Table of Contents

Daniel and His Companions

Ethics of Eternal Punishment

Does Scripture Teach a Partial Rapture?

Woman to Speak in the Church?

Strange Doctrine Concerning the Dead

“His leaf also shall not wither&rdquo

The Little Foxes

Musical Instruments in the Lord's Service

Seraiah, the Man of Rest

The Woman of Worth

We believe and are sure

C. Knapp - Booklets Pamphlets

C. Knapp

This document may be found online at www.stempublishing.com

You are welcome to freely access and use this material for personal study or sending to other Bible students, compiling extracts for notes etc, but please do not republish without permission.

With the prayerful desire that the Lord Jesus Christ will use this God-given ministry in this form for His glory and the blessing of many in these last days before His coming. © Les Hodgett (contact@stempublishing.com) (2011)

Daniel and His Companions

Daniel and His Companions

C. Knapp.

Foreword

The four following papers are not in any sense intended as anything like an exposition of the portions of the book of Daniel; nor yet do they make any allusion to the prophecies of the book, except in the most incidental way. Their object is wholly a practical one, and to be read in view of the lessons, moral and spiritual, suggested by them in the review of the conduct and exercises of "this Daniel" and his companions.

C. Knapp.

Preparation for Testimony and Service ( Daniel 1.)

The first chapter of the book of Daniel is historical, and God's object in putting it on record in His Word is evidently to show us the way, morally, in which Daniel and his companions came to attain to the eminence accorded them in the land of their captivity; Daniel becoming one of the king's chief counsellors, and later, prime minister of the realm. His three companions also take an honorable share in this testimony for God in the midst of the darkness and idolatry of the land of their exile.

As an introduction to the prophecies contained in that book, the importance of this first chapter lies in the lessons it affords believers, especially those young in the faith, as to the moral preparation for usefulness in the kingdom of God. With this sole object in view let us examine its record, and see wherein these youths may be taken as examples for all who would be strong in faith and useful for God in this day, when there is so much need for "young men who are strong," because they "have overcome the wicked one."

Before proceeding with our examination, let us remember that while Scripture says, "Promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south, but God is the judge: He putteth down one, and setteth up another" (Ps. 75: 6, 7), He does it not arbitrarily, nor irrespective of fitness or merit. No, His sovereignty does not set aside the question of moral fitness or proper preparation of those He is pleased to advance in His service.

It will be profitable, I believe, to notice the names of these four "children of Judah," Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, with their generally understood significances.

Speaking of these, a writer remarks: "It does not appear that they are mentioned here particularly on account of any distinction of birth or rank; for though they were among the noble and promising youth of Israel, yet it is clear that others of the same rank and promise also were selected (ver. 3)." "Daniel" is said to mean judge of God — one who acts as judge in the name of God. This, in a very marked way, Daniel was permitted to do; this high honor was his: he "sat in the gate of the king" (ch. 2: 49). And the Christian, taught of God, having his "senses exercised to discern both good and evil," will have "the mind of Christ," and be' enabled to assist others in the mind of God, as revealed in His written Word. Thus he is permitted to judge for God, and become in this way a "Daniel."

But how did Daniel attain to this high honor? In what way or by what path did he reach this preeminence in the kingdom? Was it through a mere chain of favorable circumstances, or did he leap to the top at one bound? Christians sing enthusiastically and in full chorus, "Dare to be a Daniel!" but it requires something very different from mere daring to become a man of Daniel's stamp; he attained to be a "judge of God" through self-discipline and faithfulness amid great temptations: "But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, tor with the wine which he drank."

This noble attitude of Daniel has been lowered by some expositors to a mere natural morality, "refusing," they say, "to indulge himself in the delights of the table, or touch the intoxicating cup." It has been made to do duty as a basis for temperance lectures and sermons innumerable, to the hiding of the highly spiritual significance of the act. We believe Daniel did not refuse to eat of the king's meat and drink of the king's wine because of anything essentially wrong or dangerous in them, but because heathen monarchs usually offered them to their idols; so, for this, or similar causes, he refused to partake of the provision appointed him from the king's table. (See Ezek. 4: 13; Hosea 9: 3 and comp. 1 Cor. 8).

Daniel's companions manifestly shared his convictions; and encouraged by his example they associated themselves with him in his holy resolution. Being the leading spirit in the matter, he made himself their spokesman; it is to their everlasting credit that they were prepared to follow him. All are not born for leadership, but in the coming day, both led and leader shall each have his proper praise from God. Happy the man who, like Daniel, leads in ways according to God; and equally happy those sufficiently alert and humble to follow any who like Paul can say, "Follow me as I follow Christ." One raised up of God and qualified to lead will not demand that he be followed; he may invite and encourage, and those who are like-minded with Daniel's companions are only too glad to follow in the path they recognize to be of God: it is the privilege of all to hold with and suffer along with those who are manifestly chosen of God to guide and feed the flock.

Daniel's name was changed to Belteshazzar, which according to Gesenius signifies, "Bet's prince," or "he wham Bel favors." This may have been a snare of Satan to draw Daniel away from the worship of the one true God, by giving him a name and place of honor with the principal god of the land, and so, from loyalty to the God whose name was interwoven with that given him by his parents in Israel. So cunning is the enemy of God and of our souls, who seeks, both by flattery and force, to turn us from loyalty to Christ, whose blessed name is called upon us — "Christians." Flattery is tried on Daniel and his fellows first; and when this fails to seduce them to idolatry, the burning fiery furnace and the lions' den are tried.

Hananiah means the grace of Jah, which would remind him of the grace of God bestowed upon him. This the enemy changed to Shadrach, which according to one authority means, "Young friend of the king;" another takes it to mean, "Rejoicing in the way," which Gesenius prefers. Of this a godly commentator says: "In either signification it would contribute to a forgetfulness of the former name, and tend to obliterate the remembrance of the early training in the service of Jehovah."

The meaning of the name Mishael is, "Who is what God is?" or "Who is like God?" It would thus remind its possessor of the greatness and majesty of the God of his fathers, and thus be a means to preserve him from rendering homage to the idol-gods about him. Meshach was the name given him in exchange; its meaning appears to be somewhat doubtful. The word in Persian means, "A little sheep" (ovicula), according to Gesenius. Why this name was given him by his captors is not clear. If because of his natural beauty, his gentle disposition, nothing would tend more to draw his thoughts away from God, and fix them on himself. Thus pride would find place in his heart, and God be displaced by self. Oh, the cunning of Satan! He knows the baits that the soul is most ready to take, and if he cannot seduce by one means he has a thousand others to set temptingly before us. Pride was his own sin, so he knows by wretched experience its potency to seduce the soul into rebellion and ruin.

Azariah's name means, "Helped of Jah;" for this good Hebrew appelative they fastened upon him the heathen Abed-nego, i.e., a servant of Nego (or Nebo). This was another false god of the Babylonians whose name was compounded with that of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebushasban, and Nebuzaradan (Jer. 39: 13; 39: 9), besides others mentioned by classical writers. In this was a suggestion that he was consecrated to the service of this Nego. The king, with many others of eminence, felt themselves honored in bearing this name. It was eminently adapted to flatter the young captive's pride, and draw him away from the Jehovah God of his early days. "It was only extraordinary grace," an esteemed writer remarks, "which could have kept these youths in the paths of their early training, and in the faithful service of that God to whom they had been early consecrated, amidst the temptations by which they were now surrounded in a foreign land, and the influences which were employed to alienate them from the God of their fathers."

All honor, then, to the memory of these Hebrew youths, who from the very commencement of their exile stood firm, as they stood together, and would not be defiled or drawn away by the subtle allurements of the corrupt court of the mightiest monarch on earth. At a later day there were "those of Caesar's household" who pertained to "the household of faith," who through the imprisoned apostle sent greetings to their brethren elsewhere (Phil. 4: 22).

Dear young Christians, begin early to "stand fast in the Lord." From the very start, purpose in your heart that you will not defile your soul by eating of the world's food, which is after all but "husks" to the one who has found and makes all of Christ. And no matter what your circumstances or environment, remember the situation of this quartette of young worthies, and like them, keep yourself clean from things forbidden in the Word. The world has its "meats," to surfeit and dull your spiritual perception, as also its "wine" to intoxicate the spirit, and cause you to forget Him who never will forget, but who, having died for you, will love you to the end. He is worthy of your loyalty; live for Him, and fear Him alone!

Later in life it was given the three friends of Daniel to prove the faithfulness of God in Nebuchadnezzar's fiery furnace. Daniel himself was cast into the lions' den for his faithful confession of his God. This honor have not all His saints. Few of them, perhaps, would be equal to it; and He only permitted the fiery trial to these confessors after a course of training that would fit and prepare them for such testing. In the beginning He brought them into loving favor with the king's steward, that they might be spared a testing of their faith too soon in their spiritual life — before they were well able to bear it. How gracious, how considerate, how tender is our God, who in the days of yore led not His people "through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt" (Ex. 13: 17).

May He help us all, both old and young, to be ever true to Him, and let nothing turn us aside or allure us from Him whose love is so tender and whose grace is so great.

"The Fiery Trial" ( Daniel 3.)

Though Daniel's name does not appear in this third chapter of the book called after his name, it may be gathered from the preceding one that his continued association with God's three noble witnesses, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego, had much to do with their firmness later in refusing to bow down themselves to Nebuchadnezzar's image. For we read there that when that despotic and merciless monarch threatened to kill all the wise men of Babylon, because of their inability to declare to him his dream, "Daniel went to his house and made the thing known to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, his companions, that they would desire mercies of the God of heaven concerning this secret; that Daniel and his fellows should not perish with the rest of the wise men of Babylon." He sought their fellowship in prayer, and their faith was no doubt greatly strengthened by seeing the good hand of God so signally displayed for their preservation, when the matter was revealed to Daniel in answer to their united prayers. It must have prepared them for the fiery ordeal through which they were soon to pass. This association in prayer not only secured to Daniel the desired revelation, but it also prepared them for the further testing of their faith.

It is beautiful to see that Daniel, in his thanksgiving to God, links them with him as having a part in the revelation made known to him. He says, "I thank Thee and praise Thee, O Thou God of my fathers, who hast given me wisdom and might, and hast made known unto me what we desired of Thee: for Thou hast made known unto us the king's matter" (chap. 2: 24). And in verse 36 he says, "This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." This linking of his companions with himself before the king, as he had previously done before God in thanksgiving, is very lovely, and speaks loudly for the unselfish humility and generosity of heart of this "man greatly beloved." (See chap. 10: 11.) And with increasing admiration we read, in the last verse, that Daniel "requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego over the affairs of the province of Babylon; but Daniel sat in the gate of the king."

It is to be noted, too, that in the fellowship of prayer with Daniel, their Hebrew names are given; but here, as in the following chapter, they are called by the heathen names saddled upon them by their Gentile captors. They might force upon them the names of their idols, but subdue their hearts to bow down to them they could not. Contact with the world we cannot avoid, but we may and should refuse to accommodate ourselves to its spirit, and especially guard against playing fast and loose with conscience.

Nebuchadnezzar has his image manufactured and set up in the plain of Dura, and his subjects make no scruple of abjectly obeying his high-sounding edict, and bowing themselves down to it. Gold dazzles the ungodly, and fear of the great makes them slaves to man. Music too has its seductive effect over the senses. So we read, "When all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of music, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshiped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up." The instrument "dulcimer" is also mentioned in the herald's proclamation (ver. 5); and the marginal reading for this is "singing," or "symphony." Music truly has its charms, as gold its glitter; so is pleasure, and getting wealth, and love of praise from man ensnaring souls to-day — not only the open sinner and the ungodly, but, alas, many of the professed people of God as well.

But what influenced others, and brought them to their knees before the imposing image of the king, did not in the least affect the three Hebrew witnesses; they unflinchingly refused to bow the knee. We might have known nothing of it but for "certain Chaldeans" who "came near and accused the Jews." Their faithfulness is brought out by these Chaldean accusers, whose base wickedness and despicable chicanery is the more manifest when it is remembered that it was to the faithful prayers of these very "Jews" that they owed their lives; for had not their God revealed to them the king's forgotten dream, they had ere this lost their heads — "been cut in pieces and their houses made a dunghill", (chap. 2: 5).

Ingratitude is one of the signal sins of the last days, as it was from the beginning of man's departure from God into the debasing idolatry of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans. (See 2 Tim. 3: 2; Rom. 1: 21.) "Be ye thankful," is an exhortation to Christians that they do well to remember (Col. 3: 15),

"There are certain Jews," these treacherous men say to the king, "whom thou hast set over the affairs of the province of Babylon, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; these men, O king, have not regarded thee; they serve not thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." They would cunningly augment the wrath of the king against these "certain Jews" by covertly reminding him of the advancement he had given them by setting them over the affairs of the province of Babylon. Truly, favors conceded by or asked for of the world are of doubtful advantage to the faithful; they as often prove "live bombs," or blessings hardly worth the having.. And if, such may be said of favors granted willingly by the world, what shall be thought of those advantages obtained from it by Christians at the cost of compromise and departure from the express Word God? — as association in business with the ungodly, the joining of trade unions, unequal yokes in marriage, fraternizing with unbelievers in sports or social affairs, etc.

"Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage and fury commanded to bring Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego. Then they brought these men before the king." And "men," in the truest sense of that word, they proved themselves to be. We often speak of them as "the three Hebrew children," but they played the man before the infuriated king, and were not moved by his fierce countenance or by his threatening words. "is it true?" he demands; "Do not ye serve my gods, nor worship the golden image Which, I have set up?"

Yes, it was true. They were men of moral fibre, men of faith, men who had convictions, and for these convictions they were prepared to go into the fire, if needs be, to die rather than violate their conscience, or deny the one true God — their God, to whom alone they directed their prayers, to whom alone they rendered worship, and whom they feared above earthly potentates. Hear their noble reply to the king's furious threats and defiant blasphemies, "Who is that God that shall deliver you out of my hands?" Calmly they reply: "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thy hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." What a direct, unequivocal answer to the mighty Nebuchadnezzar! An answer worthy to be treasured in the memory of all who would keep themselves, at all cost, "unspotted from the world," maintain a good conscience, and stand uncompromisingly for the truth in the face of the world's hostility in whatever form it may take.

And though persecution by fire and sword has largely ceased since the Protestant Reformation, because of the light given through the reading of the Bible, there is to-day a more seductive and effectual effort put forth by the enemy of Christ and Christians, to cause them to temporize, and step down from their testimony against the high thoughts of man exalting himself against the knowledge of God and His Christ. If, in our day, the devil cannot drag us to the stake to compel us to deny our Lord, he can use very seductive methods to accomplish his crafty designs. It matters not by what means, if he can induce us to court the world's smile, to fear its scorn or the loss of its friendship and attendant temporal advantages; he will use the fear of being thought "not up-to-date," for refusing to accept darkness for light; evolution for truth, modernism for Christianity, and godless pleasure for the quiet joy of fellowship with Christ and comfort of the Scriptures which testify of Him. O fellow-believer, the snares are many! Stand fast in the Lord and in your testimony for Him in the presence of the colossal image of this "twentieth century civilization." Let your Yea be yea, and your Nay, nay!

Nebuchadnezzar "commanded the most mighty men that were in his army to bind Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego," as if he thought that by this braggart show of power he might yet frighten God's witnesses into submission to his decree. And the god of this world, the prince of darkness, would fain scare us, or shame us, out of our position of "No surrender" by using his most mighty men, his "leading scientists," his `consensus of best theological opinion," his "world's best scholarship," its "best thinkers," and what not? — all high sounding terms, boastful "bests," as if a Christian standing in the might and faith of God could be moved to bow to their image by the mere noise of names and terms.

Well, into the furnace this noble band of non-conformists go. In their own garments they are bound, then "cast into the midst of the burning fiery furnace." But the fire that was meant to consume them but burns the bands! Their mad persecutor, beholding them unharmed in his glowing furnace, was compelled to cry to his counsellors, "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God"" Yes, they company with the Angel of His Presence, as on other occasions He appeared to His tried and faithful saints in His precarnate days. So will it be with all who refuse to bow to the image, whatever its form; they will walk free; their souls will be in liberty; and, best of all, they will have His company who hath said: "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death."

From persecutor Nebuchadnezzar turns patron: — "The king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and. Abednego, in the province of Babylon." This they were not required to resist; and, let us hope, that it as little moved them from their attitude toward his gods as had his threats and his furnace of fire.

Christian, if you have, by grace, resisted the trend of modern thought against God and His truth, beware that you fall not by its patronage; for be assured that the world's smiles and kisses are far more to be feared, for most of us, than its machinery of terrorism and coercion. God help us to heed well His heartening word, "Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong" (1 Cor. 16: 13).

"To the Lions" ( Daniel 6.)

The demand to-day for young men is insistent — in business, in politics, in educational institutions, and even in the so-called "Christian ministry," young men are demanded, while the older, in spite a their knowledge, experience and more matured judgment, are either deliberately set aside or quietly crowded out. It is the spirit of the age: — smartness and dash are required, for "success," and youth would teach its elders wisdom. Such an one as "Paul the aged" would be looked upon in most quarters as having about out lived his usefulness and fit only to be superannuated. This preference for youth appears to work fairly well whilst things are moving almost of themselves from the impetus given them by these same men now considered eligible for the list of the "honorably retired;" but it is noticed that in times of grave crises, as in the late World War, it is after all the men advanced in life who have to step into the breach, and by wise counsel and well-considered action, save the day. And here in the chapter before us, we have, not young men, but old, as the principal actors. Darius himself "being about threescore and two years old" (chap. 5: 31), and Daniel much older still. "Behold, thou art old" (1 Sam. 8: 4, 5), an ungrateful people said complainingly of one of the best leaders it was ever a nation's good fortune to possess.

Daniel's promotion here is not the result of any miraculous intervention on God's part as was the case under the mighty Nebuchadnezzar; he attained to his exalted post on his recognized merit alone, as it is written: "Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him; and the king thought to set him over the whole realm." Even though his bitter enemies eagerly sought it, "They could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful; neither was there any error or fault found in him." What a testimony to a saint of God set in a most difficult, because high, position! Would that all to-day filling much lower and far easier posts had a like testimony from their fellows. If the enemy was compelled to acknowledge that there could be found neither fault nor error in Daniel, how does it come that the very friends of Christians can scarcely say as much concerning them? "A good testimony from them that are without" is of far greater importance than marked ability to preach or talk about the holy things of God.

"Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God." In the everyday affairs of life and public office there was nothing in the conduct of this Daniel on which they could lay a finger or prefer a-charge. He stood blameless before all; and it was only in the matter of his religion, as men say, that they hoped to find opportunity for his ruin. And if this could be said of one like Daniel, living as he did in a dispensation of shadows (when God had as yet but partially revealed Himself), in an alien's land, and far and long removed from all the regular channels of blessing and ministry, shut off probably from intercourse with his brethren in the faith — if he, under adverse circumstances such as these, so lived that nothing could be laid to his charge, how inexcusable are those Christians to-day who with all their superior advantages lay themselves open to censure by their inconsistencies and wrongdoings! "Let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody (overseer, N.T.) in other men's matters. Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf" (1 Peter 4: 15, 16). Slander, misrepresentation, reproach, persecution for Christ's sake, all His true followers must expect; this He has promised them and none may hope to escape. But to suffer for one's transgressions — as too many do, alas — for this there is just cause for shame; and God, instead of being glorified by such suffering in His children, is the rather blasphemed among those of the world who see their evil works.

A plot is formed by Daniel's enemies for his undoing as they hoped. By an unalterable decree it was forbidden to make petition to any god or man for thirty days, save only to the king. The penalty attached to non-conformity to this malevolent edict was to be cast to the lions. This would serve the double purpose of flattering king Darius and ridding themselves of their envied rival. And such was their confidence in Daniel's integrity "concerning the law of his God" that they felt sure he would not leave off praying openly to Him, even at the cost of his life. Have our enemies — aye, have our friends, like confidence in our faithfulness toward God and His Christ? It may be doubted; let the question search our consciences, and exercise, yea, exercise deeply, our hearts!

"Now when Daniel knew that the writing was signed, he went into his house; and his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Daniel's conduct here is most beautiful, whether viewed in the light of his deep faithfulness, or as displaying his heaven-born wisdom. His was no act of bravado in defiance of the king's decree. His windows were already open — not opened ostentatiously as if eager to show off his boldness. His regular times for prayer, his kneeling attitude, his facing Jerusalem, all was "as he did afore-time." It was no new manner with him, but in accordance with his former habit. This was known to his enemies, and to have prayed in secret, while it might have spared him the ordeal of the lions' den, would have betrayed his testimony for his God. This Daniel well knew, doubtless, and he therefore wisely and boldly followed his accustomed practice, fully aware of the consequences to himself.

"Wiser than Daniel" (Ezek. 28: 3) does not suggest to us, in the light of his conduct here, either worldly prudence or that so-called "moderation" so frequently commended to the faithful believer by his less zealous associates. "Pray in secret," they would have advised; "God will as readily hear you there; why should you tempt Providence and risk your valuable life when you might so easily avoid a public display of your piety?" But Daniel did not so salve his conscience; he would not compromise his profession by being missed from his usual devotions. He valued the honor of his God above his life.

It is little wonder therefore that the intercessions of such a man became a subject of fame even in his own day. (See Ezek. 14: 14.) What he did was done advisedly, deliberately, and in strict accordance with all godly and consistent conduct. He not only made a conscience of prayer, but had regard for the consciences of others as well — not only to be an example of faithfulness to his fellow-exiles, but a witness also to the consciences of his enemies. Satan must surely have thought he could not possibly fail to score a triumph here; for if Daniel saved his life, this "murderer from the beginning" might have reasoned, he must do so to the dishonor of his God. In either case, seemingly, Satan must gain an advantage — either in the destruction of this hated Hebrew in high places, or in the destruction of his influence as a worshiper of the one true God of heaven and earth, as against the idols of the realm, through whom Satan himself obtained homage from men. So God through the wisely directed courage of His servant turned the counsel of this wiser than Ahithophel into foolishness.

Daniel's faith was to be tried to the utmost; the law forbidding his prayer — as a "law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not" — must be executed, and Satan is permitted to go his limit. "Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying and making supplication before his God." His was no formal prayer-saying; in praying he was "making supplication" — that is prayer in its most intensified form, an earnest calling on God, "fervent, effectual," as if his requests could not be denied him. And he probably prayed more for others than he did for himself, as the 9th chapter gives a remarkable example, and as men eminent in prayer frequently do.

His enemies are not slow to report him: "Then answered they and said before the king, That Daniel, which is of the children of the captivity of Judah, regardeth not thee, O king, nor the decree that thou hast signed, but maketh his petition three times a day." Mark the cunning of these servants of the evil one; they remind the king that he was of a captive people, hoping thus to make his disobedience appear the more reprehensible to the king — as if, out of gratitude to the king for his promotion, a man of such origin should surely feel obligated to obey his sovereign's mandate. They would couple ingratitude with his act of disobedience. They would also make it appear as if the decree was wholly the king's, while they themselves, cunningly, were the real authors of it. "He regardeth not thee," they say, when in fact it was not the king so much that Daniel disregarded, as these wicked conspirators themselves. We see surely here the "fine Italian hand" of him who is, among his other titles, called "the accuser of our brethren." And doubtless this same Satan has a much more active part in much that tries the faith of saints to-day than most of them are aware of. And for this very reason they should give themselves the more to prayer while being tested in the fiery trial.

We need not follow Daniel further here. His God, as we know, delivered him from the mouth of the lion "because he believed in his God." Paul, too, was so delivered, though in another sense, perhaps. (See 2 Tim. 4: 17). Did Satan, in his attempt to destroy Daniel before his time, foresee the revelations of the end-times made known through him, especially that relative to the Antichrist? And was Paul delivered out of the mouth of the lion that he might write to the Church those deep and rich revelations sent to the Ephesian and other assemblies from his Roman prison? We know not. That he was afterwards sacrificed by Caesar's executioners, we know. Let us then have no fears for our own life, for our continuance here is sure until our work is done and our testimony for Christ completed.

Daniel at Prayer ( Daniel 9.)

God, by His servant Paul, linking prayer with prophecy, places prayer first in order (1 Cor. 11: 4). It is not a question of the comparative importance of the two, but one of moral order, or precedence. Prayer paves the way for prophesying, as it does for all effective ministry.

Thus, in the chapter before us, we see Daniel in earnest prayer and supplication, on which follow those revelations or prophecies which throw so much light on the "end times" which we now see to be at hand. God is sovereign in His choice of instruments, true; but He morally fits the instrument for the purpose He has in view; "Sanctified and meet for the Master's use," is the New Testament expression of this principle. So, while it is perfectly and always true that in the distribution of His gifts the Holy Spirit "divideth to every man severally as He will" (1 Cor. 12: 11), it is equally true that for the exercise of these gifts He selects, those who have been morally fitted for His service, by prayer and the diligent study of His word.

So with Daniel here: "I Daniel understood by books the number of the years whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet that He would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem" (ver. 2). (Compare Jer. 25: 12 and 29: 10.) God might easily have revealed to Daniel directly, either in vision or by dreams, or by angelic ministry, that the long captivity of His people was drawing to its close; but this is not His way. It is on the principle of what has been called "the economy of miracle" that God usually acts: that is to say, He works miraculously only when necessary. When His saints or servants may learn His will by careful study of His Word and communion with Himself, they need not, nor should they expect, that He will make known to them His mind and ways by some shorter or easier method — as by suggestion, or vision, or dream. Daniel understood by the study of the writings of God's servants that the desolations of the beloved city of his fathers were about to end. And it is by a reverent respect for and diligent study of the Scriptures that His truth is made known to His people to-day, whether it be in reference to "things to come" or present guidance for the paths of our feet.

The humility of Daniel shines out in his act of making use of the books of his fellow-servants, as in a former paper we saw it so beautifully manifested in associating the companions of his exile with himself in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. (See comment on chapter 2: 23). Though classed as one of the "Major Prophets" for the vast scope of his prophecies, he availed himself of what his predecessors or contemporaries had written. It is but spiritual pride when any servant feels himself independent of or superior to the ministry of his fellows. Let us meekly confess that we know nothings its fulness yet as we ought to know it, and therefore be willing and eager to learn from any one qualified of God to help or instruct His people.

Daniel was no fatalist. Though he understood by books that the number of the years determined by God for the desolations of Jerusalem were about accomplished, he did not therefore exclude the use of means or human agency. He did not say, The thing is both foretold and fore-determined, and it is therefore certain to be accomplished; all we have to do is to wait and look for the fulfilment of the sure and certain word of God. No; Daniel did not falsely reason thus; he says, in verse 3, "And I set my face unto the Lord God, to seek by prayer and supplications, with fastings, and sackcloth, and ashes." So will it ever be with those who hold soberly and thankfully to the truth of God's election and predestination. Instead of paralyzing the nerve of earnest effort, those blessed truths are rather to stimulate the spiritual energies, and in meekness and faith enable saints to pray and toil, in the assurance that their efforts will not be in vain; for God, who appointed the blessing has as certainly ordained the mean.; by which they must be reached. So wrote Paul, chiefest of apostles and prince of missionaries: "Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory" (2 Tim. 2: 10).

"Prayer," "supplication," "fasting," "sackcloth," "ashes" — what a chain of links forged in the fires of discipline to bind the suppliant to the mercy-seat of God, and there wait upon Him till answer came through "the man Gabriel," sent to "fly swiftly" to inform the intercessor of God's gracious answer, not according to the measure of his asking, but in keeping with God's ways of grace, "exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think!" (Eph. 3: 20).

Thus Daniel is given to know and to reveal the times appointed even to the end — the days of Messiah, His rejection, the time of trouble following, and the glorious consummation.

"I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession," he says (ver. 4). Confession becomes us all, even the holiest and choicest of God's servants. "We have sinned, and have committed iniquity, and have done wickedly, and have rebelled, even by departing from thy precepts and from thy judgments," he further confesses. Sin, iniquity, wickedness, rebellion — all these terms are used by him as if he would exhaust the catalogue in his desire to own their failure in full to God. "We," he says, not "They." He is as ready to line himself up with his people in their guilt, as he was to link his companions with himself in that which was to their credit, as in chapter two. This is morally very beautiful; though in himself a blameless man, his enemies themselves being judges, he in deepest lowliness of mind associates himself with his captive countrymen in the national guilt. He did not look upon their merited miseries with Pharisaic self-complacency, thanking God that he was not as others. No; nor like a former prophet did he accuse his people before God, supposing that he alone was left a witness to the one true God. (See 1 Kings 19: 10.)

It was from "God's word written" that His people had departed, he acknowledged in verse 5; in the verse following he confesses yet more; "Neither have we hearkened unto thy servants the prophets, which spake in thy name to our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land." They had refused the oral ministry of the prophets sent to speak to them in God's name, recalling them to obedience to His commandments, His precepts, and His judgments. They had added sin to sin, and he cries out in the distress of his penitent soul, "O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto Thee, but unto us confusion of faces, as at this day," and so on to the end of verse 11.

Having made full confession of the national guilt, Daniel owns the justice of the evil that had come upon them, confirming the word which had been spoken against them. He entirely justifies God, and adds this yet to his confession, that they had not turned to Him in prayer for deliverance from their moral state, and that they might understand His truth (ver. 13). And is not this in large measure the reason why so few to-day understand God's truth — His Word? It seems to most as a sealed book passed from one to another, with the confession that it cannot be comprehended. (See Isa. 29: 11, 12.) But how could it be otherwise, since men, and Christian men at that, neglect to cry to God for light, or are unwilling to turn from their ways of worldliness, or break with their unholy associations? Here lies the real secret of failure in the mass of professing Christians to-day for lack of understanding of the Scriptures.

There is a hint given us of this principle in this same book of Daniel, chap. 12: 10: "None of the wicked shall understand." Not that all are really wicked who fail to understand the Scriptures, especially their prophetic portions; but just in proportion as Christians are in anything like the wicked, in that measure they are incapable of understanding the things written for our learning within the covers of that priceless heritage — the Bible. There is a moral condition required on the part of God's people to apprehend His mind, as Daniel more than hints here at the close of verse 13.

Confession having been made, and God's just judgment acknowledged in the punishment of His people, the prophet turns to the mercy and forgiving grace of God. It is one of the most touching appeals recorded in all the word of God (the high-priestly prayer of our Lord, in John 17, excepted). Daniel now breathes out the yearning of his heart for Jerusalem, God's holy mountain, and the down-trodden people called by His name. We must quote in full this precious portion:

"O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech Thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain. Because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake. O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before Thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, hearken and do! Defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name."

Note that the self-forgetting prophet makes not one single request for himself personally; unselfishly he prays only for others; and even in his prayer for them he thinks not so much of their own blessing, or relief from oppression, or even their restoration to the land, but God's honor is uppermost in his thoughts. He makes mention of the city as "thy city," "thy holy mountain," "thy sanctuary that is desolate," and then, only, "the people that is called by thy name." And in summing up his exercises, he concludes with, "presenting my supplication before the Lord my God for the holy mountain of my God."

Truly, it was the glory of the God of Israel that he sought above all things, and though he loved His people greatly, he desired their blessing as contributing to, or resulting in the honor of their God, the great Jehovah. And for this his prayer was quickly and blessedly answered, and a view of prophetic times given, that wonderful revelation, commonly called "The Seventy Weeks of Daniel," of which Christ is the central theme: for here, as everywhere in Scripture, "the testimony of (or, for) Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19: 10). And where this is not seen, the study of prophecy misses its true objective: for as the body without the soul is dead, so the teaching of what is called "Prophetic Truth" is also dead if Christ is not seen as the great object round whom all Scripture centres.

Here we leave our Daniel. He "rests, and shall stand in his lot at the end of the days" (Dan. 12: 13). We, though destined to enjoy a better portion, even the heavenly, shall yet see him when he rises with all "the dead in Christ" at "the resurrection of the just." We owe him a debt of deepest gratitude for the lessons of his life and words. Of the Lord he shall receive his just reward; and may we, encouraged by his holy example, stand firm for our Lord as he did; and together we shall enjoy the sunshine of His presence in that eternity that seems now so near at hand. Amen!

Ethics of Eternal Punishment

The Ethics of Eternal Punishment

C. Knapp.

Foreword

By Editor of Scripture Truth.

The objectors to the solemn truth of eternal punishment say, "You preach a God who has no mercy, and who consigns His creatures without pity to eternal pain." No, we do not; on the contrary, we preach a God who at His own cost has provided a way of escape for all from this terrible doom — Who "so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3: 16): "Who will have all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2: 4): Who "commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5: 8): Who beseeches men through His ambassadors to be reconciled to Him (2 Cor. 5: 20).

The cross of Christ, is the great proof of God's love for men; but it is also the great proof that God cannot pass by the sins of men, as though they were nothing at all. He would not be a God of holiness and truth if He did; hence the gospel which proclaims His love and grace also reveals His wrath against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1: 18). Eternal punishment is for those "who know not God and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Thess. 1: 8). Thus the Word of God teaches, we must accept it as it stands; the only other honest course is to reject it altogether.

Part 1.

Our belief in eternal punishment is based on the Scriptures alone; it is the bed-rock foundation of our faith for this as for all other doctrine connected with our glorious Christianity — "the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." In the words of Mr. F. W. Grant, in his well-known work, Facts and Theories as to a Future State, page 451: "It is the judgment of many that the ethical question should precede the exegetical, which seems as much as to say, that we must first decide what Scripture ought to say, before we ascertain what it does. We should certainly treat no other writings after such a fashion; and the claim of these to be divine does not affect their claim to be intelligible also. If God has spoken He is as well able to make Himself understood as another, and is as ready to assume the responsibility of His utterances. If it be God, we need not fear lest His word should be immoral, or that it will not approve itself to the consciences of men, His creatures. Judge Him too they will, no doubt: but He will be justified in His sayings, and clear when He is judged."

To this we do most heartily and unreservedly agree. It is our very first business to learn what Scripture says on this, as on every other spiritual question; and having ascertained what "God's word written" says, it is our bounden duty to believe, whether or not we understand it, and regardless altogether whether our natural conscience approves of it or not. "There is little doubt," the above quoted writer says, "that the attempt to decide on moral grounds what Scripture must have said upon the subject before us (endless punishment) has destroyed with many the certainty of what it does say." Natural conscience is no safe guide at all in such matters, for we are all fallen creatures, our God-given intelligence is impaired by sin, and our moral sense greatly blunted after almost two hundred generations of rebellion and alienation from God. So men who fear God and tremble at His word have wisely, and to their soul's settled rest, allowed the Holy Scriptures to speak; and on its unimpeachable testimony they have held firmly to their verdict on this most stupendous subject of eternal punishment.

And if these Scriptures — these "oracles of God," teach anything clearly, it is that the doom of the finally impenitent is conscious and endless punishment in outer darkness and banishment from God, beginning immediately after death. This has been proven over and over again, both from the common Authorized Version and by the closest scrutiny of the original languages, and that by men of deepest learning and amplest competence for such a task. We quote in this connection the weighty words of J. B. Remensnyder, D.D., author of Doom Eternal: "We have searched the Scriptures in their pure original; we have hearkened to the words which fell from the divine Teacher Himself; and to settle indisputably the force of their language, we have summoned to our aid the critical authority of the most eminent philologists and lexicographers. We have cited individual confessions presented to the Roman emperors; we have called in review those ecumenical creeds whose universal authority is still the sublimest monument of Christian antiquity; we have had recourse to the particularistic creeds of the Reformation era (Protestant, Roman and Oriental); we have presented as witnesses the beliefs of the various branches of Christendom in the present day; we have sought out the light which Reason and Natural Religion cast upon the problem; and all concur in the one, unanimous, accordant, unequivocal testimony that the eternity of Future Punishment is a vital doctrine of the Bible, a tenet universally held and confessed by the evangelical church, and an article fundamental to the integrity of the Christian Faith." And to the above testimony we add the no less weighty, if less eloquent words of B. B. Warfield, D.D., LLD., Professor of Systematic Theology in Princeton Theological Seminary, N. Jersey "What God purposes to do with the incorrigible sinner He alone knows: and we are wholly shut up to what He tells us for our knowledge of His purpose. And speaking in His Son God tells us with perfect explicitness that He purposes that such sinners shall depart from Him to the quenchless fire, and the undying worm — into eternal punishment — into the eternal fire 'prepared for the devil and his angels.' It is a terrible doom only to be explained by the terrible wickedness of sin."

But while all this is true, it is also and equally true that the orthodox doctrine of endless punishment is fully sustained by man's judicial sense of the oughtness of things, and can be maintained on moral grounds, as well as by appeal to Scripture; in other words, it should be no strain on man's natural conscience, nor should it shock his moral sense to believe the doctrine of future and unending retribution as taught in the book commonly called the Bible.

And it is absolutely false what an objector to this truth asserts, when he says: "The missionary tells the unbeliever what kind of God the God of the Christian is, in order to convert the unbeliever to the faith. Can we wonder that the answer of the heathen to our message should be, ' We cannot, and we will not, believe in a God of whom you affirm such outrageous wrong.' . . . We ask the human heart for its verdict. We say that judged by human judgment, and that the judgment of believers and unbelievers alike, the punishment which the theory of Augustine (the orthodox view) supposes that God will inflict is infinitely too great, and we are therefore to reject it as untrue, because wholly unworthy, not merely of a merciful Father, but a just God." (Constable in Duration and Nature of Future Punishment.) To this Mr. Grant has tersely and convincingly replied: "We happen to know, however, that where the gospel has made its largest and most permanent conquests, the doctrine of endless punishment has been held and put forth. Nay, in Christendom itself it must, according to Mr. Constable, have conquered the whole ground, and that in the teeth of the moral sense, where this had certainly no self-interest to seduce it from the so much milder truth which had first possession of the field. How strange a reflection that what the heathen have moral sense to reject, Christendom should have almost universally accepted; but the gospel can scarcely be shown to have won its way by the aid of annihilation doctrine, or its history will have to be rewritten." It does indeed seem strange that the enlightened nations of Christendom, foremost in rank of intelligence, wealth, power, and benevolence, and who almost universally hold the doctrine of eternal punishment, in theory, at least, should be less capable of judging moral questions than the heathen, who for long ages have been sunk in the deepest degradation of idolatry and most abject superstition, and whose ethical code is notoriously deficient and scarcely above that of Sodom and Gomorrah!

Yes, we assert with fullest confidence that this now much-debated doctrine of endless retribution is quite capable of standing the most rigid test to which the moral faculties of man may put it. We are quite ready to apply to it the principle proposed by the Unitarian, Dr. Bellows, who says: "If we continue to claim the name of Christians, we must continue to believe that the testimony of the records of our faith is not contradictory of the evidence of the moral reason. It it were proved such we should be compelled to abandon Christianity, so far as it claims to be founded on the New Testament. We believe the general testimony of the New Testament to be in full accord with the testimony of man's moral nature, in regard to the issues of divine government."* So, too, do we, only with this necessary proviso, that a man's moral judgment may be (and in point of fact, is) warped by sin, and that inasmuch as he is the culprit in the dock, it is hardly to be expected that he would give a wholly unbiassed verdict as to what his punishment should' be. It is never asked an offender in court what castigation he thinks his offence deserves, though when sentence is pronounced his conscience will doubtless tell him that his punishment is just.

{*Doctor Theodore Parker, notorious for his extravagantly liberal views, writes as follows: "To me it is quite certain that Jesus Christ taught the doctrine of eternal damnation, if the Evangelists — the first three, I mean — are to be treated as inspired. I can understand His language in no other way. I think there is not in the Old Testament or the New, a single word which tells this blessed truth, that penitence hereafter will do any good." So this down-grade divine, like his fellow, Henry Ward Beecher, chooses rather to question the inspiration of the Synoptic Gospels than believe their explicit teaching concerning "eternal damnation." What daring — and what folly!}

And having said this much let us proceed to the proofs, that the doctrine of endless punishment is not only established by the written Word of God, but must also be assented to by man's moral preceptions, his conscience, in other words.

Part 2

The precise nature of the future punishment of the wicked we do not here attempt to define. The figures used to describe it, quenchless fire and an undying worm, are in themselves fearful enough; whether they are to be taken in a strictly literal sense, or only symbolically, is not at all material to the discussion in hand. All that we insist upon is that it is ever enduring as to time, and no less terrible in its effects than the figures used imply.* That there must be future punishment of some kind every thinking man must admit. The wicked do not in this life receive the just deserts their sins require. The psalmist speaks of "the ungodly who prosper in the world." This is a common case. Then, too, how often does the robber of widows and orphans, the murderer, the seducer of innocence escape wholly in this life the punishment their crimes deserve. If there is no retribution in the life to come, what, becomes of God's character of righteousness, His moral government of His universe, His violated law, His threats against transgressors found everywhere throughout His written Word? That He must punish sin, who will deny? and since in the vast majority of cases man's wickedness receives no apparent recompense in this world, it is evident he must be punished in the life to come.** "In all ages," writes L. B. Hartman, in Divine Penology," goodness and holiness have been persecuted, while sensuality and tyranny have rolled in ease and revelled in debauchery and crime unmolested. Many a pious Lazarus has died at the gates of Dives, unmourned and unburied. This state of things we cannot harmonize with our own sense of justice and right. We both know and feel that it is all wrong, and things are woefully out of balance, and, in the nature of things, call for and demand a future judgment, where wrong shall be righted, innocence avenged, truth and justice vindicated, and the books of eternal equity balanced. And as God cannot but be just and true, it follows that such a day must come, as the necessity of His moral government."

{*"Jesus Christ and His apostles used the strongest words to measure the quality and duration of personal, conscious sufferings of the lost. (See Matt. 25.4t1, 46; John 5.29; 2 Thess. 1: 7-9; Rev. 21. 8.). — Bishop W. F. Mallalieu. "These terrible symbols are employed manifestly because they express the truth better than any others that could be chosen." — Dr. R. S. MacArthur.

"Hell is undoubtedly a real place whose dreadfulness is only imperfectly indicated by the frightful figures which are 'employed by the Scriptures to describe it." — Dr. P. S. Henson.

"But if the term is merely figurative then the reality must be as much greater, as substance is greater than shadow." — Dr. Hartman.

**"The inequalities of the punishments suffered in this life render future retribution necessary to establish justice. It is inconceivable that a just God should deal with man in a manner totally at variance with the character of an impartial judge. Man's consciousness of subjection to law involves the idea of penalty for its violation." — Dr. D. M. Evans.

"We challenge the world to prove," writes D. Hodge, "that mankind are destitute of the idea of 'right,' of 'oughtness,' or of 'justice'; the idea of moral obligation is ultimate and independent, and therefore it is intrinsically supreme and absolute."

Max Muller says, in The London Christian World: "I have always held that 'it would be a miserable universe without eternal punishment. Every act, good or evil, must carry its consequences, and the fact that our punishment must go on forever seems to me a proof of the everlasting love of God. For an evil deed to go unpunished would he to destroy the moral order of the universe. . . . Without eternal punishment we should have no touch with God, the world would be Godless, Godforsaken."

"Forebodings of the wrath to come are as instinctive and as universal among men as the belief in God and the immortality of the soul." — H. J. Van Dyke, D. D., Brooklyn, N. Y.}

Do any question God's right or obligation to punish sin? Look at man himself — does he not make laws regulating human conduct? and does he not attach penalties, often exceedingly severe, to the violation of these laws? And who but the criminal or the anarchist denies his right to do this, or questions the necessity and justice of a criminal code, or the maintenance of ordered government? And will man be more just than God, a mortal more righteous than his Maker? "Where is the nation or tribe, ancient or modern, heathen or Christian, that has not in its own way held men responsible for their wilful deeds, and punished the transgressor of its laws?" one asks. How soon would all order and security on earth cease were there no law to bring to the bar of justice the offender and punish the guilty? "Suppose for illustration," the above quoted writer says, "that all penalties affixed to human laws were set aside, and men were told that the only punishment they could fear was the natural sequence of their evil deeds; would there be any human government? Verily not." And another, Prof. E. J. Wolf, says, "Nothing is regarded so detrimental to the common welfare, and so destructive to society, as the escape of the evil-doer unwhipped of justice. The inextinguishable moral sense within us cannot endure the thought of his crime going unpunished."

And, since such is the demand of the public conscience, and the requirement of the well-being of ordered society, that the evil-doer be punished, how much more does the individual moral sense require that God, the Almighty and unalterably just Ruler of the universe, punish sin in man His creature, either here on earth now, or in eternity by and by? And as it is patent to all that men do not in any adequate degree receive here "the due reward of their deeds," it requires and follows that they be punished in the life to come. Concerning this, some one has said: "But for the conviction that penalty is only delayed to the proper day, and that retribution is absolutely certain, despair must settle down upon the moral universe, the forces of our moral nature suffer a total wreck, and society experience inevitable dissolution."

Pursuing the same line of argument, L. B. Hartman says: "Offences which involve the will, the conscience, the thoughts, the purposes, desires, affections, etc., offences which the courts cannot reach; and yet withal, offences which our innate sense of responsibility feels and acknowledges, here then, a new problem confronts us. What shall be done with these unknown and uncancelled remainders ever lingering in the deep sea of human consciousness? We both feel and know that they do exist, and we cannot deny them, nor yet dare we ignore them, because they are the very echoes of our own consciousness; neither can we in our heart of hearts respect a tribunal, or a government that ignores them; we know they do exist, and that they call for adjustment, in our deepest convictions of justice and honour. They cannot be passed by, even by God Himself, if He would hold the respect, and command the reverence of men and an intelligent universe. They must be met and balanced, in the very nature of things. What then shall be done with them? Self-evidently, we are driven to the conclusion that the same law of human responsibility which, as we have seen, demands and necessitates a civil tribunal, or court, controlling civil conduct and destiny, also demands and necessitates a moral tribunal, or judgment seat, to meet this deeper demand of moral conduct and destiny." No less true are the words of Charnock, in his Divine Attributes: "God is good; but without being just He could not be good; every sin is an evil, and for God not to punish evil would be a want of goodness to Himself. It would neither be prudence nor goodness, but folly and vice, to let law which was made to promote virtue be broken with impunity. Thus the very goodness of God demands the execution of His law and the punishment of evil-doers." And to this we adduce the testimony of Max Muller, the great scientist and professor of Sanscrit in the University of Oxford. He says; "For any evil deed to go unpunished would be to destroy the moral order of the universe. . . . The world would fall to pieces without eternal punishment, which coming from God must be eternal correction and eternal reward."

Thus we see from human testimony of the very highest order that sin against God is an affair inseparably connected with His government, it is "an infraction of the moral order of the universe," it is "a thrust at the infinite majesty of the moral law," an "impeachment of the honour of God's throne; "and on account of its intrinsic demerit, if for no other reason, calls for punishment such as only God, "the Judge of all," knows how to adequately apportion. And though man may not, in himself, understand the extent or degree of this punishment, it is enough for the purpose of our argument to know that he has within himself the consciousness of guilt and carries with him the conviction that a God of holiness and truth cannot do otherwise than mete out punishment to him for his sin. So then it is not so much a question of whether God will punish sin in the future, but the moral certainty that He must.

But it may be objected that the testimony thus far taken has been from men whose thoughts have been more or less influenced by contact with Christianity, and who would, therefore, have a bias (though perhaps unconscious, of it) in that direction. Granted; and to meet this we shall summon witnesses who lived before the Christian age, or who cannot in any sense be said to have been influenced by Scripture testimony.

Leland writes: "Aristotle, cited by Plutarch, speaking of the happiness of men after their departure out of this life, represents it as the most ancient opinion, so old that no man knows when it began, or who was the author of it; that it hath been handed down to us by tradition from infinite ages. The pagans never profess that the idea was reached by them by the aid of reason; but they always refer to it as a very ancient tradition which they endeavoured to confirm by reason." And further, "Lord Bolingbroke, whose interest in the matter would have lain the other way, acknowledges that the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and a state of future rewards and punishments, began to be taught before we have any light into antiquity; and when we begin to have any, we find it established that it was strongly inculcated from time immemorial, and as early as the most ancient nations appear to us." Socrates expressed the same thought thus: "It may be that God will forgive wilful sin; but I cannot see how He can, because I cannot see that He ought to." This heathen philosopher knew nothing of the Atonement as revealed in Scripture, hence could not be expected to understand or see how the one supreme God, Creator and Ruler of the universe, could forgive a sinner's sin.

Hartman says: "The countless hecatombs that smoked upon the altars of Greek and Roman deities; the pilgrimages of whole armies or devotees to the shrine of their idolatry; the self-tortures inflicted with the hope of propitiation; and above all, the human blood shed to glut the rapacity of sanguinary deities, are all but so many forms in which unassisted man expressed his conscious obligations to justice and his heart-felt need of expiatory blood: nothing but this could prompt the poor devotee to cut his flesh with knives, and to scorch his limbs with fire." And to this the same eloquent writer adds: "The learned as well as the ignorant and barbarous, set the seal of their convictions to this fact and developed it in actual effort, even unto self-immolation. It was in vain for philosophy to seek to remove this conviction from the popular mind; the logic of mere reason could not withstand the unrestrained flow of man's universal intuitive conscious wants. Account for it as you please, there is a mysterious something in man that ever tells him sin is an infinite debt which calls for reparation — for satisfaction to the injured majesty of law violated — for atonement: to deny this is to deny the universal consciousness of the race. Thus every man's conscience carries within itself the unmistakable prophecy of future punishment in all cases where reparation has not been made, and due satisfaction given."

Ovid taught: "According to the state of a man's conscience, so do hope and fear, on account of his deeds, arise in his mind." Plato quaintly expresses himself on the same subject, thus: "In nature there is no forgiveness of sin. Sin and punishment walk this world with their heads tied together; and the rivet that binds their iron link is a rivet of adamant." And to this we add the convincing words of Dr. R. W. Hamilton: "Traverse the earth; enter the gorgeous cities of idolatry, or accept the hospitality of its wandering tribes; go where will-worship is most fantastic, and superstition most gross; and you will find in man `a fearful looking-for of judgment.' Their mythology or their Nemesis may vary; their Elysium and Tartarus may be differently depicted; the metempsychosis may be the passage of bliss and woe; still the fact is only confirmed by the diversity of the forms in which it is presented."

Thus we see that the very heathen themselves, long and far removed from any influence, direct or indirect, of Christianity, have universally implanted deeply in their consciousness the conviction that God must punish sin, that, as the Bible puts it, "He will by no means clear the guilty." And the same Scriptures, in this very line of testimony, state that, "the expectation of the wicked is wrath" (Prov. 11. 23).

Part 3

Another evidence outside Scripture altogether that a belief in future punishment is not only rational, but a moral necessity of God's government, is the disastrous consequences that inevitably follow wherever this all but universal intuition in man is either weakened or destroyed. Dr. Mayor says that "wherever the doctrine of retribution in a life to come is not believed, a licentiousness of manners is sure to prevail, and the only pursuit will be that of pleasure." And do we not see an exhibition of the truth of this statement on every hand to-day? "Lovers of pleasures" is one of the most marked characteristics of the times. Buchner, the infidel historian, says: "The principles of infidelity found their outward expression in the great French Revolution." And to this, a writer pertinently adds: "This needs no comment here. Its scenes of rapine, cruelty, carnage, speak for themselves. Whenever infidelity denies or ignores the testimony and conscious facts of consciousness bearing on moral obligation and future punishment, it commits suicide; a fact which its greatest apostles are compelled to confess, if not in words, then none the less assuredly in actions!" "It is often said by Cicero and others," writes Dr. Knapp, "that all philosophers, both Greek and Roman, are agreed in this; that the gods do not punish. But as soon as this opinion began to prevail among the people, it produced, according to to the testimony of all Roman writers, the most disastrous consequences, which lasted for centuries. It resulted in the deplorable degeneracy of the Roman Empire. Truth and faith ceased, chastity became contemptible, and perjury was practised without shame. To this corruption no philosophy was able to oppose any effectual resistance; until at length its course was arrested by Christianity."*

{*Montesquieu says: "The idea of a place of future rewards and punishment necessarily imports that there is such a place of future rewards and punishments, and that where the people hope for the one without fear of the other, civil laws have no force."

Another leading infidel, Bolingbroke, wrote; "The doctrine of future rewards and punishments has a great tendency to enforce civil laws and restrain the vices of men."

Another, Hume, says "Disbelief in futurity lessens in a great measure the ties of morality, and may be supposed for that reason, to be pernicious to civil society." To the above the Christian adds triumphantly, "Our enemies themselves being judges!"}

It is related that that blatant champion of American infidelity, Col. Robt. G. Ingersoll, was once during the Garfield presidential campaign, addressing a political meeting; he was seeking to convince and persuade his hearers that the platform of the opposition party was dangerous and would result in calamity to the country. And to enforce his appeal, he used the following words: "Fellow citizens: if you will sustain such measures and vote for such principles, you will have to give an account for it in the great day of final judgment"; then turning round, he whispered to those sitting about him on the platform, "If there is such a day." Dr. Hartman, commenting on this, says: "He knew full well that his appeal was lighter than a 'puff of empty air' unless he nailed the sense of responsibility in the hearts of his hearers, somewhere, to some tribunal of final appeal. This he boldly did, by nailing it to the pillar of eternal justice and oughtness which brought the forebodings of future accountability and punishment face to face with an on-coming judgment day. . . . Ingersoll knew full well that without a tribunal of final appeal, without a day of future judgment where every man shall be judged according to his deeds, he could not possibly carry the consciences of his audience by argument, nor by his eloquence constrain them to act, without a sense of responsibility."

Having established, as we believe, the fact of a needs-be future retribution on purely ethical grounds, it remains only to inquire if this punishment is necessarily eternal. And here a proper conception of the nature of future punishment will enable us to understand better the question of its duration.

First, then this punishment is not remedial in its design, it is not synonymous with chastisement which is in its nature corrective. This, as has been said, always looks man-ward, while the punishment of sin, on the other hand, is purely penal, and looks Godward; it contains no remedial element whatever. Punishment has been defined as "executed penalty." Webster says: "Punishment is designed to uphold law by the infliction of penalty; while chastisement is intended by kind correction to prevent the repetition of faults, and to reclaim the offender." And another has said: "All chastisements are remedial afflictions; but punishment is judicial retribution." Our prisons are intended to serve the double purpose, both of punishing the violator of the law and his correction with the view to his reform. Hence they are sometimes called penitentiaries. But in the case of a man serving a life-sentence the imprisonment is not for the purpose of his correction at all, but solely as a punishment in vindication of the violated law."

Second: the above being true, how can punishment for sin in a future life be anything less than eternal in its duration? For since the infliction of punishment is but the penalty imposed by the law, and that law "cannot be broken," it follows that since the sinner has broken the law he must suffer its penalty, in the natural course of things, for ever.

"That the law of God must be honoured is the united testimony of the universe," Dr. Hartman says: "all things are leagued in loyal confederacy to secure and enforce this end. This may be done in two ways: by obedience to its precept on the one hand, or by suffering its penalty on the other; and the values of the obedience and the penalty must be in perfect equipoise, as the equal and correlative functions of its honour. If a man refuses to honour the law by obedience, he must honour it by enduring its penalty. The honour he renders to the law in this case is precisely equal in value to that which his obedience would have rendered; and it makes not the slightest difference, so far as the law is concerned, whether men will obey it or not; in either case it secures and maintains the integrity of its majesty and honour. Nature is a familiar illustration of this principle. Her laws command your regard, and it matters not in this respect, whether you obey or choose to violate them, you will withal give them equal honour, either by your obedience, or by enduring their penalties." And further: "Sin is a debt, an infinite obligation to injured justice and violated law: and the guilt of sin is just equal to the degree of obligation; and as guilt implies liability to punishment the penalty must be equal to the obligation; and since obligation is infinite, the penalty must be infinite; and this necessitates eternal punishment because the sinner is finite. Penalty is necessarily infinite and eternal in duration."

So it is not a question of how long or in what measure God will punish sin; if He punishes at all it must of necessity be for ever. It has been truly and aptly said that "if He punishes sin in moral agents anywhere, He will also do so everywhere and for ever."

Nor will it help the objector to say that God will punish man's sin in another world, though not for ever, but only for a time, as in the purgatory of the Romanist, or the "age-lasting" hades of the Restorationist; for why should He punish sin at all if He punishes only for a time? if it were an arbitrary act and not founded on the eternal principles of justice, we might well ask, "Why does He, a God of love and goodness, punish man at all?" But since it is done by the requirement of His holy character as Judge, and thus leaving Him no choice (and we say it with all awe and reverence) He cannot do otherwise than make the punishment continue so long as the existence of the soul and its sin.

We cannot do better in concluding our discussion than to quote the impressive words of one to whom we have frequently referred before in these pages — Dr. L. B. Hartman: "The doctrine of a future hell needs no other argument to sustain it. Silence all the pulpits in the land, burn all the Bibles in the world, wipe Christianity from the face of the earth, and this immutable principle, as the eternal law of well-being, still remains enthroned in its imperial authority as before. It is the voice of the nature of things, the voice of science, and the voice of self-evident, axiomatic, intuitive, eternal truth — truth which Christ reduced to a single sentence — 'YE MUST BE BORN AGAIN'" (John 3: 3). And we add: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3: 14, 15).

Does Scripture Teach a Partial Rapture?

Does Scripture Teach a Partial Rapture?

By C. Knapp

Diverse and strange doctrines more and more abound in these days. It seems that Satan in matchless cunning, has taken special pains to link many of these to the truth of the second coming of Christ, either to bring that precious doctrine into disrepute, or to mystify and confuse honest souls, to rob them of the comfort and blessing which God intends we should derive from the "looking for that blessed hope."

One of these strange doctrines is that only a part of the Church will be caught up at the coming of Christ, and the rest left behind to pass through "the great tribulation." It is called the "Partial Rapture."

That this teaching is both unscriptural and pernicious we shall show from Scripture; for the word of God is so clear and concise on the subject that any attentive reader should know just who will be caught up when the assembling shout is heard.

Let us turn to a few scriptures showing beyond doubt for whom Christ is coming. "I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there ye may be also" (John 14: 3). Has our Lord in view a special class among believers here? Did He say, Some of you — those who shall be on the lookout for Me? Those of you who shall be in a suitable condition of soul? Or, those who have attained to a certain degree of knowledge or holiness? No, He includes them all, "you," "ye," with no added condition; and what He said to them He says to us all. (See Mark 13: 37.)

Take again that well-known passage, 1 Thess. 4: 13-18: the pronoun "we" there is found five times; and four times out of the five it undoubtedly means all the Thessalonian saints, as well as the apostle, with Sylvanus and Timotheus his companions. The one exception is: "This we say unto you by the word of the Lord," etc. (ver. 15), which means, of course, Paul and his companions. The others are as follows: "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede) them which are asleep. For the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

So it reads: "If we believe"; "we which are alive and remain" (twice repeated); "so shall we ever be with the Lord." Is "we" a special class here — some particularly holy ones among the Thessalonian believers, those reckoned "overcomers" only, the most devoted from among them? Or does it mean all the Thessalonians? All of them, most assuredly — everyone is included in the "if we believe," etc., all who believed in the death and resurrection of Christ for their sins and justification.

And have the terms been changed since? Has a divine decree gone forth that faith in Christ is no more the only ground and condition of acceptance — that something more is required for fitness for His presence, or another title to glory than His precious blood, shed upon the cross?

Look at 1 Thessalonians 2: 19, 20: "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming? For ye are our glory and joy." "Ye"; to whom does he refer — a class among believers, those of special merit, of peculiar holiness or extraordinary devotedness? or does the apostle mean all to whom the epistle is addressed, "the church of the Thessalonians"? There can be but one answer: he means them all, every one who by God's grace had "turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven."

And were all these Thessalonian saints serving the living and true God with equal or adequate devotedness and zeal? We have but to read the second epistle addressed to the same company, and written but a few weeks after the first, and see that some were "disorderly, working not at all, busy bodies" (2 Thess. 3 : 11). Is there any hint or threat (open or veiled) that some of these might be left behind at the rapture? Not the slightest. And surely this would be the place to indicate a segregation of believers if something in them were to prevent a part of them from being "caught up" at the coming of the Lord. But the apostle hints at nothing of the kind, for he knows, as he elsewhere taught, that at Christ's coming all His own shall be "caught up together," and that grace, the grace that saved, is the ground of it, and the blood that atones for sin is the only and all-sufficient title to share in that glorious event for which he encouraged all believers everywhere to look.

Again, look at 1 Cor. 15: 51, 52, where we have three times the first personal pronoun "we." "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." To whom do these "we" refer — to some, or to all of them? To all, unquestionably. And if a Christian's conduct could affect his title to have part in; the rapture, this would be the most suitable occasion to teach it; for these Corinthians, as the apostle says elsewhere, were indeed carnal; schismatic; glorying in men; were exalting human wisdom, yet babes in Christ; going to law one with another. Yea, "Ye do wrong, and defraud," he says, "and that your brethren." Some of them misconducted themselves at the Lord's supper, eating and drinking of the eucharist unworthily, and bringing upon themselves the just chastisement of the Lord. Yet in no wise did the apostle suggest that any really converted person among them might miss being taken at the rapture. No, without any qualification he says, "We (the living) shall be changed."

And another thing: What gives the saint fallen asleep in Jesus title to have part in the first resurrection? Is it his conduct while living on earth, or was it through grace? Through grace alone, most certainly. And is it not just the same with those who shall be changed as with the dead who shall be raised incorruptible? Were not some of them very deficient in their conduct while upon earth? Yet they shall not be left in their graves at the "resurrection of life" any more than the living believer be left behind at "the coming of the Lord. The two events, "the resurrection of the just" and the translation of the saints, occur at the some moment, and the title to either rests on the same basis — on "the blood of Jesus Christ which cleanseth us from all sin."

And on what does this teaching base the idea that only a part of the company of the redeemed shall go to glory at the coming of the Lord? On two things, principally: First, on a misapprehension of the gospel — failing to see that the sinner's real title to anything pertaining to heaven, or spiritual favor, rests upon grace. Second, in spiritual pride — in the vain conceit that some superior devotion to Christ secures a better claim to the "blessed hope," which less holy or spiritual fellow-Christians fail to attain.

Now as to the first, What is the ground of our entering glory at any time before or since the Cross, at death now, or at the coming of the Lord by and by? The ground is grace, redeeming grace alone. It is not, it could not be, any merit of our own, for this would cloud the gospel and contradict the written word of God. The Thessalonian converts were instructed to wait for God's Son from heaven, with never a question as to any superior claim to be among those translated at that happy moment. The youngest convert's reason for expecting Christ to come for him is the same message of God's grace that came to him as a sinner, and told him also of his Saviour's coming again — and for whom? Why, for all who receive that message, "The gospel of our salvation." Has the youngest believer any less claim than "such an one as Paul the aged?" Or any more than the Corinthian or the Thessalonians? All alike are partakers of that "heavenly calling," and shall share alike in the fulfilment of "that blessed hope." If being caught up to meet the Lord in the air depends on the believer's state of soul or conduct, it brings us back to our own merits, instead of the grace of God and the love of Christ.

But what says the Word? "They that are Christ's at His coming." Yes; they are Christ's; this is the only reason they have part in the first resurrection; and this is just why you and I, beloved fellow-believer, are going to be caught up at the same glad moment — "because we belong to Christ!" And we are His, not by any thing of ourselves, but by Christ's redemption, and that alone. Are you Christ's? Then be assured you will have part in this "blessed hope;" for, as with those who have died in Christ, so shall it be with those alive in Him — "They that are Christ's at His coming" (1 Cor. 15 : 23).

As for the second reason of this error (some distinctive or superior worthiness in a believer), who or what am I to expect to have any part in the rapture, if it depended upon anything in me or in my walk? Did not our Lord teach His disciples to confess themselves "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17: 10)? And does not James tell us that "in many things we all offend" (James 3: 2)? And did not the great apostle Paul confess himself "less than the least of all saints" (Eph. 3: 8)? In view of this, who could expect anything else than to be of those "left" at Christ's coming, if it is any question of personal fitness or attainment of holiness? And more: who could tell me, or by what means might I know when I had attained to the degree of holiness, devotedness, or growth in grace (whichever it is), to warrant me to expect to have part in the rapture — if it is conditional upon something else than a simple faith in the work and merits of our Lord Jesus Christ? By what measure would the teachers of this strange doctrine mete to me or to themselves a decision in the matter? If their teaching be true as to the translation of select saints alone, we would have to cry out with the aged Samuel Johnson, in reference to justification, "Who can tell me when I have done enough!"

And the teachers of this partial rapture theory, do not they expect to be "caught up" when Christ comes? If so, what does this argue? Just this, that they are self-righteous; that they consider themselves superior to other believers. If I know myself at all — my many failures, my treacherous heart, my utter unworthiness — can I claim the right to anything but that of confessing myself a sinner saved by grace?

Yes, reader, you may be sure there is a subtle self-conceit underlying this teaching, which makes a privileged class among the saints, with the secret self-confidence that the teachers and followers of the doctrine are among the worthy ones, the faithful, the overcomers.

Yes; that is the word they catch at, "Overcomer." Overcomers, they say, will be caught up, for to such alone is the promise made of being kept from "the hour of temptation which shall come upon all the world to try them that dwell upon the earth" (Rev. 3 : 10). Granted: but who are the overcomers? Are they a special class in the Church — saints of a superior order, or "disciples indeed," in a sense in which all believers are not? Let us see.

We turn to 1 John 5 : 4, 5 : "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world; and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?" Here we have the divine description of an overcomer: it is the faith in every one that is born of God — faith in Jesus the Son of God — that overcomes the vast hostile system called "the world."

And mark, it is not what some erroneously term "holiness by faith" — the claiming by faith of a "second blessing," "clean heart," "perfect love," "cleansing from inbred sin," etc., but faith in Christ — just such a faith as all true Christians possess. He that overcometh is he "that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God." So it is the "overcomer" that will go when Jesus comes, but the term applies to all believers in Christ — not to a select class among them. And so in Rev. 2 and 3, the overcomer is the true believer, as distinguished from the false. Else what could be made of the promises to such? "He shall eat of the tree of life which is in the midst of the paradise of God" (Rev. 2: 7). Is this to be the portion of special saints, or for all true believers? Again, "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death" (Rev. 2: 11); will some Christians not be overcomers and be hurt of the second death? Just to ask the question is to answer it — No! And so with all the promises in these addresses to the seven churches ; they are not all the same, but are all beautifully suited to the condition and circumstances of each assembly addressed. All true believers shall partake of the promised blessings, for all shall in the end be overcomers, not by any superior degree of holiness or development of the life of Christ in them, but through the overcoming on the cross of Him in whom we are complete (Col. 2: 10), even as it is written, "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 15 : 57); and again, "We are more than conquerors through Him that loveth us" (Rom. 8 : 37). Hallelujah to His name!

Now, let us see for a little what more is involved in this error at which we have been looking.

It involves the error of a divided Christ. The expression, "The Christ," includes, in such passages as 1 Cor. 12: 12, not only Christ the Head, but also His body, the Church. If, at His coming, a part only of that body is taken and the other left, what becomes of the unity of this mystical body? (See 1 Cor. 12 : 25.) And again, the Church, the body, composed of all believers, is Christ's bride. Will He have a bride with members lacking — a body incomplete, in heaven — some members in glory and glorious with Him above, and others on earth suffering in the great tribulation? Is it not written, "Whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it" (1 Cor. 12: 26)? How does this comport with the theory of a partial rapture? Will the members caught up at the coming suffer in heaven with their fellow-members left behind on earth?

Again, if the Holy Spirit (who now dwells in the Church as the temple of God) goes with the Church at the coming of Christ, that part of the Church left on earth would be no more God's temple or dwelling-place. But Eph. 4 : 30 declares the members of Christ here on earth are by the Spirit "sealed unto (or till) the day of redemption." Does this agree with the thought of some of these sealed ones being left at His rapture — the day of redemption? The seal is the mark, the sign; put by the owner upon the purchased possession until its removal by him to its settled abiding-place; and the believer, "bought with a price," is marked and set apart for God, "sealed unto the day of redemption." But if he is left at the rapture, the day of the body's redemption, how could this scripture be fulfilled in him?

And yet further: will there be different classes of the people of God on earth in the tribulation — one, an earthly and Jewish remnant; the other, a portion of the Church on earth with a heavenly calling? And where is this left portion of the Church referred to in Revelation, or in any portion of the Scriptures treating of the tribulation? What is their testimony, their place, their destiny, and will they ever again be joined to the Church, "which is His body?" The earthly saints, both Jew and Gentile, we can clearly see and trace, but this detached portion of the body, this left section of the Church, we nowhere find. Why? Because they are not there; they are all in glory: the bride, the Lamb's wife, is presented there to Himself "a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing" (Eph. 5: 27) — nor any subtraction, nor any member missing, we might add.

Two scriptures are frequently referred to as supporting the belief in a partial rapture. One is the parable of the ten virgins (Matt. 25). Let us look at it. The whole company of the ten virgins represent the professing Church. The wise are the true believers; by the Holy Scriptures they have been made "wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3 : 15). They have not only the lamp of profession, but they have oil in their vessels with their lamps. Oil, in Scripture, is the standing type of the Holy Spirit. And it is written, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of His" (Rom. 8: 9). And being Christ's, the wise are ready, and when the Bridegroom comes, they go in with Him to the marriage. The foolish virgins have the profession, but not the Spirit — they are not Christ's, not true children of God; mere professors they are, unconverted ones, having lamps but no oil, no Holy Spirit. So when the Bridegroom comes, they are unprepared and shut out — left without hope. "I know you not," the Bridegroom says. Could this be said of any saint, however unsatisfactory his state? No; for it is written again, "The Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. 2: 19).

The other stock text is Heb, 9: 28: "Unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Now, it is not our purpose here to go into the full meaning of this passage. A most cursory examination of the context would show that the inspired penman has before him the Old Testament figure of the Jewish high priest going into the holiest of the tabernacle, as he did once a year, to make atonement for Israel, while the expectant people waited without for his reappearance. So Christ, our great High Priest, has entered heaven itself, there "to appear in the presence of God for us." And in due time, like the earthly priest of old, He shall appear again to them "that look for Him," and they "that look for Him" are all the people of God. It does not say, nor does it mean, that He will appear only to them that intelligently wait for His coming, or to those who watchfully listen for His shout. No; for this would make the translation of a saint dependent, not upon his faith in Christ, or even on his devotedness to Him, but upon his knowledge — an idea which would deny the plain import of Scripture as a whole, and special passages in particular, as "knowledge puffeth up."

The fact is, every truly converted soul is looking for Christ — not all in the same way, nor yet with equal degree of intelligence or longing. Some, through ignorance, look for Him at death; others expect to see Him coming at the end of the world; while others, again, have no fixed belief as to the occasion and time; they only know that they love Him because He first loved them, and their heart would be made glad at the sight of His glorious face.

I remember, many years ago, hearing a devoted soul, a real "mother in Israel," tell of a dream she had concerning "the end of the world," as it had been taught her. The mighty thunders were crashing, the earth rending, stars falling, the heavens rolled back as a scroll, the fire was descending, and the graves opening, and the judgment about to sit; and she awoke in her bed exclaiming in ecstasy, "Oh, I shall see Jesus!" Was she not "looking for Him?" Yet how mixed up she was in it all. Like thousands of others of God's saints, she knew nothing at all of what is called "dispensational truth;" but like them and all who know and love the Saviour, she was looking for Him; and to them He shall appear as well as to us who by grace possess a little more knowledge of the order in which God's word has placed these different events. How mistaken, then, are they who would limit and narrow a passage of Scripture like this, and make it apply only to a small portion of the beloved and blood-bought saints of God!

We close our argument; not that we have said the last word on the subject; no, not by any means; for very much more might be said in refutation of this wide-spread error of a partial rapture. But enough has been said, we believe, to convince and satisfy any one willing to bow to Scripture, and it is for these that we write; for our aim has been more to help the perplexed, and guard those already instructed, than to convince the gainsayers.

It only remains for us, in closing, to exhort the Christian reader to be found of Him in peace, watching and waiting, with lamp trimmed and burning; with loins girded, "like unto men that wait for their Lord," that both reader and writer may be "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy." "Let us not sleep as do others, but let us watch and be sober" (1 Thess. 5: 6).

Woman to Speak in the Church?

Is it Scriptural for a Woman to Speak in the Church?

C Knapp

The reader will notice at the outset that the question of our paper is not, Is it right, or Is it expedient, or Is it reasonable, that a woman should speak in the Church? but, Is it Scriptural? It is not a question of custom, or the teaching, or the practices of the Church in general, but "What saith the Lord?" This must settle everything for the true believer, and it is for such that we write. It is a matter which concerns only those who profess to be governed by the Holy Scriptures, by which the man of God is "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3: 16). And to maintain a godly order in the Church, or assembly, is surely one of these "good works." There is no need therefore to turn to history, or to tradition, in deciding the matter.

We proceed, then, to enquire into what God has said in His Holy Word about the woman speaking in the Church.

The first scripture we turn to is the well-known passage in 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the Church." Here it is plainly laid down that the woman is NOT to speak in the Church, or assembly. It must be understood that "the Church" here is not a building, or edifice of any kind, but the assembly of God's saints, His people. The expression, "in the Church," or "Churches," is used five times in this chapter (vers. 19, 28, 33, 34 and 35), and it always means the gathering of the Christians in assembly. The place — whether it be a special building, a hall, a private house, or even the open air — is of no importance, as it is not the place, but the persons and purpose of the gathering.

This being understood, we next inquire what the "silence" mentioned here means. Does the apostle mean silence in an absolute sense, or a "conditional silence" as some have suggested, in their efforts to justify the practice of women preaching, praying, or testifying in Christian gatherings? A glance over the chapter down to the 34th verse, makes plain that the apostle is giving instruction to the men as to the exercise of their gift. He says in verse 23, "If therefore the whole Church be come together into one place," etc. They were to speak only one at a time; and two or three speakers was to be the limit; the others were to judge. "Ye may all prophesy one by one," he says. They had carried their speaking to an excess, evidently, for he says in verse 26, "How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying." Whatever the exercises mentioned here may have been, the brethren were abusing their liberty, with too much speaking. This he proceeds to correct, down to end of verse 33. Then he turns to the sisters, and commands that they "keep silence in the Churches." There is no attempt to regulate the manner or frequency of their taking part (as with the men); he simply commands they should be silent, saying, "It is not permitted unto them to speak."

To say, as some have, in attempting to evade the force of this passage, that the word here means to "chatter," gossip, or whisper during "service," is but to betray the weakness of their position, when they must resort to such arguments to defend their opposition to what the apostle lays down in such plain terms.

The same Greek word for "speak" is used throughout this chapter. In verse 21 it is used of God thus: "With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people." No, reader; the word does not mean chatter, or anything else than just to 'speak;' and the apostle says, "It is a shame for women to speak in the Church." In view of this, how can any contend that the woman may, and should, speak in the Church, exercise her gifts and her ability — though it may be better than that of the men?*

{*Some, in an opposite direction, have questioned the propriety of women taking part in congregational singing. They misunderstand the spirit and purpose of the apostle's teaching, which is not to restrict the heart's joyful liberty before the Lord, but to maintain God's order among His people. Singing is part of collective worship, in which all have equal freedom; there is no thought of teaching or leadership in it; and worship is as fully woman's part as man's. — [Ed.}

"Oh," some flippantly answer: "That was Paul; he was a bachelor, and was trying to keep women down." Is this the estimate in which you hold the Word of God? Is Scripture to you but the word of Paul, or Peter, or any other man? If so, it is no use to discuss this question further with you, for our only standard of authority is the Holy Scripture; and if the Bible is not wholly and everywhere the word of God to you, we have no authority to appeal to, and may as well, right here, dismiss the subject. But we would ask those to whom "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God," to read verse 37: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." This must settle everything for the soul subject to Scripture. These are not the arbitrary orderings of a mere man, biassed in favor of his own sex, or prejudiced against women, but "the commandments of the Lord," and therefore to be submitted to and obeyed without question.

Others tell us that this prohibition was only of local application, that it meant just the women of Corinth, who were loud and brazen, and unqualified to take part in the public exercises of the assembly. Who told them, we ask, that women in the Corinthian Church were different, less modest or decorous, than the women of other localities? Scripture does not — nor even history, if it were allowable to appeal to anything outside the Bible.

But is the application of the passage limited to the women of Corinth alone? Read the ascription in the beginning of the epistle; to whom is it addressed? "Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth . . . with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours" (1 Cor. 1: 2). This is decisive — is it not? The instructions given in the epistle are not of mere local application, but are intended for, and addressed to, all professing Christians everywhere — all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. And in the very passage under discussion the apostle does not say "your Church," but "the Churches," which forbids limiting the prohibition to the local Church at Corinth. "As also saith the law," he adds, meaning, not one particular passage, but the whole tenor of the Old Testament. (See Gen. 3: 16 and 1 Peter 3: 5.)

The woman's place is one of subjection and retirement, not of leadership. This disposes entirely of the contention of those who say that this was "only Paul." He had the law as a second witness to add force to what he says by the Spirit of God. And instead of the apostle being against woman, as some unjustly charge him to be, he everywhere honors her in her proper sphere, and commands her husband to love her, even as Christ loved the Church (Eph. 5: 25; Col. 3: 19). In Romans 16, where he makes honorable mention of a number of believers, not a few of the names are those of women. To quote another, "The annals of ancient and modern literature may be searched in vain for anything at all comparable with the dignity and tenderness of treatment which this apostle demands for women in the marriage relation (Eph. 5) ; and no writer of ancient or modern times has done so much to elevate and bless her. Look at her where his writings are unknown or despised, and look at her when men come practically under the power of his teachings. In the one case woman lives as in a hell on earth; in the other, she is cherished and loved as Christ loved the Church, for whom He gave Himself. Yet this is the man who is denounced by decent and respectable women, prominent in the W.C.T.U. movement, as 'a crusty old bachelor.'"

To confirm what has been said above as to 1 Cor. 14: 34, as having not a local but a general application to all believers, we quote again from the late Dr. James H. Brookes: "All expositors of any value agree in connecting the text with the preceding verse; that verse reads as follows: 'For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all the Churches of the saints.' It is obvious that a period should be after the word peace, and that a new sentence begins with the statement, 'As in all the Churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the Churches.' This view is confirmed by what the apostle says elsewhere when discussing the same subject of woman in the Church; he says, 'If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God'" (1 Cor. 11: 16).

The Corinthians, in this matter of the women speaking in the Church, seemed to take the ground of many in our own day, who say that this is something each Church or person must decide for himself. They may have thought themselves free to do as they pleased in this matter: the apostle checks this by saying, "What! came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" (ver. 36); that is to say, Have you authority from the Lord what you shall do in this matter? The word of God has not come from you, but to you. They were therefore to submit to the commandment of the Lord by the apostle.

Before leaving this passage, it may be necessary to answer the suggestion made by some, that the prohibition applies to married women only; for how, say they, could they ask their husbands at home if they were unmarried? Can such suppose that a married woman is less qualified to speak in the Church than one not married ? The thought is simply that questionings should be at home — not in the assembly.

Some have scoffed at the idea of an intelligent woman asking a question of her dull husband at home. This is the reasoning of a worldly mind, rather than of one who honors the Lord and His Word. Another has aptly answered it by saying, "A Christian woman taking the place assigned her by the great Head of the Church, testifies of Him and for Him by a silence more effective than eloquent speech."

Closely akin to the passage we have had before us is that in 1 Tim. 2: 11-15: "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved (preserved) in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety." This also relates to woman's place in the assembly, for although the epistle is not addressed to an assembly directly, it is written that Timothy might know how to conduct himself "in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3: 15).

The woman was to learn in silence — not suffered to teach. Learning, in silence, with all subjection, was her God-given place. This place she was to take; not in resentful, sullen silence, but with glad and willing obedience to the command of the Lord, which is the only kind of obedience acceptable to Him. It is the "perfect law of liberty," and to the subject, loyal soul, "His commandments are not grievous."

The silence enjoined here includes even audible prayer by the women in the place of public assembly, for in verse 8 the apostle says, "I will therefore that the men pray, everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting." I have given the article to men, for so the Revised Version renders it. This instruction relates to public places evidently, not to the privacy of the closet, where the woman has fullest privilege of communion with God in prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving. In public, the apostle says to the woman, she is to be "in silence." All this is in full accord with, and enforces what was laid down in 1 Cor. 14.

The silence enjoined upon women in the assembly does not rest on one single text of Scripture (though the humble believer should not need more), but is found in various portions of the Word. And, as it is written, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established," the verses before us are a second witness of what God ordered, and for which we must, therefore, "earnestly contend" (Jude 3) .

But we have here in Timothy what is not so plainly told us in Corinthians, i. e., the reason why the woman is not to teach in the assembly. Two reasons are given: one is, Adam's priority in creation, implying headship; the other, that the woman was deceived by the tempter. It says that "Adam was not deceived" like the woman. He sinned with his eyes open. He was even more guilty than his wife, but it was she who was deceived. And having proved herself a bad leader in this respect, in God's wise government she was debarred from the place of authority or teaching in the Church. We should not say that her place is inferior to that of the man, but different, We might say that, positionally, man is superior — not in himself; as has been aptly said: "Here (in 1 Tim. 2: 14) we get the first and most powerful warning against woman taking the lead — at the very start of man's journey across the ocean of time." And the same writer adds: "Witness the revolt! — in that fashionable freak of religion called 'Christian Science,' it exalts woman, scoffs at marriage and childbearing; it declares that death is mere imagination, and need never be. Witness the revolt in the Suffragette Movement, to put woman on a political equality with man; and extremists among them scoff at the marriage contract and childbearing." And he adds, "In the present day the great majority of spiritist mediums are women. Modern Spiritism began with women. It is an hysterical woman, Mrs. E. G. White, who by her blasphemous pretensions has been the leader, and largely the inventor of that wicked system called Seventh-day Adventism. Christian Science — which is neither Christian nor scientific — owes its origin to Mrs. Eddy — a woman of bad repute. Theosophy, as known in the Western Hemisphere, was popularized by a woman — Mrs. Besant." And we might add to the list the present-day Tongues Movement, with its attendant fanaticism and immorality (in spite of its pretentious claims to "perfect holiness"), in which women are the most prominent and enthusiastic leaders.

This is not indeed to slight woman; for, as we have stated before, it is only positionally that man is above woman. And it is only as to this positional place, or priority, that we contend here. As another has said, "It is not a question here of woman's ability. It is gladly admitted that compared with man, woman exhibits no inferiority of genius, culture, tact, speech, etc. And outweighing all her gifts and graces, is the demonstrated fact that her presence and power in the service of Christ are, under God, essential to the success, and even to the continuance of the Church. If she were removed from the sphere of action, probably every congregation of Christians in the land would soon become a stagnant pool. As a rule, woman is certainly the most effective force, not only in the family, "but in the Church, to maintain a consistent testimony for Christ, and to 'strengthen the things which remain'" And this is from the pen of one who strenuously raised his voice against the woman speaking in the Church — Dr. J. H. Brookes.

The same eloquent writer says further, in favor of the woman's devotion to Christ, and her zeal for His cause, "Christ came to save sinful women as well as men, and it is to the glory of His grace that we find among the former no recorded instance of a denial of His name, nor of apostasy from His cause. But it is a fact that of these brave and devoted women, He did not choose one as an apostle; nor did He choose one to go with the seventy, who were commissioned as public heralds to proclaim His approach to every city and place whither He Himself would come. The women who loved Him for His saving grace seemed to be more than content to follow His steps, to minister to Him of their substance, to speak His praise personally and privately; and when they could do nothing more, they offered Him the most grateful and acceptable service, the only service they could render, as they gazed upon Him on the cross through their streaming tears, and then came to anoint His precious body and to weep at His grave."

But it is not only in the Church that the woman is to be in subjection; there are two other spheres in which she is to maintain the same attitude in reference to the man — in the home and in the world.

We turn back to 1 Corinthians 11, for this. We read there, "But I would have you to know that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God." Here is given us the woman's place in the natural sphere. Man is the head. Neither does this imply inferiority (else Christ would be essentially inferior to God, His Father — a thought impossible to those who believe in His eternal Deity); but, positionally, and as Man, the blessed Son took the place of subjection and obedience to the Father. In verses 4-7 the apostle directs that in prayer or prophesying, the woman, as a sign of her subjection to the man, is to cover her head; while the man, on the contrary, is to uncover his head. This custom of covering (observed everywhere in Christian assemblies until the more recent years of lawlessness), has been a witness for ages of the truth set before us here, of the headship of the man over the woman. "For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man," the apostle says in vers. 8, 9. Then in vers. 10-16 he concludes the subject, giving the reasons why the woman should be covered while in the act of prayer: "For this cause ought the woman to have [the sign of] authority on her head, because of the angels," as the R.V. renders ver. 10. The holy angels are interested in God's family on earth. They have witnessed the fearful revolt of some of their fellows in heaven, in ages past, "who kept not their first estate." They look now to see subjection to God's authority and order in the circle of the redeemed. As has been beautifully expressed, "The Church, therefore, is the lesson-book which the angels especially delight to study, the brightest mirror that reflects the manifold and supernal glory of the triune God; and if the angels see the woman leaving her place of subjection and silence in the Church (woman as a type of the Church, sitting at the feet of Jesus and learning of Him), the lesson-book will be blotted, the mirror blurred, as the angels bend down to contemplate with adoring wonder." (See 1 Peter 1: 12 and Eph. 3: 10.)

It is beyond our purpose to attempt to explain all that these verses teach; the one point we would press is that man is head, not only in the Church, but everywhere; and in like manner is the woman's place in subjection. Long hair is her glory; because by it she shows her ready submission to the place given her of God in nature; and on special occasions she is to have, in addition to her hair, a covering of some kind to give emphasis to the fact. If she refuses this, the apostle, in evident irony, says, "Let her also be shorn," i.e., be altogether like the man. Some, to their shame be it said, have of their own accord gone to this length, showing thus their utter contempt for what is written in God's Word, and the rebellion of their own hearts against their God-assigned place since the Fall. The man, on the other hand, and for a like reason, must not have long hair like the woman; for, says the apostle, "Doth not even nature itself teach you that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"

Leadership, therefore, whether on platform or in assemblies, the street, or any public place, is forbidden to women by God's Word.

What then can the woman do? some will ask. Much, indeed, and in many ways. What a large scope for her energies and gifts God has provided her in service, not only in her family, of which she is the loved and honored centre, but in meetings for women, in Sunday-school work, house-to-house visitation, tract distribution, and in much where the man is so inefficient — a nothing compared with the woman — as ministry among the sick.

To quote the well-chosen words of another: "The comfort and encouragement that an active, godly, Christian woman — moved by love to Christ and to souls, and yet governed by Scripture — can render, is incalculable. We profoundly respect such. Mary anointed the Lord for His burial. Martha served the Lord right well. Dorcas made herself deeply beloved by her good deeds. Phebe was a servant of the Church and a succorer of many. Lydia entertained the apostle Paul in her house. Priscilla, subject to the headship and leadership of her husband, helped Apollos to understand the way of God more perfectly. Women labored with Paul in the gospel. Would that the descendants of these godly women were found in every city and village of the world! Happy, blessed service! There is no room for women to repine at the divine restrictions set on their service. There is more work for them to do than they can ever overtake."

But it is in the home circle, as the wife and "happy mother of children," that the woman finds her special sphere in which to glorify God; it is here she shines the brightest, and we may add, exerts the mightiest influence. It is a remarkable fact, as another has pointed out, that in the books of Kings and Chronicles, where the reigning monarchs exerted such important influences with the people and in God's testimony at the time, we are told some thirty times of "his mother's name;" the Spirit of God thus pointing out to us what was probably the most important factor in the moulding of the character of the men who ruled His people Israel. Eternity alone will fully reveal all that Timothy (of whom Paul had no man so "like-minded") owed to the early training received from his mother Eunice, and the influence, whether direct or indirect, of his grandmother Lois (See 2 Tim. 1: 5).

"There is one special field," says another, "indicated as the field of woman's ministry — a sphere where holy living and discreet speech have their place (See Titus 2: 4, 5)."

It remains but to notice and meet a few of the objections, and scriptures referred to, by those who refuse to believe that God means just what He says in the command, "Let your women keep silence in the Churches." One of the most common is that women can often preach and pray better than the men. This may be so, but that does not justify them in disobeying the plain Word of God, commanding them to "learn in silence." Deceivers might often preach more fluently than the true servants of God (they often have done so), but this is no reason for putting them in the pulpit or on the platform. A fluent tongue and a clever mind does not argue a call from God to preach. And if it be urged that "female evangelists" and Salvation Army "lassies" have been much used of God in the conversion of souls, we answer, It may be all true, but it still proves nothing. It is a well-known fact that during the Great Revival in Ireland in 1859, sinners were convicted of sin and converted while listening to Roman Catholic priests saying mass. Does this prove the mass to be according to God? We have known souls to be saved under the preaching of men of whom it was afterwards learned that they were living at the time in secret sin of grave nature; and God has even used unconverted men to bring sinners to Himself. The present writer was led to a decision for Christ by one whose life since that time evidences that he himself was not a really converted man.

So much for the argument that, because God in His sovereign grace makes use of women preachers, it must be right for them to preach. It was Finney who said that we must not even save a soul from death if we cannot do it in God's appointed way. And when the great Spurgeon was once asked if he had heard a certain woman preach, he replied that a woman might preach very cleverly, but that it was contrary to nature. Vastly more important than either of these is the word of the Lord by Samuel to the rebellious Saul: "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams!"

The case of Philip's daughters who prophesied is often alleged as proof that it is right for a woman to preach. But this scripture does not say, nor does it even hint, that these women exercised their gift in public* They evidently uttered their prophecies in the privacy of their father's house (See Acts 21: 8, 9).** So, too, of the "praying and prophesying" of the woman in 1 Cor. 11: 15 ; it could not be in public, for this was forbidden them — "and the Scripture cannot be broken."

{*Prophesying, as generally spoken of in the New Testament, is not exactly what we call a "gift," but rather what one, in true communion with God, speaks for "edification, and exhortation, and comfort" to the hearers. See 1 Cor. 13: 9; 14: 3, 4. — [Ed.

**We have an indirect confirmation of this in that the subject of Philip's daughters' prophesying is not mentioned, whilst Agabus' prophecy concerning Paul's bonds and imprisonment was publicly declared.}

Mary Magdalene and the woman of Samaria have been frequently referred to as having preached before men; but Scripture does not say so. The former was sent by the risen Lord with a message to His disciples (John 20: 17). She was not sent to preach or to teach them, but just to carry the Lord's glad message — a privilege of which any Christian woman might be the happy instrument. Likewise with the woman of Samaria; she too was the glad messenger of good news, that she had found Messias at the well! "The woman then left her waterpot," the record reads, "and went her way into the city, and saith to the men, Come, see a Man that told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ?" She told to all whom she met of the new-found joy of her heart, which it is the precious privilege of all to do. This, too, is all that can be said of the passage in Acts 2: 17, 18. The daughters of Israel, Jehovah's "handmaidens," should prophesy, but where? Not in public preaching, certainly, for even "the law" forbade them that.

But is there no other place than a public congregation to utter the praises, the mercies, and the wondrous works of God? The aged Anna was a "prophetess" we are told in Luke 2: 36; her prophesying was in serving God, with prayer and fasting, giving thanks and speaking to all that looked for redemption, of the infant Saviour whom her own eyes had beheld in the temple. Elizabeth, "filled with the Holy Ghost," prophesied with loud voice as to Mary, who had come to visit her in her retirement. Mary herself then breaks out in excellent praise to God her Saviour. Hannah, in the Old Testament, gives out, under the Spirit's power upon her, a prophetic song of praise to Jehovah, whose glorious power and grace she celebrates in true prophetic style.

Referring, no doubt, to Miriam at the Red Sea, Psalm 68: 11 says, "The Lord giveth the word," the women that publish the tidings are a great host" (R.V.), which may also apply to any similar time when, moved by great deliverances, the women unite in praises to God their Defender. But all this is not preaching, or taking leadership over men at all, as the verse following clearly shows: "Kings of armies flee, they flee; and she that tarrieth at home divideth the spoil." All this is not in the Church, nor of the Christian dispensation, but applies prophetically to Israel in the last days, and the destruction of their enemies. It is celebrations of earthly victories by the women with song, timbrel and dance, as was customary in Old Testament times.

The case of Deborah is often adduced to justify women taking the lead in prayer and gospel meetings; but there is no comparison between the perfectly proper conduct of an Old Testament woman encouraging a more timid man to go forth to fight an earthly foe, and the practice of Christian women praying and preaching publicly when expressly forbidden to do so by God's Word. And it is not, as many suppose, that Deborah led the armies of Israel, and Barak simply acted as her lieutenant, but the reverse — even if Deborah acted in any commanding capacity at all: "And Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh," the narrative reads (Judges 4: 9). She did not lead, but accompanied him.

It is a fitting place to quote here the words of another concerning the place of woman in Scripture: "Her place is emphatically not one of public testimony. There are sixty-six books in the Bible; and all their authors, who were distinctly chosen of God, were men. Not one was a woman. There were twelve apostles; they were all men. There were seventy sent out by the Lord, in addition to the twelve. We are not told that there was one women among them. In Acts 6 there were 'seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom,' chosen to serve tables; not one was a woman. There were many witnesses cited in 1 Cor. 15 to prove the resurrection of the Lord. Individual men are mentioned as witnesses, but there is no mention of a single woman. This is strikingly significant, as Mary is the first individual to see Christ risen, and was entrusted by Him with a wonderful message to the disciples. Her exclusion from the list of witnesses is the strongest possible proof that Scripture does not give to woman a place of public testimony. There were bishops appointed in the early Church; they were all men. Deacons and elders are described in 1 Timothy and in Titus; but they were all men. There are two witnesses in Rev. 11; they are prophets — not prophetesses, nor a prophet and a prophetess, but men."

We will refer to but one more scripture, advanced by supporters of woman's public ministry: it is Galatians 3: 28. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus." Let us note that it is not what we are in the flesh (in the body) that the passage speaks of, but of what we are "in Christ Jesus" — the risen One. It is of our standing in grace before God that the apostle speaks in this scripture. "In Christ" there is no sex, or its attending relationships, husband and wife, father, mother, and children. But those "in Christ" now are still in the body, with the relationships to which the commands, of which we have been speaking, attach. While we are here in the body these earthly relations exist, and God's appointments and order are to be displayed in them. It would be a terrible thing indeed if being "in Christ" through divine grace, our responsibilities in nature were abrogated. To use Gal. 3: 28 to support public ministry for women comes of strange and gross misunderstanding indeed!

Christian women, your place in relation to the man is so plainly laid down in God's Word that you need have, and shall have, no doubt whatever as to the line of action that is yours to follow, if there is but the spirit of obedience to the Lord. And having no ground for doubt, you have no excuse for disobeying. The responsibility rests upon you to subject yourselves, not to the word of men, but to "the command of the Lord." It is both your happiness and your honor to obey what is written. The world's ways, and pride, and plaudits will not do in "that day" when the fire of God's holiness "shall try every man's work of what sort it is" (1 Cor. 3: 13). "And if also a man contend in the games, he is not crowned unless he have contended lawfully" (2 Tim. 2: 5, R.V.).

Service has no value in God's eyes unless it be rendered with a willing and subject heart, and in conformity to the regulations laid down in His unchanging Word. May we all, both men and women, in the Church and in the home, and in our necessary intercourse with the world without, do only those things which please Him who "hath loved us, and given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savor" (Eph. 5: 2). We are sanctified, not only by the blood, but by the Spirit, "unto the obedience of Jesus Christ," (1 Peter 1: 2) — to obey as He obeyed. "It is written," was ever uppermost in all His blessed pathway here of subjection and obedience to His Father. May this mind be in us which was also in Christ Jesus!

We cannot conclude our subject without quoting once more from the valuable pamphlet of the late Dr. James H. Brookes: "Women in the Church." "The names of women are mentioned all through the sacred pages very much as the names of men; some of them standing forth as bright examples of faith and lofty devotedness, and illustrious usefulness in the service of God, and some of them exhibiting all the weaknesses and meannesses of our depraved nature. Deborah the prophetess was raised up, when the courage of man had utterly failed, to break the yoke of foreign oppression from the neck of prostrate Israel (Judges 4). In contrast, it was the prophetess Noadiah who sought by wicked machinations to defeat Nehemiah in his labor to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem (Neh. 6). Huldah, the prophetess, bore true testimony for Jehovah (2 Kings 22); but Miriam, the prophetess, although her song of triumph had rung out on the shores of the Red Sea, was smitten with the curse of leprosy for her insubordination, and for her complaint against her brother, Moses (Num. 12). Eve tempted Adam, who was base enough to lay the blame of his own sin upon his wife, and indirectly, upon God who took her from his side. Sarah led Abraham to do a grievous wrong, and then cruelly cast forth the hapless Hagar from her house. Rebekah connived with Jacob to cheat her firstborn out of his birthright blessing; but Jacob was made to know the value of a faithful woman in the loss of the gentle Rachel, whose sad death ended his earthly hopes and aspirations, terminating all that made life worth living, for on his dying bed he summed up his later years in the pathetic words, 'As for me, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan.' The Sareptan widow was taught that the word of the Lord is truth only by the bitter lesson of deep personal affliction; but the Shunammite mother could say in unfaltering faith and unclouded peace, even over the dead body of her child, 'It is well!' The beautiful Abigail was a woman of good understanding, and she turned aside the wrath of David from his purposed folly; but the beautiful Bathsheba was the victim of his lust; and the brilliant reign of his son Solomon was marred, and Solomon himself ruined, by those whom the Holy Spirit describes as 'outlandish women' (Neh. 13: 26)."

It is a notable fact that in the religious bodies or associations where women's public speaking and leadership are sanctioned, as with "the Friends" and Salvation Army — expediency or the human will largely supplants the Word of God. In both of these, Christian baptism and the Lord's Supper are wilfully disregarded; and wilful disobedience in one thing leads to many others.

Little more need be said on woman's place according to Scripture. We have attempted to make our examination as exhaustive as possible in a pamphlet of suitable size for general circulation, though more might be said if that were necessary. In her place, woman is most beautiful and admirable — in devotedness especially. Out of her place, she may become the most effective tool of Satan for the ruin of men. It was "that woman Jezebel" that was suffered in the Church at Thyatira, to teach and to seduce Christ's servants, introducing into the circle of God's saints doctrines and corrupting influences of the worst type, seen in their full fruition in the Church of Rome to-day. And in a later day women have had prominent part in systems of error, far removed from Rome externally, but in some respects quite as insubject to Scripture and as wicked as the one designated as "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth."

In contrast, and as a beautiful example to the godly, is the aged Anna, of whom Scripture gives this worthy account: "She was the daughter of Phanuel (i.e. Penuel, the face of God), of the tribe of Aser (happy) . . . and departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayers night and day." She joined the venerable Simeon in his thanksgiving to God for His gift of the infant Christ, "and spake of Him to all that looked for redemption in Jerusalem." As has been remarked, she gave her testimony, not in the congregation of the Lord, but in the temple. She had indeed seen "the face of God," and was in consequence "happy," not in public ministry, but personal testimony to the Lord, her Saviour.

Go and do likewise, Christian woman, and you too shall be "happy" — happy in the smile of God's approval now, and by and by, at the "judgment seat of Christ," with the word of His approval, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant; enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." Amen!

Strange Doctrine Concerning the Dead

Strange Doctrine Concerning the Dead

A recently published book entitled, “Can the Dead Communicate with the Living?” contains, along with much that is good, some very grave errors. The subject treated is one of great interest in the public mind just now, so the book is likely to be widely read; The author, Dr. I. M. Haldeman, is widely and favourably known as an able writer on evangelistic and prophetic subjects; it was therefore a painful surprise to find in the book most glaring errors as to the condition of the dead, both of the righteous and of the wicked. This calls for exposure, that saints may be warned, and thus put on their guard.

The book contains many minor errors and unscriptural statements leading up to the principal one at the last, the final condition of the wicked dead after the resurrection.

Among these lesser errors are the following:

(1) “Abyss in the New Testament signifies hades” (p. 13). That the terms are not synonymous, a careful consideration of the passages (found with a Greek concordance) will show, The soul of Christ was in hades (Acts 2: 27), but in the abyss, where Satan is to be cast, never! (Rev. 20: 3).

{*The Greek word ὰβυδδος (Abyss, the pit) is used in the following passages: Luke 8: 31; Rom. 10: 7; Rev. 9: 1, 2, 11; 11: 7; 17: 8; 20: 1, 3.

** άδης (Hades) in the following: Matt. 11: 23; 16: 18; 10: 15; 16: 23; Acts 2: 27, 31; l Cor. 15: 55; Rev. 1: 18; 6: 8; 20: 13, 14.}

(2) Again, “Demons are the souls of persons who once lived on this earth” (p. 12). “As the spirits who infested the man of Gadara plead that they might not be sent into the deep, as the deep is hades; and as only the souls who once lived on earth and died could go there, then these demons were the disembodied souls of human beings; and as they were disembodied spirits, then they had already been in hades, and were pleading with the Lord that he would not send them back” (pp. 15-16). These statements, dogmatically uttered, are so manifestly contrary to sound judgment, based on Scripture, that no comment is required to show their untrustworthy character.

(3) “The unclean spirit,” going out of a man, in Matthew 12, he makes to be the soul of a sinner leaving his body at death! And he takes the passage as proof that the wicked dead can, and sometimes do, return to earth. Here are his words: “Yet He (Christ) is giving the description of an actual fact, and corroborates the statement that the wicked dead can come out of hades, enter in and dwell in the bodies of men as their houses” (p. 18). But the unclean spirit says, “I will return into thy house from whence I came out. If this is the soul of a man who has died in his sins, how is it possible that he could, after leaving his body, re-enter it with seven other spirits more wicked than himself, “and dwell there?” Was his corpse the “house” to which he returns? Would Dr. Haldeman tell us?

(4) “They break out of hades as prisoners break out of jail. They are jail-breakers,” (p. 18). Amazing statement! If the wicked dead may escape from hades, how does he explain the words of Abraham to the rich man in hades, in Luke 16: “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come: from thence.” The “great gulf” was “fixed” There was no chance to break jail there — the abode of souls: of the wicked dead. And Mr. Haldeman himself says of Lazarus, “He cannot leave his place of rest” (p. 33). How then, anymore, can the spirits of the wicked leave their place of confinement? By what means did they break jail? Was God, like Baal, “sleeping?” Even Satan, at the end of the thousand years, does not “break jail,” or escape, he “shall be loosed out of his prison,” it distinctly says (Rev. 20: 7). The power that imprisoned him deliberately and designedly sets him free. Such imaginings savour more of the movies than the sober statements of the Word of God.

(5) Mr. Haldeman says of Satan, “The Lord God appointed him to be prince of this earth when it was first created” (p. 37). Possibly; but it is an entirely gratuitous assertion, without one word of Scripture to back it up. It is at best, conjecture, yet he makes the statement a confidently as one would say, “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

(6) He says further of Satan: “In justification of himself he accused the Lord, as afterward he accused Him before man. In becoming the accuser of God he became — the Devil; for ‘devil’ signifies ‘accuser’” (p. 37). Where did he learn this — that Satan, before he accused Him before man, was the accuser of God? This is another wild conjecture, which borders on the profane, or “old wives’ fables.”

(7) Speaking of what happened to the earth when Satan and his angels sinned (he is certain that it occurred here on earth), Dr. Haldeman says, “Jarred from its original orbit about the sun, it floated into space a black, drowned, sunless, silent thing, like a funeral convoy” (p. 38). This is very poetic, but is it the truth? Whence obtained he this “inside” information? Has he become wiser than Scripture — or the astronomers?

(8) Satan is also represented as suggesting to Adam, by way of temptation, that, “He could create a race in his own image, and fill the world” (p. 39). But was not the man expressly commanded by God to, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth?” (Gen. 1: 28). This is not only rash, but baldly unscriptural.

(9) “The ‘outer darkness’ of Scripture,” he says, “is the zone outside the earth’s atmosphere, between it and the atmospheric enclosures of the other planets in the starry universe” (pp. 38-39). Again we ask, astonished, “Where hath he this knowledge?” Not from Scripture, certainly, for the Book of God knows nothing of such disclosures.

(10) Of Adam, he says, “He was not created to be an animal working with tools, but as the enthronement of God he should have spoken and it would have been done; he should have commanded, and it would have stood fast” (p. 40). But do we not read in Scripture, “And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and keep it”? (Gen. 2: 15). Was he to cultivate it without the use of tools? Are these the statements of a sober mind — a mind subject to Scripture? And when he attributes to Adam unfallen the creatorial prerogative of God, he comes perilously near the verge of blaspheming. Was not the very temptation set before him by Satan, “Ye shall be as gods?” If he had already possessed such creatorial powers, as ascribed to him by Mr. Haldeman, where would be the force of the devil’s temptation?

(11) The “bottomless pit” (the abyss), into which Satan is to be confined for a thousand years, he takes to be hades, without a hint of its being this in all the Word of God (p. 42). Milton we can understand in this, as a poet, untaught in Scripture; but coming, as it does, from Dr. Haldeman, we know not what to think.

(12) Imagining the “angels” of 1 Corinthians 11: 10 to be wicked spirits, Mr. Haldeman says, For “this cause (on account of her constitutional relationship to man) ought the woman to have a veil on her head because of the angels” (p. 43). The parenthesis is his own explanation of “for this cause;” then he concludes with these puerile words as to those spirits, “They are full of impish curiosity. They listen . . . they can hear the secrets of a family,” etc., (p. 43). All this savours of a highly imaginative and unbridled mind, which might be borne with; or gently censured; but now, when he comes to speak of the condition of the wicked dead, and express his conception of eternal punishment, it becomes a matter of gravest concern, and the teaching to be rebuked as of man’s mind, unsubject to God’s Word.

Eternal punishment is no more to him than disembodiment. The wicked are to be raised, judged, and cast into the lake of fire, where their bodies will be consumed, leaving them in a discarnate condition — naked spirits. This will be their “torment” for ever. “He must suffer,” he says, “his abnormal condition of disembodiment” (p. 92). And to explain why the Christian dead do not suffer because of their present disembodied state, he says, “When the Christian dies, he finds his articulation with the body of Christ realized; as out of that body he has received his spiritual life and nourishment while on earth, so the moment of disembodiment he finds the body of his Lord a resource in sustaining his new condition” (p. 92). Highly fantastic this, to say the least. We might almost imagine we were reading something from “Science and Health.” But see page 92.

The demoniac’s “legion” he makes to be discarnate human spirits. Commenting on their words, “Art Thou come to torment us before the time?” he says. “As torment to them meant disembodiment, and they had previously been disembodied by death; as this embodiment in living, other persons was temporary, it could refer only to another period of disembodiment, and therefore to a period of embodiment of their own before that” (p. 94).

Describing in his inimitably graphic way the last resurrection and great white throne judgment, he says, “The sentence which previously condemned them to disembodiment will be confirmed” (p. 95). Again, “Their bodies will be consumed;” and yet again, “As the body will be destroyed, and the soul will never cease to exist; as after the death of the body [in the lake of fire?] there will be no resurrection, then the soul will remain in a state of disembodiment forever. The soul will be an eternal ghost.” And finally (though there is much more of the same kind), “This is the eternal and unquenchable fire against which the Son of God so intensely warns” (p. 98).

Painful reading all this is to one abiding by God’s Word. It is another way than those of Mrs. Eddy, Mrs. Ellen G. White and “Pastor” Russell, to explain away the real eternal punishment of the Bible, “the lake of fire where the beast and the false prophet are cast, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever” (Rev. 20: 10), and which the finally impenitent share with Satan. If this punishment is merely to be discarnate, how will it operate on Satan, who is a spirit?

And if the fire is intended merely to destroy the resurrected body, why raise the wicked at all? Why not just continue to confine them in their present disembodied condition in hades, and see that no more of them “break jail”? And why speak of fire in hades now, if “the eternal fire” is just to consume the resurrection body?

A final question: Matthew 25: 41 says if the wicked are to suffer the same punishment as “the devil and his angels,” how can this punishment be a mere discarnation, when such a mode of punishment could not possibly be applied to Satan and the wicked spirits?

No, the doctrine of Mr. Haldeman’s book need but be stated to be refused by every one who would be guided by the Word of God. It is a painful task to expose such pernicious teachings, coming as they do from a “brother beloved,” one whose writings in the past have been helpful to many, but who now appears to allow his lively imagination, alas! to carry him off his feet. But God’s Word casts down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and brings into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10: 5). Let us keep to the safe statements of Scripture, and not seek to “be wise above that which is written.” Let us turn away from novel or startling conjectures concerning things spiritual, but “hold fast the form of sound words.”

C.Knapp

“His leaf also shall not wither&rdquo

“His leaf also shall not wither”

We were recently journeying through the interior of Guatemala, Central America. It was the “dry” season and there was scarcely a bit of green to be seen. Mountain, valley, and plain were alike dry and parched with the tropical heat, and it seemed as if a match struck anywhere would set the whole country in a blaze. After more than one hundred miles of this colourless scenery the constant sight of burnt and apparently dead vegetation became almost painful. But the absence of anything to relieve the eye was not total. Here and there was to be seen a rich green shrub or tree, standing out in all its living freshness from the background of withered and leafless bush around it. Its nature must have been markedly different from that of the other vegetation. Some of these shrubs were covered with the most beautiful golden yellow blossoms; and we thought, as we looked with pleasure at them, of the Christian as he is, or might, or should be in this desert world. All about him is spiritual death and fruitlessness; ready to be consumed by the fire of judgment, at the kindling of the wrath of a long-suffering and long-insulted God.

But as God looks down from heaven upon it all, who will say that His eye finds no pleasure in the freshness and fruitfulness of His saints! Oh, may our “leaf” not “wither.” We have a nature given us that can and does, live when all around is death. And we are as plants set to bud and blossom for the pleasure of our God in the midst of a scene where there is everything to grieve His Holy Spirit and provoke Him to His strange work of judgment.

But how can the Christian keep fresh and green in the midst of the surrounding dearth and death?

Thank God! The Lord Jesus has been here and has left us an example that we should walk in His steps.

He grew up before God as a tender plant — “a plant of renown;” He was the one living root out of a dry ground; and though men saw no beauty in Him, He was the Father’s well-beloved in whom was all His delight.

He it is who was “like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season,” and whose “leaf also shall not wither” (Ps. 1). For ‘His delight was in the law of the Lord; and in His law [did] He meditate day and night.’

Let this same blessed law — the Word of God — be thy food and meditation, O child of God, then shalt thou grow and keep green; and though no other eye finds pleasure in thy freshness and fruit, God’s eye will behold it.

“We’ve now to please but One.”

C.Knapp

The Little Foxes

“The Little Foxes”

The railway from Mexico City on the central plateau, 8,000 feet above sea-level, down to Vera Cruz on the Gulf, is a most wonderful engineering enterprise. About 60 miles of the line extend through the mountain region between the coast and the great Mexican plateau. This portion of the road has an average grade of 2½ feet in 100, or 133 feet to the mile, carried along the flanks of lofty mountains, through long tunnels and over bridges spanning deep ravines, affording the grandest and most picturesque scenery. When it is remembered that only one foot in the hundred is usually allowed in ordinary railroad building, some idea may be obtained of the difficulties and dangers attending the descent of this line. A traveller, commenting on the risks attending travel on this portion of the road, says “Few accidents, however, have occurred; no doubt because they have been so constantly anticipated. It is when men are heedless from a sense of perfect safety that real danger lies — not in the iron bridge watched carefully from hour to hour, but in the little culvert or the loosened rail.”

Is not this the secret of many a fall among the saints of God? Is it not the little, the unlooked-for things, which find them off their guard, that cause their fall? The great outstanding sins of the world around them, sins “open before-hand, going before to judgment,” are seldom charged against them. But decline begins with little things usually — in habits indulged, a questionable practice followed, it may be in business, in private life, at school, or factory, the shop, the farm. It is in these small beginnings that real danger often lies; it is here that a downward spiritual course usually has its beginning.

“Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil (rob) the vines,” is the exhortation found in Song of Solomon 2: 15 — those cunning little animals that do the mischief unperceived. “Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!” the apostle James declares, emphasizing his warning with the exclamatory, “Behold!” For, be assured, Christian reader, the danger is very real. We need to be constantly on our guard against “hidden dangers, snares unseen.” I know of a case in which a shameless course, requiring exclusion from the Lord’s table, commenced by attending “just one movie.” It was the spark which set “on fire the course of nature.” Another began by taking a “little nip” now and then. If “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty” in the political world, how much more in spiritual things in which Satan’s wiles are encountered! We must be ever on our guard, for the flesh within us so easily responds to temptations; and prayer must be coupled with watching, for has not our faithful Leader cautioned us, “Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation?”

“Few accidents have occurred,” says the traveller, “because they have been constantly anticipated.” And fewer falls by far would occur among the heavenward pilgrims if falls were feared, dreaded, and borne in mind as a possibility. “It is when men are heedless from a sense of perfect safety that real danger lies.” Yes; and it is when saints indulge in a sense of false security — their long experience, perhaps, or their knowledge of Scripture, previous triumphs over temptations, natural strength of will, freedom from carnal desires, etc. — those often give an ill-founded sense of security, and self-judgment, constant prayer and watchfulness are no longer considered necessary; then comes the derailment, the fall!

O fellow-believer, shall we rock ourselves to sleep because of our Shepherd’s everlasting love, and our Father’s almighty hand? Shall we for this have no concern as to our walk, our habits, our words, the company we keep, or the places we go to? Nothing can “separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord;” let us thank God for that! But it gives me no guarantee that I may not fall by the way, nor warrants me in letting up in constant watchfulness against every approach of worldliness or sin.

Yes, the “great iron bridge” of the true believer’s eternal security stands; but let us watch the “little culverts,” and be on the lookout for the inconspicuous, unsuspected, “loosened rail.” Here is where we are most exposed to shipwreck of faith, getting off the track, and landing broken and ruined in some gulch or quagmire by the way.

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom be may devour” (1 Pet. 5: 8). And remember, he is more dangerous still when he stealthily comes as “an angel of light.”

C.Knapp

Musical Instruments in the Lord's Service

Musical Instruments in the Lord's Service

In view of the spreading desire for the use of musical instruments in our halls and meeting rooms, the following remarks on the subject from one to whom “Brethren” as a body owe probably more than to any other, may prove stabilizing to those who may be undecided on this not unimportant question.

Speaking of the High Church party in the Church of England during the last century, and their efforts to draw souls into their ranks by showy and attractive services, he says,

“Let it be noted, that this display is not to win to hear the truth, no ‘catching with guile,’ as people have falsely applied this text; nor even what Dissenters and Presbyterians do, or are anxious to do, namely, have organs and good singing to attract, and then present Christ (itself an unholy and evil practice, and savouring of priestcraft), but they are to be attracted thus to worship” (Coll. Writ, of J. N. D, Vol. 15, p. 466).

Here we have this man of God’s estimate of the use of “organs and good singing” to attract the crowds, even when the object is to hold up Christ before them — the very plea put forth today for the introduction of such methods with us. No one objects to good singing as that which comes from hearts happy in the Lord. But when the effort is made to have the singing “good” after a worldly sort, by the use of musical instruments, accompanied by quartets or choirs selected for the purpose, it becomes, as Mr. Darby deliberately judges, “an unholy and evil practice.”

He was not alone in this appraisement of music as a means of attracting people in to hear the gospel; trusted teachers among us since the beginning shared the same judgment, and it is late in the day to revise our judgment formed by the ministry of such men. But as worldliness increases in other things we see its manifestation with us in the use of instruments as well. The evangelical denominations, in their earliest and best days eschewed the use of musical instruments in their simple services; but as time passed and the mass left their “first love,” organs, at first protested against by the more spiritual, were introduced. Choirs followed, then concerts and entertainments, ending with the world controlling the church and Modernism now claiming a place in it! And it is not because “Brethren” have become more spiritual that instruments are called for now, but the reverse.

As a mere help to keep the singing in line, one might not object so strongly to them (though even here it is safest to keep away from the danger of its abuse); but when designed to make services more attractive, or a bait to draw in the people, it becomes as Mr. Darby has stated, “an unholy and evil practice.”

The following from the pen of Mr. H. A. Ironside, in his Lectures on Daniel, pages 47-50, is in line with the above, and is given one’s hearty endorsement. “The special place given to the great orchestra is very noticeable; as much so as in large worldly religious gatherings at the present time. It excites the emotions, and thus, working upon the feelings, gives people a sense of devotion and religiousness, which after all may be very unreal. In the Old Testament dispensation musical instruments were used in the ornate temple services; but there is certainly no warrant for it in the New Testament. People may call it worship to sit and listen to a trained, and possibly unconverted, choir and orchestra rendering sweet and touching strains; but music simply acts upon the sensuous part of our natures, and has nothing to do with true adoration of the Father and the Son, which must be in spirit and truth to be acceptable to God. Those who plead for its use, because of the place it had in Old Testament times, should remember that that was a typical dispensation. . . A minister once remarked to me that many aesthetic persons attended his church to worship God in music; so he sought to have the best performers and the finest music it was possible to obtain, as otherwise the people would not attend. What a delusion is all this!”

Yes, what a delusion! Let saints and servants of the Lord take heed, therefore, and eschew anything approaching to “strange fire” in either the worship or service of the Lord. Let the Word be preached earnestly and faithfully, yea, fervently; and let believing, persevering prayer be made to God for its success; let saints sing heartily, and correctly, as the Lord may enable them; let them not only attend the meetings in person but do what in them lies to bring others with them — especially the unsaved. Then sinners will be saved, saints will be edified, and best of all, God glorified. But if we attempt to copy the world-church about us, and stoop to means not sanctioned by Scripture, we shall find the tone of all the meetings lowered, the reading meetings more scantily attended, and the prayer meetings less loved.

C.Knapp

Seraiah, the Man of Rest

Seraiah, the Man of Rest

“The word which Jeremiah the Prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with (or, on the behalf of, marg.) Zedekiah the king of Judah into Babylon in the fourth year of his reign. And this Seraiah was a quiet prince. So Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that should come upon Babylon, even all these words that are written against Babylon. And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words; then thou shalt say, O Lord, Thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but it shall be desolate for ever. And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates: and thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall rise no more from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah” (Jer. 51: 59-64).

Seraiah, if not the same personage under another or secondary name, was, at any rate, brother to Baruch, as Jeremiah 32: 12 clearly indicates (“Baruch the son of Neriah, the son of Maaseiah”).

He accompanied, or was sent on behalf of, Zedekiah to Babylon. It was probably the latter, as there is no scripture record of Zedekiah himself having gone to the Chaldean capital at this time; and Calvin translates, “when he went on behalf of Zedekiah.” It is supposed that he was sent on this embassy by his master to allay or quiet the suspicions of Nebuchadnezzar when that prince was already treacherously plotting against his authority, in collusion with the kings of Edom, and Moab, and Amman, and Tyrus and Sidon (see Jer. 27).

This Seraiah was a quiet prince, we are told, or “a man of rest” (cf. 1 Chr. 22: 9). “I find no rest,” was the conclusion of Baruch’s complaint (Jer. 45: 3). How many today are like him. “Ye shall find rest unto your souls,” is the promise of that adorable Master whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light. So few find rest because they refuse or fail to take His yoke of submission upon them and learn of Him those lessons of self-abnegation and disinterested service with which His unique and holy life abounded.

A close study of the story of the mission of Seraiah to Babylon will, we believe, reveal to us the secret of his restfulness of spirit; and it will at the same time disclose the reason why so many among the children of God today find their prototype in Baruch, who found no rest, rather than in the man of rest, Seraiah. The clue to the situation is found wrapped up in the command of Jeremiah to the Hebrew envoy; in it, we believe, is contained the source or foundation of Seraiah’s rest. For so the words of the prophet to him are described — it is termed a command, “When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words,” he says. He was going, duly accredited, to the gay, brilliant court of the mightiest monarch on earth. As a prince he would be accorded all the privileges and distinctions due his rank. And accustomed as he was to the almost rustic simplicity of his own master’s court he would be in great danger of being captivated by great Babylon’s pomp and magnificence. It would very naturally appeal strongly to him; and the surest safeguard against being bewitched or influenced in the least by it was in obeying the command of God by the prophet to him. On his arrival at the gay capital, when he saw its dazzling magnificence, and read its doom in the book he carried with him, he was to confess his intelligence as to its certain and soon destruction by saying, “O Lord, Thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate forever.” And then, to make the prophecy the more vivid, he was ordered to bind a stone to the book and cast it into the river Euphrates; and there, standing by the waters’ brink, as both stone and roll sank beneath the swirl of its rushing tide, he was commanded to proclaim, “Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her.” And appended to this graphic prediction of the great city’s fall are the five strikingly significant words, “And they shall be weary!” They form a fitting finale to the prophet’s testimony, the last word concerning great Babylon’s vaunted wealth and glory and power.

How instructive all this is to our own souls here and now, living as we do in the midst of a Babylon greater and more bewitching by far than that builded by Nebuchadnezzar of old. The world about us is all a-glitter with a glory and possessed of a charm that even the Christian if not on his guard, is apt to be influenced by, if not entirely carried away with it. He sees spread before him, like Seraiah at the Chaldean court, the “lust of the eye,” and the “pride of life”; and the flesh within him, though crucified with its affections and lusts, is not actually dead; Eyegate is still an avenue by which the enemy of Mankind would enter. But we, like Seraiah, have placed in our hands a Book; and in this Book, “God’s Word written,” we have told us distinctly and repeatedly this great world-Babylon’s doom. “Reserved unto fire,” we see everywhere written across its most treasured possessions and over its most attractive allurements. We read its doom long since pronounced by Him for whom it has no place, “Now is the judgment of this world.” This breaks the spell of its witchery for faith. Knowing the certainty of its destruction, the Christian is kept from harbouring in his heart its love. Like Seraiah he is sent into it with a message; he is commissioned to declare its doom; his business here is to be a witness against it; but more, he is what Seraiah could not be, an “ambassador for Christ” to proclaim pardon to its dwellers, on condition of their repentance towards God and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.

And doing this his heart has rest; it is immune from the burning fevers of its lusts, its crazy pleasures, its mad ambitions, its wild dreams, its groundless hopes of better days to come. He is, like Baruch’s princely brother, “a man of rest.” “I find no rest,” was Baruch’s complaint; and he found no rest because he sought something for himself in a land that was devoted to destruction (Jer. 45: 5). Seraiah was “a man of rest,” because he bowed to the judgment of God concerning the city to which he was sent. “They shalt be weary,” God had said, and Seraiah knew it to be so.

Christian reader, are you “a man of rest”? Have you found “rest unto your soul”? The vast majority of believers in Christ have not; and why? why their disquietude, their lack of a settled calm in the midst of trying circumstances, sickness, loss of property, want of success in business, and the thousand and one things of life that harrow the heart, and torment the soul, and from which none may hope to escape — for none are promised immunity? The answer is simple — it is wrapped in allegorical form in the story of these brothers, Baruch and Seraiah. Most Christians have a mind fashioned more after the pattern of Baruch than that of Seraiah; they are ambitious, they hope for something in life apart from, or in addition to, Christ. They do not in their hearts really submit to the judgment of God pronounced in His word against this world; and they consequently seek something here in this scene of sin, either for themselves or for their children. And these things are not always evil in themselves; nor is the mere possession of them wrong or inconsistent in a child of God; it is in the seeking of them that the evil lies. “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that will I seek for” confessed the psalmist. This was not anything of earth, but that he might dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of his life (not just to go to heaven when he died), to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to inquire in His temple (Ps. 27: 4). It was a purely spiritual ambition, he coveted earnestly what it is lawful for us all to long for. And this brings rest, this maintains the soul in quiet and unbroken calm in the midst of a groaning, toiling, restive world, never satisfied, and altogether unbelieving concerning the judgment hanging over its head, or the suppressed volcano boiling for vent beneath it.

The conclusion of the prophet’s pronouncement against great Babylon and her inhabitants is this: “So that the peoples will have laboured in vain, and the nations for the fire: and they shall be weary” (Jer. 52: 58, N.T.). And this is just the poor mad world’s occupation and condition today — they are labouring in vain, their dreams of universal, permanent peace and disarmament, their enjoyment of a golden age without Christ and conversion, are only dreams, and destined never to be realized. Their statesmen, their reformers, their social waiters, their builders, all are but labouring for the fire, and weariness, utter weariness, and disappointment is their predicted portion. And knowing this, how can the Christian enter into the spirit of it and allow himself to share its groundless hopes and unhallowed (because unscriptural) aspirations?

The Lord in His grace give us all to be like the man of rest, Seraiah, happy in the knowledge of a portion above, with Christ; and satisfied with this, to labour, not for the fire nor yet in vain, for we know that our labour is not in vain in the Lord (1 Cor. 15: 58). Strangers here, and envoys of the Almighty to a world whose sins cry loudly for vengeance, may we be kept from every ambition but to please Him.

C.Knapp

The Woman of Worth

The Woman of Worth

“Who can find a virtuous woman?” or “worthy woman”, or “woman of worth”, as some would read it. The word virtuous here is elsewhere translated ‘worthy’ (see Ruth 4: 11; 1 Kings 1: 52). It means, according to the lexicons, able, valorous; or embraces, perhaps, something of the meaning of all three words — virtuous, valorous, able. Such a woman who can find? “for her price is far above rubies” — the most precious gem known to the ancients. The acquisition of such a treasure is beyond all price; a wife of this description cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. It cannot be valued with the gold of Ophir, with the precious onyx, or the sapphire. The gold and the crystal cannot equal it; and the exchange of it shall not be for jewels of fine gold. No mention shall be made of coral, or of pearls, for she is herself a pearl, and a type of her who is to Christ the “pearl of great price”: His loved and blood-bought Church. The topaz of Ethiopia shall not equal the worth of such a woman.

The description of the model wife here is in the form of an acrostic, embracing as it does the whole Hebrew alphabet of twenty-two letters. Christ Himself is “the Alpha and the Omega” (the A to Z, in English), exhausting human language, as it were, in the attempt to tell the infinite glories of His person — His moral excellences, coupled with His might, His majesty, His dominion, His grace, His justice and His truth. And here, in this description of her who is intended to represent His church, His spouse, the whole gamut of the alphabet is run to express her moral and domestic virtues and womanly excellences.

Seven things — the perfect number — are specifically noted of her.

1. Her faithfulness (vv. 11-12);

2. Her industry (vv. 13-15);

3. Her thrift (vv. 16-19);

4. Her benevolence (v. 20);

5. Her providence (vv. 21-25);

6. Her moral excellences (vv. 26-27); and

7. Her reward (vv. 28-31).

Let us briefly note these points of excellence one by one, beginning with the mark of most importance, namely,

HER FAITHFULNESS; faithfulness to her absent lord. “The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her.” We say absent husband, for he is evidently considered as being away from home here, and how fittingly this figures our Lord in the time of His absence now from earth. He is, like the nobleman of the parable, gone to a far country to receive for Himself a kingdom and to return, and in His absence His heart can safely trust in her whom He has left to look after His interests till He comes again.

It is His heart, mark, that trusts in her — the seat of the affections. It is not so much His goods and her care for them that He is most concerned about, but her love; this is what He prizes above all. For what would be the industry, the thrift, and all else, without this initial good and basic spring of all the rest?

His heart doth safely trust in her. It is no misplaced confidence — she will not deceive or disappoint him. “She will do him good, and not evil, all the days of her life”.

This loyal wife’s opposite is seen in the woman of impudent face of chapter 7. Her husband, too, was absent: “The good man is not at home” she tells her yielding victim; “he is gone a long journey. He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed”. Her husband, too, trusted her, perhaps, but he did not safely trust — she shamefully deceived him. She proved herself untrue, like that which calls itself “the one true church” today, Rome, to an extreme degree, and her Protestant ‘daughters’ in ever-increasing measure. The great harlot of Revelation 17 is the final form of this base betrayal of the temptress.

But where, it may be asked, can this lovely characteristic of faithfulness to Christ be seen today? And a question it must remain, alas! The picture is ideal, collectively; there is not an assembly or body of Christians anywhere on earth that would not be compelled in truthfulness to say, It is not in me.

Yet, let it be the aspiration of the individual soul to answer, in some small measure, at least, to the description, not only of this primary and best-beloved trait of the woman of worth but also in all that follows.

HER INDUSTRY is noted next: “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchant’s ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens”. In Christ Jesus it is “faith which worketh by love”. The loving partner here works ‘willingly’, or with delight, as Young translates it. True love must be active while there is one single need of its object that remains to be met — it must be up and doing for the object of its affections. “The labour of love” is never drudgery, but rather a delight, as here.

The model woman has a house to keep. “Chaste keepers at home”, is the expressed command of God concerning women who would please Him (see Titus 2: 5). She does not gad about, engaged in social settlement work, thrusting herself into the public affairs of the world, or demanding equal rights with the men for her sex. Her labours are purely domestic; and it in this circle that she finds her hands happily and ever full, as every true wife and mother most surely will. Food and clothing for her household occupy her fully — the preparation of wool and flax for the distaff and loom, and meat for her household; she apportions work also for her maid servants, suffering none to dwell with her in idleness.

And the church of Christ — is it her business to mix herself in politics? to wish to govern the world, or even to attempt to mould or influence public opinion. No; her sphere is elsewhere, and her work is of a different character altogether. She has the affairs of her household to look after — “the household of faith”, to feed them with the children’s bread and to see that they are properly clothed with practical righteousness, and adorned with the goodly “garment of praise”.

The church, of course, strictly speaking, does not do these things; as has been often remarked, the church does not teach, but is herself taught. But each member does, or is supposed to do, its share; and so the work is done, if not by the church collectively (or as some would say, officially), by the individuals, who in the aggregate compose the church. “She bringeth her food from afar.” It is meat to eat that the world knows nothing of — “bread of heaven”, Christ ministered in the power of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven. The expression “food from afar” reminds us of the words of Moses in his song before all the congregation of Israel: “My doctrine shall drop as the rain, and my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass” (Deut. 32: 2). “I will fetch my knowledge from afar”, says the inspired Elihu, in Job 36: 3. “The children’s bread” is not fable or tradition, cunningly devised and craftily inculcated, but “sound doctrine” drawn from the inerrant Word, the Holy Scriptures, inspired of God. “Nourished in the words of faith, and of good doctrine”, answers to the “food from afar”, “the meat to her household”, of this diligent “woman of worth” (see 1 Tim. 4: 6).

Closely coupled with the ideal wife’s industry is . . .

HER THRIFT; “She considereth a field, and buyeth it; with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good; her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff”. She is aggressive, enlarging her husband’s domain — buying fields and planting them to vineyards.

Oh, for more of this spirit of aggression among the saints to-day — that we might be “a missionary church”, indeed, reaching out to “the regions beyond” us, covetous for further fields of conquest.

The field was first considered — there was exercise. She did not act on the impulse of the moment, but only bought it after calm and careful deliberation (see Luke 54: 28). Then the price was paid, the purchase made. Some lands of earth are inherited; but every square inch of territory acquired by the ‘church militant’ must be bought, and dearly paid for, often — in toil and tears, treasure, and sometimes blood, even life itself.

After being bought it must be ‘planted’ with witnesses, assemblies, or individuals, to bring forth fruit unto God. For this, strenuous work is demanded — loins must be girded and arms strengthened, “strong in the Lord and the power of His might”.

Such happy service for the Lord whets the appetite for more: “She perceiveth that her merchandise is good”; she sees the profit there is in labour for the absent, but returning, good Man. Night comes on, but her candle still burns. It was said above, “She riseth also while it is yet night”. It is now the night of our Lord’s rejection and no time for sleeping. But the morning dawns, thank God. “The night is far spent, the day is at hand”, the watchman calls. May the little candle of our testimony not be allowed to grow dim or go out, brethren, but shine on “till the day dawn and the shadows flee away”.

HER BENEVOLENCE is noted next; it is not niggardliness, or because she is selfishly covetous, that she pursues the practice of thrift and industry, but that she may have to give to others: “She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy”. This is the spirit inculcated in the church of the Ephesians by the apostle Paul: “Let him that stole steal no more; but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” (Eph. 4: 28).

And, to apply it in a still more spiritual way, think of the devoted apostle himself, toiling night and day “enduring all things for the elects’ sake, that they might also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory”. What self-abnegation, what love for others — the souls of the really poor and the needy. He impoverished himself for others: “As poor,” he says, “yet making many rich.” He was indeed a philanthropist in the truest and highest sense of that word — the New Testament counterpart of that generous, benignant soul whose goodly ways and character we are analyzing here, this “woman of worth”, beyond all price. May both his and her spirit characterize us, their spiritual descendants, more and more.

Next to her consideration for the needs of others comes . . .

HER PROVIDENCE — her care for her own. “She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet (or double garments, margin). She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles to the merchant Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come”. A man who provides not for his own, especially for those of his own house, he is worse than an infidel, Scripture assures us (1 Tim. 5: 8). The lauded housewife here does not come under the condemnation of this passage. She has made ample provision for the future of those dependent on her. Not only is she prepared for the days of storm and snow, but “she shall rejoice in time to come”, the delineator of her virtues says. “Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life”, is the apostolic admonition concerning those that are rich in this world (1 Tim. 6: 19). This, in measure, all may do, even if poor in this world’s goods. To lay up for themselves treasure in heaven is the privilege even of those most indigent in the church.

And what is the clothing of scarlet, the fine linen, the coverings of tapestry, her clothing of silk and purple, but the garments ‘clean and bright’ of the bride of Revelation, ‘the Lamb’s wife’, who by her divinely energized providence had ‘made herself ready?’ (Rev. 19). It is “the righteousnesses of the saints” — their personally practised righteousnesses, as distinguished from that imputed righteousness by which alone they stood justified before God. This last is God’s free gift, but the other is of their own prayerful, patient, persevering weaving, though taught and enabled, certainly, by the Holy Spirit.

This will all redound to the praises of the glory of His grace, ‘her Husband’. He will in that day when He shall “be glorified in His saints and admired in all them that believe”, be, indeed, through her, “known in the gates”. Happy, happy day will this be for the now toiling, often weary church — to see Him honoured, and in a certain sense, and in whatever small measure, through her.

Closely akin to her providence are . . .

HER MORAL EXCELLENCES

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.” Her speech is in all wisdom — there is “neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient”. But though in her conversation chaste, she is not austere; for “the law of kindness” is in her tongue. Her conversation is always in grace, yet seasoned with salt. There is a way of speaking which is as the piercings of a sword; and on the other hand there is a class of speech that is all honey. Both extremes are by this favoured woman happily avoided; while kindly in manner and tone, there is no winking at or smoothing over wrong or sin. “She looketh well to the ways of her household” — there is the faithful exercise of discipline in the circle of her own. Some would discard discipline entirely in the church — the house of God. Not so this noble helpmeet of her Husband; she watches carefully the conduct of those beneath her roof and under her authority. And there are those set in the church “who watch for our souls as those that must give account”. “Good, easy man” does not describe the “man of God”; he threatens to come “with a rod”; if remonstrance and loving admonition fail.

She “eateth not the bread of idleness”. The days are evil and it is no tune for ease or idleness. “In diligence not slothful.” As the Israelite in the desert had to rise betimes to obtain the manna, while it was yet early, or go hungry, so must Christians use diligence in the feeding of their souls; they are not permitted to eat the bread of idleness and at the same time prosper in their souls. “In all labour there is profit”, and this worthy wife shall in the end obtain a full reward for her unselfish toil and thoughtfulness for others.

This brings us to the last and final item to this highly advantaged woman’s account —

HER REWARD. “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates”

These encomiums are evidently rendered her after her removal from the scene of her numerous and praiseworthy activities. Toil and care for the welfare of others was the chief element of her useful and unselfish life; now she is gone to her rest and her works do follow her. And her reward is the unstinted, gratefully rendered praise of both her children and her husband. This honour and blessing will be publicly bestowed on the faithful at the judgement-seat of Christ. But even here in time are not the servants of Christ of past generations praised today by those who now profit by their labours — the apostles for their example and writings, and the martyrs and the reformers for their devotedness and willingness to toil and suffer (death, if need be), that the truth of the Gospel might remain with us? Do not we, their spiritual descendants — their ‘children’, in this sense — rise up and call them blessed? Are they not even now being praised by Christ the Lord Himself through all them that because of their testimony have believed?

“Many daughters have done worthily”, but the saints of the present dispensation excel them all; the Christian in a peculiar way is greatly advantaged over the saints of other and past dispensations, excelling, in a manner, even honoured patriarchs and prophets. For it was said of even such an one as John the Baptist — one of the greatest of those born of women, — that he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

Deceitful is worldly favour, and vain is fleshly beauty; “the flesh profiteth nothing”, and the earthly advantages of birth, culture, riches or fame count for nothing in the estimation of the Lord, the righteous Judge, when weighed in the balances of the sanctuary. But the fear of Jehovah, producing and bringing in its train subjection to and affection for Him, this is what alone merits and obtains praise and honourable mention before the coming judgement-seat — ‘the gates’ of Oriental imagery used here.

Yes, ‘the gates’; it is the last word of our acrostic — indeed, the last of the whole Book of Proverbs. Let us not forget them; and may we, by God’s grace, live and labour in the light of that coming day. Amen.

C.Knapp

We believe and are sure

"We believe and are sure."

C. Knapp.

Simple Testimony 1917, p. 8.

"Seeing is believing" is a saying as trite as  it is untrue.

The following occurrence proves how utterly deceived one may be while trusting to what he believes to be the sight of his eyes.

In one of the departments of the University of Kansas some time ago the lecturer stood on a platform addressing a body of some hundred students. Suddenly the front door opened and the janitor of the building came rushing to the front, shouting angrily at the professor, who leaped from the rostrum and met his opponent in the middle of the room. There was a quick interchange of hot words, a struggle ensued which ended with the janitor drawing a revolver. A shot rang out and the two men were with difficulty separated.

When the case was tried all the witnesses swore that it was the janitor who fired the shot, some even testifying that they saw the smoke issuing from the weapon after its discharge.

Will it surprise the reader to be told that it was not the janitor who fired the shot but a man stationed outside the building at an open window? The whole affair was prearranged, an experiment in psychology to test the value of direct evidence before the law students of the University.

And there are many who, in the realm of the spiritual, demand visible demonstration before believing. They ask for what they call tangible proofs; they will receive nothing "on trust," and refuse to believe anything that cannot be discerned by the senses—sight, hearing or touch —their deified trinity, the only god in whom they trust. And in doing this they consider themselves exceedingly astute, and look down with affected pity, and even scorn, on those who have not seen, yet have believed. "Yes," they answer, when it is demanded of them that they have faith in God, "when we see we will believe"; and wise in their own conceits they maintain the ground that they will believe nothing except that which can be demonstrated to the senses.

This they think is rational and safe ground. But is it? Is their attitude toward revealed truth really rational? In view of the above-cited incident, No. Our senses may deceive us, our reasonings are oftentimes faulty; and our deductions are frequently false as our premises are erroneous.

Law students are not, as a rule, easily gulled, nor are they more prone than others to jump at conclusions. Yet in the demonstration arranged for them by their professor they were every one of them deceived; and trusting to the sight of their eyes were ready to declare under oath to be fact that which they afterwards learned to be false.

Yet in view of this (and such mistakes are being made constantly) men, and especially young men, say when spoken to of the verities of Scripture, "Give us proofs, produce for us some direct evidence; we are perfectly willing to believe, but we want to see, hear, touch, taste or handle something to which we may attach our faith." Stupendous folly, when it is every day being demonstrated to us that our natural senses are the very things that we cannot trust. Some are colour-blind, and to the sight of such red appears white, and green looks blue. Some have an impaired taste and to them every bitter thing is sweet, and the sweet bitter. To some the finest music is but discordant noise, while to others (as the heathen chief who heard a famous band play in London some years ago) the big drum is the acme of pleasurable sound. I have known of persons to whom the odour of kerosene oil seemed most delightful perfume! So much for the impaired and perverted senses of fallen man and any real dependence that may be placed upon them.

Except ye see . . . ye will not believe," was the scathing denunciation of the divine Master, "the Author and Finisher of faith," to the unbelieving generation of His day.

Those hundred or more University students saw, or thought they saw, and were deceived and put to shame like gullible children at the trial of the case staged so cleverly for their undoing, as credible witnesses who were sure because they saw.

How then can you know the certainty of those things in which from a child, perhaps, you have been instructed: the great doctrines of the Bible, such as God's existence, the creation, man's fall, the personality of Satan, redemption from sin by Jesus Christ, eternal life for man, the soul's immortality, heaven, hell and other equally important truths? Yes, that is the question. How can you know? by what means may you be sure?

That you cannot implicitly trust your senses is evident. You may have insisted that to believe a thing it must be demonstrated; and it has been demonstrated, by test as fair and full as could be desired, that not one but one hundred clear-headed young men, who were themselves preparing to sift, examine and weigh testimony, could be ludicrously deceived by appearances.

How, then, we repeat, can we know the things of the Bible to be true? Can we know? or shall we take the banal ground of the agnostic and say, We cannot know, no one can tell, it is impossible to be sure? We Christians know; we "know we have passed from death unto life"; "we know we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens"; "I know that my Redeemer liveth," the believer can say (1 John 3: 14; 2 Cor. 5: 1; Job 19: 25). All this and much more we know; and we know it beyond the shadow of a doubt. But how? Well, how was it known by the students finally that it was not the janitor who fired the shot but a man posted for the purpose at a near-by window? It was by credible verbal testimony, the statement of trustworthy men, the word, the assurances of men who they knew would not, in this matter at least, deceive them.

And we believe, not because of visions, revelations, or feelings, nor because by a process of reasoning we have arrived at the conclusion that we may rationally believe, but because God, who cannot lie, has spoken! He has declared these things to be so, and not to believe them would be to make Him a liar, — the extremity of human guilt.

Our faith rests on adequate testimony, the Word of the living God, unchangeable and eternal. And to this the doubter must come if ever he is to arrive at a satisfactory state of mind and heart in reference to the stupendous realities of eternity.

There are evidences, on every hand, many and varied and of the very best; evidences both direct and indirect. The world is full of them, and they may be seen every day; museums of antiquity contain them; evidences of the Bible's veracity are writ large on Egyptian and Assyrian monuments and temples; the ruins of buried cities and the tombs of forgotten kings abound with them, even mummies bearing mute testimony to what the "scripture of truth" declares; and the spade of the excavator brings to light fresh witnesses every year. The natural sciences, astronomy, geology, physiology, anatomy, including even that most exact of all sciences, mathematics, all bear united and harmonious witness to the truth of Scripture, written with "the finger of God."

And in the realm of the moral we have evidence multiplied; at home thousands of men and women reclaimed by the Gospel from lives of degradation, crime and shame; we see saints suffering from incurable diseases, lying helpless year after year on beds of pain, yet rejoicing in hope and patient in tribulation; martyrs die triumphant firm in their confession, preferring torture to deliverance purchased by a denial of their faith; while in the mission-field not only do we see the power and truth of the Gospel manifested in the regeneration of individual savages, but whole districts, islands and archipelagos transformed as if by magic through the influences of the circulation and reception of that book called the Bible.

But all this, though wholly adequate as direct testimony to the truth of Christianity, is not presented for your faith. We have a more sure basis for our belief: God, His word, His testimony, as revealed in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. He speaks, and therefore we believe. It is impossible to be deceived here. It is not necessary to laboriously gather, sift and weigh testimony, or examine witnesses. By the Word of God we know.

"I know whom I have believed and am persuaded," wrote one who ranked with the foremost thinkers of his day: Paul of "much learning" and deepest intellect, yet not faithless, but believing because he had the testimony of Him whose Word is "forever settled in heaven," where shams, deceits and illusions cannot abide, for all there is light and truth and verity.

Yes, "we know." "We know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding" (1 John 5: 20). He is "the truth," as well as "the way" and "the life," and believing in Him we shall never be confounded or put to shame (Rom. 10: 11). C. K.