SECONDLY, we shall examine the claims of the so-called Christian Sabbath.
Christian institutions are peculiar to the gospel of Christ—they are institutions erected by Christ. We have gospel precepts for certain ordinances, such as baptism and the Lord's supper. These are peculiar to the gospel, wherein they are plainly instituted. We might quote to a great length from the best of Protestant writers to prove their general agreement in this, that gospel duties are based only on plain and positive precepts. We cannot say, however, that they are all and always consistent with this declaration, for it is made to meet the Catholics in their argument for tradition. It does not seem to have been made strictly for home use! This principle, applied to Sunday, will rule it out, as not being a gospel institution. There is no precept for its observance; no reason was ever given why it should be observed; no instance of its having been observed. A few inferences, anything but necessary, are all that are ever adduced in its favor. But these can never institute an ordinance; nothing but an express precept will suffice for this.
We have another principle to apply to it which must be decisive. While the gospel enforces morality, it does not originate it. Gospel institutions, therefore, are not moral, but positive. This truth is, and must be, acknowledged by all. We do not mean that positive institutions are not obligatory; they are, but not in the same sense that moral duties are, because we are differently related to them. And this distinction is not merely one in theory; it is universally recognized in practice. This we will show.
Christian ordinances are for the household of faith; not for infidels or disbelievers; while moral duties are of universal application. By a simple statement of facts, of ordinary occurrence, this may be made clear to every mind. Two persons—a young gentleman and a young lady—call upon a minister and ask to have the rite of marriage solemnized. As a matter of professional duty the minister may inquire if they are, or intend to become, followers of Christ. But this is not a requisite to marriage. He will marry them if they are unbelievers, because he recognizes the truth that marriage is not a Christian institution. Marriage was instituted before the fall of man; it was given to the race, and does not belong to any class or nation. It was never restricted to a class. If it were a religious institution there would be no legitimate children except those born in the church. But the Bible will not justify such a position. Doubtless the minister does right in marrying them, though they are not Christians. And for this reason it is proper for legislators to enact laws for the protection of the marriage rite and tie; it is in no sense religious legislation, or legislation for the church. It is for all classes—for the people at large.
But suppose that the same couple return to the same minister and ask to be baptized. Now the question of their belief in Christ is relevant—it is a necessity. Suppose they both declare their entire disregard of Christ and his gospel—will he baptize them? Of course he will not. And why not? Because baptism is a Christian institution, and they are not competent to receive it. But if they cannot be baptized, may they not at least partake of the Lord's supper? Again they are refused. This, too, is a Christian ordinance, and they who reject Christ have no right to observe the institutions of Christ.
This being an accepted fact, we never find the pastors and their flocks asking the legislature to enact laws compelling all classes—believers and unbelievers—to be baptized and to partake of the Lord's supper. So far are they from this, they would reject as a monstrous innovation any legislation to that end by the civil government. As ordinances of Christ—Christian institutions—they may not be the subjects of civil enactments. No church would for a moment accept a law of the State which required infidels to observe these ordinances of Christ. No minister would comply with the terms of such a law if it were enacted. We repeat it: this distinction is clearly defined, easily recognized, and universally accepted in practice.
And now we inquire, In this classification of institutions, where does the Sabbath belong? We have denied and repeatedly asked the clergy of the Protestant churches to make good their position, that the Sabbath is a Christian institution. But we have never succeeded in getting one to argue the position. We declare that there is no such thing as "the Christian Sabbath." It has no existence. We point to the chapter and verse where baptism was commanded; we can show the act of instituting the Lord's supper; but who will show us when, and by whom, a "Christian Sabbath" was instituted? What are the terms in which it was enacted? It has no foundation in the Scriptures. And our Sunday-Sabbath friends virtually acknowledge their weakness on this point by acting inconsistently with their own position. They affirm that their Sabbath is a Christian institution, and then, in contravention of every principle which governs their actions in regard to Christian institutions, they ask the legislature to make and enforce a law to compel infidels and atheists to observe it! To be perfectly consistent they should unite in asking for "a police regulation" in behalf of baptism and the Lord's supper, and thus place all Christian institutions on an equal footing!
While we declare, and produce the proof, that there is no Christian Sabbath, we freely admit that the Sunday-rest is a church institution. It is a creature of the church;—but it is of the Roman church. History fully justifies the claims put forth by the Catholic church in this behalf. This claim we briefly present. In "A Sure Way to Find the True Religion," a Catholic book, is an argument for tradition, in which the following words:—
"The keeping holy the Sunday is a thing absolutely necessary to salvation; and yet this is nowhere put down in the Bible; on the contrary, the Bible says, Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. Ex. 20:8, which is Saturday, and not Sunday; therefore, the Bible does not contain all things necessary to salvation."
In the "Plain Talk about Protestantism," by M. Segur, is the following:—
"It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath [Sunday]—in which, all the Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath which is Saturday. It was the Catholick church, which, by the authority of Jesus Christ has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church."
This is pointed and true. From a Catholic tract we copy the following, being part of an appeal to Protestants on this subject:—
"You tell me that Saturday was the Jewish Sabbath, but that the Christian Sabbath has been changed to Sunday. Changed! but by whom? Who has authority to change an express command of Almighty God? When God has spoken, and, Thou shalt keep holy the seventh day, who shall dare to say, Nay, thou mayest work, and do all manner of worldly business on the seventh day; but thou shalt keep holy the first day, in its stead? This is the most important question, which I know not how you can answer.
"You are a Protestant, and you profess to go by the Bible, and the Bible only; and yet in so important a matter as the observance of one day in seven as a holy day, you go against the plain letter of the Bible, and put another day in the place of that day which the Bible has commanded. The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered, or at least, which you may confidently infer that it was the will of God that Christians should make that change in its observance which you have made. "Now mind, in all this, you would greatly misunderstand me if you supposed I was quarreling with you for acting in this manner on a true and right principle—in other words, a Catholic principle, viz., the acceptance, without hesitation, of that which has been handed down to you by an unbroken tradition. I would not tear from you a single one of those shreds and fragments of divine truth which you have retained. God forbid! They are the most precious things you possess, and by God's blessing may serve as clues to bring you out of that labyrinth of error in which you find yourself involved, far more by the fault of your forefathers, three centuries ago, than by your own. What I do quarrel with you for is, not your inconsistency in occasionally acting on a true principle, but your adoption, as a general rule, of a false one. You keep the Sunday, and not the Saturday; and you do so rightly, for this was the practice of all Christians when Protestantism began; but you have abandoned other Catholic observances, which were equally universal at that day, preferring the novelties introduced by the men who invented Protestantism, to the unvarying tradition of above fifteen hundred years.
"We blame you, not for making Sunday your weekly holiday, instead of Saturday, for rejecting tradition, which is the only safe and clear rule by which this observance can be justified."
And in the "Doctrinal Catechism" of that church we find the following language:—
"Ques. Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Ans. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority."
Now if our Protestant pastors deny this position of "the church," will they please to produce the Scriptural authority? Not fine-spun inferences, but such authority as is demanded in questions of law. Here we might fill pages with admissions that no such authority exists. Dr. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, admits that there is no law for keeping Sunday, but argues for the correctness of it. Argument in the entire absence of law is self-condemnatory. Dr. Scott says it came into practice gradually, without a precept; as did, we add, every traditional innovation. Dr. Matthew Henry says the Sunday was not called the Sabbath in the first two centuries of the Christian era.
We add a century or more to his statement, and are still on safe ground. Dr. Clarke observes an ominous silence in regard to any evidence for a change, which he certainly would not do if the evidence existed. Dr. Heylyn, an eminent historian of the church of England, says there was no law to restrain from labor on the first day of the week in the first three centuries. Constantine's edict is the first which can be produced, A. D. 321, and this has often been referred to as the law of the "first Christian emperor," many overlooking the fact that the emperor had yet made no profession of Christianity when he made this decree. Of this decree Dr. Schaff, in his Church History, says he "enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini [Lord's day], but as dies solis [day of the sun], in conformity to his worship of Apollo." That such is the origin of Sunday consecration is beyond dispute. A late edition of the "Sunday-school Union Bible Dictionary" contains the following:—
"Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun."
Dr. Webster said:—
"The heathen nations in the north of Europe, dedicated this day to the sun, and hence their Christian descendants continue to call the day Sunday."
The Religious Encyclopedia says:—
"The ancient Saxons called it by this name, because upon it they worshiped the sun."
The Douay Catechism says:—
"It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of dies solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred."
We have not space to extend this point. We only add that, inasmuch as we are enjoined to keep God's commandments because he will bring every work into judgment, we would much rather risk our case in the Judgment standing on what God has commanded, than on what he has not, even though all the world may choose the things which God has not commanded.559
With this proof of our statement, that it is a creature of the Roman church, we see the consistency of Justice Morrison in deciding in its favor. Reverence for the church is enjoined as the first consideration with all who acknowledge allegiance to her, and this would lead him, yea, compel him to give the decision he has given. All his educational bias; every feeling of his heart, would coincide with this decision, because his church holds that nations and governments should be in subservience to the church, and enforce the decrees of the church. But his decision is inconsistent with the very instincts of Protestantism—contrary to every principle which it professes. It is a triumph of Catholicism in this professedly Protestant and Christian land, which is well calculated to strengthen the assurance expressed by the declining power at Rome, that what the church is losing in Europe she is gaining in the United States. Protestants, American freemen, may affect to think that this is a small matter; but they may remember that the greatest abuses and usurpations that the world has ever witnessed arose from small beginnings.
The ministry may meet our argument on "the Christian Sabbath" and the nature of Christian institutions with silence,—they may ignore it and act as if no such facts and truths existed, because they are in the majority. Our experience in past efforts to get the truth before them, and our knowledge of the spirit of majorities, and of human nature, gained from our reading of history and the Bible, incline us to fear that this will be the course mostly pursued. But if so it will be additional proof that the spirit of Protestant Christianity is on the wane; that power of majorities, not truth, is the arm on which they depend.
We will conclude our remarks on this subject next week, with a brief examination of the prophecies relating to the approaching warfare against the commandments of God and those who keep them.
A DANGEROUS ERROR.
By Editor
ALL errors are dangerous. But the one to which reference is here made is becoming popular with popular men, and it is correspondingly dangerous. It has been asserted, substantially, by H. W. Beecher, and is fairly the "stock in trade" of Spiritualists. The following is the form of expression given to it by Professor Burgess, of the "First Christian Church" of Chicago, in a recent sermon, as we find it reported in the Tribune:-
"Before Adam ate the apple there was not a moral quality in the world. It may not be very orthodox, and I may startle you to say it, but I had much rather Eve ate the apple than not. Better even sin than nothing. In sinning she possessed a moral quality. Before that she was a nothing, a nonentity, and it was a step forward to act, even though that act was one of disobedience."
It must be evident to every one that before the giving of law to Adam there could be no moral quality in his action. It is not at all supposable, however, that the giving of rules of action was long delayed after his creation. As soon as law was made known to him, that moment his actions began to be measured by the law given. And it must be evident to all that before the time of his disobedience he was only obedient. Now the question arises, Is there no moral quality in obedience? Or, Must a human being sin in order to give moral tone to his actions?
Well might the Professor forewarn his hearers that his theology was not very orthodox. It is absurd in its logic, and highly immoral in its tendency. It is exalting sin and offering a premium on iniquity. We would that eulogies on the sin of Eve might be left to the Spiritualists who have so freely indulged in them. They openly claim that God was the enemy of man, imposing upon him a restriction calculated to keep him in ignorance and imbecility. And what better than this is the doctrine of this learned Disciple Professor? If man had never sinned he would always have remained "a nothing, a nonentity." Shame on such ministers! they strengthen the hands and cheer the hearts of evil-doers, causing them to indulge the vain conceit that they must sin in order to be somebody. This philosophy is about as high-toned as that of the "street gamin," who smokes filthy cigars "to be a man."
When a man preaches such theology as this quoted from Professor B., it is a merit in him to be inconsistent with himself. Mr. Burgess gives a very gloomy representation of the present standing of the race, as follows:-
"For my own part, the greatest puzzle about the whole matter is this: What can God find in the average man worth saving? What is there in man of so much value that he should be willing to give his only begotten Son to die for him? In looking the race over, and in my experience with it, I find the great majority but little raised above the brute creation. Its history is a struggle to get something to eat. Work and strive, and sweat and toil to get a little to eat, and then eat and sleep to get strength to begin the toil again for a little more to eat, and then die. Sin, and sorrow, and shame, evil propensities and passions, and but little good in any. I tell you the outlook is very, very bad. If ever the race gets rid of sin, which is interwoven in its very constitution, it must be created anew, and Christ Jesus alone can do it. This is the only way he can get rid of the guilt of sin already acquired."
Why Mr. Burgess should deplore the present condition of the race, or consider the outlook bad, we cannot imagine, that is, from his own stand-point. If sin is necessary to the development and progress and culture of the race, the outlook is very encouraging, indeed. The race is well-developed in that direction; its progress is almost worthy of a demons, with not one so free from sin as to be classed as "a nothing, a nonentity."
But every Bible reader ought to be able to discover that sin, introduced into the world by our first parents, is the cause of this terrible and disheartening condition of the human family. The disobedience of Eve is not to be commended except by those who are enamored of evil. Sin is always wrong; always insulting and dishonoring to God, and always attended with dire consequences. "The wages of sin is death." This is always and everywhere true. This declaration of justice has had no intermission from Eve clear down to Professor Burgess. And it will stand as a truth to meet the sinner when he has to appear in the Judgment with his heart unreconciled to God, and his sin unforgiven. Happy are they who "fear God and keep his commandments." Happy had it been for Eve and for her posterity if she had never had the experience of disobedience.
PUT THIS AND THAT TOGETHER.
By R. F. Cottrell
THE following quotations are found in a book entitled, "An Exposition of the Church Catechism," by Henry J. Camman, published at Boston in 1867. Under the title of "The Christian Law," he says:—
"Q. You said that your sponsors did promise for you that you should keep God's commandments; tell me how many there are.
"A. Ten.
"Q. Which are they?
"A. The same which God spake in the twentieth chapter of Exodus," etc.
This testimony affirms that the Christian law is the same as given in Ex. 20. On the third page from this we have the following:—
"Q. What is the fourth commandment?
"A. Remember that thou keep holy, etc.
"Q. How can you keep holy the Sabbath day?
"A. By abstaining from worldly occupations and attending to religious duties.
"Q. Can you do any work?
"A. Yes, I may do works of necessity, piety, and charity.
"Q. What do we call Sunday, and why?
"A. The first day of the seven. It is the Lord's day, because Christ rose from the dead on that day."
Thus the law to keep holy the seventh day, the day on which God rested from the labor of creation, is to be obeyed by keeping holy "the first day of the seven," for the reason, not that it is the Sabbath, or rest-day of God, but that "Christ rose from the dead on that day."
In the same chapter we are treated with the following:—
"The Jews kept holy the seventh day of the week; because on that day God rested from his work of creation, Gen. 2:2, 3, but we keep the first day of the week, because on that day Christ rose from the dead, having finished his work of redemption. Luke 24:1-16. This change was made by the apostles. John 20:1-19; 1 Cor. 16:2. Although we repeat this commandment, the church, like the Scriptures, never applies the name 'Sabbath' to the first day of the week, but calls it Sunday, or the LORD'S DAY."
Now, ye of sane minds, put these things all together, and discern the sound sense and beautiful harmony of the whole! In the first place, the church promises to keep the Christian law, and that law is "the same which God spake in the twentieth chapter of Exodus." 2. The fourth commandment of that law requires us to "Keep holy the Sabbath day," which is "the seventh day of the week, because on that day, God rested from his work of creation." This commandment the church proposes to obey by keeping holy "the first day of the seven," "because Christ rose from the dead on that day." 3. But "the church, like the Scriptures, never applies the name 'Sabbath' to the first day of the week." The seventh day is the only Sabbath of the Scriptures. So the church does not propose to keep the "Sabbath" at all, while promising to keep the same law which says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, . . . the seventh day is the Sabbath;" but she proposes to keep another day, not the Sabbath, but a day called by her "Sunday, or the Lord's day." The commandment according to this exposition, is as follows: Remember the Sunday, or the Lord's day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but "the first day of the seven" is Sunday, or the Lord's day; in it thou shalt not do any work; "because on that day Christ rose from the dead."
And thus, for another reason, keeping another day, which neither the Scriptures nor the church ever calls the Sabbath, the church promises to keep the "same" law which God spake as recorded in Ex. 20.
Our author says, "This change was made by the apostles," and for proof refers to John 20:1-19, and 1 Cor. 16:2. Those who will read the testimony will find that at the close of that first day on which Christ arose, he appeared to the assembled disciples, the doors being shut for fear of the Jews, and "showed them his hands and his side" to convince them of his resurrection, a fact that till then they had not believed. See Mark 16:9-14. So, if the apostles had that day changed the Sabbath, they had done it in unbelief.
R. F. COTTRELL.
THE VALUE OF QUOTATIONS.
By John Nevins Andrews
THIS is found in three things: 1. In the doctrine or fact, or point stated in the quotation; 2. In the reliability of the quotation; 3. In the appending to the quotation of definite references to the book, chapter, and section, or to the volume and page of the author quoted.
1. Of the correctness of a doctrine expressed in a quotation, or of the value of an alleged fact, or of the sharpness of the point it makes, the reader can and will judge for himself.
2. In the matter of the reliability of the quotation, that is to say, in the question whether the author actually uses the language quoted, most readers are compelled to rely upon the integrity of the one who makes the quotation. There is, therefore, the most sacred obligation upon such person to quote accurately and honestly. It will not do to take a quotation found floating in the papers, for which no one is responsible, and give it to your readers as genuine, thereby yourself becoming responsible for its genuineness. The chances are at least equal that a quotation of this kind will not be found reliable. Sometimes they are made from memory by some careless writer, and then, because they suit the views of those who find them, they are quoted from writer to writer, none taking the trouble to go to the original author to see if the words are used by him. Sometimes these quotations are adhered to even by writers who have gone to the author cited and failed to find the words. These writers seem to think that the forgery has become respectable by use.
Again it is sometimes the case that quotations are deliberately coined in malice, in order to blacken the name of some eminent man, or to bring odium upon some sect or some doctrine. Sometimes they are deliberately coined for exactly the opposite purpose. In not a few instances I have taken quotations that were of immense importance if truthful, and have gone through page by page the voluminous works of the author upon whom they were fathered, and found that no such words were used by him. Therefore those who make quotations should take great care to know that they are reliable. If it is not possible to see the original author, then give the name of a responsible writer who professes to make the quotation.
3. Tell just where the quotation is to be found. If it is an important statement, opponents will dispute its correctness, and deny that the author uses the language. Therefore, tell the volume, chapter, and section, of the work, and accurately name the work and the author.
This is better than it is to give volume and page, because with respect to the volume and page, different editions are not always alike. If you quote a newspaper, or any periodical, give the date exactly, or give the volume and number. These suggestions are of much importance.
J. N. A.
Bad Spelling Frees Horse Thieves
BAD spelling has now let loose two horse thieves on California society. The intelligent jury spelled "defendants" "defendances," and thereupon the thieves appealed the case, and gained it. Juries are solemnly required not to know anything, and then if they cannot write good English, their verdicts are thrown out of court. If we keep on, after awhile nothing less than horse-stealing will be respectable.—S. F. Christian Advocate.
Roger Williams Tract Discovered
REV. HENRY M. DEXTER has found in the British museum a long-lost tract by Roger Williams, and the Providence Journal regards the discovery as “a literary event of importance.” The title reads: “Christenings Make not Christians, or a Brief Discourse Concerning that Name Heathen, Commonly given to the Indians.” It was printed in London in 1645.
THE GOSPEL IS FREE.
By R. F. Cottrell
"Freely ye have received, freely give."
Such was the charge of Christ to his disciples, when he sent them out to preach the gospel. "Yes," says one, "I believe in a free gospel, a religion that costs nothing; I have been a member of the church for twenty-five years, and it has not cost me more than twenty-five cents."
Well, my friend, you have a very cheap religion. The only question is whether it is genuine, whether it is worth anything. It seems you consider the gospel free till it reaches you; but there it stops; it goes freely no further. You have received it freely, but you have not heeded the injunction, "Freely give."
We sing, "I am glad salvation is free;" but it has cost something notwithstanding. A sacrifice has been made. The Father gave his Son; the Son "gave himself;" and apostles and martyrs gave their lives; and by such means the gospel has come freely to us. Is there no sacrifice for us to make? Are we under no obligation to freely give? Come with me to Calvary; view the Son of God upon the cross; witness the apostles, to whom he said, "Freely ye have received, freely give." See them, after their arduous toils and intense sufferings, sealing their testimony for the truth with their blood; and you will say with me, Away with your cheap religion; it will not fit one for the society of those who have gone before and left us an example that we should follow in their steps.
The church is a missionary society. It is their duty to send the gospel freely to those who have not received it. Instead of hiring a minister to preach to them, and soliciting the aid of the outside world for this object, they should sustain him to go out to preach the gospel freely to those who sit in darkness. This is to be done out of pure benevolence. But when the good news has been freely proclaimed, the receiver is laid under renewed obligation to God, the fountain of salvation, to those who have been his willing instruments of good to them, and to their fellow-men for whom Christ died. So that while they thank God for a free gospel of salvation, they should manifest their gratitude by ministering of their worldly store to those from whom they received it according to their need; for "their debtors they are;" for having "been made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also to minister unto them in carnal things" (Rom. 15:25-27); and also by uniting with them to send the gospel freely to others. So while the gospel is free, it lays a debt of gratitude upon the receiver which it is impossible for him to ever pay.
The apostle Paul understood it so; for having received mercy of the Lord Jesus, he acknowledged himself a debtor to mankind at large; and the only way he could see in which he could discharge the debt was to preach the gospel to others, that they too might receive the benefit of this great salvation. He felt that "necessity was laid upon him." Said he, "Woe is me, if I preach not the gospel." Again, "I am a debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and the unwise. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also." 1 Cor. 9:16; Rom. 1:14, 15.
Our conclusion is this: Having received the gospel freely, we are under obligation to send it freely to others. The mercy of God to us has brought upon us a debt of gratitude and love, which it is impossible for us to overpay. Our time, our talents, our wealth, all belong to God, and are to be used only for his glory, and the good of those for whom Christ died. "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price." "Freely ye have received, freely give." And when we lay all upon the altar of the Lord, we give no more than is due; and if we withhold, we rob God and our fellow-men. The religion that costs nothing is worth nothing.
R. F. Cottrell.
TEMPORAL DISCOURAGEMENTS IN THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY.
By E. T. Bromfield
DISCOURAGEMENTS in the Christian ministry, arising from temporal causes, are many and various. When a young man devotes himself to this work he is generally ignorant of the details of a minister's life; he is enthusiastic—fired with noble resolves, and ready in spirit for hardship and even martyrdom. Years go by, and the freshness of his spirit leaves him under the wearing influences of commonplace trials. Perhaps his salary is small and irregularly paid. He is in debt, and his soul chafes against the bars of his prisonhouse. His family are poorly clad. He can hardly keep the wolf from the door. He sees no good prospect ahead. Nothing but trouble, toil, and vexation of spirit. This is not an exaggerated picture, nor an uncommon one. It may be hard to suggest a remedy for the evil—perhaps there is no remedy that will entirely sweep it away. Let me, then, utter my testimony to the fact—for I have gone among ministers a great deal and observed them closely—that among this very class of suffering brethren are frequently to be found the noblest of men. I know that it is the common fate of poor men to be pitied and neglected. There is enough of the worldly spirit in the church to cause them to be looked down upon by persons who ought to know better. "Man judgeth by the outward appearance," and the poor, self-denying561village preacher is occasionally snubbed by ignorant parvenus and the worshipers of Mammon. But the church has in such men many of her rarest jewels. They endure hardship unseen by man, and being themselves not ignorant of suffering, they are the better able to sympathize with and succor the distressed.
When a man, after years of arduous toil in the ministry, begins to feel that there is very little prospect of his receiving fair and satisfactory remuneration for his labors, two courses present themselves before him. He can aim to leave the ministry with its cares, or he can aim to inure himself to privation. It is for him solemnly, and in the fear of God, to select his path, but I have often felt that it must be a terrible thing for a man deliberately to renounce the ministry because of its temporal disappointments. And, again, I have known so many brethren who in their real poverty and suffering have been so manly, so uncomplaining, so tender and heroic, that I have found myself asking whether the Lord had not put an especial mark of his favor upon them.
Nothing that can be said or written can make poverty pleasant, and no one should submit to it without a struggle; but if it fall to be the lot of a man in the path of duty, and there is no escaping from it without dishonor, it is as much a martyrdom as being burned alive for the faith, and there are no doubt compensations added therewith. At the same time it is so manifestly the duty of Christian people to share their temporal blessings with their faithful pastors, that whatever may be the excuse for an occasional dilatoriness in money payments, there can be none for the withholding of substantial and timely gifts of supplies, and a noble sharing of creature comforts.
I have known a congregation fairly comfortable as to the temporal condition of its members, allow its minister and his family to be destitute of proper food and seasonable sheltering, and to run in debt for supplies of actual living necessities, when a very little timely aid from them in kind, systematically given and affectionately tendered, would have lifted the burden from their minister's heart, and brought a blessing down upon themselves from Heaven. Even the punctual payment of the stipulated salary, though a rare virtue, is not all that a congregation owes its pastor. There will be offenses and troubles in the world and in the church, but "woe to that man through whom the offense cometh;" and, therefore, though I think that temporal discouragements in the ministry are not without their uses, I would emphatically urge the lay brethren and sisters of the churches to do their part cheerfully and lovingly to make those discouragements, in the case at least of their own pastors, as light as possible. I have known other congregations where the members, instead of confining their offerings to a half-yearly or quarterly subscription, often grudgingly doled out, have been quick to share their individual successes and comforts with their minister, thereby cheering his heart and strengthening his hands.
That I am perfectly consistent in sounding some of the praises of hardships, while at the same time I urge upon all concerned the duty of doing all they can to mitigate them, must be evident to those who have followed the apostle Paul through some of his inimitable paradoxes, and I will, therefore, advance a step further, and venture to suggest to my ministerial brethren that they would be lacking in some of the highest experiences of a servant of Christ if they did not know what it is to suffer in his name. Possibly it may not be the suffering of actual cold or hunger, but it is some other affliction which has tested their love for their calling and sounded the depth of the conviction of which they once testified that God had in very deed set them apart for their work. It is very pleasant to be called of God or of man to some position of high honor, appreciation, and emolument; very pleasant to lead an admiring and liberal people to the green pastures and beside the still waters; but this is not all of the life even of a popular clergyman. If my experiences among my brethren have taught me to be sure of anything, it is of this, that no true servant of Christ in the ministry of the gospel can escape his seasons of heaviness and disappointment, coming upon him in his work and because of it. Therefore, brethren, let us encourage each other to be "steadfast and immovable"—pregnant words—"knowing that our labor" (kopos, the weariness that follows severe toil), "is not in vain in the Lord."—E. T. Bromfield, in Christian at Work.
INGOLDSBY LETTERS.
By John Norton Loughborough
THIS is the title of two nicely-printed and neatly-bound volumes containing one hundred and twenty-eight letters from the pen of Rev. James Hildyard, B. D., Rector of Ingoldsby, North Grantham, Lincolnshire.
These letters, which were first published some twenty years since in various English journals, deal with the question of Prayer-book Revision.
The author of the letters, while believing that the prayer-book though very good, may be made better—that the divines who lived two or three centuries ago did not monopolize all the wisdom and piety of the country, but have left a little of both to the people of the present day—believing these things, "Ingoldsby" has come to the conclusion that we may safely, and should without delay, suit the prayer-book to the wants of our time. In the letters, he shows that all the objections now made against altering a line, or even a word, in the Book of Common Prayer, have been made over and over again—in fact, whenever the subject has been agitated, and that they have also been answered as often as made.
Having just completed a careful reading of these letters, I deem them well worthy of perusal. They are filled with sharp, pointed, and appropriate quotations from writers both ancient and modern. Their literary ability and pleasing diction show the scholarship of the author. No one who reads them will fail to be benefited, even if he is not sanguine in the special subject of the letters.
The two volumes of letters, comprising nearly one thousand pages, bear the imprint of Bassell, Petter, Galphin & Co., Ludgate Hill, London, and are offered at 10s. or $2.50 American currency.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
[This may not forcibly strike the minds of our readers on this continent, most of whom know but little of the subject, but it will be interesting to our many readers across the waters.—ED. SIGNS.]