HE term “heathen” is applied to those peoples who are ignorant of the true God. Are there really heathens here in America?
Some time ago, several articles appeared in Current Literature on “The Passing of Materialism.” These remarks were called out in view of the astonishing change that has come about in the last ten years or so in the religio-scientific world. In the seventies and eighties of the last century the Darwinian doctrine was supreme in scientific circles, and the world seemed entering on an age of stark materialism. But of late years, while evolution in some unknown and undefined form is growing even more fashionable as the “method of creation,” the materialistic view has been almost wholly discarded, and the God of the Hebrew and Christian religions has been charged with having made the world by the process of evolution—charged, I say, for I consider it a libel on the God of the Bible to attribute to Him such a bungling, heartless piece of business as the evolution theory describes,—a crude, un-
workmanlike piece of work, and therefore unworthy of one all-powerful and all-wise; a fiendish process, and therefore unworthy of a God of love. But tho so inconsistent with the most fundamental ideas of natural and revealed religion alike, this “theistic evolution” has become quite popular everywhere, so much so that the current secular literature laughs at the most recently issued of Haeckel’s works, and talks about the “Passing of Materialism.”6
As a contrast and a relief from the voluminous nonsense now being sent forth to the world in an attempt to “reconstruct” the fundamentals of Christianity so as to accord with this essentially heathen doctrine, the present writer not long ago took up an old volume by F. W. Faber, author of “Hark! Hark, My Soul!” “The Creator and the Creature.” This book was written in 1856, or several years before Darwinism was sprung upon the world; and so far as the discussion of his main question is concerned, Faber is in full accord with sound philosophy and primitive Christianity.
One of his chapters is entitled “What It Is to Be a Creature;” another is, “What It Is to Have a Creator.” The broad fact is dwelt upon and illustrated in detail that in this mutual relationship between creature and Creator lies the whole essence of moral obligation. We may admit that even if God had created us by the process of evolution, this fact would still not in any measure diminish our obligation to Him as our Creator. But when we consider what a changed aspect this gives to the whole problem of evil and the doctrine of divine love, and how it inevitably leads to a view of the divine immanence not distinguishable from pantheism, it ought to be evident that so far from such a doctrine's being worthy of the name Christian, it is as far removed from the Gospel of Christ as is Buddhism or any other heathen philosophy.
A False Religion in Embryo
In short, the modern doctrine of evolution, and its outgrowth, the so-called “new theology,” are but the embryonic stage of another great system of false religion, arising in a manner very similar to that in which Buddhism, Brahmanism, Parseism, etc., had their origin. For it is a mistake to think that the religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt and Babylon, any more than those of modern India and China, consisted merely of forms and ceremonies and idol-worship. Such both the ancient and the modern systems may have been or may be to a large class of their unthinking devotees. But in their beginnings, and to all their more intelligent followers, they were much more than this. Rather must we say that all are philosophic systems for explaining the phenomena of nature, the origin of things, and man's relationship to the universe and to the Power at the head of the universe. The forms and ceremonies of worship came in only incidentally. Each of these systems of man-made religion took whatever degenerate relics of more ancient and purer forms of faith were nearest at hand, and after changing and adapting them to suit its theories of cosmogony and philosophy, incorporated and assimilated them, and thus grew into the system of world-religion as we know it.
“Theistic Evolution”
During the last quarter century or so we moderns have been witnessing the embryonic development of another great system of heathen religion, “theistic evolution.” Like the systems of religious philosophy already mentioned, it deals primarily with man's origin and his relationship to the universe. And in its essential nature it is as really heathenish as anything that ever grew up in Chaldea, Greece, or India. Let us illustrate this point by showing what evolution and the “new theology” teach on two very fundamental points, namely, the reason for sin, and the remedy for it.
Evolution Can Not Admit Sin
(1) Evolution has no explanation for the sin and misery of our world except to make it a part of the nature of things which God Himself could not avoid when He started the world evolving.
Here are the words of Le Conte: “What we call evil is not a unique phenomenon confined to man,” and is not in any way connected with man's free will as an intelligent being rebelling against his Creator. It “must be a great fact pervading all nature and a part of its very constitution.” But man having ascended from the lower animals through the long-drawn-out struggle for existence, still carries about with him as an heirloom a large inheritance of animal selfishness and passion. Hence, for any of us to sin is simply to give way to the animal within us. Or, to quote John Fiske: “Theology has much to say about original sin. This original sin is neither more nor less than the brute inheritance which every man carries with him.”
Making God the Author of Sin
But it is evident that evolution thus makes God the author of sin, and hence also of the misery which is sin's natural result. The fundamental evil, which Le Conte says pervades all nature and is a part of its very constitution, must be something which God deliberately saddled upon the universe when He started it evolving, or else He is not all-powerful and all-wise. According to evolution, sin and misery are either the deliberate result of God's purpose, or something which He could not help, being inherent in the very nature of the material (matter) on which He was working. Certainly, according to this theory, it is not man's fault, but his misfortune, that he is a sinner; and if there is any being in the universe who is responsible for the present sin and misery of our world, “here where men sit and hear each other groan,” it must be God Himself.
Only a Human Remedy for Sin
Must we not call this a heathenish doctrine? Let us see if its remedy for sin and misery is any better.
(2) In view of such teaching concerning the origin of sin, it might well be supposed that regeneration and conversion would be diluted and explained away until they would simply mean to combat the animal within us, and to struggle for the higher nature. And it is a fact that all “Christian” evolutionists, who hold sin to be inherited animalism, invariably substitute development and culture for regeneration and conversion. In the words of Fiske, “The process7
of evolution is an advance toward true salvation.” Another enthusiastic exponent of these views, a one-time celebrated evangelist, the Rev. B. Fay Mills, declares, “What is needed more than anything else to-day is to get rid of the idea that the human race needs redemption or a mediator, and to understand that we are a part of God ourselves.”
Not long ago the editor of the Independent reviewed a new book which taught the old-fashioned doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ. He criticized the book severely, saying that this book is arguing a lost cause, and affirming that there is actually a generation growing up who never heard the sacrificial explanation of the death of Christ. The learned editor even went so far as to say that many young people in the churches would be shocked by the statement that Jesus died that we might not die.
Then Is It Not Cultured Heathenism?
Is it at all extravagant or unjust on our part to speak of such people as heathens? They may have been born in luxury, may have been educated at Harvard or Yale, they may be descended from the most select families of old Puritan New England or Virginia. They may now ride about in automobiles and private cars, and be twentieth century Chesterfields in point of manners and culture. But it remains a fact that a generation that as a result of early training in an atmosphere of evolution, “higher criticism,” and “new theology,” ignores or denies the claims to homage of the Creator of the heavens and the earth; who “never heard” the doctrine of the sacrificial death of Christ; who “would be shocked” at the suggestion that Jesus died in our stead in order that we might live,—can only be appropriately described by the old-fashioned word “heathen.”
Thank God, there are still those who have not bowed the knee to this modern Baal, some few who are encouraged to greater faithfulness by the very universality of this false doctrine, for they know that it is quite full time for the great Jehovah to arise and vindicate His name as in ages past. And from the way in which God’s buried witnesses are arising from the dust heaps of Babylon and Egypt, and from the rocky strata all over the world, we know that the day of this vindication of God’s two great books, and the proof of their divine harmony, is drawing on apace.
—★—
At Ease in Zion
By Horatius Bonar
At ease in Zion! Can a soul redeemed,
That should, while here, be solemn vigils keeping,
Sit idly on its couch of luxury,
When the world lies in saddest slumber sleeping,
In pleasure's deepest draft its senses madly steeping?
At ease in Zion! Where is then the cross,
The Master's cross, all pain and shame defying?
Where is the true disciple's cross and cup,
The daily conflict and the daily dying,
The fearless front of faith, the noble self-denying?
At ease in Zion! Shall no sense of shame
Arouse us from our self-indulgent dreaming?
No pity for the world? No love for Him
Who braved life's sorrow and man's disesteeming,
Us to God's light and joy by His dark death redeeming?
— Horatius Bonar.
OUR last study left Antiochus Magnus utterly defeated by the Romans, in the battle of Magnesia, B.C. 190. Antiochus sued for peace. He said through his ambassadors to Rome: "You have always used magnanimity to conquered kings and people. How much more should you deal gently in this victory, WHICH HAS MADE YOU LORDS OF THE WHOLE WORLD!"
Rome laid upon him the following conditions: Antiochus should abstain from Europe, and retire from all Asia on this side of Mount Taurus. He should pay for the expenses of the war 15,000 Eubœan talents,— 500 at once, 2,500 when the Roman senate and people had confirmed the peace, and then 1,000 talents a year for twelve years. There were other minor demands, and twenty hostages of Rome’s choice were taken, among whom was the king’s younger son. Antiochus "accepted every condition," and "was freed from the war," but this released to Rome the last vestige of the territory over which Lysimachus ruled in Asia. To obtain money to pay this tribute, Antiochus sought to plunder the temple of Elymæan Jove, and was slain. Thus, according to Diodorus, Justin, and Eusebius, cited by Birks, the reproach which he sought to bring upon Egypt came back upon him.
Verse 20—Seleucus Philopator
The burden of war expense laid upon Antiochus Magnus, and his ineffective attempt to meet it, prepare us for the business of the next king, Seleucus Philopator, pre-eminently "a raiser of taxes," or, as in the Revised Version, "an exactor." It was a new thing for the Seleucids to pay foreign tribute, but it was imposed upon Seleucus for twelve years, and he did not have it quite paid at the time of his death. The glory of the kingdom is its temples and public edifices. These were despoiled. Especially Seleucus sent his treasurer, Heliodorus, to rob the temple at Jerusalem of its treasures, told in 2 Maccabees 3; but he was prevented by supernatural means from doing this. A gold-armored horseman on a fierce charger rode him down, and two others in shining apparel scourged him unceasingly and well-nigh killed him, so that Heliodorus desisted, nor would he attempt the thing again.
The "few days" of this king’s life doubtless referred to the time which elapsed after the attempt to rob the temple; for this same Heliodorus, in the hope of obtaining the kingdom, coolly and treacherously slew Seleucus, "neither in anger nor in battle."
Verses 21–29—Antiochus Epiphanes
This passage, it seems clear to us, deals with a king and period of time of vital interest to the people of Daniel and the holy city. We see no appropriateness in introducing the Romans into the 14th verse, noting prominent Roman characters to the Christian era, and then backing up a century and a half to Syrian history, and omitting from the prophecy a notable event which had a mighty molding power upon Jewish history, namely, the work of Antiochus Epiphanes and the horrible persecutions the Jews suffered during his reign. Wright remarks, referring to the interpretations by Pusey and Jerome, "It is extraordinary to maintain that so much should be told in the chapter of Alexander the Great and the kings of Syria who followed him, and that just at the very point when the prophecy begins really to touch the interests of the holy nation, it should break off and pass over to the days immediately preceding the second advent of Christ. Such an interpretation will never satisfy real Biblical students."—Daniel and His Prophecies, page 280.
The time of Antiochus Epiphanes occupies so prominent a place in Jewish history (see 2 Maccabees), giving birth as it did to the prowess and prominence of the Maccabees in later Jewish times, resulting in their war of independence, that it would seem strange indeed that it should be omitted from the prophecy.
Antiochus Epiphanes was brother of Seleucus Philopator. Heliodorus seized the kingdom on the death of Philopator, but was compelled to relinquish it, and it was given to Antiochus, truly "a contemptible" person, who secured the kingdom by flatteries. As Professor Birks remarks, he was at Athens, on his return to Syria, when Seleucus fell by the treachery of Heliodorus; and as the lawful heir, Demetrius his brother, was newly become a hostage at Rome in his stead, he thought the opportunity favorable to defraud him of the inheritance and secure to himself the kingdom. The honor of the kingdom was not given to him; he did not succeed by universal consent as the rightful heir. Jerome tells us that another party was in favor of Ptolemy, the nephew of the late king, being the son of Cleopatra, daughter of Antiochus the Great and sister of Seleucus. Demetrius also, the son of Seleucus, was plainly the lawful heir, but Antiochus obtained it. He came in peaceably, obtaining the kingdom by flatteries. Birks says that he flattered Eumenes, the king of Pergamos, and Attalus his brother, who both assisted him to secure the kingdom. He flattered the Syrians, as Jerome informs us, by a pretended clemency, and, as many writers teach us, by strange and low arts of popular subserviency; while the pride of the Romans was soothed by a humiliating embassy, in which he entreated them to lay on him their commands, and promised to observe them. He was not wanting in talents or vigor of mind in the affairs of war, but he was so depraved and foolish in his whole course and manners of life that the people changed his surname from Epiphanes, "the illustrious," to Epimanes, "the madman." In his embassy to the Romans he besought them that they would "renew with himself the LEAGUE and COVENANT made with his father, and that the Roman people would lay such commands on him as were fit to be laid on a good and faithful king, their ally."
To this a favorable answer was given, and Atilius the proctor was commanded to renew the league with Antiochus which had been made with his father. The whole career of Antiochus in this respect is in perfect harmony with the "contemptible person" described in the prophecy. We have not space to mention the utterly inconsistent course of his life or manners at court and among the people. Even in the eyes of a heathen historian his character was vile and contemptible. His only virtues were a showy and expensive support of foul idolatry, and his ability in war, for he was not a mean soldier. See Prof. T. R. Birks, on "Two Later Visions of Daniel," pages 126, 127.
Some of the Syrian kings, in their warfare against Egypt, as Antiochus the Great at Raphia, found that the Egyptian forces were overwhelming. Ptolemy Philomator still smarted under the injustice that was done him by Syria. The dowry which Antiochus Magnus promised of Cœle-Syria, Judea, and Phœnice had not been turned over to Egypt, and Ptolemy was determined to acquire it, and raised an army for that purpose; but Antiochus Epiphanes was more than a match for him. He gathered an army in an incredibly short time, and swept down over Egypt like a flood; and the overwhelming forces of past days which met his father, and met him, were overwhelmed before him, and broken. And also the prince with whom he had had league. "Prince of the covenant" here does not refer to Christ, as some have assumed that it did. The margin reads simply "the prince of his covenant." Wright well says: "Havernick remarks that the ‘prince of the covenant’ can not well signify any other person than the king of Egypt. It is assumption to affirm that ‘covenant’ in Daniel always indicates the Jewish religion. The phrase simply means ‘a prince in league.’”
Verse 23 is abundantly met in the first invasion of Egypt by Antiochus Epiphanes; and tho he was in league with the Romans, and had covenanted with them to do certain things in harmony with the agreement between the Romans and his father, yet he worked deceitfully, determined himself to take Egypt, and in fact he did sweep down through Egypt, and even took King Ptolemy, and so flattered the Egyptians that some of them were anxious that Antiochus should reign over Egypt. He entered into the fattest places of the province. And instead of plundering the province, as had all kings before him, he acted differently, in bestowing gifts upon cities, and in his worship of the Egyptian gods. He scattered among them his prey and spoil and substance. Three times he made war against Egypt. The king of the south could not stand before him. It is needless to take time to enter into all the details of these wars.
In the last of verse 25 we are told that the king of the south should not stand. They should devise devices against him. Birks remarks that "we learn from Diodorus and Polybius that Eulæus and Lenæus," Ptolemy’s "two chief ministers, were universally charged with the blame of his reverses. Ptolemy Macron also, son of Dorymenes, the governor of Cyprus, at this time revolted from the king of Egypt." That is, "they that eat of his dainties shall destroy him." On the speaking lies at one table, the treachery that was manifested on the part of Antiochus is well set forth by Bishop Newton, as quoted by Birks: "Antiochus pretended to take care of his nephew Philomator’s interest, and promised to restore him the crown at the very time he was plotting his ruin, and was contriving means to weaken the two brothers in a war against each other, that the conqueror, wearied and exhausted, might fall as easier prey. On the other side, Philomator laid the blame of the war on his governor Eulæus, professed great obligations to his uncle [Antiochus], and seemed to hold the crown by his favor, at the same time that he was resolved to take the first opportunity of breaking the league with him, and of being reconciled to his brother; and accordingly, as soon as Antiochus was withdrawn, he made proposals, and by the mediation of their sister, Cleopatra, a peace was made between the brothers, who agreed to reign jointly in Egypt and Alexandria. But still this artifice and dissimulation did not prosper on either side. Nor neither did Antiochus obtain the kingdom, nor did Philomator utterly exclude him, and prevent his returning with an army, as each expected by the measures he had taken; for these wars were not to have an end till the time appointed, which was not yet come."—Birks on Daniel, pages 138, 139.7
Rome Enters
Here, also, the Romans came in. The weak king of Egypt, feeling that he himself could not meet the power of Antiochus, asked help of the Romans. Popilius, the Roman legate, met Antiochus near Alexandria, where he was encamped. He brought to Antiochus a tablet from Rome stating the conditions, that Antiochus must make no war on the Ptolemies. Antiochus greeted Popilius as an old friend whom he knew in Rome. Popilius refused to shake hands with him until he knew whether Antiochus were a friend or an enemy. If he were a friend, he would comply with what the Romans had demanded. Antiochus remarked that he would consult about it. Popilius, having a stick in his hand, drew a circle around Antiochus in the sand, and told him to "consult there," and decide before he stepped out of it. He decided. Popilius then greeted him warmly, but Antiochus went away in a rage. While he had gained great successes in Egypt, and had wrought his own pleasure to the extent that he had, yet he returned to his own land; and not being able to meet Rome, he visited his enmity against Rome upon the Jews and against the holy covenant. These horrible cruelties are told us in 2 Maccabees, as well as in Josephus. We can make only the barest summary of some of the greatest.
Apostasy — Then Persecution
First of all let us remark that one of the great reasons why this awful persecution of the Jews came was the fearful corruptions that had crept in among the Jews themselves. There were many devoted men among them. On the other hand, there were many who had become greatly affected by the customs of the people around them, and whose hearts had departed from God. The holy priesthood had become a thing of barter and sale. Heathen customs had been brought into the very temple itself by men who ought to have guarded most carefully the holy temple and its worship. The pious and venerable Onias had been deposed, and Jason, a corrupt man, had bought the priesthood by bribing the king; and then the brother of Jason, who took the name of Menelaus, offered a larger bribe, and Jason was deposed, and he was put in the priesthood. During the time that Jason occupied the priesthood, Antiochus came to Judea. This apostate high priest had labored for three years to destroy the Jewish constitution and religion, when he was succeeded by Menelaus, who was even worse than Jason. Antiochus visiting Tyre, the Jewish Sanhedrin sent an embassy setting forth the condition of things in Jerusalem. Menelaus, unable to defend himself against their charges, had recourse to his usual weapon, bribery, by which he gained over the king's favorite, Ptolemy Macron, and the deputies were themselves put to death.
In the meantime, the king having invaded Egypt, the Jews heard that he had been slain, and immediately set about to reform their city. On hearing of this, and resentful over his treatment by Rome, he came back with the purpose of attacking Jerusalem. The Jews closed their gates and defended their city, but could not resist his army. The city was taken by storm, and subjected to the most horrid barbarities. The carnage lasted for three days, and it is said forty thousand persons were killed, and an equal number sold as slaves. Elated with his successes, he caused Menelaus, the high priest, to lead him into the temple, even into the most holy place, where he defiled the sacred vessels, removed all the gold, valuables, and treasures, even to the veil of the sanctuary, secured 800,000 talents of gold, besides the golden vessels, which he took from the temple; and with this booty he marched in triumph to Antioch, appointing as the governor of the country one Philip, a Phrygian, and a most barbarous man.
After two years from the spoiling of the temple, Antiochus sent Apollonius to Jerusalem with an army of 22,000, who took up quarters in the city in a peaceable way until the first Sabbath day, when his troops fell upon the men and massacred them, and made captives of all the women and children, filling Jerusalem with blood, plundering houses, and demolishing walls. The castle was built on Mount Zion, which commanded the entrance of the temple; and thus the celebration of worship was controlled. Then a decree was issued that all the provinces of Syria should worship the gods of the king, and acknowledge no religion but his. The services of the temple were prohibited; the keeping of the Sabbath, and every observance of the law, were made capital offenses. All copies of the
sacred books that were found were destroyed, idolatrous altars were erected in every city, people commanded to offer sacrifices to the gods, and to eat swine's flesh every month on the birthday of the king. The temple at Jerusalem was altered and profaned, the building was dedicated to Jupiter Olympus, and an image of this heathen deity set up, and on the altar of Jehovah another smaller one was erected. Never before had the Jews been subjected to a persecution so directly leveled against all their institutions, and enforced with such diligent and persevering malignity. Two women, for instance, having circumcised their infants with their own hands, being detected, were led through the streets of Jerusalem, with their infants hung about their necks, and then cast from the highest part of the walls of the city, and dashed to pieces. On another occasion, a number of women and children were discovered secretly observing the Sabbath in a cave, and were barbarously put to death by the inhuman Philip.
Antiochus was enraged that so many of the Jews still resisted his will. The Samaritans had yielded, and had allowed their temple to be dedicated to Jupiter Xenios, "the protector of strangers." Therefore Antiochus came in person to Jerusalem to enforce the law, or extirpate the people. His first victim was Eleazar, a very aged scribe, who when commanded to eat swine's flesh, positively refused, and altho ninety years of age, upheld the religion of God with sterling energy, and died under the lash of the tyrant. A mother and her seven sons, all grown up, acted in the same heroic manner; the young men refusing to transgress the law, were subjected, in succession, to the most horrible tortures, until every one of them, and lastly the mother, died martyrs for the cause of truth and righteousness. It was a time to show who were false, and a time to develop the true.
Coming to the little city of Modin, there was found an aged priest named Mattathias, the father of five sons, all distinguished for bodily strength and nobility of mind. The priest refused compliance with the demands of the idolatrous king's officers; and when one of the apostate Jews came forth to the altar to offer sacrifice, the spirit of the priest was so aroused that he slew him upon the altar, and killed the king's commissioner that had been sent to compel the people to sacrifice; and then running through the city, with a loud voice cried, "Whoever is zealous of the law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me." He was followed by hundreds. He made a change in the Jewish method of warfare. Before this the Jews would not fight on the Sabbath day, and their enemies took advantage of this, and nearly always attacked them when they were in the peace of the Sabbath. But Mattathias, after one such defeat, counseled with his brethren and the scribes, and concluded that while they never would make an attack themselves on the Sabbath, it was proper for them to defend themselves; and out of this grew the war of what is called the Maccabees. When the old priest died, he exhorted his sons to devote their lives to the holy cause, to regard their older brother Simon as their counselor on account of his wisdom, and Judas as their captain because of his strength and bravery. He surnamed him Maccabeus, or "the hammerer," and he was truly the hammerer of the Syrian forces until he won for the Jews their independence. (See "Historians' History of the World," volume 2, pages 139-151.)
A Type of Later Things
When the temple was cleansed and worship restored, it was three years, to a day, from the time that it was defiled by the king. It was a mighty mountain of import in the great vista of the prophecy which Daniel saw. It was a time when God's worship had sunk very low, when as the result of that apostasy His people had almost lost the worship of God, and as a result of which the worst persecution that they had endured in their history came upon them; and God suffered it to come, in His own wisdom, to chastise them. This apostasy and persecution is not mentioned in the explanation of the vision of Daniel 8 in chapter 9. This was left for chapter 10, to show to Daniel what would come to his own people.
And here the vision pauses regarding Syria. Syria really fell before Rome under the reign of Antiochus Magnus. That old monarch had proclaimed it when he declared that the Romans were "lords of the whole world." It lingers yet in the prophecy with the two kings, Seleucus Philopator, the raiser of taxes, and Antiochus Epiphanes, both humbled into the very dust by the Romans, and then — Rome. Syria lingered for more than a century after this, but in a poor, rent, weakened condition, until finally Tigranes, the Persian, came in and for a time ruled over it; and then the last king, Antiochus Asiaticus, besought the Romans to come and make it a Roman province. It had practically been this, so far as Roman influence was concerned, for many years. This yielding to Rome is told in the prophecy.
Verses 30-35—Rome
A new power comes into the prophecy, and the vision of the prophet takes a leap of centuries again, even as it did between Persia and Alexander the Great. Xerxes is mentioned as the richest of all Persian kings; but when he met Grecia, his power as a world-molding empire was destroyed, and the next king mentioned is Alexander. There the prophecy brings us down through the kings of the north in Syria until we reach Antiochus III and IV, when the Roman power becomes the molding power of earth, and Syria is set aside. There is but one thing, however, brought in in connection with that Roman power, and that is the tremendous apostasy in connection with it among God's people, and the great persecution waged by that power against them. Of that the times of Antiochus IV were a type, first a period of backsliding and apostasy, and afterward one of persecution. After the ships of Kittim came against Antiochus, the scene changes. He vents his indignation against the holy covenant. He treats favorably those that forsake it. But even the "he" itself may refer to Rome, the power which becomes possessed of the world; for certainly Rome has manifested her enmity against the holy covenant, and for them who forsake it, in both its pagan and papal forms. It needs no argument to the student of history to show that this is so. Rome, too, profaned the sanctuary, even the very center of God's worship, and under that great apostasy the continual leadership of Christ was taken away, as was shown in the explanation of Daniel 8; and "the abomination that maketh desolate" was set up. Man was put in the place of God, as will be brought out a little later — human worship in the place of the divine.
Verse 32 is paralleled by Dan. 8: 25: "And through his policy he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and in their security shall he destroy many." And yet rising up against this power should be the noble, faithful ones among God's people. How true this was in pagan Roman times, how pre-eminently true in papal times! "And they that are wise among the people shall instruct many." Follow the course of noble, faithful souls during all the Dark Ages, and especially among the Waldenses and the Albigenses. "Yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil, many days." How true that was! But "when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help." God remembered His people. The very powers of earth themselves revolted against the domination of the spiritual hierarchy in Rome. In various ways God cared for the remnant of His people, and saved them from utter extinction. And yet "many shall join themselves unto them with flatteries." This is paralleled in Rev. 2: 20, referring to the same time: "But I have this against thee, that thou sufferest the woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophetess; and she teacheth and seduceth My servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed to idols." But the persecution and the corruption goes on, and has gone on, "even to the time of the end; because it is yet for the time appointed."
Once more are we brought to the end of the great period with which these visions have to do, the 2,300 days; but as we reach the end of that period, the power over the "daily," the continual leadership, service, and worship of God, and the continual mediation and outpouring of grace by our Lord Jesus Christ, reaches a crisis. There comes in at that time God's last great reform to the world, bringing His people back to the great, everlasting Gospel, to the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. We are not yet through with this persecuting power. A fuller description is given. We will deal with it more fully in our next.
A Boy's Prayer
By Delvin Rees Buckner
On Rising on the Resurrection Morn
By Delvin Rees Buckner
Throughout life's span my guardian and guide,
Sent now by God to pilot me through space,
I first would ask to see my mother's face,
With new-born beauty, shining, glorified,
And, buried in her bosom, I would hide
As when a babe, I found a resting-place
Within her warm, affectionate embrace.
My prayer, O angel, must it be denied?
Her grave lay once in ground whose dust was gold,
Where grapes pressed color from flushed orange
cheeks,
And flowers vied with the rainbow hues above;
But all the earth is altered now, and rolled
In one disheveled heap — yet o'er the peaks
I'd fly to mother's outstretched arms of love.
The Maladjustment of the Church
By F. D. Starr
At a meeting of the Men and Religion Movement in Walla Walla, Washington, February 18, 1912, one of the speakers for the occasion, Dr. Penrose, president of Whitman College, dwelt upon the paramount importance of correct influences for boys and young men between the ages of fifteen and twenty, and enumerated the sources of such influences.
These he conceived to be four in number; namely, the home, the school, the associates, and the town in which such youth are brought up. Said the speaker, "Perhaps you will inquire why I do not mention the church as one of these factors." In answer to this query, he stated substantially as follows: Because the church is in such a condition of maladjustment that it can not be enumerated among the forces that tend to lead the youth in this period of adolescence to correct moral and spiritual lives. This sentiment concerning the "maladjustment" of the church was repeated.
This seems like a very humiliating admission to make concerning the utility of the church under present conditions. A change must be imperative; for if there is any institution on earth that should be able to help young men, or any other class of individuals, to lead right lives, where should we sooner look for it than to the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth?
Anticipating this condition of "maladjustment," the great Head of the church, through His inspired Word, predicted long ago a mighty movement that should be inaugurated to restore the church to its primitive powers and efficiency. This is forcibly set before us in the three messages of warning that are being proclaimed in all the world, as found in Rev. 14: 6-12. Here is brought to view a body of Christians who "keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus," and who have disconnected from the world and from Babylon. This condition of adjustment places the church in right relations to God and man, where it can have a salutary influence upon all who come in contact with it, both young and old.
A church that relies entirely upon God for support, and is not seeking for aid from civil government and religious legislation, will not find itself in that condition of "maladjustment" that will rob it of its influence for good over those who stand in pressing need of its saving ministrations.
F. D. STARR.