Newspaper Page Text
September 29, 1909. THE PRESBYTER1
not be punished. And yet, "what son is he whom the
Father chasteneth not '? David's child died. And further,
Nathan told David that "the sword shall never
depart from thy house." It did not depart. It shadowed
his whole life. The experiences of Tamar, of
Amnon, ot Absalom and of Adonijah were a ceaseless
grief to him. And they followed him to his grave.
We can hardly fail to feel that the cry, "Why art thou
cast down, oh my soul"? lingered on his lips unto the
hour of death. Up to the end of life, he could but
. \
anticipate that in generations to follow, the aword
would not depart from his house; for it did not.
Ahaziah perished by the sword of Jehu; Ahaziah's chil
dren died by the hand of Athaliah; and Joash by the
violence of his own servants. While such anticipations
were on the heart of David, he did indeed rest sure
that his sin was pardoned; but how could he have
comfort?
In these events the distressed ones of earth may find
an explanation of their want of comfort. God is using
chastisement. Not in anger, but "for our profit." He
did it unto David because he would make him a "man
after God's own heart." He would fit him to sit on a
heavenly throne alongside of the Lord Jesus. He chastens
us also for our profit. "Without holiness, 110 man
shall see the Lord," and he chastens us "for our profit,
that we may be partakers of his holiness."
If a man has lived in worldliness, and then the Lord
should fail to give him experience of sorrow, might he
not fear that God was not dealing with him as a son?
"Aliens maj' escape the rod," but the true born child
of God must not. And as the hymn says, he "would
not if he might."
There is a difference between the peace of God
and comfort. The peace follows God's pardon. The
comfort follows the termination of the chastisement.
Little chastisement may mean little growth and development
in holiness. But the man. Moses, whom
God was preparing to honor on the Mount of Transfiguration,
was disciplined on earth even to the hour
of his death, and his final petition that he might go over
Jordan was rejected. It was not because God loved him
less, but because God loved him more.
THE MISSIONARY CRISIS IN AFRICA.
The Trial of Morrison and Sheppard.
For several months there has been much prayer by
the Christians of this land in behalf of Messrs. Morri
son and Sheppard, our missionaries in Africa. They
found the natives in that land greviously oppressed by
the representatives of the Congo Free State, or the
commercial agencies chartered by it. They had been
robbed *of their lands, had been compelled to labor
without remuneration, and had suffered the loss of
their right hands (and in some cases of life) if they
tailed to deliver the amount of rubber that was demanded.
Our missionaries reported these things to
the Christian world. Then agents of the government
of Great Britain investigated and found matters even
worse than pur missionaries had reported.
Thp rpnnrts rpcnltfrl in cntna 4.U ?
- ? ^wvtibvu III OUI1IV 11111iLd.Lt \J 11 ui LUC
wrongs; and, by consequence, in some limitations of
the profits of the companies. They then brought suit
for criminal libel against the two missionaries named
. . 4 *
AN OF THE SOUTH. 3
in this article. The punishment might be a fine of fifteen
thousand dollars or it might be imprisonment.
The trial was set for the last of June, but, by reason
of low water in the Congo river, it was impossible for
the government agents to serve notices, or for our missionaries
to reach the place, Leopoldville, where the
trial was to be held. A new date was set, September
24. During the weeks that ensued many prayers have
been made that God would defend his servants.
We hear that the trial has now been held in part. In
the "Augusta Chronicle" of September 23, we read,
that the charges against Rev. W. M. Morrison have
been withdrawn, but that the plaintiffs, (the India
Rubber Company) reserve the right to bring suit later
for damages.
The case aerainst Rev. W. H. Sheooard has been set
for October 4. The statement before us refers to it,
however not as a suit for criminal libel, but only a suit
for six thousand dollars for damages.
We had not expected to hear so soon of the outcome
of the trial. God's people can sec how their petitions
have availed. To him be thanksgiving.
TITUS WAS NOT CIRCUMCISED.
But Timothy Was.
Why did Paul make this distinction between
the two? This question is sent by a correspondent,
who asks for information.
The record concerning the case of Titus is found in
me second cnapter or uaiatians, ana reads tnus: "Jbut
neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was
compelled to be circumcised, and that because of .false
brethren . . who came in privily to spy out our liberty,
which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring
us into bondage." This we understand to refer to the
events which preceded the Council at Jerusalem, which
is recorded in the fifteen of Acts, and which
decided that circumcision was not essential to membership
in the Christian Church.
The record concerning Timothy is found in the earlier
verses of the sixteenth of Acts. It is one of the
events of the second missionary journey of Paul and
is subsequent to the decision of the Council at Jerusalem.
It is in these words: "Then came he to
Derbe and Lystra, and behold a certain disciple was
there, named Timotheus." His mother was a Jewess,
but his father was a Greek. Paul "took and circumcised
him, because of the Jews which were in those
quarters, for they knew all that his father was a
Greek."
What are the distinctions between these cases? Why
should the ordinance be refused in the one case and
be observed in the other?
In the former case, that of Titus, the question of a
demand that he conform to the Mosaic ritual, as a condition
of membership in the Christian Church, was
open and urgent. The Judaizing teachers were insistent
that no one should be recognized among the
disciples unless he had entered through the ordinances
oi juaaism. tsut tne vision ot feter (recorded in the
tenth of Acts, and repeated in the eleventh chapter)
was to the effect that God had granted to the Gentiles
direct access to the privileges of the Church without
the intervention of Jewish ceremonies. When Paul