NEW YORK EVANGELIST VS. ANDREWS' HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.
By John Nevins Andrews
A FRIEND sends me a copy of the New York Evangelist of Jan. 6, 1881, containing an article entitled, "Seventh-day Sabbatarians and Neander." The article is an editorial written to show that the author of the History of the Sabbath has been guilty of fraud in presenting in a false light the testimony of Neander concerning Sunday. The charge is this: that the "History of the Sabbath," on pages 229, 230, quoted the first edition of Neander's "History of the Church," where he says, "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance;" whereas, says the editor of the Evangelist, Neander, in his second edition, published seventeen years later, maintains that Scriptural authority exists for the change from the seventh day to the first, and this fact, which completely reverses the testimony of the first edition of Neander's work, the "History of the Sabbath" withholds from its readers. The editor makes this charge with becoming severity, and accompanies it with insulting language.
We will presently place the reader in a position to judge for himself respecting the real doctrine of Neander. But first it is proper to state the exact truth as to the use of Neander's testimony in the "History of the Sabbath." That work quoted from his first edition his outspoken declaration that "the festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance," and added that in his later edition he omitted these words, but did not retract them. It said further, that instead of retracting them he actually presented, in substance, the same ideas that he had given in his first edition. This statement remains to be tested, but if it prove to be true, then the "History of the Sabbath" is vindicated from an unjust charge, and a retraction will be due from the editor of the Evangelist.
We will present in parallel columns the entire testimony of each edition of Neander's History concerning Sunday in the primitive church. His first edition was translated from the German by H. J. Rose, a clergyman of the Church of England; his second edition was translated by Prof. Torrey, of Vermont University. The meaning of the quotation from the first edition of Neander is not in dispute. It is an explicit testimony that the festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance.
But with respect to the quotation from the second edition, the editor of the Evangelist affirms that it reverses the testimony of the first edition, and teaches that Sunday is a divine institution established by Scriptural authority in the place of the seventh day. And because the "History of the Sabbath" denies this, and asserts that in substance the second edition of Neander is in exact harmony with the first edition, the Evangelist charges upon that work the crime of falsehood or fraud.
Let us suppose that the Evangelist has stated the case of Neander correctly. That historian in his first edition cited all the points that seemed to him in any degree to favor the authority of Sunday. Having done this, he summed up the case, and stated his judgment with respect to Sunday, in view of all the facts which could be adduced in its support, saying, "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance." But seventeen years of serious study of the Bible, and of ancient records, made him a wiser man. Now he sees that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, and that it has taken the place of the seventh day in the fourth commandment by the authority of Christ.
What will be the action of Neander under these circumstances? He was a man of strict integrity and of a tender conscience. He has discovered that in his first edition he greatly injured the cause of Christ by calling the Christian Sabbath nothing but a human ordinance. He has the opportunity to make amends in his second edition for the immense mischief he wrought in his first. How must he do this? 1. By frankly retracting the statement that the festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance. 2. By directly asserting that it is a divine institution, resting upon the authority of Christ. 3. By giving the evidence which he has discovered during these seventeen years, that has convinced him that it is a divine institution. Neander could not do less than this, if the Evangelist is correct in asserting that he was converted from the view that Sunday is only a human ordinance to the view that it is a divine institution.
Now what did he actually do? 1. He states the evidence in favor of Sunday in his second edition just as he stated it in the first edition, adding only a quotation from the so-called epistle of Barnabas, of which we shall speak presently. 2. He omits the words which he used in the first edition to sum up the nature of the festival of Sunday, but he does not retract them. 3. He does not avow his change from the position that Sunday is only a human ordinance to the position that it is a divine institution.
If Neander had made so great a change in his views concerning this important subject, it is inexplicable that he should have said nothing about it. But it will be asked, Why did he omit his declaration that Sunday is only a human ordinance, if he had not adopted the view that it is a divine institution? The answer is not difficult. Neander thought it possible to preserve his integrity as a historian, and his courtesy as a man toward his eminent friends who believed in first-day sacredness. He must give the facts concerning Sunday in the primitive church in his second edition, precisely as he gave them in his first edition, for he had found nothing to change.
He could not, as a truthful man, express the judgment that these facts proved Sunday to be a divine institution, and139courtesy could not swerve him to give a false judgment. There was, however, one thing that he could do out of courtesy without sacrificing his integrity; he could give the facts concerning the origin of the Sunday festival, so that all his readers could judge for themselves whether it rests upon human authority or upon divine precepts; and having done this, he could refrain from expressing a distinct opinion concerning the nature of that festival. And this is precisely what he did. Now we give in full the words of Neander according to each edition of his history, and we request that the two editions may be compared sentence by sentence:—
FROM THE FIRST EDITION OF NEANDER'S CHURCH HISTORY, TRANSLATED BY H. J. ROSE, P. 186.
1. "Opposition to Judaism introduced the particular festival of Sunday very early indeed into the place of the Sabbath; the first trace of this custom is in the Acts, 20:7, where we find the church assembled together on the first day in the week, and again somewhat later, in Rev. 1:10, where it is hardly possible to understand the day of Judgment by the words 'the Lord's day.' Allusion is also made to the festival of Sunday, as a symbol of new life, consecrated to the Lord, in opposition to the old Sabbath, in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. 'If they who were brought up under the Old Testament have attained to a new hope, and no longer keep Sabbaths holy, but have consecrated their life to the day of the Lord, on which also our life rose up in him, how shall we be able to live without him?'
2. "Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy by the circumstances, that men did not fast upon it, and that they prayed standing up, and not kneeling, as Christ had raised up fallen man to Heaven again through his resurrection. [The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect, far from them, and from the early apostolic church, to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday. Perhaps, at the end of the second century a false application of this kind had begun to take place; for men appear by that time to have considered laboring on Sunday as a sin.]"
FROM THE LAST EDITION OF NEANDER'S CHURCH HISTORY, TRANSLATED BY PROF. TORREY, VOL. I, PP. 295, 296.
1. "The opposition to Judaism early led to the special observance of Sunday in place of the Sabbath. The first intimation of this change is in Acts 20:7, where we find the church assembled on the first day of the week; a still later one is in Rev. 1:10, where by the 'Lord's day,' can hardly be understood the day of Judgment. Thus in the catholic epistle ascribed to Barnabas, at the close of the fifteenth chapter, Sunday is designated as the day of jubilee in remembrance of Christ's resurrection and ascension to Heaven, and of the new creation which then commenced; and in the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians it is presupposed, that even the Jews who had come over to Christianity substituted Sunday in place of the Sabbath. As the Sabbath was regarded as representing Judaism, Sunday was contemplated as a symbol of the new life consecrated to the risen Christ and grounded in his resurrection.
2. "[Sunday was distinguished as a day of joy, by being exempted from fasts, and by the circumstance that prayer was performed on this day in a standing and not in a kneeling posture, as Christ, by his resurrection, had raised up fallen man again to Heaven.] But as we have already observed in Tertullian a confounding of the Jewish with the Christian view of feasts, so we find also in him indications of the transfer of the law of the Jewish Sabbath to Sunday; for by him, attending to any business on Sunday seems to have been regarded as sinful."
We have thus presented in parallel columns the entire testimony of Neander concerning Sunday in the early church, as given in the two editions of his church history. Not a word is omitted, and not a word is changed; but for convenience of reference and comparison we have divided his testimony into two paragraphs in the case of each edition, and have numbered them. We have inclosed in brackets that portion of each edition of his history that was quoted in the History of the Sabbath, that it may be seen that that work did in truth seize the real meaning of Neander in each case.
Before we analyze the testimony of the second edition, it is necessary to call attention to an act of gross injustice that really constitutes the foundation of the attack made by the editor of the Evangelist. He quotes the History of the Sabbath as speaking thus: "The general tenor of the revised edition is in this place precisely the same as in that from which this outspoken statement is taken." Then he says: "Whether that assertion is true can be judged from the following passage in Neander's later work." Then he quotes from the second edition the paragraph which we have numbered 1.
The reader would suppose from this that the facts which Neander here recites concerning the origin of Sunday observance had been discovered by him during the seventeen years that elapsed between the publication of his two editions, and that he wrote this as new matter to correct the misstatement of his first edition. But, if he will read paragraph No. 1 in the quotation from the old edition, he will see that Neander had every one of these points in that edition, except his reference to Barnabas, and that it was with a full understanding of all these that he there pronounced Sunday a human ordinance. But the Evangelist, merely on the strength of the fact that Neander did not sum up the testimony in the second edition, assures its readers that he no longer regards Sunday as a human ordinance, but as a divine institution. We will test this matter, not by summing up Neander's testimony, but by analyzing it.
1. What does Neander say is the first intimation of the change from the seventh day to the first? The meeting in A. D. 60, mentioned in Acts 20:7.
2. But did not Neander believe that Christ changed the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first by lying in the tomb on the seventh day and rising on the first? And does he not believe that Christ confirmed this great doctrine of the modern church by appearing to his disciples on the day of his resurrection, and possibly on the same day one week later as well as on several other days of the week during the forty days before his ascension? And does he not find evidence that the change had been made in the fact that the Holy Spirit was poured out on the day of Pentecost?
3. We have an explicit answer from Neander to this doctrine of modern theology, and one that is as truthful as it is definite. No one of these modern inferences, in the judgment of Neander, amounted even to an intimation of the change; for the first intimation, he says, is found in Acts 20:7.
4. But so far as Neander is concerned, this absolutely overthrows the divine authority of the first day. For as all standard first-day writers contend, the foundation of first-day sacredness is set forth in the New Testament in those passages which speak of the resurrection of Christ. All this he absolutely repudiates, and that with the strictest reason and justice.
5. But he is not content to merely take away the divine authority for Sunday, which others have so laboriously established, and which they hope proves that some secret commandment for the change had been given by Christ. He states plainly what was the inspiring motive with those who first preferred Sunday to the seventh day; it was not a divine or apostolic commandment, but it was opposition to Judaism! That is, the breach between the Jews and the Christians had become so wide, and the hostility so great, that the church gradually put the first day in place of the seventh.
6. But what use does Neander make of 1 Cor. 16:2? In this edition of his church history, where he collects together all the testimonies in favor of first-day observance, he passes this text in silence, a decisive proof that he finds no evidence in it that meetings were held on the first day of the week. He refers us, however, in the margin, to his Planting and Training of the Christian Church, where in vol. 1, p. 158, of Bohn's edition, we read: "But Paul, if we examine his language closely, says no more than this, that every one should lay by in his own house on the first day of the week, whatever he was able to save. This certainly might mean that every one should bring with him the sum he had saved to the meeting of the church, that thus the individual contributions might be collected together, and be ready for Paul as soon as he came. But this would be making a gratuitous supposition, not at all required by the connection of the passage."
7. He does, however, bring forward Rev. 1:10, but in a very hesitating manner; for he intimates that the term "Lord's day" must signify either the day of Judgment or the first day of the week, and, though he gives the preference to the idea that it means first day of the week, he does not do it in a decisive manner.
8. So much for what Neander says relative to Scripture. Now we come to his use of the Fathers. He quotes the so-called epistle of Barnabas as sustaining the observance of the first day of the week. The testimony from Barnabas is the only actual addition to the facts presented in his first edition. We may therefore conclude, that whatever new light Neander had obtained during these seventeen years, came from this remarkable epistle. But, instead of recognizing this as of apostolic authority, he says, on page 657 of the last edition of his history, that we cannot possibly recognize in this production the Barnabas who was deemed worthy to take part as a companion in the apostolic labors of Paul. The most of our readers know that the epistle of Barnabas asserts that the hyena changes its sex every year, and is sometimes male and sometimes female. It makes a statement concerning the hare and another concerning the weasel that are still more ridiculous. How much this epistle added to the divine authority for Sunday in the estimation of Neander we leave our readers to judge.
9. Neander also cites the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, and says that this epistle intimates that even the Jews who had come over to Christianity substituted Sunday in place of the Sabbath. But if this were true it would indicate nothing more than that Sunday is an institution set up by man. But on page 661 of Neander's last edition he expresses grave doubts concerning the genuineness of the epistles of Ignatius. But this is not all. Every scholar knows that the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, which is the one here quoted by Neander, would say nothing concerning Sunday were it not for a false translation by which the term "Lord's life" is translated "Lord's day."
We have now analyzed all the testimony presented by Neander, in his last edition, in support of Sunday. When he had given these facts in his first edition, he pronounced judgment upon them, in saying that the festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance. In presenting these facts in his second edition, he leaves his readers to draw their own conclusion. He adds, however, in the close of what we have taken from each edition, the statement that labor on Sunday began to be regarded as sinful at the end of the second century, which shows that in his judgment it was not so regarded at an earlier date.
The analysis of the testimony of Neander's second edition concerning Sunday being finished, we now have an interesting problem in moral arithmetic, which is, to add up all these points and obtain the sum total. We say that this sum total is precisely what Neander gave in his first edition, that Sunday is only a human ordinance. The Evangelist affirms that Neander finds Scriptural evidence for the divine authority of the day. It says: "Thus Neander finds evidence of the change from the seventh day to the first, in the Scriptures, and in the writings of the two earliest of the Fathers whose writings are preserved, both of whom were living when the apostle John died, and must have known his testimony and teaching—one of them, Ignatius, being reputed to be John's 'disciple.'"
As a response to this untruthful statement of the Evangelist, we present the following synopsis of Neander's views; and with this synopsis close our argument.
1. We have shown from Neander that there are no intimations of the change from the seventh day to the first in the record of Christ's resurrection, nor in that of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost.
2. That the divine foundation for the first day of the week, so laboriously laid by modern theologians, is therefore entirely repudiated by Neander.
3. That when the change first commenced, it was not by divine commandment, but was instigated by opposition to Judaism.
4. That Neander finds no evidence for the change of the day in 1 Cor. 16:2.
5. That he thinks the term "Lord's day" is more likely to refer to the first day of the week than to the day of Judgment, but he does not express a positive opinion.
6. He quotes the so-called epistle of Barnabas, but repudiates it as wholly unworthy of the companion of St. Paul.
7. He quotes the epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, but expresses grave doubts respecting the genuineness of the epistles of that Father.
8. Finally, he indicates that labor on Sunday began to be considered sinful at the end of the second century.
Now let the reader add up these points which Neander has given as the foundation of the festival of Sunday, and then let each one for himself pronounce judgment whether the History of the Sabbath was guilty of misrepresentation, or whether the editor of the Evangelist is the one who has borne false witness against his neighbor.
Bale, Suisse, Feb. 17, 1881. J. N. A.
"WE MUST HAVE CHARITY."
By J. H. W.
INDEED, we must. Without it our religion is vain, and we are nothing. But many are entirely deceived as to the nature of charity. It is not that sympathy which some are ever ready to extend to those in error. We have known some whose kindness of heart was never known to overflow until some one was proved guilty of a grievous wrong, and then they were ready to take him right into their hearts, and become his most valiant defenders against any action which the church might see fit to take.
The Father said unto the Son: "Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity." For this he was anointed with the oil of gladness. We should ever cultivate the spirit of Christ; and if we do, we too, shall be haters of iniquity. And this is consistent with the exercise of true charity. Paul says of charity that it "Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." 1 Cor. 13:6.
We have been associated with three ministers who, while preaching obedience to the commandments of God, were violating both the spirit and letter of the seventh commandment. We have no words to express our abhorrence of such hypocrisy; of such base immorality as this. It would seem that the most common honesty would lead them to renounce their position as teachers of righteousness, and come down from the "sacred desk" which their foul presence disgraced and contaminated. But sin ceases to be sinful in the eyes of the licentious. As Robert Burns said of this sin,—
"——it hardens a' within,
And petrifies the feelin'."
This is shown by the fact that, in every case, instead of being humbled by their sin, they excuse and extenuate it. And, strange to say, their excuses are accepted by some, when they ought to increase our distrust of the criminal. When men, and especially ministers, commit this crime and then give "Scripture examples" to justify it, they place themselves beyond the reach of our confidence and sympathy. To thus pervert the word of God to justify their violations of the law of God, is an aggravation of their crime.
No one whose heart is not hardened and whose mind is not blinded would ever cite the case of David to excuse their own adulteries. David was exceedingly penitent, and continually confessed his sin. "My sin is ever before me," said he. But notwithstanding his penitence and confessions, the Lord said the sword should never depart from his house, because he had given the enemies of the Lord great occasion to blaspheme. And they have made ample use of the occasion.
It is strange indeed that those who have taught the word of God to others have never taught themselves. Rom. 2:21, 22. Strange that they do not understand that David's case is set forth in the Scriptures as a warning, and not as an example to follow. Was Peter's blasphemy put on record that we may follow his example? We can hardly believe that they who thus abuse the word of God to uphold sin are sincere in their action. Their purpose is to deceive; selfishness is the controlling motive with them.
"Be not deceived." They who love righteousness and hate iniquity, and have a proper regard for the honor of God and his truth, will not be deceived by any such attempts to justify sin at the expense of God's sacred truth. We are in perilous times. Jesus says that in the last days it will be as it was in the day when Lot went out of Sodom. When we look at the prevalence of "free-lovism," and at the wide-spread reception of the teachings of modern Spiritualism, we are inclined to think that the history of Sodom will be repeated in the last days. There is danger before us. They who accept excuses for gross immoralities, and let their sympathies run toward such crimes, are opening the way for Satan to triumph, and they need not wonder if their own hearts are made to bleed because of his wicked workings. They who teach obedience to "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"
should be a most exemplary people, avoiding even the appearance of evil. It will be time to extend sympathy to the perpetrators of gross crimes in high places when they show penitence and a spirit of confession. It is safe to turn a deaf ear to excuses and self-justifications, and the honor of the cause of God demands that we do so. "Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption." Gal. 6:7, 8.
J. H. W.
FATHER GAVAZZI.
By James White
LAST Sunday we had the pleasure of hearing Father Gavazzi, whose name is so well known throughout the world by his labors for evangelical Christianity in Italy. He is now in the United States making an appeal in behalf of the Theological College of the Free Evangelical Church in Rome. He is 72 years of age; and though he plainly shows his years, he shows somewhat of the vigor of his youth. He is animated in speaking, though evidently embarrassed in using the English language. He speaks with a strong foreign accent. His description of the position of the church and school in Rome was graphic; facing the bridge of St. Angelo, near the Vatican, where "have to pass Cardinals, Archbishops, bishops, prelates, priests, monks, friars, pilgrims, vagabonds, and English and American fools, on their way to kiss the Pope's toe!"
The Evangelical Church was organized in 1871, with 23 small churches; now it has 71 large churches. Before 1870 not one copy of the Bible could be found in Rome. An Italian law prevented, and the gentleman or lady who carried one to that country had to leave it at the custom house.
He said in Italy, in Como, Jesus Christ has one shrine, with a wooden crucifix, while the virgin Mary has 3000, many of them costly, with their thousands of devotees. To the Catholic two ladders are represented as reaching up to Heaven. At the top of one stands Jesus Christ, at the top of the other stands the virgin Mary. They who attempt to reach Heaven by the first ladder, where Christ stands, mostly fall and fail in the attempt, while all who try to reach Heaven by the ladder headed by the virgin Mary succeed and are saved. Such is the blind idolatry into which the priests lead the people.
He said that Catholic parents send their children to the Evangelical school in Rome for the better improvement of their heads and hearts. A more earnest appeal was never uttered than that which followed, to those Protestants who send their children to Catholic schools where no good can be expected.
While he rejoiced that the Pope was losing ground in Rome, he said he would tell the Americans what he heard in Rome, namely, that all that the Pope was losing in Italy he expected to make up in America!
His appeal in behalf of Italy was stirring, and it was interesting to note his ingenuity in reminding his hearers that they were indebted to an Italian for the discovery of America, and Italy now comes to America for help to spread the gospel in her own land. Altogether it was an occasion of deep interest to all who heard him.
J. H. W.
The Tongue as a Divine Organ
By Anon.
The tongue was intended for a divine organ, but the evil often plays upon it.—Anon.
TIME IS PRECIOUS.
By R. F. Cottrell
BY ELD. R. F. COTTRELL.
WE are hastening to the Judgment. Each has an individual case to be decided. The decision will be eternal. When once made it never can be reversed. It will be life or death, saved or lost, eternal life or everlasting destruction. And this momentous and everlastingly irreversible decision depends upon the manner in which we spend a brief period of time—the little while that lies between us and the decisive moment. Eternal destinies hang upon this little span of time. How important then that it be spent aright! How prodigal to squander the precious moments, the hours, the days, of which it is to be composed!
Precious time! the price of eternity put into our hands! Who of us values it as we ought? I fear I do not. Yet it is my earnest desire and prayer to God that I may value it and improve it as I ought. It is only by the help of divine grace that this can be done. Who is sufficient for this? The answer is, and the only answer, Our sufficiency is of God. He condescends to give the Holy Spirit to those who ask—ask in faith, nothing wavering—and are ready to do the will of God in all things. "And whatsoever we ask we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." 1 John 3:22. "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you." John 15:7.
Prayer and faith and labor must be combined. And he who labors unselfishly for others' good, labors best for himself; and such labor persevered in will not lose its great reward. There must be a constant and enduring effort; but through the help of God we may finally triumph. Thanks be to God who giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
JOHN KNOX,—HIS FIRST SERMON.
By S. N. Haskell
BY ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
The patrons of the established religion in the University of St. Andrews, taking advantage of superior literary attainments, had often entangled the exponents of the new faith with sophisms and garbled quotations from the Fathers. Knox had assisted the reform preacher with his pen, and by his superior skill in logic and the writings of the fathers, exposed their popish errors. One day, at a public disputation in the presence of a great number of people, the papal party, having been driven from every defense, fled as their last refuge to the infallible authority of the church, alleging that as the tenets of Luther had been condemned by it as heretical, all further dispute was unnecessary.
Knox replied that before accepting this conclusion it would be necessary to identify the true church by its marks or characteristics given in scripture, lest they should blindly receive a harlot as their spiritual mother.
"For" he continued, "the Roman church as it is now corrupted, wherein stands the hope of your victory, I no more doubt that it is the synagogue of Satan, and that the head thereof, called the Pope, is the man of sin of whom the apostle speaks, than I doubt that Jesus Christ suffered at the investigation of the church at Jerusalem. Yea, I offer myself to prove by word or writing that the Roman church is this day farther degenerated from the purity which existed in the days of the apostles than were the Jews from the ordinances given by Moses, when they consented to the death of Jesus Christ."
To this bold charge, the people responded that, if it was true, they had been miserably deceived, and they demanded that he should ascend the pulpit and give proof of what he had so confidently affirmed.
The next Sunday he redeemed his promise. His text was Dan. 7: 24, 25. He first explained the vision, showing that the four empires represented by the four beasts were Babylon, Persia, Grecia, and Rome, out of the last of which, the power described in his text arose. He proceeded to show that this was applicable to no other power but the degenerate church of Rome, and compared with his text parallel passages in the New Testament, showing that the king here mentioned was the same as elsewhere called the "man of sin," the anti-Christ, the Babylonian harlot; that this did not mean a single person, but a body of people under a wicked head.
In support of his assertion that the papal power was anti-Christian, he described it under its three heads,—life, doctrine, and laws. He depicted the lives of the Popes, and compared their doctrines and laws with those of the New Testament, particularly respecting justification, holidays, abstinence from meats and from marriage. He quoted from the canon law the blasphemous titles and prerogatives ascribed to the Pope as additional evidence to sustain his position. In conclusion he signified that if any present thought that he had misquoted or misinterpreted the testimonies which he had produced from the Scriptures, history, or elsewhere, he was willing, in the presence of witnesses, to give satisfaction. There were present in the audience his former preceptor, the members of the University, the Sub-prior of the Abbey, and a great number of canons and friars of different orders.
This sermon delivered with much of the eloquence for which Knox was afterward celebrated, made a great noise and excited much speculation among all classes. All the reformed preachers who preceded Knox in Scotland, not excepting Wishart, had contented themselves with refuting some of the grosser errors of Popery, but he struck at its very root by boldly denouncing the Pope as anti-Christ.
One of his hearers, Sir David Lindsay, afterward, under the title "Monarchies," put this discourse in rhyme in which, says the historian, "he traced the rise and progress of the Papacy, and the causes which produced the corruption of Christianity, and discovered a knowledge of history which would not disgrace any modern author." It is said that this poem, with others by the same author, was read by every man, woman, and child. The following incident illustrates the effect they produced.
141
While a friar was at one time preaching in Perth, after relating some of the miracles purporting to have been wrought at the shrine of the saints, he began to inveigh bitterly against the Lutheran preachers who were endeavoring to withdraw the people from the catholic faith. Instantly a loud hissing arose from that part of the church where some three hundred boys were seated. The friar abashed and affrighted broke off his discourse and fled from the pulpit. An inquiry respecting the origin of the disturbance was made, when it was found that the son of a craftsman in town having Lindsay's "Monarchies" had been reading it to his school-fellows. When the master was about to administer severe chastisement to the boy on account of the disturbance, and for having in his possession such a heretical book, he spiritedly replied that the book was not heretical, and requested his master to read it, professing his willingness to receive punishment if heresy was found in it. The master complied, and was convinced of the truth of the boy's statement. Accordingly he made the best excuse possible for the conduct of his scholars, advised the friar to abstain in future from extolling miracles and abusing Protestant preachers, and was himself ever afterward a friend to the Reformation.
For the sentiments advanced in this sermon Knox was soon called in question by the Sub-prior, who though favorable to the Reformation dared not let such heretical and schismatical doctrines "be taught without some show of opposition." In Knox' able defense he was opposed by a Gray Friar who attempted to prove the divine institution of papal ceremonies. Having been driven from the Gospels to the Acts and from the Acts to the Epistles and from one epistle to another, he was at last obliged to affirm that the apostles had not received the Holy Ghost when they wrote the epistles, but they afterward received it and ordained ceremonies. "Father," exclaimed the Sub-prior, "what say ye? God forbid that ye should say that; for then farewell the ground of our faith."
Instructed by the result of this free discussion, the Papists avoided all further disputation. Had the Castle of St. Andrews been in their possession they would have soon silenced their troublesome preachers, but as it was held by the opposite party, more crafty and moderate measures were necessary. Orders were issued that all the learned men in the university and abbey should preach by turn, and by this means the reformed preachers were excluded in those days when the greatest audiences attended, and all were forbidden to touch on controverted points. Great numbers, however, during the few months which Knox remained at St. Andrews, renounced Popery and embraced the Protestant faith.
QUESTIONS.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
1. WHY did Micaiah, being a true prophet of the Lord tell the king of Israel (1 Kings 22) to go and prosper, for the Lord would deliver it into his hand, when it turned out differently?
This question is based on a misapprehension of the text. Read carefully the first 14 verses to understand the conditions. In verse 15 we read, "And the king said unto him, Micaiah, shall we go up against Ramoth-gilead or shall we forbear? And he answered him, Go, and prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king." Now although this seems to be a favorable answer, the king did not understand it so, for he was dissatisfied with it. Micaiah then proceeded to tell him plainly what the result would be. But did Micaiah utter a falsehood in the first answer? No, and the king was not deceived. From the fact that the first reply, the words of which were favorable, produced the same effect on the king as the second reply which was unfavorable, it is evident that Micaiah spoke in a derisive manner in the first instance. For another instance of irony, when a meaning is conveyed directly opposite from the words used, see Job 12:2.
2. Why did the Lord put a lying spirit into the mouth of all the king's prophets to deceive him?
Had the king really desired to know what he ought to do, the lying spirits would not have been sent; but the king was fully set in his determination to go up against Ramoth-gilead, and the Lord let him have his own way. In chap. 21:25 we read: "But there was none like unto Ahab which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord." Now concerning persons of this stamp we read in 2 Thess. 2:11, 12: "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Notwithstanding the fact that nothing could turn Ahab from his purpose, God gave him the truth by his own prophet, so that he was left wholly without excuse. E. J. W.
"HE CARETH FOR US."
By John O. Corliss
BY ELD. J. O. CORLISS.
"THE angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them." Ps. 34:7. How often man is brought where it seems no earthly help can reach him. And yet these very extremities God sometimes seizes as his best opportunities to help—best, because at such times we are made to realize more sensibly that God has wrought for us; best, because the help we receive under such circumstances, increases our faith and confidence in God, and teaches us to trust him as "Our Father."
A singular instance of God's care for his children is related as having occurred during the persecution of the sixteenth century. During the awful massacre at Paris, by which so many were removed from the world, Moulin, a celebrated Protestant writer and speaker, in order to escape the fury of the Catholics, crept into an oven. Almost instantly, a spider wove its web over the mouth of the hiding place, and when the enemies of the fugitive examined the premises they passed the oven with the remark that no one could have been there for some days.
Cases of this kind are very numerous, but the above will serve to illustrate how easily God can devise means for the safety of his servants. He can do as much for his people to-day. Certainly his promises are the same, and he will never forsake any who put their trust in him.
My brother, my sister, does the battle sometimes go hard with you? Does temptation or trial press until it seems as though you must give up? Remember the promise of Him who has said, "I will never leave thee nor forsake thee." Learn to trust him and look up with confiding faith, pleading help, and it will come.
Seeking the Lord’s Glory
By Nashville Christian Advocate
If you are seeking the comforts of religion rather than the glory of your Lord, you are on the wrong track. The Comforter meets us unsought in the path of duty.—Nashville Christian Advocate.
Strength and Character in Religion
RELIGION is often regarded as a "sweet and lovely" thing. Yet sweetness without strength is far removed from Christ and Christ's true disciples. We must have more power and character in our religious life.—The Churchman.
Christ Requires the Heart
PEOPLE who are ready to part with their hearts while keeping their money, are not the sort that Jesus wants. The rich ruler was anxious to become a disciple on such terms, but our Lord would not accept the offer.—Baptist Weekly.