuals who otherwise would have been too indifferent to his theme to receive any appreciable benefit from his discourse.
Having said thus much in regard to the advantages of this form of speech, but little need be added respecting its drawbacks. In fine, the most of them have been shadowed forth already. In the first place, the skill required in its construction is so great, in order to success in its use, that few could ever hope to attain to it. In the second place, when stated without explanation, it is nearly as liable to mislead certain minds as it is to conduct them safely to the desired conclusion; since the wisdom required to the understanding of the parable is nearly equal to that demanded in its creation. Hence we read in the Scriptures that “the legs of the lame are not equal; so is a parable in the mouth of fools.” And again, that after Christ had spoken in parables to those that were without, in order “that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand,” it was necessary for him to explain in private to his disciples their import, since, though familiar with this line of teaching, they had found themselves incapable of drawing therefrom the precise idea which he wished to emphasize. In the third place, as the ambiguity of this kind of teaching is so great that it could not safely be employed in the inculcation of important doctrines without full and explicit explanation, it is too cumbersome for use in all such cases; since expedition would dictate that the more direct method of expressing one’s self in the outset, so as to be easily understood, should be chosen.
As an illustration of this fact, we have but to call attention to the endless controversies which have marked, if not marred, the history of the church in reference to points of faith which it has been supposed find their authentication in those portions of Scripture which partake of the allegoric or parabolic nature. So unsatisfactory have been the results of these wordy contests, that we believe, at the present time it is conceded by the best authorities that no tenet should derive its chief support from anything except those portions of Scripture which are the freest from figure, and the most fully characterized by explicitness in statement.
Having said thus much in regard to parables in general, we wish now to speak of one in particular, i. e., the one which relates to the rich man and Lazarus. Our object in so doing is to show that the use which has been made of it in the theological world, so far as it has been employed as the basis of an argument to prove the natural immortality of man, is altogether illegitimate. In doing so, the correctness of the second proposition above will be still further illustrated, as the number of those who have employed it for such a purpose has not been inconsiderable.
The first labor to be entered upon will be that of establishing the proposition that the narrative under consideration is in reality a parable, as some have insisted that it is not, but that it is rather a matter of actual history. The effect of the view held by the latter class is at once apparent. If they be right, then the theological bearing of the historic facts presented by the Saviour on the occasion we are considering, forever establishes the doctrine that men live between death and the Judgment, since he, in the sixteenth chapter of Luke, gives a detailed account of the thoughts, feelings, actions, and conversations of individuals who had passed from this, and were then living in the future, state.
The only argument hitherto presented by the advocates of the historic character of the story which seems to be worthy of a moment’s thought, is found in their declaration that it is nowhere called a parable. The force of this consideration, however, is seeming rather than real. If it were true that there were nowhere in the Scriptures parables which are not declared to be such, then a bare presumption would be established in favor of the theory under examination. But, mark you, this will be a presumption only; since it would not be impossible for an exception to exist to the general rule thus established. But when it can be shown, as it certainly can, that no such rule exists at all, and that there are many parables which are generally conceded to be such, not because of positive Scripture declarations (which are lacking), but because of the nature of the text and context, then even the presumption is utterly swept away. Let, therefore, the reader who would be satisfied as to whether parables are always thus denominated in the word of God, examine the following, which are nowhere said to be such in the sacred writings; viz., Unclean spirits, treasure hid in a field, pearl of great price, net cast into the sea, ten virgins, talents, beam and mote, good Samaritan, prodigal son, lost piece of silver, unjust steward, two sons, children of the bride-chamber, wise and foolish builders, etc.
Having disposed of the negative, let us now give attention to the positive argument. If we were called upon to prove the proposition that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is parabolic, it would be natural to cite the concurrent judgment on this point of the great mass of scholars for many centuries. As this, however, while standing alone, would not be conclusive, it would be preferable to furnish reasons for the opinion held which are drawn from the Scriptures. In doing so, three facts might be cited with propriety and force.
1. The narration is given in precisely the manner in which it would be were it a parable, as we claim that it is.
2. There is in it nothing inconsistent with the idea that it is such, since it is perfectly admissible, in writings of this class, to speak of things which are purely fictitious as though they had actually transpired.
3. Its statements are such that it must either be regarded as parabolic, or else the Lord would be found guilty of an inaccuracy, as it regards the nature of disembodied spirits, which would be altogether unpardonable in one possessing his information, i. e., he would represent those who have entered upon the other world as possessing those bodily organs which are of great use here, but could be of none there. We speak of those eyes, the tongues, and the fingers, which he gives to Dives and Lazarus, the former being in the torments of hell, and the latter in the joys of Abraham’s bosom. But it is submitted that such appendages do not belong to disembodied spirits, and, therefore, that it cannot be an historic verity that Dives, who was at least possessed of ordinary sharpness in this life, should have so far lost his shrewdness in the one to come as either to suppose that he was still possessed of the physical organ of taste, or that he had in the place of it a spiritualistic one, which was parched in the flame, and which could be cooled by the application of natural water. And it is also submitted that to speak of spiritualistic water would be the hight of nonsense.
Should it be objected to the reductio ad absurdum resorted to in the last proposition referred to above, that the men in question did really possess those bodily organs, having been resurrected for the purpose of entering upon reward or punishment, it would only be necessary to reply, that he who would resort to this stratagem in order to defend the doctrine of the historic verity of the narrative, would do so at the expense of the argument for personal consciousness in the spirit world. For if Dives and Lazarus were indeed resurrected men, then what is said of them applies to that class only, and proves nothing concerning the intermediate state of the dead.
Having thus, as we believe, successfully established the view that the portion of Scripture which is at present engrossing our attention is of not literal but figurative in its character, it is time to proceed to the determination of its real value in the decision of those questions which relate to the conscious state of the dead. As there is a large class who are agreed with us in pronouncing the narrative of the rich man and Lazarus to be a parable, but who, as we think, err, nevertheless, in making it largely the basis of their faith in an intermediate state of the dead, it becomes necessary to examine their reasons for so doing. If, we rightly apprehend them, the principal one is found in the fact that somehow it is difficult for them to believe that the Lord would, for any purpose whatever, represent individuals as speaking and thinking under circumstances where they are really unconscious, it would not be proper for him, under any circumstances, to represent them as holding converse, reasoning, etc., as did Dives and Lazarus. Now, therefore, these individuals regard the word of God as the standard of morals, it will be sufficient for them if their difficulties can be met and removed by citations from that word. They will also agree that in this particular, it would be perfectly proper for Christ to do and say that which the Holy Spirit inspired prophets and good men at any time to do and say. But this being true, proof in abundance can be brought forward to show that their scruples are altogether unfounded.
Take for example, the language which Isaiah puts in the mouth of the dead when the great king of Babylon descended into the grave: “Art thou also become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.” Chap. 14: 10, 11. Now every person knows that, physically speaking, it would be altogether out of the question for the dead to address one who was about to come among them; but at the same time it is readily perceived by all, from the connection, that the utterances of the writer are parabolic, or at least figurative, and therefore admissible.
Again: take the parable of the trees which conversed together over the matter of selecting a king. Judges 9: 8-15. Almost any child knows that what is said in regard to their utterances one to another was literally untrue; and yet Jotham, without qualification or explanation, declares that they spake one to another. Did he therefore falsify? All must agree that he did not. Why? Simply because it was manifest to all his hearers that he was employing a parable—or, if you please, an apologue—wherein it was generally understood that it was legitimate for the person using the same to employ fictitious characters, and to attribute to them powers which they naturally could not possess, and actions which they never performed. But words need not be multiplied. Deny this prerogative to the allegorist or parabolist, and you have destroyed his art. Concede it to him by common consent, and it remains a power for good, while no principle is in the least disturbed thereby.
Having seen that the objection urged against giving the parable fictitious features is not well taken, since it is justifiable in all such writings to give full play to the fancy in the creation of characters and incidents, it is time to inquire for additional reasons for insisting that it was in any way designed to emphasize the conscious state of the dead. If they can be rendered at all, it is difficult to see from whence they are to be drawn. A single glance at the discourse of the Lord will show that the idea which he sought to make prominent was, not the fact of the life hereafter, but unquestionably that of the proper estimation of riches in this life. It is shown by the context that he was addressing the Pharisees, than whom there were no greater sticklers for existence between death and the resurrection, as well as thereafter. There was, therefore, no need that he should enlarge upon that point. Nor was he in a mood to propagate their pet theory in order to curry favor. He had just been reproving them for avarice, and the character of Dives, rolling in wealth, and clothed in the luxurious garb of an oriental millionaire, furnished him a fitting instrument for the illustration of another phase of the property question. It was the inordinate admiration for men of wealth which he sought to condemn. To this condemnation all the language employed, and the figures used, were made to contribute. This was the objective point of the parable. Everything else was simply auxiliary to the work of reaching that object.
To say, therefore, that one of the auxiliary statements which the Lord employed was so used, because of the desire to indorse the doctrine contained therein, would be equivalent to saying that all of the auxiliary statements were made for the same purpose. To insist upon this, however, would place those urging such a view in a most unenviable position. For, unfortunately for them, the Lord not only spoke of men, but he also spoke of places. He declares just as emphatically that the angels took Dives and Lazarus respectively to hell and to Abraham’s bosom, as he does that they existed at all. Now, therefore, if the logic be correct, it must be true that these places do actually exist somewhere, and that the Lord designed to inculcate that fact. Saying nothing about the former, where is the expounder of Scripture sufficiently intelligent to locate, and courageous enough to advocate the existence of, the latter? The expression “Abraham’s bosom” is used in the word of God in but one connection:363and that is the one under consideration. Never before, nor never after this instance, was it employed. Hereafter it will be shown that it was purely the creation of a Pharisaic brain, and that the whole theory concerning it was too monstrous to be entertained for a moment.
But again: it is distinctly stated that in the future life portrayed by our Lord, there was but a gulf between the righteous and the wicked, and that so narrow that conversation could be carried on across it, and that the eyes of the good and bad respectively could take in the situations and circumstances of each other. He, therefore, who would insist that the bare mention of Dives and Lazarus by the Lord proves their existence in the spirit world, must, if he would be consistent, insist that the existence of the gulf is a fixed fact, and that the righteous and the damned, in the world to come, are in such close proximity that the former can hear the groans of the latter, and the latter can listen to the songs of the former. But who, in this age, will venture to advocate so repulsive a notion? Nevertheless, this is the strait to which those are driven who seek to employ the parable in the interests of natural immortality.
But that which proves too much, proves nothing at all. We leave, therefore, this branch of the subject, feeling that a line of argument which drives those who employ it into the indorsement of such absurdities, refutes itself so perfectly that it demands no further attention. (To be Continued.)
THE TEST.
By Mary B. Sleight
"Forgive our debts as we forgive,"—
Ah, who, dear Lord, can pray that prayer?
The rest with ready zeal is said,
But self-accused we falter there,
Conscious, beneath its crucial test,
Of hate our lips have ne'er confessed.
As we forgive! O Christ in Heaven,
Can we both pardon and forget,
When arrows dipped in deadly gall
Within our hearts are rankling yet?—
Sharp arrows by the false hands aimed
Of those who once love's largess claimed?
Be pitiful, O blessed Christ,
Nor chide us for our bitter thought
Of those who rendered hate for love,
And mocked us for the gifts we brought,
For thou alone, dear Lord, dost know
How measureless the debt they owe.
Forgive us, Lord. Can theirs exceed
The endless debt we owe to thee?
Thy patient, unrequited love,
Thy mercy, boundless as the sea,
Thy life-blood poured, a healing balm,
From wounded side and nail-pierced palm?
Ashamed and penitent we kneel;
O thou who dost our sins forget,
Help us with thy sweet charity
To pardon freely all the debt,
That praying, Lord, that prayer again,
Our inmost hearts may say "Amen."
Sag Harbor, N. Y. —Mary B. Sleight.
THE RIGHT SORT OF RELIGION.
We want a religion that goes into the family and keeps the husband from being spiteful when dinner is late—keeps the wife from fretting when the husband tracks the newly washed floor with his muddy boots, and makes the husband mindful of the scraper and the door mat; keeps the mother patient when the baby is cross, and keeps the baby pleasant; amuses the children as well as instructs them; wins as well as governs; projects the honeymoon into the harvest moon; and makes the happy hours like the eastern fig-tree, bearing in its bosom at once the beauty of the tender blossom and the glory of the ripening fruit.
We want a religion that bears heavily, not merely on the "exceeding sinfulness of sin," but on the exceeding rascality of lying and stealing; a religion that banishes small measures from the counters, small baskets from stalls, pebbles from the cotton-bags, clay from paper, sand from sugar, chiccory from coffee, annotto from butter, beet juice from vinegar, alum from bread, strychnine from wine, water from milk cans, and buttons from the contribution box. The religion that is to save the world will not put all the big strawberries at the top and all the bad ones at the bottom. It will not offer more baskets of foreign wine than the vineyards ever produced bottles, and more barrels of Genesee flour than all the wheat fields of New York grow, and all her mills grind. It will not make one-half a pair of shoes of good leather and the other of poor leather, so that the first shall redound to the maker's credit, and the second, to his cash.
It will not put Jouvin's stamp on Jenkins' kid gloves, nor make Paris bonnets in the back room of a Boston milliner's shop, nor let a piece of velvet that professes to measure twelve yards come to an untimely end in the tenth, or a spool of sewing silk that vouches for twenty yards be nipped in the bud at fourteen and a half, nor the cotton thread spool break to the yard-stick fifty of the two hundred yards of promise that was given to the eye, nor yard wide cloth measure less than thirty-six inches from selvage to selvage, nor all wool delaines and all linen handkerchiefs be amalgamated with clandestine cotton, nor coats made of woolen rags pressed together be sold to the unsuspecting public for legal broadcloth.
It does not put bricks at five dollars a thousand into chimneys it contracted to build of seven dollar material, nor smuggle white pine floors where hard pine has been paid for, nor leave yawning cracks in closets where boards ought to join, nor daub ceilings that ought to be smoothly plastered, nor make window blinds of slats that cannot stand the wind, and paint that cannot stand the sun, and fastenings that may be looked at, but are on no account to be touched.
The religion that is to sanctify the world pays its debts. It does not consider that forty cents returned for one hundred cents given is according to the gospel, though it may be according to human law. It looks upon a man who has failed in trade, and who continues to live in luxury, as a thief. It looks upon a man who promises to pay fifty dollars on demand with interest, and who neglects to pay it on demand with or without interest, as a liar.
PAUL'S MEETING AT TROAS.
By J. F. Ballinger
Does Paul's meeting at Troas furnish any evidence that the fourth commandment has been changed? Those who claim that this commandment has been changed, so as to recognize the first day of the week as the Sabbath, urge, as evidence, the apostle's meeting with the brethren at Troas on the first day of the week, to break bread.
The following illustration will show the bearing of this supposed change of the law: The people of the State of Illinois wish to change the time of holding the school election from the first Saturday in April of each year, to the first Monday of the same. They petition to the legislature to make the change. When that body meets, the wishes of the people, as presented in the petition, are taken into consideration. All concur in the change. The time is fixed when the law, as changed, shall take effect. It then becomes the duty of the legislature to furnish the State superintendent of public instruction with a copy of the law. It is its duty to furnish a copy to each county superintendent. It is then the duty of the county superintendents to furnish a copy of the law to the clerk of each school district; and the clerks are obliged to post up notices in three public places in their respective districts ten days before the election, so that all the voters in the district may understand the change in the law.
Now, if it is so important that the action of human legislation should be made known, so that all may understand their duty, how much more important is it that the action of divine legislation should be made known, where the penalty for transgression is infinitely greater than that for the violation of human law.
In contrast with the forementioned action of the legislature and the executors of the law, we will suppose that when that body met, nothing was said concerning the change of the law. But some time after they adjourn, Mr. Jones, a member of that body, concludes to take a trip to California, and on his way stops at Omaha, Neb. He arrives there on Monday evening, and finds the citizens met for a school election. They invite him to take part in the meeting, and also to make a speech. He does so, and they talk a long while, even until daybreak, when Mr. Jones gets aboard the train, and continues his journey.
Now, when the time comes for the people of Illinois to hold their school election, the clerks write their notices for the meetings to be held on the first Monday in April. The people, not knowing of any change in the law, ask the clerks for the reason of their conduct. They reply, Did not Mr. Jones, our representative, meet with the people of Omaha, who were holding a school election, on Monday? Well, say they, what has that to do with changing the time of holding the school elections in Illinois? The clerks reply, Can we not infer from his meeting with the people of Omaha on that occasion that the law is changed, and that now the lawful time to hold our school election is on Monday?
Now who would not look upon the action of these clerks as betraying symptoms of insanity? And yet the evidence to justify these men in making the change in the school law is full as good as the evidence drawn from the action of the apostle Paul in the meeting at Troas, for the change of the fourth commandment.
J. F. BALLINGER.
THE COMMUNION OF FAITH.
O WONDROUS grace, my loving Lord,
That thou shouldst come to me !
O richer grace that in thy word,
Thou bidst me come to thee !
Ah ! what am I that I should share
Thy pity and thy love—
Thou who a conqueror's crown dost wear,
Adored by all above !
Yet thou dost deign my soul to meet;
E'en now I feel thee near;
My lips thy blessed name repeat,
Thy voice I seem to hear.
Nor yet kind words of cheer alone
Thou comest to impart;
But priceless gifts, to sense unknown,
Thou leavest with my heart.
O be thou, Lord, a frequent guest
Within this soul of mine;
And let me on thy bosom rest,
And all to thee resign.
THE PALM TREE.
By Joseph Angus
The Scripture says: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." Let us see what this comparison means. The palm grows not in the depths of the forest or in a fertile loam, but in the desert. Its verdure often springs apparently from the scorching dust. It is a friendly lighthouse, guiding the traveler to the spot where water is to be found. The tree is remarkable for its beauty, its erect aspiring growth, its leafy canopy, its waving plumes, the emblem of praise in all ages. Its very foliage is the symbol of joy and exultation. It never fades, and the dust never settles upon it. It was, therefore, twisted into the booths of the feast of tabernacles, was borne aloft by the multitude that accompanied the Messiah to Jerusalem, and it is represented as in the hands of the redeemed in Heaven. For usefulness, the tree is unrivaled.
Gibbon says that the natives of Syria speak of three hundred and sixty uses to which the palm is applied. Its shade refreshes the traveler. Its fruit restores his strength. When his soul fails for thirst, it announces water. Its stones are ground for his camels. Its leaves are made into couches, its boughs into fences and walls, and its fibers into ropes and rigging. Its best fruit, moreover, is borne in old age; the finest dates being often gathered when the tree has reached a hundred years. It sends, too, from the same root a large number of suckers, which, in time, form a forest by their growth. What an emblem of the righteous in the desert of a guilty world! It is not uninstructive to add that this tree, once the symbol of Palestine, is now rarely seen in that country.—Joseph Angus.
THE GREAT DIVIDER.
"As THE cross of Christ separated the penitent and believing malefactor from the impenitent and unbelieving one of Calvary, so has it continued ever since to separate the army of believers from the army of unbelievers."
The above paragraph from some evidently clear-headed and sound Christian writer, contains a suggestion of great practical importance. The cross of Christ stands between the evangelical church of Christ and all systems of rationalistic or merely moral religion. The cross and all that it signifies, namely, salvation by the blood of Christ, is completely excluded from false religions; yes, even from that religion which, while it lavishly glories in the symbol of the cross, conceals the all-sufficiency of Christ's atoning sacrifice and practices the impiety of pretending to repeat it daily. To make a sacerdotal caste the custodian of the saving power of Christ's vicarious atonement, to be retailed out at its pleasure for money, is the hight of blasphemy.
Dear friends, before you join any church or association, be sure you find out on which side of its door is the cross of Christ and the ONE who hung thereon! It is not enough to have a priest, however exalted, inside the door, nor yet a Grand-Master.—N. Y. Witness.
THE RUNAWAY KNOCK.
"TEACHER," said a bright, earnest-faced boy, "why is it that so many prayers are unanswered? I do not understand. The Bible says, 'Ask, and ye shall receive, seek, and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you,' but it seems to me a great many knock and are not admitted."
"Did you never sit by your cheerful parlor fire," said the teacher, "on some dark evening, and hear a knocking at the door? Going to answer the summons, have you not sometimes looked out into the darkness, seeing nothing, but hearing the pattering feet of some mischievous boy, who knocked but did not wish to enter, and therefore ran away? Thus it is often with us. We ask for blessings, but we do not really expect them; we knock, but do not wish to enter; we fear that Jesus will not hear us, will not admit us, and so we go away."
"Ah, I see," said the earnest-faced boy, his eyes shining with the new light dawning in his soul, "Jesus cannot be expected to answer run-away knocks. I mean to keep knocking until he cannot help opening the door."