Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Aug 26, 1880
General Articles.
By Mrs. E. G. White
THE TWELVE SPIES.
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
Eleven days after leaving Mount Horeb, the Hebrew hosts encamped at Kadesh, in the wilderness of Paran, which was not far from the borders of the promised land. Here the Lord told Moses to send men to search the land of Canaan, directing that one of the rulers of each tribe should be selected for this purpose. Moses did as the Lord had said, and sent up twelve men to search the land. He bade them go and see the country, what it was, its situation, and natural advantages; and the people that dwelt therein, whether they were strong or weak, few or many; also to observe the nature of the soil and its productiveness, and to bring of the fruit of the land.
After an absence of forty days they returned from their search, and all the congregation of Israel assembled to listen to their report. All agreed that it was a good land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and as evidence, they exhibited specimens of the rich fruit of the country. It was in the time of ripe grapes, and they had brought a cluster of grapes so large that it was carried between two men. They had also brought of the figs and pomegranates which grew there in abundance. But after describing the beauty and fertility of the land, all but two of the spies spoke of the difficulties and dangers that lay before the Israelites should they undertake the conquest of Canaan. They enumerated the powerful nations located in various parts of the country, and said that the cities were walled and very great, and the people who dwelt therein were strong, and it would be impossible to conquer them. They also stated that they had seen giants, the sons of Anak, there, and it was useless to think of possessing the land.
As the people listened to this discouraging report, they gave expression to their feelings of disappointment, in reproaches, and bitter mourning. They did not wait, and reflect, and reason that God, who had brought them out thus far, would certainly give them the land. They left God out of the question, and acted as though, in the taking of the city of Jericho, the key to the land of Canaan, they must depend solely on the power of arms. God had declared that he would give them the country, and they should have fully trusted him to fulfill his word. But their unsubdued hearts were not in harmony with his plans. They did not call to mind how wonderfully he had wrought in their behalf, bringing them out of their Egyptian bondage, cutting a path for them through the waters of the sea, and destroying the pursuing host of Pharaoh.
In their unbelief they limited the work of God, and distrusted the hand that had hitherto safely guided them. In this instance they repeated their former error of murmuring against Moses and Aaron. "This, then, is the end of all our high hopes," they said. "This is the land we have traveled all the way from Egypt to possess." They accused their leaders of bringing trouble upon Israel, and again charged them with deceiving and leading their people astray.
Moses and Aaron lay prostrate before God, their faces in the dust. Caleb and Joshua, the two who, of all the twelve spies, trusted in the word of God, rent their clothes in distress, when they perceived that these unfavorable reports had discouraged the whole congregation. They endeavored to reason with them, but the people were filled with madness and disappointment, and refused to listen. Finally, Caleb urged his way to the front, and his clear, ringing voice was heard above all the clamor of the multitude. He opposed the cowardly views of his fellow-spies, which had weakened the faith and courage of all Israel. He commanded the attention of the people, and they hushed their complaints for a moment to listen to him. He spoke of the land he had visited. Said he, "Let us go up at once; for we are well able to overcome it." But as he spoke, the unfaithful spies interrupted him, crying out, "We be not able to go up against this people, for they are stronger than we!"
These men, starting upon a wrong course, set their hearts against God, against Moses and Aaron, and against Caleb and Joshua. Every step they advanced in this wrong direction made them firmer in their design to discourage all attempts to possess the land of Canaan. They distorted the truth in order to carry their baneful influence. They represented the climate as being unhealthful, and all the people of giant stature. Said they, "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."
This was not only an evil, but a lying report. It was contradictory; for if the land was unhealthful and "had eaten up the inhabitants," how was it that they attained to such massive proportions? When men yield their hearts to unbelief, there are no bounds to the advance they will make in evil. Few realize, when they start upon this dangerous course, the length that Satan will lead them.
The evil report had a terrible effect upon the people. They bitterly reproached Moses and Aaron. Some groaned and wailed, saying, "Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or, Would God we had died in the wilderness!" Then their feelings rose against the Lord, they wept and mourned, saying, "Wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? Were it not better for us to return into Egypt? And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt."
Thus they manifested their disrespect for God and for the leaders he had appointed to conduct them. They did not ask the Lord what they should do, but said, "Let us make a captain." They took matters into their own hands, feeling themselves competent to manage their affairs without divine aid. They accused not only Moses, but God himself, of deception, in promising a land which they were not able to possess. They actually went so far as to appoint one of their number as a captain, to lead them back to the land of their suffering and bondage, from which God had delivered them with the strong arm of omnipotence.
Moses and Aaron still remained prostrate before God in the presence of all the assembly, silently imploring divine mercy for rebellious Israel. Their distress was too deep for words. Again Caleb and Joshua press to the front, and the voice of Caleb once more rises in sorrowful earnestness above the complaints of the congregation:—
"The land which we passed through to search it, is an exceeding good land. If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this land, and give it us; a land that floweth with milk and honey; only rebel not ye against the Lord, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us. Their defense is departed from them, and the Lord is with us. Fear them not."
The Canaanites had filled up the measure of their iniquity, and the Lord would no longer bear with them. His defense being removed from them, they would fall an easy prey to the Hebrews. They were not prepared for battle, for they felt so strong that they deceived themselves with the idea that no army was formidable enough to prevail against them. Caleb reminded the people that by the covenant of God the land was insured to Israel. But their hearts were filled with madness, and they would hear no more. If only the two men had brought the evil report, and all the ten had encouraged them to possess the land in the name of the Lord, they would still have taken the advice of the two in preference to the ten, because of their wicked unbelief.
But there were only two advocating the right, while ten were in open rebellion against their leaders and against God. The greatest excitement now raged among the people, their worst passions were aroused, and they refused to listen to reason. The ten unfaithful spies join them in their denunciations of Caleb and Joshua, and the cry is raised to stone them. The insane mob seize missiles with which to slay those faithful men. They rush forward with yells of madness, when, lo! the stones drop from their hands, a hush falls upon them, and they shake with terror. God has interposed to check their rash design. The glory of his presence, like a flame of light, illuminates the tabernacle. All the congregation behold the signal of the Lord. A mightier one than they, had revealed himself, and not one dared continue his resistance. Every murmurer was silenced. The spies who had brought the evil report, crouched terror-stricken, and with bated breath sought their tents. Moses now arose from his humiliating position and entered the tabernacle, to commune with God. There the Lord proposed to immediately destroy this rebellious people, and he desired to make of Moses a greater nation than Israel. But the meek leader of his people would not consent to this proposition. "And Moses said unto the Lord, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them; and they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land, for they have heard that thou, Lord, art among this people, that thou, Lord, art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by daytime in a pillar of cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now, if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, 'Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness.'"
374Thus did this chosen servant of God again manifest his love for the people, and his zeal for the honor of his Master. Instead of being angry with his importunity, the Lord granted his petition, and said: "I have pardoned according to thy word. But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord." Here he refers to the time when the saints of God shall dwell upon the earth made new, and purified and cleansed from every defilement of sin.
(Concluded next number.)
MYRRH-BEARERS.
By Margaret J. Preston
THREE women crept at break of day,
Agrope along the shadowy way
Where Joseph's tomb and garden lay;
Each in her throbbing bosom bore
A burden of such fragrant store,
As never there had lain before.
Spices, the purest, richest, best,
That e'er the musky East possessed;
From Ind to Araby the Blest.
Had they, with sorrow-riven hearts,
Searched all Jerusalem's costliest marts
In quest of nards, whose pungent arts
Should the dead sepulchre imbue
With vital odors through and through,
'Twas all their love had leave to do;
Christ did not need their gifts; and yet
Did either Mary once regret
Her offering? Did Salome fret
Over those unused aloes? Nay!
They did not count as waste that day
What they had brought their Lord! The way
Home seemed the path to Heaven. They bear
Thenceforth about the robes they wear
The clinging perfume everywhere.
So ministering, as erst did these,
Go women forth by twos and threes
(Unmindful of their morning ease)
Through tragic darkness, murk, and dim,
Where'er they see the faintest rim
Of promise—all for sake of Him
Who rose from Joseph's tomb. They hold
It just such joy as these of old
To tell the tale the Marys told.
Myrrh-bearers still—at home, abroad,
What paths have holy women trod,
Burdened with votive gifts for God!—
Rare gifts, whose chiefest worth was priced
By this one thought, that all sufficed—
Their spices have been bruised for Christ.
—Margaret J. Preston.
THE PARABLE OF THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS.
By William H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(Continued.)
As he many times does nothing but injury who unsettles the opinions of others by destroying their confidence in their previous modes of Scripture exegesis, without enabling them to substitute therefor a more satisfactory exposition, it is now time that we should pass over to the positive side of the argument, and furnish an interpretation of the parable in question which shall be less liable to objection than the one which we have been combating. To promise one which shall be altogether free from any difficulty whatever would be more than could be fulfilled, and more than a reasonable student of the Scripture would demand at the hands of any person who was dealing with passages so highly figurative as the one before us. Nevertheless it would seem to be comparatively easy when in the line of sound interpretation to present a view which would, when taken as a whole, do violence to no principle of morals and no canon of sound doctrine. In fine, he should be able to so explain this portion of the word that his explanation would not make it conflict with other parts of the same word, and would at the same time commend itself to the judgment of the unbiased reader.
In this case, as in many others, it will be found profitable while considering the text to closely study the context. In doing so, it will be seen that the Lord had been delivering the parable of the wise steward, which bears directly upon the question of the proper use of the means that God has given us in this life, in order to make them contribute to the welfare of the individual in the life to come. Whether or not the object of the Master was the condemnation of the Pharisaic notions on that subject, it is at present impossible to say. One thing is manifest, however, viz., that they immediately took exceptions to his teaching upon that point. It is even said that they were present, and that they derided him because they were covetous. This language would seem to imply that they were wounded in a vulnerable point; and as the bird which flutters immediately after the discharge of the sportsman's gun is presumably the one at which he directed his piece, so, in this case, the derisive responses of the Pharisees would seem to indicate that they themselves were not only the persons who felt the sharp point of the missile of truth, but also that they were conscious of the fact that it was hurled at them.
Nor does it appear that Christ was anxious to relieve their minds of the suspicion that they were the individuals to whom his words had been especially directed; for, instead of softening his previous utterances in the least, or attempting to explain that they were not designed to be personal in their application, he meets their irate denunciation by the stern declaration: "That which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." The reference in these words is unmistakable.
The subject of conversation was the parable of the steward. The point of that parable was the proper use to which money may be put in this life. It was, therefore, in reference to the peculiar views which the Pharisees held upon that subject that the Lord was particularly condemnatory. What those views were, it is not difficult to ascertain. One of their distinguishing characteristics as it regards their estimation of money is brought to view in the declaration that, as a class, "they were covetous." Another may be found in the writings of those who are competent to set forth their tenets in the statement that with them it was customary to regard the possession of wealth as an evident token of the favor of God; while poverty was considered as conclusive evidence that the person subjected thereto was accursed of Heaven.
It was, we think, at the sin of covetousness, which was so marked in them, that the parable of the unjust steward was aimed. We are also of the opinion that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was especially designed to condemn and utterly root out the foolish and pernicious idea contained in their second peculiar notion, wherein they held that riches were a manifest token of divine favor. The reasons for these conclusions are found both in the nature of the parable itself, and the connection in which it was uttered. A glance at the context will make it apparent that the persons in the immediate presence of the Saviour were, beyond reasonable doubt, the very ones whom he had just condemned for being avaricious. Having spoken a few words relating to other matters, perhaps for the purpose of getting the multitude into a more favorable position or mood, he seems to have picked up again the subject of property, and, as we have already said, to have made a final and overwhelming assault upon the second feature named above. In doing this, he had recourse to a style of logic, which, for the purposes then to be accomplished, was most perfect in its adaptation, i. e., the argumentum ad hominem. In other words, he framed a parable, which, constructed as it was in the use of characters common in every community, and employment, so far as its theology was concerned, wholly of doctrines which were parts of their distinctive faith, however, precluded the Pharisees themselves from evading the conclusion drawn on account of the unsoundness of any one of the premises given.
By this master-stroke of policy, he at once placed his adversaries in a position where it was utterly impossible for them to vindicate their peculiar tenet without self-stultification, through a denial of positions formerly held, or subjecting themselves to the contempt of the people, who were composed of the poorer classes, by taking the broad position that the poor could not be saved at all, and therefore that the parable of the Lord was absurd and impotent in the matter of proving that an abundance of this world's goods was not a vindication of God's favor. For had they admitted that Christ could have been justified, in any contingency, in placing Lazarus the beggar, covered with sores, and kept alive by the continued charity, that fact would have forever overturned the doctrine that he was accursed of God as proved by his indigence, since immediately upon death he was exalted to the highest position attainable by mortals in the favor of Heaven. Again, had they confessed that it was possible for the rich man at death to go directly to hell, then this would have been an admission that the luxuries which he enjoyed in this life had in reality furnished no proof that God loved him, since at death he poured upon him the vials of his unmitigated wrath.
What, then, could they do? We answer as above, Only one of three things. First, either admit that they were mistaken in their interpretation of worldly prosperity; or, second, boldly declare that the poor could not be saved or the rich lost; or, third, deny that they ever held the doctrine found in the parable in regard to the place and character of the intermediate state. Had they taken the first position, this would have been a complete surrender of the point at issue, and virtually an acknowledgement that they could not thereafter be regarded as safe religious teachers. Had they taken the second, which was the necessary consequence of their own logic, if sound, but which they, perhaps, were not prepared to adopt, not only because of their own misgivings, but also because, if done publicly, they doubtless would have been handled roughly by the irritated multitude whom they would thus have insulted in a most aggravating manner by consigning them to hopeless and eternal ruin upon no other proof than that of their acknowledged poverty.
Nor is it at all improbable that this last consideration of prudence would have been sufficient to close their mouths perfectly on that branch of the subject, since, on a former occasion, like considerations had produced the same result. Reference is here had, as the reader will readily perceive, to the visit made to Christ by certain of the chief priests and elders who asked him concerning the authority by which he did his works. He, desirous of confounding them, replied, "The baptism of John, whence was it? from Heaven or of men." They, perceiving his object, reasoned among themselves on this wise: "If we shall say, From Heaven, he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe on him? But if we shall say, Of men, we fear the people; for all hold John as a prophet." Therefore, abashed and dumfounded, they answered in these humiliating words, "We cannot tell."
Finally, had they, as a last resort, attempted evasion by adopting the third position suggested above, their failure would have been as complete as in either of the other cases. Christ, in his purpose to make them destroy their own theological tenets, by their own theological weapons, had left no opportunity for side issues. So careful had he been to overthrow them on their own chosen ground, that he employed simply those dogmas, which, from time immemorial, had been the shibboleths of their faith. Their doctrines concerning hades, though they might have been in reality crude and unsound, were too generally understood to admit of public denial. And, as the Lord was not seeking at the moment either to affirm or deny the correctness of their opinions in regard to that place, but simply to confound them out of their own mouths, he employed a portion of their own faith for that purpose. To show that in doing so he was true to their conceptions, and that his parable was based upon those conceptions purely, and not upon any views personal to him, we shall give in our next an extract from one of the most eminent of Jewish historians, one, also, who was himself a Pharisee and a contemporary of Christ.
IS THE SOUL IMMORTAL?
"The King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality." 1 Tim. 6:16.
"To them who by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, honor, and immortality." Rom. 2:7.
The word "soul" occurs in the original Scriptures eight hundred and seventy-three times; but it is never once called immortal. The word "immortal" is found only once in all the Bible (1 Tim. 1:17), and there it is applied, not to man, but to God.
Bishop Tillotson, A. D. 1774, said: "The immortality of the soul is rather supposed, or taken for granted, than expressly revealed in the Bible."—Sermons, Vol. 2.
Olshausen, the Commentator, says: "The doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and the name, are alike unknown to the entire Bible."—Com. on 1 Cor. 15:13.
Dr. Bagnall, in the Methodist Quarterly Review for April, 1852, while advocating the opposite view, makes this frank admission: "In the Bible, we think there is no passage which can be strictly said to declare that all human souls are immortal."
The celebrated Richard Watson says: "That the soul is naturally immortal . . . is contradicted by the Scripture, which makes our immortality a gift dependent on the will of the Giver."—Theol. Inst., Vol. 2, Part 2, chap. 18.
Martin Luther says:—"But I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as, the pope is emperor of the world, and the king of heaven, and god upon earth; the soul is immortal, with all those monstrous opinions to be found in the Roman dunghill of decretals."—Defense, Prop. 27.
Cardinal Du Perron says:—"Luther held that the soul died with the body, and that God would hereafter raise both the one and the other."—Historical View, p. 344.
A Lutheran minister denied this statement, and in endeavoring to refute it made the following admission: "The origin of this calumny is a letter he [Luther] wrote to Amsdorf in the year 1522; in which he appears much inclined to believe that the souls of the just sleep to the day of Judgment, without knowing where they are. He does375not pretend to say that they are dead in this interval, but only lie in a profound rest and sleep, in which opinion he followed many fathers of the ancient church."—Ibid, p. 347.
Mosheim speaks of the "General Baptists," who flourished in England in the sixteenth century, and enumerates their articles of faith, one of which he mentions as follows: "VI. They believed that the soul, between death and the resurrection at the last day, has neither pleasure nor pain, but is in a state of insensibility."—Eccl. Hist., Vol. 3, book 4, p. 218.
ORIGIN OF THE IMMORTAL-SOUL DOCTRINE.
"The serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die, . . . your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods." Gen. 3:4, 5.
The next who taught it were the Egyptians. Herodotus, a Greek, born B. C. 484, regarded as the first and one of the most reliable of profane historians, says:—"The Egyptians were also the first who asserted the doctrine that the soul of man is immortal."—Herod. Euter. 2. Par. 123.
THE GREEKS AND ROMANS LEARN THE DOCTRINE FROM THE EGYPTIANS.
The celebrated Grecian philosophers, Pythagoras and Plato spent many years in Egypt, learning of the priests and teachers there.
Warburton, speaking of Pythagoras, says:—"He and Plato, with others, traveled into Egypt, like their predecessors. . . . The ancients tell us of their long abode there; their hard condition of admittance into the sacred colleges; and their bringing away with them all the secret science of the priesthood."—Div. Legu., Vol. 2. pp. 108, 109.
Bassville says:—"The religion of the Romans appears to have been that of Greece—a mixture of Syrian and Egyptian fables. The principal gods of both people were the same.—Elements of Mythol., p. 244.
Thus has the doctrine passed down from him, who, from the beginning, abode not in the truth, John 8:44, through the Egyptians, to the Grecians and Romans, and the great Protestant denominations of to-day have not been careful to keep their skirts clear from this heathen fable and "doctrine of devils," 1 Timothy 4:1, upon which doctrine the arch-seducer has chosen to build his "strong delusions" and show his "great signs and wonders," to deceive all the world except the "very elect." Practicing that which God has declared to be an abomination unto him, Deut. 18:10-12, and which will shut men out of the kingdom of God, and the heavenly Jerusalem, Gal. 5:20, 21; Rev. 22:14, 15, viz., Necromancy, which is defined as being the art of foretelling events by a pretended communication with the spirits of the dead. See Webster; also Isa. 8:19, 20; 2 Thess. 2:8-12; Matt. 24:24; Rev. 13:13, 14; 16:14, 15; 2 Tim. 3:1-8. Who will take warning by this testimony produced, and be true Protestants indeed, protesting against every innovation upon the truth of God's word, and will return to the simplicity of the faith that was once delivered to the saints, as it is in the word of truth, through which alone we are to be sanctified. John 17:17.
ON THE WORD "CONVERSATION" IN THE SCRIPTURES.
By Prof. H. Cowles, D. D., Oberlin
ONE of the infelicities of an old translation of the Scriptures is in its obsolete words. The changes incident to all living languages will sometimes cause a word to throw off all its old meaning and take on a meaning entirely new. When this happens to a word of Scripture in somewhat frequent use the evil may become serious.
An instance of this sort occurs in the word "conversation." In present use it means talk; the interchange of spoken words; colloquial discourse between two or more parties. Legitimately, the word as now used disowns any other sense than this. But in King James' version of the Bible, the word never has this sense. Consequently to modern ears the word always suggests a different sense from the true one. In this word the evil consequences are not the worst possible, but they are bad enough. The ancient "conversation" was not so utterly unlike the modern as might be, for the old included the sense of the new, but with that, also very much more. One consequence, therefore, is that the modern word gives a part of the ancient sense, yet only a part, and indeed really but a small part, just as talk is (or ought to be) but a small part of one's entire life.
But the old word "conversation" stood for the whole of a man's life, all his life-work and life-doings, his entire life-activities; while the modern word only his spoken words to his fellow, his colloquial discourse. When the Scriptures say, "To him that ordereth his conversation aright will I show the salvation of God" (Ps. 1: 23), we are liable to assume that the man who talks well, and never otherwise than well, must ensure his own salvation. Similarly the intimation (1 Pet. 3: 1, 2), that ungodly husbands may be won by the "conversation" of the wives, and particularly by their "chaste conversation, coupled with fear," is liable to mislead to the placing of undue reliance upon mere talk—which might prove a very unfortunate mistake. It is quite certain that Peter never intended to teach that. His thought was upon the whole life; the entire bearing, including all the sweet forces of a gentle, loving spirit, an amiable temper, kind deeds—the attractive power of the true woman's noble character; and perhaps, least of all, her simple talk.
Again, when the writer to the Hebrews wrote, as our translation has it, "Let your conversation be without covetousness," he never intended to perpetrate the blunder of supposing that covetousness is specially apt to appear in a man's "conversation," and that it would be a great attainment in the Christian life if he could keep covetousness out of his common talk. No, indeed. His meaning rather was, "Let your entire life be lifted above covetousness; give that money-passion no place anywhere or ever in either your heart or your outward life."
Taken etymologically from the Latin words conversor, conversatio, the English "conversation" three centuries ago, signified the turning this way and that, from one thing to another; all the doings which constitute the make-up of one's life; all he does and indeed fundamentally, all he thinks as well. Hence this became a very important word for Scripture use, for the sacred writers had occasion to speak of a man's whole life, all that comes into moral character; thus: "Among whom [the godless heathen] we all had our conversation in time past" (Eph. 2: 3); "That concerning the former conversation, ye put off the old man and put on the new man" (Eph. 4: 22, 24); "Be ye holy in all manner of conversation" (1 Pet. 1: 15)—which does not end with all manner of good talk, but includes all manner of holy living.
Noticeably this word was a favorite with the translators of our version, particularly so in the New Testament. It is used to translate not only one Greek word but three; first and chiefly anastrophe (thirteen times)—a word which best corresponds to the old Latin conversatio; once for tropos, the best corresponding English to which is, turning about (Heb. 13: 5); and most remarkably twice for a very different word—from which we get our English polity, politics—i. e., the noun politeuma and its corresponding verb. The noun has its nearest English equivalent in citizenship; the verb, acting the citizen, fulfilling his duties. Both these words occur in Paul to the Philippians (e.g. 3: 20): "For our citizenship (not 'conversation') is in heaven;" we are citizens of that heavenly kingdom. "Let your citizen-life (not 'conversation') be as becometh the gospel" (1: 27). In the former passage Paul does not by any means intend to say that our talk is in heaven; nor in the latter, merely, that our talk should be as becometh the gospel, although this advice would not be bad; yet Paul meant much more than this. The pertinence of Paul's words will be appreciated thoroughly only when we consider the fact that Philippi was a Roman colony (Acts 14: 12); that its inhabitants, therefore, were Roman citizens, having been honored with this most highly esteemed prerogative of the known world. Paul chose his words with his eye on these well-known prerogatives and privileges. He meant to suggest to his brethren at Philippi that they held a higher honor than that of being citizens of Rome; even this that of being citizens of the very Heaven itself. And he exhorts them to act the heavenly citizen in a manner worthy of the glorious gospel. Let them think of the high privileges and responsibilities of their heavenly citizenship and meet them as becomes such a gospel and such an heirship.
It deserves notice that Paul never uses his words as of hap-hazard, but always with thought keenly alive to the circumstances of his readers to "choose out acceptable words," and words of incisive force. We find these words for citizenship in no other epistle, for the reason that he wrote to no other church situated in a Roman colony.
Finally, as hinted above, the Scriptures never use "conversation" in the modern sense, the spoken words that pass between two or more parties. When they have occasion to speak of real talk they perhaps called it speech; "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt" (Col. 6: 6); "The children spake, half in the speech of Ashdod" (Neh. 13: 24). James calls it the tongue. "The tongue can no man tame;" "a little member that boasteth great things" (James 3: 5–8). But the Scriptures never dignity colloquial speech with the word "conversation". It is time that in this and all analogous points the version of Scripture for common use should faithfully represent the true sense of the original language, and for this end should exchange obsolete words, words dead and gone as to their old sense, for words fresh with the living thought of the age.—Prof. H. Cowles, D. D., Oberlin.
"IF THE HEART IS ONLY RIGHT."
By R. F. Cottrell
It is a common saying, that trifling differences of religious faith and practice are of no account if the heart is only right. God looks on the heart, and for this reason it is thought that we have a perfect right to differ on such outward things as the "mode of baptism," and the particular day we observe as the Sabbath.
This may seem liberal toward those that differ with us; but is it not rather excusing ourselves in holding error? Is it not a special pleading in behalf of ourselves, arising from a consciousness that we are in error, and a desire to persuade others—those who cannot see our hearts—that our hearts are right, though our creed and our practice is wrong? I never heard a Baptist say that he thought immersion would be acceptable with God, if the heart was only right. He is fully conscious that the Lord will accept of the institution as taught and practiced by Christ and the apostles, and consequently has no misgivings on this point. I never heard an observer of the day mentioned in the fourth commandment, say that he thought God would accept of that day, if the heart was only right. Those who obey God "in letter and in spirit too," have no fears of the result, and never feel as those who offer to God a substitute for what he has commanded, hoping it will be accepted on the ground that the heart is right.
My friends, let me say to you who take the liberty of varying from what God has taught, hoping for acceptance because the heart is right, in the language of the prophet, "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jer. 17:9. It is possible that you are self-deceived, and do not know your heart. The Lord searches and knows it, but perhaps you do not. How shall we know that our hearts are right with God? How shall we test our love to him? His word will direct us. "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. FOR THIS IS THE LOVE OF GOD, THAT WE KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, AND HIS COMMANDMENTS ARE NOT GRIEVOUS." 1 Jno. 5:2, 3.
Now, my dear friend, if your heart is right, all is well. But if you wish to excuse yourself from doing what God has commanded, your heart is not right in the sight of God. If you think something else will be acceptable, because the heart is right, you are deceived. To prove that your heart is right, you must do whatever God commands; and not only so, you must obey him willingly, cheerfully. When his commandments are not grievous or burdensome, you may hope that your heart is right; but never, while you wish to evade his requirements, offer him a substitute, or even grudgingly do the thing he requires. We must not be like those described by a prophet, as saying, "When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? and the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat?" etc. Amos 8:5. On the contrary, the Sabbath, and all the commandments must be our delight.
Reader is your heart right?
R. F. COTTRELL.
Using Future Time Wisely
LET him who regrets the loss of time make proper use of that which is to come in the future.