WE do not appreciate as we ought the privilege we have of coming into the presence of the great God to commune with him, with the assurance that we shall find audience before him if we come in his appointed way. “The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.” Ps. 34:15. We need daily supplies of food to sustain our physical natures. On the other hand, we must have spiritual food, else we die spiritually. And if we ask, our Saviour says we shall receive. James adds, “Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts.” God, in mercy, sometimes withholds the things we ask for, knowing they would not be blessings to us. We should always possess a submissive spirit, ready to say, “Not my will, but thine be done.” David, the sweet psalmist of Israel, was not content with praying once, nor twice, each day. Said he, “Evening and morning and at noon, will I pray and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.” Ps. 55:17.
Daniel, the man “greatly beloved,” although at the head of the affairs of the great kingdom of Babylon, found time to retire to his chamber and make his petition three times a day.
How beautiful to see the father gather his family around him and offer the morning and evening sacrifice; and how appropriate, for his companion and children to unite their voices with his in prayer and praise. It is a scene angels love to witness; and on “wings of light” they bear the petitions of God’s children to the court of Heaven, where they are carefully preserved.
The revelator, while wrapped in heavenly vision, saw an angel having a golden vial full of odors, which were the prayers of the saints. Courage, then, ye desponding disciples of Jesus! Think not, because your prayers are not immediately answered, that Heaven does not notice you. Our Saviour, at first, turned a deaf ear to the petition of the Syrophenician woman, only to try her faith. Matt. 15. “Pray without ceasing. In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.” 1 Thess. 5:17, 18.
E. O. HAMMOND
Love to God and Love to Our Neighbor
By V. Morrow
Love.
There is no subject that is made more prominent in the Holy Scriptures than that of love—love to God and love to our fellow-men. John says, “He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.”
In the first place, God requires the warmest and truest affections that we are capable of feeling. He must be loved above all other objects. We read that a certain one came to Jesus with this inquiry, “Master, what is the great commandment in the law.” The answer was, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
If we say we love God, we must show our love by our works, and faith in his words. Christ says, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” And again, “For this is the love of God, that we keep hiscommandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” The child of God who sincerely loves him will willingly and cheerfully perform that which he has commanded. Then if we do not keep the commandments of God, we do not love him; for in this manner we are to show our love. If we have no feelings of love toward God, we may safely conclude that he does not dwell there; for “God is love,” and cannot dwell where there is no love.
We must love God indeed and in truth; but our love must not end here. It should also extend to our brethren and sisters. It is impossible to love God without at the same time regarding his followers with some degree of affection. If ye love not those whom ye have seen, how can ye love God whom ye have not seen? Also, “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness, even until now.”
We have an example, even Christ, and we are commanded to walk in his footsteps. Who of us can attain to such love as was manifested by him? Who but our great Pattern has ever exhibited perfect love? Oh! may we learn to imitate his example in all things. Let us examine our hearts carefully, and see whether we are in the faith. Are we not setting our affections too much on the world? Is there not some idol which we are loth to relinquish? Let us look well to ourselves. There is a test by which we may determine just where we stand, and that is the word of God. “Whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him.”
The Saviour is soon coming. Signs are multiplying fast around us. Do we, can we realize that his coming is so near at hand? How essential it is that we prepare for this great event! Soon he will descend to earth on the great white cloud, and all who love him enough to be waiting and watching for his coming will be “caught up together to meet the Lord in the air.”
May we keep all his commandments, and not be found among that number who will call for rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb.” V. Morrow.
A CONVENIENT SEASON.
By Mary Martin
“Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.” Acts 24:25.
He looked to the coming, rich, full years,
And set aside his thoughts and fears.
But the “noble Felix” passed away,
And we find naught to tell to-day
That the time e’er came while life’s path he trod,
When he felt to send for the man of God.
Though power and fame were his that day,
Long ages since it has passed away.
A stranger came when the sun had set,
And his locks with evening dews were wet.
He knocked, and would fain have entered in,
To a light, young heart ere it knew earth’s sin;
But he tossed his hair from his youthful brow,
And said, “Yes, sometime; I can’t stop now.”
“I know you would gladly benefit me,
“And, when convenient, I’ll call for thee.”
So he sadly left without urging more,
And Death soon stood at the same heart’s door.
With an iron grasp he held his prey,
No prayers or pleading could drive away.
Again and again, through gathering tears,
I trace the record of those brief years,
I hope—but naught tells this heart of mine,
There ever came “a convenient time.”
Still he knocked where youth and beauty live—
Such an angel face must a welcome give.
But no! the world with its promise fair
Had entered in, and was reigning there.
So she said, “Ah, yes! I have heard of this,
And when I have quaffed this earthly bliss,
As you pass this way, you may call on me,
Or, when convenient, I’ll call for thee.”
His mantle he clasps, for the night is chill,
And hastens to do his Father’s will;
But the queenly form, and the beautiful face,
Have found a lowly resting place.
As strangers gaze on the silent clay,
“Too lovely for earth,” we hear them say.
But no record is left that tells to me,
She again had felt—“I will send for thee.”
As I see young forms at earth-shrines kneel,
None know the heart-aches that I feel,
Would I could save, but my strength is small,
I listen to hear the earnest call,
“O Lord, have pity,—save or I die.”
He ever answers the faintest cry,
If faithful here, they soon will stand
Before the Father at his right hand.
And some have reached the noon of life,
And some will soon leave its toil and strife;
Still he gently knocks, and my heart stands still,
Will they yield their own to a higher will?
And laying aside their pride or sin,
Bid the Heavenly Guest a welcome in?
Or presuming more, still hope to see,
Time more “convenient” to call for thee?
The shadows lengthen, and night has come,
The heart’s guests gather in my lowly home.
I will take the rubbish away from the door,
That kept him out when he called before;
No day shall pass that I do not pray,
Jesus of Nazareth, pass this way.—
Through tears and trials, thank God, I see
I have need to say, Abide with me.
MARY MARTIN.
West Ridge, N. H.
A FABLE
By A. Smith
Humility.
A FABLE.
In a field of wheat there were three spires (which I will call, by way of distinction, A, B, and C) that grew contentedly together, until they heard a rumor among their neighbors that the master of the field esteemed humility as a very desirable virtue.
The three spires at once determined to bring themselves into notice. A began by carefully examining her leaves and stalk, clearing them of rust and the larva of insects. She sought that nourishment that would best promote a healthy growth of all her parts, and, although some of her proud neighbors were already overtopping her, she did not feel envious toward them, nor would she put out a leaf in their way, but contented herself with pursuing the even tenor of her way, ever keeping her master's will in view. B suffered the worms to feed at her roots, and the insects to defile her branches. She would exclaim, “I am of no account; I am a cipher; it matters not what becomes of me.” However, she felt somewhat indignant, when one of her neighbors remarked in her hearing, “I believe what B says of herself is true.”
C took a good deal of satisfaction in displaying a few coarse, untidy leaves, as proof of her humility. She could talk scarcely five minutes with her neighbors without making some uncouth remark about their articles of apparel, calling them rags, &c., and ending by recommending her own as a model of plain attire. She would not speak to one of her neighbors who remarked that she thought C was proud of her humility.
The time of harvest came, and the master walked through the field, selecting the best heads for seed. He found A to have developed a perfect head of plump, white wheat, which he at once secured for the future new growth. B had developed a head of smut, which he trampled under his feet, and C, a head of chess, which he plucked and commanded to be cast into the fire; remarking, as he did so, “The humble shall be exalted, but the proud shall be abased.”
Reader, the moral is apparent.
A. Smith.
The Era of Blood.
AN era is a period of time so noted for some remarkable characteristics or some unusual events, that it is considered worthy of forming a new basis for chronological periods, or is set apart by itself as an object of wonder and amazement for all ages. The present time is called an era; but it is an era of blood. So it is named by the Methodist of N. Y. city, in an article from which we take the following significant paragraph:—
“The public mind has become alarmed. These columns have from time to time given warning that a crisis is at hand, caused by the insecurity of life. There has been a madness for killing; the slightest pretext—an old grudge, jealousy, greed, drink—any of these sufficed. A pistol-shot, a knife, or bludgeon, a soul was hurried out of time, a family plunged into mourning, and a new cause of unrest given to the community. There might be arrest, perhaps trial, possibly conviction, but seldom more. At this point, legal acumen came in play, ‘stay of proceedings’ became mighty to stay justice, and violence went muttering through its polluted lips, ‘Hanging is played out.’”
“Positively, there must come an end of this. The law must be made efficient, both to convict and punish, or the sense of insecurity will drive the people into measures for self-protection.”
Dr. J. G. Holland, in Scribner for March, speaks as follows in reference to the terrible condition of affairs in N. Y. city, in a criminal point of view:—
“Neither human life nor property can be any safer than they are at present, until it becomes less safe to make depredations upon them. So long as it is legal to sell unlimited rum, so long as theft, and swindling, and burglary, and murder, go unpunished, so long as flagrant crime is sure of sympathy and determined effort to free those who are guilty of it, so long as influential names are easily procurable in the attempt to shield the criminal from the legal consequences of his misdeeds, so long will crime go on unchecked. We feed the flames of anger and lust and malice with poisoned liquors, and hold up our heads in horror over the results. We keep men in power who will not do their duty, and walk the streets at night with bludgeons in our hands and revolvers in our pockets. We shut up criminals, and then submit to any mockery of justice by which they are released. And then, when the crime and the criminal are too outrageous to permit them to be ignored, we sign papers begging for commutation of punishment or for pardon. Let it be understood, then, that every man, high or low, who seeks for the release of the criminal from the legal consequences of his crime, unites himself to the dangerous classes, and becomes an accomplice in their deeds. Crime will cease, or greatly diminish, just as soon as official and popular justice cuts off its complicity with it; and it will not cease or diminish until that event occurs. Crime thrives because the officers of the law do not do their duty, and because the popular voice does not demand those safeguards of social and political order that are essential to its maintenance. The ignorant brute, maddened by alcohol and degraded by the example of those whom he helped to place in power, can be reached by no motive but fear; and so long as that motive does not exist, we may expect to see in every newspaper we take up the record of a new crime, and to bow our heads in shame for our city, while we examine anew the defences we have spread around our goods and our lives.”
Concessions on Future Punishment and God's Word
By R. F. Cottrell
Concessions.
THE Sabbath Recorder says: “Infidelity is the offspring of an unsanctified heart, and is always born outside of penitence. And further attempts to satisfy skeptics by, in any manner, lowering the claims of God, will be a double loss. God will be dishonored and the sinners will be lost.” To this, we respond a hearty Amen! We believe it. His subject is the controverted question of future punishment. We would not lower the claims of God upon the sinner, nor would we dare, or desire, to abate an iota from all that God has threatened in his word. We would do all that we can to help unbelievers to come to God and believe his word. But, to win him, we have no right to compromise God’s word in the least degree. Neither should we, in order to save him, venture to exaggerate, in the least degree, the threatenings of that word. This, instead of helping him, might prove a stumbling block, over which he would stumble into perdition.
The editor further says, “We firmly believe that every truly penitent is helped, rather than hindered, in coming to Christ, who feels the justice of the divine wrath.” Again we say, Amen! And the instances are numerous of infidels who never had been able to “feel the justice” of an eternity of conscious torment, who have been converted when they have learned that the Bible, instead of this, threatened the death of the sinner. They could feel the justice of this. It is the justice and certainty of punishment, and not its extreme terribleness, that, as a motive, aids in bringing men to Christ.
I leave the argument, but would express an opinion; and that is, that no man can be found, believer or unbeliever, that will seriously reflect upon the infinite duration of eternity, and then upon the fiery torment, the terrible fierceness of wrath and indignation, and the weeping and gnashing of teeth, that shall be there as represented in the Bible, and “feel the justice” of such unspeakable woe to be endured to endless ages, as the punishment for the sins of this brief state of existence. Professors of this faith cannot believe it, and hence they tame the suffering, down, perhaps to the self-torment of a guilty conscience, which, in the present life, is generally in inverse proportion to the enormity and continuance of their guilt. They come to the conclusion, at least, that fire does not mean fire; though an apostle has said, after speaking of the antediluvian world perishing by water in the days of Noah, that “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men.”
Men might learn, if they would, from the agonizing sufferings which are endured in this present life, that God is terribly in earnest against sin, and that he will punish the sinner, as he did the Sodomites, and not leave it for sinners to punish themselves. I remember of hearing the opinion of a reflective Christian, who held, as he had been taught, the immortality of the wicked. It was this: “That some of the most harmless of sinners would be even more comfortable in hell, than they had been in the present life.” And it is no wonder that he should form such an opinion from his standpoint, had he witnessed, as I did recently, the exquisite and indescribable agony of a kind neighbor dying of pleurisy.
Not very long since I heard a Methodist minister preach. After alluding to the “lake of fire burning with brimstone,” said he, “You know that I do not believe that there is such a place.” He held that this language is figurative. We do not believe that there is a lake of fire, where the wicked are receiving their punishment, but we believe that there will be. To us, God’s threatenings are a certainty.
I have sometimes wondered that professed Christians should show such zeal to prove the wicked immortal, against revelation and reason. I have thought, You hope to escape the punishment of sin; and what comfort can it be to you to think others must endure it eternally? But another thought: They may feel, as I do, that there is a possibility of their coming short of the reward, and of sharing the fate of the transgressor. In that case, they would like to have the punishment unreal, and consequently uncertain, rather than meet just what the Bible threatens.
If Christians really believed that sinners were exposed to an eternity of conscious agony, they should be very zealous to labor for their conversion. But I see no more zeal to labor, sacrifice, and suffer, to save men, with those who hold to eternal torment, than I do with those who believe that “the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.”
It is a fearful thing to take from, or add to, the words of the Lord.
R. F. COTTRELL.
Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
THIRD OBJECTION.
Christ broke the Sabbath.
Answer. If Christ did break the Sabbath, then he was a sinner, for all admit that the law was binding till his death. Thus, in their endeavors to destroy the Sabbath, men are driven to make even the Son of God a transgressor! It is a good proof of the blindness with which men fight against the truth. But what did Christ ever do that was a violation of the Sabbath law? Did he ever plow or sow or reap on that day? No. Did he perform any secular labor whatever? Not in the least. Did he ever instruct others to do so? No. Did he ever say the Sabbath was no longer a holy day or to be kept sacred? Not that either.
Why then this charge? Simply because he did not regard the foolish traditions which the Pharisees taught concerning the Sabbath, but used the day for merciful and benevolent purposes, as God originally designed it to be used. He went to the house of God, read the Scriptures, taught the people, healed the sick with a word, and affirmed that these things were “lawful” to be done upon the Sabbath day. Matt. 12:12. “Lawful” means “in accordance with the law;” that is, these things were in perfect harmony with the law of the Sabbath, and hence no violation of it.
But did he not justify his disciples in plucking the ears of corn and eating upon the Sabbath? Yes; but this was only a simple act of mercy in supplying the demands of nature, the same as it would be to pick and eat an apple or other fruit. The answer of Christ to his enemies on that occasion silenced them then, and it is a fitting answer to the enemies of the Sabbath now. See Matt. 12:1–12. He said, and proved too, that what his disciples did was lawful. If lawful, then it was not a violation of the law, and hence neither they nor he broke the Sabbath. Christ emphatically said that whoever broke one of the least of the commandments would be the least in the kingdom. Matt. 5:17–19. Then did he violate one of them himself? “No; for he says he kept them. John 15:10.”
FOURTH OBJECTION.
Christ, in teaching the young man what commandments to keep, in order to gain eternal life, does not mention the Sabbath, which shows that he did not regard it of any importance.Matt. 19:16–22.
Answer. This objection is based on the assumption that Christ names all the commandments which it is necessary to keep in the Christian dispensation. Now look and see what ones he does name. The fifth, to honor parents; the sixth, not to kill; the seventh, against adultery; the eighth, against stealing; the ninth, against lying; and then the sum of them all, to love your neighbor as yourself. These are all. The first commandment, against idolatry; the second, against images; the third, against profanity; and the fourth, the Sabbath, and the tenth, against coveting, are not mentioned at all!
Now, if because the Sabbath is not mentioned, we conclude that Christ meant to slight it and leave it out of the gospel, then we must also conclude the same concerning the first three commandments, because they are no more mentioned than that is. And hence, by the same reasoning, we must conclude that idolatry, image worship, profanity, and covetousness are not wrong under the gospel, because not here named by Christ!
No candid person can fail to see that a position which leads to such terrible conclusions as these must be false. The simple fact is this: The young man asked which commandments he should keep. Christ then quotes several of the ten commandments, enough to show which law he meant. This was all he wished to do. The young man was self-deceived. He thought that he was keeping all the law, the ten commandments. But when Christ told him to go and sell and give to the poor, he went away sorrowful. This showed that he was violating the tenth precept—Thou shalt not covet. This was one of the commandments which Christ did not directly name. From all which it is manifest that Christ, in his answer to the young man did not pretend to give all the commandments which must be kept now, as he only quoted five of the ten, but only enough to show which law he meant when he said, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” So vanishes this objection, and leaves behind it another proof of Christ’s regard for all the ten commandments.
FIFTH OBJECTION.
Christ, in answer to the lawyer’s question, “Which is the great commandment in the law,” names the two great commandments, but does not mention the Sabbath, which again shows that it is not now binding.Matt. 22:35–40.
Answer. This objection is founded on the same false assumption that the preceding one was, viz., that because the Sabbath is not definitely named here, it is not binding. Now try this on the other commandments also. What does he say about stealing? Nothing. Killing? Nothing. Profanity? Nothing. Coveting? Nothing. Indeed he does not mention any one of the ten commandments. Shall we therefore conclude that a man can disregard all those precepts now and be guiltless? None dare take this position. Then this objection is given up.
But let us read this passage and see what it does teach. “Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying: Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” Matt. 22:35–40.
Now it is argued that Christ gave these two commandments to supersede the old law, and that if a man will keep these it is all he need to do. The Sabbath is not mentioned, therefore it is excluded by this new law. But we have seen that according to this reasoning all the ten commandments are excluded as well as the Sabbath. That will hardly do. The fact is, Christ was not giving a new law, but quotes both these great commandments directly from Moses in the Old Testament. The first is found in Deut. 6:4, 5, and the second in Lev. 19:18. These were given by Moses, word for word, as Christ quotes them, about fifteen hundred years before Christ. If they do away the Sabbath, then it was done away in the days of Moses at the very time it was given; for this is the time when85these two great commandments were first given! Strange that men are so blind as to take positions which are so absurd. These two great commandments contain the sum of the ten commandments. Thus the first four are briefly contained in this one, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart.” If a man loves God with all his heart, he will not have other gods, nor worship idols, nor profane God’s name, nor break God’s Sabbath day. If he loves his neighbor as himself, he will not kill him, nor lie about him, nor steal from him, &c.
As will be seen by this, the ten commandments are based upon or hang upon these two great commandments. Now the question is, Do all ten still hang there in the New Testament? or was one, the Sabbath, taken off by Christ? Hear him: after quoting these two great commandments, he says, “On these two commandments hang ALL the law and the prophets.” How much of the law hangs there? All of it. Remember, this is in the New Testament, and the words of Jesus as found in the very passage brought as an objection to the Sabbath! This witness, like the others, testifies in favor of the Sabbath and the law, not against them.
SIXTH OBJECTION.
“The law and the prophets were until John.”Luke 16:16.
Answer. This objection furnishes a good illustration of the blindness and unreasonableness of error. If this objection is sound, then the law was abolished in the days of John the Baptist. Well, then, was it abolished again at the death of Christ? So our opponents claim. It would seem that the law died hard indeed! If the old law was abolished in the days of John, and the new law did not come into force till after the death of Christ, then there was a period of some years in which there was no law at all, as the old was dead, and the new was not yet given! And, further; not only was the law abolished in the time of John, but the prophets too! For the text says, “The law and the prophets were until John.” If this proves that the law was abolished there, it proves the same of the prophets! A position so absurd can not be true.
But what, then, is the meaning of the text? I understand it to be this: The people were taught by the law and the prophets till John came; then they had the additional light of the gospel of the kingdom. Matthew renders it thus: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.” Chap. 11:13. Luke gives it thus: “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Chap. 16:16. If the reader will look into his Bible, he will see that “were” is a supplied word, not in the original. The context must show what words are to be supplied. “Were preached” are manifestly the proper words to be supplied, as the last part of the verse shows. It would then read thus: “The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached.” Matthew also harmonizes with this, as will be seen. Then the simple meaning is, not that the law and the prophets all died at the coming of John, but that these were preached as the only light the people had till then; and after that, they had the additional light of the gospel.
SEVENTH OBJECTION.
The council of the apostles held at Jerusalem, Acts 15, decreed that the Gentiles need not keep the law, hence it is not now binding.
Answer. To this we readily agree, provided the ceremonial law is meant; but if it is claimed that this covers also the decalogue, then we cannot assent to it. It is easy to show that there were two kinds of laws in the Old Testament; one, the moral law, briefly contained in the ten commandments; the other, the ceremonial law, pertaining to the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices, circumcision, &c. The first is of universal application to all nations and all ages; but the second was local and limited in its application, extending only to the death of Christ. Of course, when Christ died, this shadowy, typical law passed away. It was not necessary that the Gentiles who turned to God after that should keep this law.
It was this law that was under consideration at Jerusalem, as will be seen by reading Acts 15. Verse 1 says, “And certain men which came down from Judea, taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses ye can not be saved.” It was the law relating to circumcision which these men were trying to enforce. Verse 5 confirms this thus: “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” No reference, whatever, is made to the law of ten commandments.
After thoroughly discussing this question, the apostles wrote to the Gentiles thus: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to whom we gave no such commandment. . . . For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” Verses 24–29.
Over this language our opponents become very confident. The apostles say they never commanded the Gentiles to keep “the law.” This, they say, must include all the old law, ten commandments and all, as no exception is made. Then the apostles proceed to name a few things in that old law which it is still necessary to keep. All that is not here named by them is not now binding. Not a word is said about keeping the Sabbath, hence it is not now binding.
Well, let us look a little further. How much of the old law did the apostles name as still to be kept? Only four things: 1, Abstain from meats offered to idols, 2, from blood, 3, from things strangled, 4, from fornication. What is said about the commandments against profanity, honoring parents, murder, lying, stealing, coveting, &c.? Not a word! Then according to the logic of our opponents none of these precepts are now binding any more than the Sabbath; for they are not mentioned any more than that is? What a blasphemous conclusion is this! Yet there is no avoiding it provided the decalogue is the law or a part of the law here under discussion. For the apostles say emphatically that they never required the Gentiles to keep the law and then name the only points in that law to which they need pay any attention. The rest of it they are at liberty to disregard entirely.
What do our opponents do with this dilemma? What do they say about it? Just nothing at all. They are speechless. And yet they will doggedly cling to their position and bring it up again and again with all these absurdities staring them in the face.
But notice how plain the truth is. The apostles were simply discussing the ceremonial law, that relating to circumcision and the like. This law they never required the Gentiles to keep. However, there were a few regulations in it which it would be well still to regard. These the apostles name, all of which will be found in the ceremonial law. So vanishes this objection also. D. M. CANRIGHT.
Is Ours a Christian Nation?
No SURER evidence that a religious conflict is approaching in this country, could be given, than is presented in the fact that leading and influential papers are gradually forming themselves into line on some of the great theological questions of the day. It is over the issues involved in the Religious Amendment of the Constitution that the conflict is doubtless to be. Not many months since, we recorded the fact that the Christian Press of Cincinnati, from a position of indifference finally took an active and decided stand in favor of the proposed amendment. The Methodist of N. Y. city, now takes the same step; and this we conceive to be no small accession to the strength of those who are urging on this movement. In its issue of Feb. 8, 1873, under the heading given above, it says:—
A convention called for the purpose of securing an amendment to our National Constitution is to be held in this city this month. So long as the fact that we are a Christian nation has been unchallenged, we have, for ourselves, felt indisposed to co-operate in this movement. Recent developments have compelled us to revise our opinion of its expediency. Mr. Francis E. Abbott, editor of the Index, has a call to the liberals of America to organize for the removal of every trace of Christianity from our laws and customs. He demands that the employment of chaplains by the National Government, or by State governments, shall be discontinued; that the use of the Bible in public schools shall be prohibited; that the appointment, by our authorities, of religious festivals, shall cease; that the judicial oath shall be abolished; that Sunday laws shall be repealed; that all laws enforcing Christian morality shall be abrogated; and that, in all national and State administration, no practical advantage shall be conceded to Christianity.
This is certainly a comprehensive programme. We may all ask, What is coming next? It cannot be denied that a large party is growing up in the country which insists that the attitude of the nation toward all religions shall be one of indifference. It makes this claim in the name of liberty, and asks us to forget all our early history. On the other hand, Roman Catholics denounce the religious position of the nation as godless and infidel, and do not hesitate to avow the purpose to bring us under subjection to the church. Between the pressure from the one and the other side, it may become important for us to embody, in our fundamental laws, both the Christian and the Protestant standing-ground of the nation and the States. That the nation is historically both Christian and Protestant, can be easily shown. We shall discuss the subject more at length hereafter.
The Turks Alarmed.
In another column will be found some extracts from J. S. C. Abbott's Prussia and the Franco-Prussian War, setting forth the object which Russia has long entertained with respect to Turkey. Russia has for a few years past been straining every nerve in preparations to carry out her project. And as “where there is a will there is a way,” so when war is desired a pretext will not long be wanting. Russia is opening the ball, by hostile demonstrations in Asia, for some real or fancied injuries, and Turkey, understanding its real significance, is greatly alarmed. So says a recent daily in the following paragraph:—
“ ‘The Turks,’ says a newspaper correspondent at Constantinople, ‘are by no means easy at the progress Russia is making in Central Asia; but they dare not show it. They know that to do so would be of no avail, and would only bring upon them Russian resentment. But they cannot, with a calm and satisfied eye, see a foreign, and above all a Christian, domination established in the region whence they derive their origin. They hoped for a moment, that England, so deeply interested in opposing a barrier to Russia’s policy of conquest, would intervene; and they see with discouragement that the English Government is but slightly disquieted. I know that Sir Henry Elliot has more than once been questioned on the subject by the Turkish Ministers, and that he has given them evasive answers in regard to the policy which England intended to pursue. Already formidable on the side of the Danube and of the Black Sea, Russia will become equally formidable for Turkey on the side of Asia; but the Porte is not strong enough to protest against her encroachments with any chance of being listened to, and seeing that England is silent and lets matters take their course, Turkey also keeps silence—though groaning in secret over the destiny which the Russian conquests are preparing for her in the future.”
MARY F. WELCH
By Mary F. Welch
Contrast.
Go back with me to the garden of Eden, when Adam and Eve were first placed there, pure and spotless; when they were visited by angels, and when everything possessed life and health, and compare it with the present. How sad the change! Man has fallen, and the same serpent that tempted Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden still lives to tempt man in his fallen condition!
And after six thousand years' experience, we find that this enemy has not lost his power, but still succeeds in deceiving thousands; and the result is, sickness and sorrow, crime and death. But had Adam and Eve resisted this temptation, and obeyed the voice of the Lord God, they might have enjoyed their happy Eden home, and, in addition to that happiness, might have received visits from the holy angels. But alas! the marks of disease and decay are seen all around us. The earth, once so pure and spotless, so free from sin and decay, has also fallen under the power of the enemy. But when restored to its Eden beauty, all traces of the curse will forever be banished away.
In contrasting this present world with the one to come, we are reminded of the words of David:—“When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers; the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; what is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?” Ps. 8:3, 4.
When we think of man in his fallen state, subject to sin, remorse, and degradation, and know that he ever has an enemy to tempt him and lead him astray, and that through his power our friends are torn from our grasp; oh! then, what a sweet assurance is this, that, ere long, Satan will lose his power, and He will come whose right it is to reign, when pain and sorrow, sickness and death, will forever be banished from the earth.
What a blessed thought to cheer the lonely pilgrim on his way, that Christ is coming again, he who died to redeem fallen man from death, to have power over the grave, and reign a victorious conqueror forevermore. Is it not enough to inspire courage in every heart, to realize that He who suffered an ignominious death upon the cross, is coming again to receive the jewels he has bought with his own precious blood?