LAST JANUARY, an evening was appointed by the Evangelical Alliance, for prayer to be made by all Christian people for the soon coming of the Lord. It is certainly meet that such prayer should be made, but from how many longing hearts did the prayer arise, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly? When we look upon this sin-cursed earth, and see how the tide of sin and woe is rolling on, and when we are assured that the only hope for the cessation of these evils is the return of our Lord, should not all who love him pray for his coming?
To pray for the speedy coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, embraces much. It means an end to man's probation. It means the decisions of the day of Judgment to be given. It means that the doom of all be forever sealed; that the oppressed people of God shall be free, and triumph gloriously. It means the awakening of the saints from their sleep in the earth, to be clothed with immortality, and be forever with the Lord, and the glad meeting of long-separated friends, and their reaching home to live forever. It means that we may see Him who was nailed to the cross for us, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords; and that we who are his disciples may soon be received with all the blood-washed throng into those mansions the loving Saviour has gone to prepare for us. It will be the glad fruition of the blessed hope that has sustained God's people all through the dark and stormy night of time. It means the dawning of eternal day, the bringing in of everlasting joy.
Oh, glorious day of his appearing! We wait with joyful anticipations its approach and note with gladness every token that declares it near. Let all the people of God, in response to his declaration, "Behold, I come quickly," respond, "Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
B. F. MERRITT.
THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST. NO. 15.
It has before been shown that Catholicism is virtually one with Spiritualism, because it teaches that the living may and do have intercourse with the dead. This alone is sufficient to brand it as an antichristian system. But there are so many professed Protestants nowadays who regard Catholicism as an important branch of the Christian church, that it is necessary to present some very conclusive evidence to the contrary. The Scripture, speaking of the Papacy under the form of a beast, says that "all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Rev. 13:8. It also says of the unclean spirits that represent Spiritualism, that "they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty." Rev. 16:14. This shows that those who either directly or indirectly acknowledge the authority of the Papacy, will also be Spiritualists. When we remember that Spiritualism is paganism in its original form, and that Catholicism is paganism with some modifications, and that both depend mainly upon the heathen idea of the natural immortality of man, we can see how Spiritualists might come to acknowledge the Papacy. As for Catholics, they are Spiritualists already.
Since this is so, it is as necessary to warn people against Catholicism as against Spiritualism. We therefore shall quote quite a number of additional statements from "The Glories of Mary," to show the antichristian character and essential wickedness of the Roman Catholic system. Many of these statements are little else than repetitions of the same thing; but we wish the reader to know that we are not misrepresenting the Catholic Church by quoting a few isolated passages. Whoever will take the trouble to procure the book, will find stuff of the same kind on almost every page, until he will become nauseated.
The inspired apostle tells us that Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, died "for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament." Heb. 9:15. But this Catholic "saint" contradicts this statement thus:—
"St. Bernardine of Sienna says that God did not destroy man after his fall, because of the peculiar love he bore his future child, Mary. And the saint adds, that he doubts not all the mercy and pardon which sinners received under the old law, was granted them solely for the sake of this blessed Virgin."
This takes from Christ all the honor of the salvation of people for the first four thousand years of this earth's history. Now when we find that sinners in this age are directed to look to Mary first, and afterwards, if at all, to Jesus, it is evident that Catholicism is emphatically antichrist. On pages 83, 84 we read:—
"Justly, then, does St. Lawrence Justinian call her the hope of evil-doers, since she alone can obtain their pardon from God. St. Bernard rightly calls her the ladder of sinners, since she, this compassionate queen, offers her hand to poor, fallen mortals, leads them from the precipice of sin, and helps them to ascend to God. St. Augustine rightly calls her the only hope of us sinners, since by her means alone we hope for the remission of all our sins. And St. John Chrysostom repeats the same thing, namely, that sinners receive pardon only through the intercession of Mary."
The last quotation speaks of Mary as the "ladder of sinners," and therefore the following little story comes in very aptly right here:—
"In the Franciscan chronicles it is related of Brother Leo, that he once saw a red ladder, upon which Jesus Christ was standing, and a white one, upon which stood his holy mother. He saw persons attempting to ascend the red ladder; they ascended a few steps and then fell; they ascended again, and again fell. Then they were exhorted to ascend the white ladder, and on that he saw them succeed, for the blessed Virgin offered them her hand, and they arrived in that manner safe in Paradise."
Now add to this, the following:—
"God has ordained that all graces should be dispensed by the prayers of Mary; where these are wanting, there is no hope of mercy, as our Lord signified to St. Bridget, saying to her: 'Unless Mary interposes by her prayers, there is no hope of mercy.'"
These quotations show, not that Mary divides with Christ the honor of man's salvation, but that she is the only saviour. The Catholic Church actually teaches those who look to it for instruction, that they cannot be saved by the merits of Christ, and that if they do not seek the aid of the Virgin Mary, they must certainly be lost. And yet there are Protestants who think that it is an important part of the Christian church. On page 330 there is a prayer to be said to the Virgin Mary, from which we take the following extract:—
"It is enough that thou wilt save us, for then we cannot but be saved. Who can restrain the bowels of thy compassion? If thou hast not compassion on us, thou who art the mother of mercy, what will become of us when thy Son shall come to judge us."
Surely nothing more is needed to convince any person not wholly blinded that the Catholic Church robs Christ of honor as the divine Mediator for sinners, and gives it to a creature, who, though she was a good woman, could obtain salvation in no other way than through the merits of Christ, and who has been dead for not less than eighteen hundred years. Again we ask the reader to remember that Mariolatry could not have any existence if it were not for the pagan notion that death does not end a man's existence. The thoughtful person will readily connect Mariolatry with the ancient heathen custom of deifying the dead. Ancient heathenism, modern Spiritualism, and Roman Catholicism, all spring from the same root, and are very closely related.
THE FIRST DOMINION.
By w.
THAT this earth belongs to the Lord, no one will for a moment call in question. It is his, because he is the Creator. Says the Psalmist: "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods." Ps. 24: 1, 2. When the prophet Daniel interpreted to King Nebuchadnezzar the dream which foretold his abasement, he told the king that he should be driven out from his kingdom, "till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." Dan. 4: 25. And in Ps. 115: 16 we read: "The heaven, even the heavens are the Lord's; but the earth hath he given to the children of men." This means simply that the Heaven is God's dwelling-place (Ps. 11: 4), and that over it he has sole control, but that he has made man the tenant of the earth. When and how the dominion of the earth was given to man, are told in the following verses:—
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowls of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen. 1: 26-28.
A dominion is a kingdom; to have dominion is to have kingly authority. Therefore since the earth was given to man for a dominion, the earth was designed for man's kingdom. To this intent David speaks in the eighth psalm, where he says of man: "For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet; all sheep and oxen, yea, and beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." Ps. 8: 5-8. The apostle quotes this (Heb. 2: 7, 8), and makes the additional statement that "now we see not yet all things put under him." This being the case, it must be because man has lost the dominion, for it was certainly given to him. In the words of the apostle, therefore, we have at once a statement of the loss of the dominion first given to man, and a promise of its restoration.
The details of the loss of the dominion which at the first was given to man, are given in the third chapter of Genesis. In the first part of the chapter we learn that the serpent beguiled Eve, and persuaded her to eat of the forbidden fruit, and that she in turn induced Adam to eat. Then God said to Adam, "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken; for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." Gen. 3: 17-19. And afterwards when Cain had killed his brother, the Lord said: "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength." Gen. 4: 12. From this we learn that it is because of man's disobedience that we do not now see all things put under him.
But when man lost the dominion of the earth, who gained it? Evidently the one to whom he yielded obedience. Peter says that, "of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage." 2 Peter 2: 19. And Jesus said: "When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace; but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armor wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils." Luke 11: 21, 22. Our first parents were overcome by the serpent, "which is the devil, and Satan" (Rev. 20: 2), and therefore it was to Satan that they yielded up the dominion which had been committed to them.
That Satan is now the ruler of this earth, instead of man, is shown by the Scriptures. In 2 Cor. 4: 4, Satan is spoken of as "the god of this world." Christ said that the wicked are children of Satan (John 8: 44); and in Eph. 2: 2, "the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience," is called "the prince of the power of the air." Satan is "the accuser of the brethren," the one whom the followers of Christ are to "resist steadfast in the faith" (1 Pet. 5: 8, 9), and Paul says that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world." Eph. 6: 12. And none can doubt that it was to Satan that Christ referred, when he said, "The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." John 14: 30.
In the account of our Lord's temptation in the wilderness, we have the most positive evidence that Satan holds the dominion that was given to Adam. The last and greatest temptation is thus described: "Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; and saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Matt. 4: 8, 9.
Some may think that Satan lied when he made this promise to Christ, and that he knew that he did not have the power to fulfill the promise, even if he could have induced the Lord to comply with the conditions. There is no doubt but that Satan lied, and that he had no intention of yielding up anything that he had; but if he did not possess the kingdoms199of the earth, Christ certainly knew it, and in that case the offer of them to him would not have been any temptation. When Satan said to Jesus: "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread," there was a real temptation, because Jesus was extremely hungry. When Satan placed Jesus on a pinnacle of the temple, and said, "If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down," there was a temptation to show his divine power. And so when Satan showed to Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, offering to give them to him in return for his homage, there was a temptation, because Satan was offering just what Christ came into the world to redeem. Jesus did not tell Satan that he had no right to offer to him the kingdoms of this world, but simply refused to accept them upon the conditions imposed, thus tacitly admitting that Satan was "the prince of this world."
In Eze. 28: 12-17, we have an unmistakable reference to Satan. No other being could merit the following description: "Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold. . . . Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so; thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. . . . Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness."
That is a description of Satan before his fall, and also a statement of the reason of his fall. But let the reader take particular notice that the being thus described is called "the King of Tyrus." Verse 12. The wisdom and power of the man who sat upon the throne of Tyre are described in verses 2-11 of this same chapter (Eze. 28), and he is called the "Prince of Tyrus." In this we have further inspired testimony to the fact that Satan is "god of this world," working in the children of disobedience. Wicked rulers like the king of Tyre, are only nominally king; they are second in power to Satan, who rules through them, and is thus real king. But while Satan has usurped the dominion which God gave to Adam, he does not have unlimited control of this earth. God did not give unlimited and supreme authority over the earth even to man in his uprightness; and so when Satan overcame man, it was not possible for him to get control of the earth to an unlimited degree. This fact Satan acknowledged, when he said to the Lord concerning Job: "Hast thou not made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side?" Job 1: 10. It still remains true, that "the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."
It was stated in connection with the reference to the temptation of Jesus, that Satan offered him that which he came into the world to redeem,—the dominion of the earth, which Adam lost. This will presently be made to appear. When Adam lost the dominion, he also lost his right to live; he sold himself to Satan, at the same time that he forfeited the earth to him. So it is that Satan is "god of this world," and has also "the power of death." Heb. 2: 14. Now Christ came to redeem what Adam lost. And so when the apostle quotes the words of the psalmist, when he says that God set man over the works of his hands, but that "now we see not yet all things put under him," he adds: "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man." "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them who through fear of death were all their life-time subject to bondage." Heb. 2: 9, 14, 15.
In order that Christ might redeem man from the curse of death which came upon him when he yielded to Satan, he had to suffer the same curse. Says Paul: "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." Gal. 3: 13. And so, to redeem the earth, he bore its curse, when the crown of thorns was placed upon his head. Compare Gen. 3: 13, 18 and Matt. 27: 29. As Christ has, by death, gained the right to destroy the one who has power over death, that is, the devil, he has also won the right to the dominion which Satan usurped. And so the prophet addresses Christ in the following language:—
"And thou, O tower of the flock, the stronghold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem." Micah 4: 8.
In these words we have the promise of the restoration of the first dominion (see Gen. 1: 28), not to Adam, who lost it, but to Christ the second Adam, who redeemed it. Those who through faith recover themselves out of the snare of the devil; who learn of Jesus to be meek and lowly in heart, will inherit the earth with Christ, when he shall take possession of it as his kingdom. w.
HISTORICAL NECESSITY OF THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE. NO. 5.
In entering the seventeenth century we find a new element upon the sea of controversy. Philosophy of the different schools was in each one striving for ascendancy; and if not a direct cause of many of the disputes of this century, it gave a coloring to them. At this time philosophy was represented in the two classes of Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) and Fire-Philosophers, from their proposition that "the dissolution of bodies by the power of fire is the only way in which the first principles of things can be discerned." The Peripatetics held the professorships in almost all of the places of learning; and held all who questioned Aristotle, as little less criminal than downright heretics: and so there was a lively contest kept up between them and the Fire-Philosophers, or chemists. But there was a union of the interests of these two, when, about 1640, the Cartesian gauntlet, "Cogito, ergo sum" (i. e., I think, therefore I am), was thrown into the arena; and they both turned with all their energy against the new philosophy; "not," says Mosheim, "so much for their philosophical system as for the honors, advantages, and profits they derived from it." And, "seconded by the clergy who apprehended that the cause of religion was aimed at and endangered by these philosophical innovations, they made a prodigious noise and left no means unemployed to prevent the downfall of their old system. . . . They not only accused Descartes of the most dangerous and pernicious errors, but went so far, in the extravagance of their malignity, as to bring a charge of atheism against him." In opposition to Descartes, Gassendi also entered the lists, and this gave rise to yet another school of philosophy, the Mathematical. That of Descartes was called the Metaphysical, or Cartesian, philosophy. As the Peripatetic was the only philosophy taught in the Lutheran schools, the rise of the new philosophy was a new subject for discussion and opposition there, and gave more ample scope for the exercise of their propensities.
Another thing that greatly troubled the Lutherans was, that in 1614 John Sigismund, elector of Brandenburg, entered the communion of the Calvinists, and granted to all his subjects entire liberty in religious matters, and left to the free choice of all whether they would embrace one religion or another, or any at all. But the Lutherans "deemed it intolerable that the Calvinists should enjoy the same privileges as themselves." And this was carried to such a length that the people of Brandenburg were prohibited from studying at the University of Wittenberg.
But that which gave the Lutherans the most trouble in this century was the efforts of a succession of persons to bring about a state of harmony between them and the Calvinists. James I. of England tried it, and failed. In 1631, in a synod of the Calvinists at Charenton, an act was passed, which granted that the Lutheran religion "was conformable to a spirit of true piety, and free from pernicious and fundamental errors," but the overture was not accepted. In the same year, a conference was held at Leipsic, between several of the most eminent doctors of both communions, in Saxony and Brandenburg. And although the Calvinists showed all possible fairness, and made concessions that the Lutherans themselves could scarcely expect, yet all their efforts were looked upon and regarded with suspicion, as being only schemes to ensnare them; and the conference broke up with nothing done.
In 1645, Vladislaus IV., king of Poland, called a conference at Thorn, but it only increased the party zeal. In 1661, William VI., landgrave of Hesse, called a conference at Cassel, in which the doctors there assembled came to an agreement, embraced one another, and declared that there was nothing between them of sufficient importance to prevent union and concord. This was no sooner learned by the Lutheran brethren, than they turned all their fury against their delegates, and loaded them with reproaches of apostasy, Calvinism, etc.
Besides these public efforts, there were others of a private character. John Duræus, a Calvinist, a native of Scotland, says Mosheim, "during a period of forty-three years, suffered vexations, and underwent labors which required the firmest resolution, and the most inexhaustible patience; wrote, exhorted, admonished, entreated, and disputed; in a word, tried every method that human wisdom could suggest, to put an end to the dissensions and animosities that reigned among the Protestant churches. . . . He traveled through all the countries in Europe where the Protestant religion had gained a footing; he formed connections with the doctors of both parties; he addressed himself to kings, princes, magistrates, and ministers. . . . But his views were disappointed. . . . Some, suspecting that his fervent and extraordinary zeal arose from mysterious and sinister motives, and apprehending that he had secretly formed a design of drawing the Lutherans into a snare, even attacked him in their writings with animosity and bitterness, and loaded him with the sharpest invectives and reproaches: so that this well-meaning man, neglected at length by his own communion, . . . spent the remainder of his days in repose and obscurity at Cassel."—Church History, 17th cent., sec. 2, part 2, chap. 1, paragraph 6.
That which he proposed as the foundation upon which they might unite was the Apostles' Creed, the ten commandments, and the Lord's prayer.
Another of the most zealous of the peacemakers was John Matthias, a Swedish bishop, who with George Calixtus, attempted to carry on the work of Duræus. But the opposition was so bitter that Matthias was obliged to resign his bishopric; and Calixtus was accused of syncretism, and to his "charge many other things were laid, besides the crime of endeavoring to unite the disciples of the same Master in the amiable bonds of charity, concord, and mutual forbearance."—Id., par. 7. (Italics his.) This crime was called syncretism.200
The Pietistical controversy was another, that engaged the attention of the Lutherans during this century. This was set on foot by Philip James Spener, of Frankfort, who had in view the promotion of vital religion, rousing the lukewarm and indifferent, stemming the torrent of vice and corruption, and reforming the licentious manners of both the clergy and people. See paragraph 26. The better to accomplish this, Spener and his adherents proposed that, besides the stated times for public worship, private assemblies for prayer and other religious exercises should be held. For these laudable and most necessary aims they were nicknamed Pietists, and the opposition was as strong as against any of the others.
This subject was carried further by some of the professors at Leipsic, who for the purpose of instructing the candidates for the ministry in something better than how to perpetrate broils, "undertook to explain in their colleges certain books of Scripture, in order to render these genuine sources of religious knowledge better understood, and to promote a spirit of practical piety and vital religion in the minds of their hearers. . . . Accordingly these lectures were much frequented, and their efforts were visible in the lives and conversation of several persons, whom they seemed to inspire with a deep sense of the importance of religion and virtue." But immediately the cry arose that this was "contrary to custom." "Hence rumors were spread, tumults excited, animosity kindled, and the matter at length brought to a public trial in which these pious and learned men were indeed declared free from the errors and heresies laid to their charge, but were at the same time prohibited from carrying on that plan of religious instruction which they had undertaken with so much zeal."—Id., par. 37.
But this did not put down the good work thus begun; for the contest spread rapidly through all the Lutheran Churches in Europe. Therefore the doctors and pastors of Wittenberg thought themselves obliged to proceed publicly, first against Spener in 1695, and afterwards against his disciples, which gave rise to new debates. The Pietists held: 1. That none should be admitted to the ministry but such as had been properly educated, and who were distinguished by wisdom and sanctity of manners, and who had their hearts filled with divine love. 2. That the scholastical theology should be abolished. 3. That polemical divinity, that is, the controversies between Christians, should be less eagerly taught. 4. That all mixture of philosophy and human learning with the Holy Scriptures should be abandoned. 5. That no person who was not himself a model of piety, was qualified to be a public teacher of piety, or a guide to others in the way of salvation.
Out of these sprung other debates as follows: 1. "Can the religious knowledge acquired by a wicked man be termed theology?" 2. "How far can the office and ministry of an impious ecclesiastic be pronounced salutary and efficacious?" 3. "Can an ungodly and licentious man be susceptible of illumination?" The Pietists further demanded the suppression of certain propositions that it was customary to deliver from the pulpit publicly, that, unqualified, were capable certainly of being interpreted as granting indulgence. Such were these: "No man is able to attain that perfection which the divine law requires. Good works are not necessary to salvation: in the act of justification on the part of man, faith alone is concerned without good works." Also the Pietists prohibited dancing, pantomimes, theatrical plays, etc., among their members; and this again gave an opportunity for the scholastics to display their ingenuity. They raised the question, first, whether these actions were of an indifferent nature, and then from that whether any human actions are truly indifferent; i. e., equally removed from moral good on one hand, and from moral evil on the other.
In the Calvinist Church, after the death of its founder, the controversy over the "divine decrees" continued through the seventeenth century. From the college at Geneva the doctrine of Calvin spread to all parts of Protestant Europe, and into the schools of learning. But there arose a difference of opinion not about the "decrees," but about the nature of the decrees. The majority held that God simply permitted the first man to fall into transgression; while a considerable minority maintained with all their might, that "to exercise and display his awful justice and his free mercy," God had decreed from all eternity that Adam should sin, and had "so ordered the course of events that our first parents could not possibly avoid their unhappy fall."—Id., chap. 2, par. 10.
These last were called Supralapsarians, while their opponents were called Sublapsarians.
(To be continued.)
"WAS IT ORTHODOX?"
By George C. Tenney
THE communication given below is taken from one of the late religious papers, and the dilemma of the poor, bewildered "Layman" is such that he deserves public sympathy. There are thousands today just as badly bewildered by the class of teaching of which this letter furnishes a sample. People allow themselves to become confused in reference to the Bible by endeavoring to follow the sinuous meanderings of modern pulpitory, instead of using their God-given senses in studying the good Book itself for themselves:—
DEAR EDITOR: I have just returned from preaching services, and am very much worked up on account of some ideas advanced by our pastor. I always supposed I was orthodox, and a Methodist at that; but if the remarks to which I shall refer are orthodox, then I shall conclude I am not. The text was the last four verses of the twenty-first chapter of Revelation. He started by saying that practical Christians never had any revelations; therefore Paul and Peter never had any because they were practical men. But John, because more spiritually minded, received wonderful revelations; hence the book of Revelation. After giving a graphic description of the journey of the Christian, and the beauty of the city which is the end of the journey, he spoke of the entrance in by the gates—on the east three, on the north three, on the west three, on the south three; then said he was glad it was so, and spoke of Calvin, who had a man put to death because he did not believe as he did; but said, if Calvin would not let him go in at the same gate with himself, he could slip around and go in on the other side; and if Christians of one denomination would not let Christians of another denomination in, they could slip around and enter some other gate; also, if Roman Catholics could not enter the same gate as Methodists, they could enter some other side. Now my reason for writing is to know: 1. Was that the object of making the city foursquare? 2. Is it possible for one man to take the life of another because they differ in doctrine and both enter Heaven? 3. Can we deny anyone the right of entering the same gate? I wish to be as charitable as our pastor. I am willing and ready to go hand-in-hand with any Christian of any name or any denomination to any gate. I did not know that I could entertain even a desire to bar any out and enter myself. I always supposed my duty was to get all I could to enter with me, regardless of name, sect, sex, or color. Are the ideas advanced orthodox? A LAYMAN.
It is a question how such teaching should be regarded. If it were intended as a burlesque, it is a success, and we can only deprecate the wicked practice of burlesquing sacred things, which is by far too common. But to consider it as spoken with gravity for sound doctrine, it is astounding. We look with curiosity at the distinction drawn between those apostles which were "practical" Christians and John who was "more spiritually minded." Are practical religion and spiritual religion distinct and separate? It is but too true that many fanatics nowadays become so intensely "spiritual" as to be of no practical value in any sense. They are in their minds elevated away above the law of God, or any other law. But the beloved disciple John was not of that kind. He loved God, and showed it by keeping his commandments. He taught us to love one another, not "in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." This is a very practical kind of religion. And Paul, who wrote the eighth chapter of Romans, certainly did not divorce the spiritual from the practical in the religion which he taught.
But how about the statement that John had wonderful revelations while Paul and Peter had none? A certain apostle named Peter was once on a house-top, and saw a sheet let down from heaven by the four corners, containing all manner of living creatures; and this proved to be a very wonderful revelation to him. He was also present on the mount of transfiguration, which he refers to in his epistle as being a revelation of future glory. Paul's Christian experience opened with a startling revelation, while he was on his way to Damascus, and these revelations became so abundant, that he says, "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." Thus the cobweb of human fabrication is swept away by a few words of plain Scripture.
But the imbecility of such teaching becomes comparatively insignificant when compared with the comments given upon the twelve gates of the city, through which, his text declares, "There shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." And yet that congregation was comforted (?) with the thought that if any of them were debarred through enmity or heresy from entering on one side, they could "slip around" and find a gate where such characters would be freely admitted. Papists, drunk with the blood of martyrs and saints, would find an entrance into the many-faced city. In short the idea is the different gates imply that they are for the admission of different grades of character, and for the accommodation of those whose earthly animosities will not permit their entering in at the same gate. Ingersoll will find a gate there reserved for him and his class. What a travesty on the truth of God! And the people love to have it so. It speaks of peace, peace, when there is no peace. There are some among the people who are sufficiently reflective to question such perversions, and may God lead them into the clear light of his word. G. C. TENNEY.