Earlier text: The Gospel in MacedoniaThe Uncertainty of Geological Science.
By A. T. J.
Archibald Geikie, LL.D., F.R.S., Professor of Geology, University of Edinburgh, spoken of by the New York Independent as “an author who is surpassed by none of his compeers in scientific attainment, and hardly equaled by any of them for his gifts in the imparting of knowledge,” is the author of a “Text Book of Geology;” and also the author of the treatise on geology in the latest edition of the “Encyclopedia Britannica;” therefore we shall doubtless be justified in accepting his work as the latest, the ablest, and the best contribution in favor of geological science as it is at the present day. After reading and studying it through three times, the impression left by it upon my mind is that expressed by the title which I have placed at the head of this article. In this discussion we propose no comparison of geology and the Bible. We intend to examine geological science on its own merits. We want to know upon what it rests. We want to know what its merits are. We want to know whether indeed it has any merit that would justify a comparison with the Bible. Geology is defined as “the science which investigates the history of the earth.” “Its object,” as stated, “is to trace the progress of our planet from the earliest beginning of its separate existence, through its various stages of growth, down to the present condition of things.” “It seeks to determine the manner in which the evolution of the earth’s great surface features has been effected.” But it is only by a proper understanding of the present order of things, that the past can be made out. He says: “Only in proportion as we understand the present, where everything is open on all sides to the fullest investigation, can we expect to decipher the past, where so much is obscure, imperfectly preserved, or not preserved at all. A study of the existing economy of nature ought thus to be the foundation of the geologist’s training.” So, then, here we have properly, at the very beginning, laid down the foundation of geological deduction. And we may, properly enough, inquire, Is this foundation secure? is it a foundation upon which we can firmly stand and safely build? Let Mr. Geikie answer. In the very next paragraph he says:— “While, however, the present condition of things is thus employed, we must obviously be on our guard against the danger of unconsciously assuming that the phase of nature’s operations which we now witness has been the same in all past time, that geological changes have taken place in former ages in the manner and on the scale which we behold to-day, and that at the present time all the great geological processes, which have produced changes in the past eras of the earth’s history, are still extant and active. Of course we may assume this uniformity of action, and use the assumption as a working hypothesis. But it ought not to be allowed any firmer footing, nor on any account be suffered to blind us to the obvious truth that the few centuries wherein man has been observing nature, form much too brief an interval by which to measure the intensity of geological action in all past time. For aught we can tell, the present is an era of quietude and slow change, compared with some of the eras which have preceded it. Nor can we be sure that, when we have explored every geological process now in progress, we have exhausted all the causes of change which even in comparatively recent times have been at work.” And in another place (No. 1, under the Age of the Earth) he says plainly that this assumption “may be entirely erroneous.” According to this, “the foundation of a geologist’s training” is an “assumption,” and this assumption must not be allowed a “firm footing” because it may blind us to an obvious truth, and because it also may be “entirely erroneous.” And here, after laying a—yes, the—foundation, he has as certainly destroyed it, and we might exclaim, not exactly with the psalmist, “If the foundations be destroyed, what shall the” geologists “do”? If, therefore, the foundation be assumption, the superstructure can be nothing more, and this also is just as plainly stated as is the foregoing, as follows:— “In dealing with the Geological Record, as the accessible solid part of the globe is called, we cannot too vividly realize that at the best it forms but an imperfect chronicle. Geological history cannot be compiled from a full and continuous series of documents. From the very nature of its origin, the record is necessarily fragmentary, and it has been further mutilated and obscured by the revolutions of successive ages.” “Enormous gaps occur where no record has been preserved at all. It is as if whole chapters and books were missing from an historical work.”—See Part V., Gaps in the Geological Record; also in the Introduction. But what degree of reliability could be placed in the deductions of one who should presume to give the exact course of events in a certain history, when “whole chapters and books were missing” from the only extant historical record of the events? None whatever. For it is entirely by conjecture that the events of the missing parts must be made up. This is particularly so of the geologists’ deductions, for, as we have seen, there are not only “whole chapters and books missing,” but they are not sure that they have the correct interpretation of those which remain. Therefore they guess at the course of events in that part of the record which remains, and then supply the missing parts by other guesses; and so it is a guess all around. Geology reveals no beginning:—
“It is still true that in the data with which they are accustomed to deal, as comprising the sum of geological evidence, there can be found no trace of a beginning. The oldest rocks which have been discovered on any part of the globe have probably been derived from other rocks older than themselves. Geology, by itself, has not yet revealed, and is little likely ever to reveal, a trace of the first solid crust of our globe. If, then, geological history is to be compiled from direct evidence furnished by the rocks of the earth, it cannot begin at the beginning of things, but must be content to date its first chapter from the earliest period of which any record has been preserved among the rocks.”—Part I., Cosmical Aspects. If, then, it begins at an uncertain place, and follows an uncertain course, and sometimes no course at all, how can the ending be anything else but uncertain? In Part II., Geognosy, he discusses the Age of the Earth, and Measures of Geological Time, from which we extract the following. He says that the age of the earth may be attacked from either the geological or the physical side. First the geological:— “The geological argument rests chiefly upon the observed rates at which geological changes are being effected at the present time, and is open to the obvious preliminary objection that it assumes the existing rate of change as the measure of past revolutions,—an assumption which may be entirely erroneous, for the present may be a period when all geological events march forward more slowly than they used to do.” “If we assume that the land has been worn away, and that stratified deposits have been laid down nearly at the same rate as at present, then we must admit that the stratified portion of the crust of the earth must represent a very vast period of time. Dr. Croll puts this period at not less, but much more, than sixty million years.” “On any supposition it must be admitted that these vicissitudes in the organic world can only have been effected with the lapse of vast periods of time, though no reliable standard seems to be available whereby these periods are to be measured. The argument from geological evidence is strongly in favor of an interval of probably not less than one hundred million years since the earliest form of life appeared upon the earth, and the oldest stratified rocks began to be laid down.” Yes, no doubt, “if we assume” that such and such is the case, “probably” the balance will follow. But why are we called upon to “assume” an “erroneous assumption” only for the purpose of reaching an indefinite conclusion? This “argument from geological evidence,” is like the famous essay on “Snakes in Ireland,” viz., “There are no snakes in Ireland.” So, likewise, there is no geological evidence, and he says so. Why may we not just as rightfully assume that these changes and revolutions have been wrought in short periods, or even suddenly? Many of them have certainly been made violently. A. T. J. WHEN the question is raised respecting the propriety of the Salvation Army as a mode of Christian organization, or of the fitness of its tactics as an evangelizing method, some one rises to remark that he has heard genuine gospel preaching and very moving exhortations at their meetings, and seen indications of good accomplished, in which we ought to rejoice. We do rejoice in it, and we rejoice that Christ is preached. Their preaching is not what we object to, but features of their campaign which have no necessary, or, as we think, legitimate, connection with gospel preaching. When we are asked to have charity for them, we say that we humbly trust we exercise that grace towards all Christians, but that we are not bound in the name of Christian love to give countenance and approval to what we deem unchristian, or at least extra-Scriptural, methods of organization and action. The gospel is preached in many Episcopalian pulpits, but our grateful acknowledgment of this fact does not bar us from saying—on proper occasion—what we think of prelacy as a feature of church polity, or of the doctrines of certain “schools” of thought in the Church of England. Charity, love, has regard to persons. We are to love God and our neighbor; the brotherhood; all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity; all mankind. But we do not love our neighbor's conduct when we think it wrong; nor his opinions when we think them erroneous; nor his business if he is a rum-seller, or pursues any other injurious means of money-making. We love Christians of all denominations; but we are not called upon to love, or sanction, or even to withhold sincere protest against, personal or denominational peculiarities that seem to us unwarranted by the word of God. These are so simple and elementary principles that we almost feel as if we needed to apologize for formally stating them. Yet we every week encounter those who admonish us to be charitable in our judgment of opinions, and principles, and organized methods of working, and such like abstractions, which call for nothing but candor and clear-eyed intelligence in estimating them.—The Watchman. The Duty of Mental Exercise
It is just as foolish to expect to have a sound mind without doing mental work, as it is to expect to have a healthy body without taking physical exercise. If God has given you a mind that is capable of doing any thing, it is as much your duty to use it as it is your duty to exercise your muscular powers. A man who has a mind and will not use it for some useful purpose, is as much a sluggard as one who lives in poverty because he will not work with his hands to procure the necessaries of life.—Sel. Evil; Not Forever.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
“AND the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord.” The text is found in so many places that it is needless to select any one in particular, and too great a task to count the number. The significance is sad and woful; and but for the fact that there is a brighter, more hopeful side of the subject, it would be truly disheartening. What a blind and rebellious people were the children of Israel! After God had shown them mighty signs and wonders in Egypt, and had so evidently come for their deliverance from bondage, as he had promised to Abraham, shielding them from evil while he plagued their enemies, the Egyptians, instead of trusting in God in the time of apparent danger, they were ready to reproach the servant of God through whom their wondrous deliverance had been wrought, with the question, “Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness?” Nevertheless, God opened a passage for them through the sea. They sung his praise but soon forgot his works The next thing we hear from them, they are murmuring against Moses and Aaron, and wishing they had died in Egypt “by the hand of the Lord,” as if he were their enemy, and seeking to take away their life; but their kind and long-suffering God mercifully provides for their wants, giving them manna, a wholesome and nutritious food, and also sends them flesh food for their lust, and to cure them of their longing for the flesh-pots they had left in Egypt. Thus he taught them a good lesson, which they ought to have remembered. How long do they remember it? In a very short time they are chiding with Moses, accusing him of bringing them out into the wilderness to die of thirst. God gives them another evidence of his power and love, by giving them a fountain of water from a desert rock. And when he had brought them to Sinai, and they had made a solemn covenant with the Lord to obey his voice, and had heard that voice from the mount proclaiming the commandments of the moral law, and after pledging themselves again to keep these commandments, in a few days they are saying, “Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.” And they make the similitude of an ox, that eateth grass, and worship that which their own fingers have made! But we will not trace them in their marches and countermarches in the desert and through the land of Gilead and Bashan, on the east side of Jordan, but come to their history after they are settled in their promised inheritance. God had specially warned them against mingling with the nations of Canaan and worshiping their gods, denouncing curses against them should they do so. But said he, “Ye shall utterly destroy all the places wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree; and ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place.” Did they heed these instructions? They did not. At various times good beginnings were made. Judges and rulers would arise that were reformers, and would work in the right direction, but they would fail to make a clean breast of it. The fashions of heathen neighbors would prevail; the people were found worshiping Baal, Ashtoreth, Milcom, or Chemosh, or the golden calves, or some other abomination; and the groves were replanted and the images set up, and the high places were thronged by a mongrel host of worshipers. This is the general character of the progress of that highly favored people. Were God’s chosen people the worst of any on earth? No; they were the best. But their picture is the picture of fallen humanity. How much better we would have done in their circumstances! Would we? Where are the people who are doing better, in view of their circumstances and surroundings? You admit that their portrait fits to the wicked world in our days. Is it not the picture of the churches? Are not they conformed to, and following the fashions of, the world? Not only other churches, but our church too. Reader, you and I are of this sinful, backsliding race. But there are those now, as anciently, that are reformers. They lead out in some good work of reform. Hope is indulged. There are favorable indications; but soon it is found that their reform is going stern foremost toward perdition. This is the case every time. There are no exceptions. There is no confidence to be placed in human nature. The fashions of an ungodly world carry the people now as much as in the days of Israel. It is as true now that “the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the Lord,” as it was then. People now would have their groves and high places and images, if it were only the fashion. This is evident from the following of the foolish and disgusting fashions which prevail. Well, what is the use of working for reform? Some will be gathered out and saved. Some will hold on to reform, while others slide back. Some of Israel were saved by God’s merciful dealing with them. Some will be now. The faithful and enduring have gone safely through. So it will be. There is the same motive to labor in behalf of humanity that induced the Son of God to come into the world to seek and to save that which was lost. Let all who have the good of humanity at heart labor on. Your labor will not be in vain in the Lord. Soon the fruit of all this toil will be seen in the immortal kingdom of God. Faithfulness to Church Covenant Obligations
ONE of the painful features of the average Christian professor in our day is the lack of conscientiousness in the discharge of what we commonly speak of as “covenant obligations.” Every one of us, on entering formally upon the Christian profession, solemnly and publicly promised, in substance, that we would “faithfully co-operate with all our fellow-members in all the ordinances, worship, and work of the church.” Now this was either a barren and meaningless form, never meant to express obligation on our part, nor on the part of the church, or else it has in it all the solemnity of a “vow” unto the Lord, taken in fellowship with his people. We must assume that the latter was the understanding which we had of the matter when we subscribed or assented to the church covenant. But the painful fact is that but few, comparatively, seem at all to regard this covenant as being of any binding force upon either the conscience or the action. The same class of people who hold all social and business obligations sacred, and would count themselves disgraced if they treated them as they do their church covenant obligations, do habitually set these covenant obligations aside at their pleasure, or, rather, we must fain think, have never thought of them as obligations at all. They participate in the “worship and work” of the church according to their inclinations rather than in accordance with their covenant. The Lord’s supper is neglected, the prayer-meeting is passed by without a thought, the Sabbath services are frequently given up for trivial reasons, or for no other reason than a present disinclination; and as for the “work” of the church, it is systematically avoided by many who never seem once to have realized that they have any connection with it. The benevolent contributions of the church is a matter wholly apart from their purpose. It is urged by some, in answer to this, that religion is a voluntary matter and not one of compulsion, and, therefore, church members or Christians are not to be judged or held bound to the faithful discharge of these duties by any such rules as govern in other walks of life—notably in business and social life. It is true that religion is a voluntary matter. But when you voluntarily took upon yourself the obligations of a religious life, those obligations became as sacred as the promise of God is to you, and should be so regarded. The volunteer soldier is as much bound by the laws of the army as though he had been drafted; indeed we expect better service from volunteers than we do from conscript troops; from men who serve from patriotic motives alone, than from men whose service is compelled. Jesus did not force his yoke upon you, but held it out and said, “Take it upon you.” Now, having taken it, it is in the highest sense disloyal and dishonorable either to pull the neck out or shirk the labor which you have voluntarily engaged to do for and with your Master and with his brethren who are yoked up with you. It is positively shameful the way not a few church members—the nominal followers of Christ, and yoke fellows in the “worship and work of the church”—throw over their engagements with the church at the first or least suggestion of personal inconvenience to them, or for the sake of some carnal or selfish reason wholly apart from Christian obligation or privilege. A slight weariness, such as would not for a moment suggest to them the idea of staying away from business or a social engagement, is sufficient excuse to warrant them in giving up prayer-meeting or even the Sabbath service, and in some cases a Sabbath-school class. Moreover, this slight weariness or indisposition (not so much of body as of mind), frequently yielded to, leads finally to an almost utter abandonment of work certainly, and worship most probably. It is not uncommon for Christians deliberately to contract social engagements which they know will utterly conflict with ordinary church engagements; and yet they do it without a thought that they are being unfaithful to God and the church, or, if they have the thought, they are conscienceless about it. There are thousands who habitually neglect every obligation in the direction of the work of the church; and a simple declaration on their part that they have no taste in that direction, or a mere assertion that they would “rather not,” is deemed a sufficient reason why they should be excused from all service, and any further urging on the part of pastor or fellow-member is deemed an impertinent interference with their liberty of choice as to how they serve God, or as to whether they shall serve him at all. There are as many more thousands who utterly neglect any obligation in the direction of the maintenance of the expense of public worship, or the carrying on of the benevolent work of the church. Their giving is wholly a matter of impulse or conformity to habit, or out of shame when they are present at the time of taking the offerings of the people. As to formally, conscientiously, and systematically setting apart a portion of their income or increase for the work of God, it never occurred to them but to be rejected. The loose change in the pocket, or at least the smaller and baser coins thereof, usually find their way through their unsanctified hands into the basket. This utter lack of conscience on the part of so many professors of religion as to obligations involved in a confession of Christ, leads many who are not Christians to doubt the truth of the whole matter, embarrasses the church in her work, makes the chariot wheels of service to drag heavily, and we doubt not sorely grieves the Spirit.—Independent. Notes on the International Lesson.
By Alonzo T. Jones
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” It would seem that this expression had become a “saying,”—a kind of proverb among the Christians, and upon which they dwelt in great measure, and which Paul would now give his most emphatic endorsement. It is a saying “worthy of all acceptation.” That is his mission, that is his name. The term Christ Jesus, being Greek, and simply transferred into the English, and not translated, the full meaning, without a translation, is not discerned. But with a reference Bible the real meaning is easily obtained from the marginal readings. Jesus is a Greek word, and in English means Saviour. Matt. 1:21, “Thou shalt call his name Jesus [margin, Saviour], for he shall save his people from their sins.” In other words, Thou shalt call his name Saviour, because he shall save his people from their sins. The word Christ is also Greek, and in English means Anointed. John 1:41, “We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ” [margin, the Anointed]. These two terms, Christ and Jesus, being placed together, therefore, mean in English, The Anointed Saviour; and as he came to save sinners, the phrase Christ Jesus means, The Anointed Saviour of sinners. Bearing this in mind, it is wonderful what a depth of meaning is given to the Scriptures in our reading of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not simply a bare name, but a glorious title, which in its depth of meaning absorbs both worlds, all time, and eternity. And he is able to save. All power in Heaven and in earth is given to him. “All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” “By him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist.” Col. 1:6, 17. He upholds “all things by the word of his power.” It was his voice that “spake, and it was done.” It was he who commanded, and it stood fast. It was by “his word,” and “by the breath of his mouth,” that “the heavens,” and “all the host of them” were made. And he, though Creator of all, was made flesh, for the suffering of death. And that he might bring many sons unto glory, he chose to be made the perfect Captain of salvation, through suffering. For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, saying, “I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.” Heb. 2:9-12. When wonderingly the prophet cried, “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, traveling in the greatness of his strength?” the answer came, “I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save.” Isa. 63:11. He is a mighty Creator; he is just as mighty a Saviour. “Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” “Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.” “Though ye have lain among the pots, yet shall ye be as the wings of a dove covered with silver, and her feathers with yellow gold.” Ps. 68:13. Paul knew of the power of this salvation, when Christ in his great mercy and long-suffering, apprehended him, a blasphemer, a persecutor, and injurious, and turned him to himself, and counted him faithful. And thus, says Paul, in him Christ showed his long-suffering for a pattern to them who should afterward believe on the Saviour to life everlasting. That is, Paul would convey to all the assurance that, as Christ’s mercy reached him, so it is abundant to all who will believe in Jesus. And “I will put my trust in him.” “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor, and glory forever and ever. Amen.” This is the only place in the Bible where the word “immortal” is used. In the revised New Testament it is not used at all. But in our common version it is used this once, and, as all can see, it refers solely to the eternal King. In 1 Tim. 6:15, 16, immortality is used thus, “Which in his times he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see; to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” The word “immortality” is used again in 2 Tim. 1:10, where Paul says that Christ has brought it to light; and again in Rom. 2:7, where it is spoken of as one of the things for which we must seek; and again in 1 Cor. 15:53, 54, where it is said that it will be put on at the resurrection of the righteous dead, and the change of the righteous living, at the last trump. The Bible story of immortality is very short, plain, and easily understood. Thus: God only has it; Christ brought it to light; men must seek for it; and those who do, will obtain it at the resurrection of the just. This is the Lord’s own exposition of the subject, and therefore the only true one. “Holding faith and a good conscience.” Be careful of the conscience. Be sure you have a good one, and then be very careful to keep it good, and be sure that you do so. Try your conscience by the word of God; this points out the only way to get a good conscience; this is the only test by which we may know that we have a good conscience; this is the only guide for the conscience, by which it may be kept good. The following from the Sunday School Times is to the point: “Neither in the Bible nor in the practical experience of the race, is there anything to indicate that a man has within himself a safe and sure guide of duty. On the contrary, as we see it, a man must depend for teaching from outside of himself, in order to know the right from the wrong. God does give to every man an internal monitor which tells him that he ought to do right, but not an internal instructor which tells him what is right. In this sense, a man’s conscience is a monitor, but is not a teacher; a prompter, but not a guide. Conscience tells a man that he ought to do right. A man’s duty is to do right; not merely to do what he thinks to be right, but to do what is right. Hence ‘it is not always safe for a man to do what his conscience approves,’ ‘to do that which he thinks he ought to do.’ It is only safe for him to know what he ought to do and to do that. It is not always safe for a man to do what he thinks he ought to do; but it is safe for a man to do what he ought to do; and man must have a better guide than his conscience, in order to be always in the path of duty and of safety.”295 “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” The will of God in this direction has been abundantly manifested. He has done all that he can do that men may be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. In Isa. 5:4, the Lord says, “What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?” “He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” “In him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,” and if salvation is not obtained in him, it cannot be obtained at all. He is made to all men “wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” and “whosoever” (any person whatever) believeth in him shall not perish but shall have everlasting life. But it must be a genuine belief,—a real faith. Faith without works is dead, so every man’s faith must be manifested in works,—in doing. It will do no good to call him Lord, Lord, and do nothing. “Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46. He that heareth the sayings of Christ and doeth them, has built his house upon the rock. He is become the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Heb. 5:9. “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isa. 1:19, 20. “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” This is the divine order in following the Saviour. First, deny self; next, take up the cross, and then follow him. But this is not the course that is followed to any great extent at the present day. There is entirely too much endeavor to follow him with neither self-denial nor the cross. Self-denial and cross-bearing are about the most unacceptable things that can be presented to the great majority of professed Christians. But without these there is no such thing as following Christ. The grace which brought this great salvation to all men teaches this very thing. “For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Titus 2:11-14. All this the grace of God teaches, and all this he would have us learn. But how few there are who learn it! There are a great many peculiar people in the world, but very few of the right kind of peculiar people. The kind of peculiarity of which God approves is that which is shown in zeal of good works. Note again the things which Paul says the grace of God teaches. It teaches us self-denial; it teaches us to live soberly, righteously and godly; and it teaches us to look for “that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” But how many who profess to be partakers of the grace of God, are taught by it to thus look for that glorious appearing of the Lord? Now as the grace of God which brings salvation, teaches men to look for the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, if the amount of the grace of God among men is measured by the number of those who have learned to look for that glorious appearing, then how much of the grace of God is there in the professedly orthodox Christian world to-day? Reader, are you thus taught by the grace of God to look for the glorious appearing of the Lord? “We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain.” A. T. J. LESSON FOR THE PACIFIC COAST—JUNE 6.
Inheritance of the Saints.
1. When the Lord made certain promises to Abraham, who was invariably included? His seed; see references in previous lessons. 2. Through which of his sons was this seed to be reckoned? See Gen. 21:12. 3. Did this insure that all of his descendants through Isaac would be heirs of the promised inheritance? “But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance; and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” Matt. 3:7-9. 4. What have we already learned was the condition on which the promise was based? See Gen. 26:5. 5. To what righteousness (or obedience) does the promise have reference? “For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom. 4:13. 6. Was Abraham’s righteousness of this character? “Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Gal. 3:6. 7. Then who only are the children of Abraham, in the sense in which the term is used in the promise? “Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Gal. 3:7. 8. If only those who have faith are the children of Abraham, how could it be said that “in Isaac shall thy seed be called”? Ans. Isaac was the child of faith (Gen. 15:4-6). He himself possessed the same faith that his father Abraham had (Heb. 11:13), and therefore only those who have that faith are counted as his seed. 9. How is true faith invariably manifested? “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.” “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” James 2:17, 26. 10. How did Jesus prove to some of the Jews that they were not the children of Abraham? “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham.” John 8:39, 40. 11. What were the works of Abraham? “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen. 26:5. 12. Did the Jews, as a nation, keep these commandments? “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God; this did not Abraham.” John 8:40. “But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother; and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Matt. 15:3-6. 13. Whose children did they thus become? “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do; he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it.” John 8:44. 14. Then if one is not a child of Abraham, whose child will he be? Means and Ends Inseparably Connected
MEANS and ends are inseparably connected. If we neglect the means, we cannot reasonably expect to attain the end. The student who neglects his studies need not hope to become a scholar. The husbandman who refuses to till the soil cannot expect to gather a harvest. The man who lives in sin has no reason to believe he will receive the reward of obedience. Effects naturally and necessarily follow their causes. There can be no effect without a cause; and every effect must necessarily partake of the nature of the cause that produces it. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Men are sowing now, and they will reap the fruit of their sowing hereafter. If they will but examine the seed they are sowing, they need not be in doubt as to the harvest they will reap. The means and the end, the cause and the effect, are inseparably linked together. It is acts that make history; it is acts, with the feelings and motives that prompt them, that determine destiny. We are now moulding characters for eternity. There is nothing so important to us as the impress we are giving them. What kind of a character are you forming?—Methodist Recorder. A GREAT deal is said of falling into ruts; but there is not half so much danger of falling into ruts as there is of following into them. All workers, especially all beginners in work, are liable to attach too much importance to ways of working which have been sanctioned by long usage, or which have proved a success in certain limited surroundings. The superintendent or teacher, ever anxious to learn, and ever on the lookout for fresh helps, catches sight of a goodly rut, sees a choice company of Sunday-school workers marching along in it, and, so far from falling into it, he walks into it with his eyes wide open. But what may be the best thing for one school, may be the very worst thing for another; and what may have been an excellent method for the past twenty years, may not be so excellent for the next twenty. Avoid, therefore, if you are wise, all unintelligent imitation; for it is deceitfully dangerous in school management. When you see a plan which has been fairly successful in one set of circumstances, do not conclude that it must necessarily be the best thing for you in your set of circumstances, until your mind has had free play around it, or until you bring it to a practical test. What was good enough for your predecessors, ought not to be good enough for you; for the world keeps moving on, and what is wanted for keeping the world moving, is not the capacity for finding easy ruts, but the quick eye and skilled intelligence which will enable one to break new paths where necessary, and to lead wisely rather than to be led unwisely.—Sunday-School Times.