IN last week's issue, in the article "The Lord's Day," it was shown that in the Scriptures but one day is known as the Lord's day, namely, the seventh day of the week. The expression "the Lord's day" occurs but once in the Bible (Rev. 1:10), and in the absence of any other explanation as to what particular day is meant, we are forced to the conclusion that reference is had to the only day which the Lord sanctified (Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:11) and called his own (Isa. 58:13).
As the Revelation was written some sixty years after the ascension of Christ, and near the close of the first century, if the Lord had made any change with reference to the day which he called his own, we certainly would expect to find it mentioned by this time. As there is no reference to a change of the Lord's day in the Scriptures, even to the date of the very latest books, the question arises, How did the erroneous idea of such a change gain credence in the church and in the world?
Inasmuch as the alleged change is manifestly not of God, it is evident that it is of man. Inasmuch as God's word contains no authority for the change, it is evident that the substitute was instituted by man without authority. Being an unauthorized work of man, it cannot be other than a result of apostasy. And right here the words of another writer are pertinent:—
And now mark the work of apostasy. This work never begins by thrusting out God's institutions, but always by bringing in those of men, and at first only asking that they may be tolerated, while yet the ones ordained of God are secretly observed. This in time being effected, the next effort is to make them equal with the divine. When this has been accomplished, the third stage of the process is to honor them above those divinely commanded; and this is speedily succeeded by the fourth, in which the divine institution is thrust out with contempt, and the whole ground given to its human rival.
And such has been the history of the Sunday Lord's day dogma. When we have shown that neither Christ nor his apostles ever alluded to any other day as the Lord's day than the one sanctified by the Lord as his own day, we are confronted with the claim that the "early fathers" of the church recognized the change. To this claim it may be said that if every one of the fathers adhered to a doctrine or a theory unauthorized by the word of God, it would not add a feather's weight to the importance or authority of the doctrine or theory. "To the law and to the testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.805
But an examination of the existing writings and reputed teachings of the fathers will show that they were decidedly inharmonious on this subject (as on many others), excepting in this one feature: While in time they came to attach considerable importance to the assumption that the first day of the week is the Lord's day because on that day he rose from the dead, not one of them assume that it is the Sabbath day. There is no intimation of a change of the Sabbath day to the so-called Lord's day until we come to the Council of Laodicea, about A.D. 364. To show the gradual manner in which the innovation crept into the church, we note the fact that the first authentic mention of the Lord's day by any of the early writers is that of Dionysius, bishop of Antioch, who wrote, about A.D. 170, a letter to the church at Rome, in which occurs this sentence:—
We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able to draw admonition, even as from the reading of the former one you sent us written through Clement.
There is nothing but conjecture to indicate that the writer of this sentence meant the first day of the week. There is much accredited to the fathers of the earlier centuries which has been proven spurious, and much that is, to say the least, uncertain. For instance, some first-day advocates have laid stress upon a so-called "epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians," in which occurs the following language:—
But let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God, and not eating things prepared the day before, nor using lukewarm drinks, and walking within a prescribed space, nor finding delight in dancing and plaudits which have no sense in them. And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of days.
Even if this were an authenticated document, it recognizes the Sabbath of the law, and does not indicate that the day called by the writer "the Lord's day" was in any sense a substitute for the Sabbath. It simply advances the human assumption that the first day of the week is the Lord's day, and treats it merely as a festival. But the recognized authorities who have investigated these early documents agree that the epistles ascribed to Ignatius are of doubtful authority, expressing the sentiment of a much later date than his life. The "Encyclopedia Britannica" says, "The information we get in regard to Ignatius, up to the time of Eusebius [fourth century], is exceedingly scanty." Again it says, "The letters of Ignatius cause great difficulty to the critic." And McClintock and Strong's "Cyclopedia" says: "We have no trustworthy accounts of the life and ministry of Ignatius. The chief authority is the 'Martyrium Ignatii,' but even those who assert the genuineness of that work admit that it is greatly interpolated."
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch from 168 to 181, is represented as saying that "both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord's day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead." But an investigator who examined his writings expressly to find the statement, says:—
I have carefully examined every paragraph of all the remaining writings of this father, and that several times over, without discovering any such statement. . . . And, further than this, the term Lord's day does not occur in his writings, nor does he even refer to the first day of the week, except in quoting Genesis 1, in a single instance.
But Theophilus does give testimony to the law of God several times, in one place saying, "God has given us a law and holy commandments; and everyone who keeps these can be saved, and, obtaining the resurrection, can inherit incorruption." And in connection with the Sabbath he quotes Gen. 2: 2, 3.
Clement, of Alexandria, wrote about the close of the second century, and is the first of the fathers who can be positively quoted as using the term Lord's day in connection with the first day of the week. Yet he does not call it the Sabbath, but refers to the seventh day as the Sabbath. Nor does he give the Scripture as authority for calling the first day the Lord's day, but, quite logically, finds authority in the writings of Plato, a heathen philosopher. In other places, however, Clement becomes somewhat ambiguous in regard to the observance of days, as, indeed, anyone must who endeavors to carry along two days. Having said that Sunday may be properly the seventh day, and Saturday the sixth, he calls "the latter [the sixth] properly the Sabbath, and the seventh a day of work." Another peculiar proposition is that a person, "in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, keeps the Lord's day when he abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the gnostic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself."
Tertullian, who wrote a little later than Clement, applies the term Lord's day to Sunday; but he does not claim divine authority, his idea being to more effectually distinguish the Christians from the Jews. It may be noted that after the apostolic days very few Jews accepted Christianity, and the heathen who came into the church were very much prejudiced against the Jews. This fact had much to do with the encouragement of the heathen Sunday and other heathen innovations, and the discouragement of the day which was observed by the Jews and Jewish Christians. It was this hatred of the Jews which, in a great measure, actuated the Council of Laodicea in its decree of excommunication against all church members who should "Judaize" by keeping the seventh-day Sabbath.
The history of the application of the Lord's day to Sunday shows that the custom had very little place in the church until the third century; that it first figured merely as a festival, gaining strength by the accession of those who had observed it as such in their heathen associations. But the "mystery of iniquity" kept on working, through the encouragement of an apostate semi-heathen church leadership, until the commandment of the Lord was well-nigh made void in the church through the tradition of men. But the very fact that at the Council of Laodicea it was deemed necessary to resort to the extreme act of anathema against those who adhered to the commandment of God, is evidence that there was still a sufficient number of such adherents to cause their influence to be felt and feared by the apostate and tyrannical majority. And the action of that Catholic council is being emulated to-day, not only by Roman Catholicism but by so-called Protestantism. But the Lord has always had, and always will have, reserved unto him a people who would not and will not bow the knee to Baal.
THE SANCTUARY OF THE BIBLE.
By Elder M. H. Brown
BY ELDER M. H. BROWN.
THE subject of the sanctuary is one of great importance, and is deserving of careful and prayerful study. Until recent years the religious world seemed to be entirely ignorant of this subject, except, perhaps, that which relates to the structure and history of the tabernacle which Moses built and the temple erected by Solomon. Like many important truths of the word of God, the sanctuary has been lost sight of, and its true object and significance have been overlooked or forgotten by the religious world since apostolic times.
There are a few statements which we desire to make which will in a measure indicate the practical importance and scope of the subject.
1. The sanctuary and the temple in the Jewish age were the central objects of interest in the worship of God's people. Their worship centered in the sanctuary, where the priests ministered in behalf of the people of God.
2. The sanctuary and priestly service of the old dispensation are very clearly and minutely described in the Scriptures. Many have wondered why. There must be a reason, for the Bible, says that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Rom. 15:4. Again we read: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17.
3. The Bible plainly teaches that the worldly sanctuary and its service were designed to teach the people of God concerning the temple of God in heaven, and the service of our great High Priest, who is declared to be a "minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." Heb. 8:1, 2. Hence, in proportion to our interest in the work of Christ for fallen man, will we be interested in the subject of the sanctuary, where that work is now being carried forward; and our interest in the great plan of salvation will be increased by the study of the subject.
4. The study of the sanctuary reveals the nature of the work of judgment, and the time when that solemn work begins. We therefore invite the reader to a candid examination of the scriptural evidence, which clearly proves the foregoing statements.
Description of the Worldly Sanctuary.
The sanctuary built in the days of Moses is described very minutely in Exodus, chapters 25 to 40. Moses was instructed to make it exactly according to the pattern shown him in the mount. Ex. 25:9; Heb. 8:5. It was composed of two apartments, separated by a veil. The first, called the holy place, was twenty cubits long, ten cubits wide, and ten cubits high. The second apartment was called the most holy place. It was ten cubits in each of its dimensions, and hence it was just half as large as the holy place. The sides of both apartments, and the rear, or west end, were composed of boards made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. The boards were secured at the bottom by means of tenons made on the lower ends of the boards, which fitted into806sockets or bases of silver, each of which weighed a talent (Ex. 26:19-23; 38:27), while at the top, bars were placed through rings which were attached to the boards, and thus they were held securely in position.
It will be noticed that the thickness of the boards is not given in the sacred record. The Jewish rabbins and many modern scholars hold that they were one cubit in thickness. This is because they assume that the two corner boards were of the same width as the rest, namely, a cubit and a half. Then the eight boards on the west end would extend twelve cubits, or one cubit on each side farther than the inside width of the sanctuary. Hence they conclude that the boards that constituted the sides of the tabernacle must have been one cubit in thickness, in order to make the outside measurement of the tabernacle twelve cubits in width. Barrows, in his "Sacred Geography and Antiquities," in commenting on the view, says: "We may well hesitate to admit such an enormous thickness. How could such an immense mass of timber, with all 'the bars thereof, and the pillars thereof, and the sockets thereof,' and in addition to these the 'pillars of the court round about, and their sockets, and their pins, and their cords' (Num. 4:31, 32), be transported from place to place by the help of four wagons and eight oxen, the number assigned to the sons of Merari for this service? Num. 7:8. . . . Nor is it necessary to assume such a thickness for these boards. The fact that the two corner boards are mentioned separately allows us to assume that their width was determined by the exigency of their position. Josephus says that they were four fingers thick. This would make the width of the corner boards half a cubit and four fingers."
The door of the sanctuary consisted of a curtain, or veil, hung upon five pillars; and a similar curtain, called the second veil, hung upon four pillars, separated the two apartments. The top of the tabernacle was composed of curtains, which hung down over the boards on the outside. The curtains which composed the door, the second veil, and the top, were made of linen, beautifully wrought with cherubim, emblematic of the heavenly angels which surround the throne of God. Over this was spread first a curtain of goats' hair for protection, and this was called the tent of the tabernacle. Above this were placed the other curtains, one of rams' skins dyed red, and another of badgers' skins, or seals' skins, according to the best authorities.
Bible scholars differ in regard to the arrangement of these curtains. Bähr, Kiel, Fairbairn, and some others assume that the innermost curtain hung down on the inside of the framework, being supported by rows of hooks attached to the tops of the boards. Fergusson, in an article in "Smith's Bible Dictionary," presents the following theory: He supposed that the central pillar of the front of the tabernacle was fifteen cubits in height, with a corresponding pillar at the rear end and one between them, and that these pillars supported a ridgepole, over which the three top curtains were placed, the linen curtain being first placed on flat and attached to the upright boards so as to hang down on the inside, thus making the walls and ceiling consist of the same material and present the same appearance. Then he has a veranda five cubits wide on each side of the tabernacle, made by the curtains being extended outward. The main argument for this arrangement is that there must have been a roof to shed rain and snow.
The American Tract Society's Bible Dictionary presents the same view, practically, except that it holds that all the curtains were placed over the ridgepole, and extended outward, thus making a veranda at the sides. Another view is that the first two curtains were placed on flat over the top of the boards, falling down on the outside, as indicated in Ex. 26:13, and that the other two were hung over a ridgepole so as to shed rain and snow. In support of this view, attention is called to the fact that the length of the two upper curtains is not given, thus leaving their length to be determined by the height of the ridgepole, and where the ends were to be fastened, whether to the ground close by the side of the tabernacle, or whether they were stretched out laterally, leaving a veranda, as advocated by Fergusson. The view propounded by Barrows in his "Sacred Geography and Antiquities," and which he claims is the common view, is this, that the four curtains were simply placed on flat over the framework, extending down on the outside of the boards.
We give these different views, not because they have any important bearing on the subject of the sanctuary or the practical lessons which we should learn from it, but it is thought that they may be interesting to some of our readers who are giving the subject a careful study, perhaps for the first time.
The Power Behind the Gospel
"In the service of the gospel there is a place and a call for the best talents a man can bring,—learning, eloquence, common sense, devotion,—but in none of these dwells the power to cleave hard hearts, to soften stubborn wills, to awaken dead souls. Only God can reach and save by his own Spirit. He must be in and behind both messenger and message, or nothing will come of devoted and intelligent service."
LIFE AND DEATH.
By L. A. Phippeny
BY L. A. PHIPPENY.
"I AM come that they might have life." John 10:10.
The two great opposing principles with which man has to do are those of life and death. Life is of God, and death is of Satan. Life as a principle is the everlasting life of God, the life which we have through Jesus Christ. Death is the result, or wages, of sin, and is the lot of all mankind, and whatsoever is connected with the curse. Sin is the transgression of the law of God, and death, in its fullness, means total annihilation of organism; and such eternal death will be the reward of all who fail to secure everlasting life.
Even the present earthly life, or duration of man's existence, is the chiefest thing he can claim on this earth, though it be in sin, and limited by sin. Of what supreme importance, then, is everlasting life, in view of man's condition under sin, and the fearful result of continuing in it. A comparison of the two is a comparison of the things of God with the things of man, and the Lord himself presents this contrast: "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways." Isa. 55:9.
The implied thought in the verse of Scripture used as a text is that all are without life, that they are dead. For this reason he—the Son of God—is come, that they may be made alive,—brought again from the dead. This is the exact situation, and this understanding of it takes in the whole question. The Lord told Adam that in the day he should eat of the forbidden fruit he should surely die, meaning that in that day death would take the place of life as the reward of his doings. Man sinned, and so death passed upon all men. All have departed from life, and are therefore accounted as dead, "alienated from the life of God." But "God so
loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. The condition of all mankind, as spiritually dead because of sin, is so often and fully brought out in the Scriptures that it is said of those who obtain life through Christ that they are passed from death unto life. John 5:24.
Life, then, is the Christian's hope. It is the object concerning man for which the Son of God came to earth. It is the purpose and end of the gospel. The apostle, writing of the "purpose and grace" of God, says it "is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel." 2 Tim. 1:10. "Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life," is an injunction calling attention to the special treasure in the word, and revealing the chief importance of this subject.
It would seem that a sober, candid consideration of the situation would lead every soul to make sure of having everlasting life. As in a worldly business proposition the results are always before one's mind controlling and directing his dealings, so in the business of one's soul the results should be constantly before the mind; and as the interests at stake are incomparably greater than worldly interests, the thought given and the care shown in this most practical of enterprises should be of the most earnest and unswerving nature. Life is at stake. Will we have it, or will we not?
The matter of whether we have it or whether we do not lies wholly with each individual, and is purely a matter of one's will. The Lord has plainly stated what his will is in the case: "This is the will of Him that sent me, that everyone which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life." John 6:40. "As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" Eze. 33:11.
Whatever else may be included, in a matter of practical living, in the will of God, this one thing stands out prominent, that it is his will that every man may escape final death, and have eternal life. In this appeal from the God of heaven to the "house of Israel," and in the expression of the will of God, are revealed untold love and mercy to a sinful race. Notice the conditions. Man lives because of the care of his Creator, and in the very nature of things ought to order himself in harmony with the laws of his benefactor. In the nature of the case, also, he cannot continue to live contrary to God. This is where sin has brought man; and when God's purposes are accomplished, death will be the end of sin and sinners; for sin is contrary to God, and in direct opposition in every way to his law. And now, while man is in sin, though meriting death, he is sustained in his present life by the power of God, and heaven's choicest gift is offered him,—everlasting life,—if he will but turn from sin and take it.807
The will of God means much, therefore, to every man. There is due to the Giver of life the highest gratitude possible by the recipient of the blessing, and that is obedience. The will of God is not idly expressed, and his gifts cannot be slightingly or heedlessly passed by without due recompense. Every gift of God is good and for man's good. Life is his best gift, and if refused, man is the sufferer for his own neglect. There is, then, an exceeding great and solemn obligation to heed well the will of God.
With the gift through Christ comes also the help of the same power that brings the sinner again from the death of sin. It is a practical matter of faith, and the freer and more practical the faith, the more precious and available the promise: "He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them." Heb. 7:25.
THE EFFECTS OF BABYLON'S MYSTERIES.
By William Covert
BY ELDER WILLIAM COVERT.
We have seen how the teaching of Satan, that man should not die, laid the foundation for the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and that this doctrine led to demonism, and demonism to the grossest idolatry. We have seen how it led to the worship of the sun and moon and the constellations through the deifying of man, and how Bel was through these Babylonian mysteries developed into the chief god of the sun. Through this means Baalism and sun worship became almost universal, and demonism was everywhere popularized. It was through Baal worship that sun worship gained its footing in all heathendom, and it was through sun worship that Sunday, "the wild solar holiday of all pagan times," got its vast following in the world. (See North British Review, vol. 18, p. 409.)
Jennings, in speaking of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, teaches that the worship of the sun was practiced by the heathen before that exodus from bondage. He says, "The idolatrous nations, in honor to their chief god, the sun, began the day at its rising." He further says of Sunday that it was "the day which the heathens in general consecrated to the worship and honor of their chief god, the sun, which according to our computation was the first day of the week."—Antiquities, book 3.
Webster, in defining the term Sunday, says it is "so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or its worship." Worcester defines it as follows: "Sunday, so named because anciently dedicated to the sun or its worship. The first day of the week."
This idolatry had evidently affected Israel while they were yet in Egypt, for in the wilderness, on their way to Canaan, the Lord said: "They despised my judgments, and walked not in my statutes, but polluted my Sabbaths; for their heart went after their idols. Nevertheless mine eye spared them from destroying them, neither did I make an end of them in the wilderness. But I said unto their children in the wilderness, Walk ye not in the statutes of your fathers, neither observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols." Eze. 20:16-18. The Lord commanded them to cast away the idols of Egypt. Verses 6, 7. "I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, . . . because they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted my Sabbaths, and their eyes went after their fathers' idols." Verses 23, 24.
If following these idols caused them to pollute the Lord's Sabbath, it was because there was something in their worship which took the place of the Sabbath. That thing was evidently the Sunday, dedicated to Baal and sun worship. Therefore Baalism always led to Sabbath breaking, because it led away from the Creator. In this sun worship they turned their backs upon the Lord and worshiped the sun toward the east, or the sun rising. Eze. 8:16.
In erecting the sanctuary the Lord reversed the order of Baal and had them enter the tabernacle facing westward, so that the accusation of turning the back upon the Lord was significant of idolatry and sun worship. In the times of Jeremiah idolatry was the leading sin of the people. The weeping prophet said their priests, their prophets, their princes, and their kings were "saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth," and that they had turned their backs unto the Lord. Jer. 2:26, 27. In their abominable worship they had deified their ancestors, and had erected images and monuments for the accommodation of their departed souls. In this they were following Baalim, as the heathen nations around them were doing. They had changed their gods (verse 11), and gone after Baalim (verse 23). They offered sacrifices to the queen of heaven. Jer. 7:18. They had done this in all the cities and in the streets of Jerusalem. Verse 17. These abominations were even in the house of the Lord. Verse 30. They had offered their children in sacrifice to Baal in Tophet. Verse 31; Jer. 19:5, 6. In doing these things they had worshiped the sun and the moon and the host of heaven. Jer. 8:1, 2. These vanities had darkened their minds till there was a perpetual backsliding and they refused to repent. Verse 5.
In this they had rejected the law of the Lord (Jer. 9:13), and had walked in the imagination of their own heart and after Baalim as their fathers had taught them (verse 14).
Because they had done all these things and had offered their sons and their daughters in sacrifice to Baal, the Lord left the city of Jerusalem to the enemy, and it was besieged, and in its defense they ate their own friends and children. Jer. 19:5-13. This idolatry was such that under every green tree and upon every high hill images were erected and offerings made. Jer. 2:20; 2 Kings 16:3, 4; 1 Kings 14:23.
The carriages of Babylon were so cumbered with these images that they became a burden to the poor beasts to draw them. They were also put upon the beasts, and upon the cattle. The prophet said: "Their idols were upon the beasts, and upon the cattle; your carriages were heavy laden; they are a burden to the weary beast. They stoop, they bow down together; they could not deliver the burden." Isa. 43:1, 2. This was the extreme to which Belism, or Baalism, was carried in Babylon. Thus she was in her religious aspect when she overcame Judah. But she could not continue in this way. The fall of ancient Babylon was foretold by an illustrated vision to Isaiah. In his description he said:—
"Behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground." Isa. 21:9.
And again Jeremiah said:—
"Babylon is taken, Bel is confounded, Merodach [the king] is broken in pieces; her idols are confounded, her images are broken in pieces. For out of the north there cometh up a nation against her, which shall make her land desolate, and none shall dwell therein." Jer. 50:2, 3.
"Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for dragons, an astonishment, and a hissing, without an inhabitant." "I will punish Bel in Babylon, and I will bring forth out of his mouth that which he hath swallowed up." "I will do judgment upon the graven images of Babylon; and her whole land shall be confounded." "I will do judgment upon her graven images." "Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her." Jer. 51:37, 44, 47, 52, 64.
The kingdom of Babylon was destroyed for her idolatry, and Israel was again restored to her own land; but the successors of Babylon, down through Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome, have all followed after Baal, and every one of these powers has served as heads for the great Babylonian harlot, by which she has reigned over the kings of the earth, and by the power of their professed civil battle-ax has shed the blood and drank the gore of the martyrs of Jesus.
A CONVERTED PURSE.
By Louise Manning Hodgkins
[An incident from life.]
BY LOUISE MANNING HODGKINS.
"CERTAINLY. I am grateful to you for asking me. Put me down for $25."
A look of pleased surprise passed over the solicitor's face, succeeded by another of perplexity, for it happened that he knew that his friend had precisely the same salary as he, and that $25 was a generous fraction of his month's income.
"Oh, that's more than we expect, Frank,—and than you can afford, too, I fear!" he added, with the freedom of a comrade.
"Oh, no! Let me tell you how it is, Jack. You know I turned right about face when I became a Christian, last winter; and I resolved at the start not to enter into junior partnership with the world, and a senior partnership with the church.
"You knew my habits. I was not an inordinate smoker. Three cigars a day, with a treat to the fellows now and then, cut off, reduced my expenses $100 a year. Then I had a careless fashion, ruinous to my digestion, of adding a bottle of claret, or some fancy, indigestible pudding or cream, at least twice a week, to a wholesome lunch. Looked squarely in the face, and given its right name, it was an indulgence of unlawful appetite; so I made $75 a year by stopping that. Sunday headaches, too, went at the same time.
"One day I was looking over my neckties to find some particular color, and I found I had thirty-seven, with at least ten scarf pins. That made me run through my accounts next day—they weren't very well kept, but I guessed as nearly as I could—to see what there was in my wardrobe that would leave me better dressed, from a Christian and artistic point of view, too, for that matter, if I never wore it again; and I am ashamed to say I found I had $150 worth of dry goods on hand that was the price, not of good taste, but mere caprice.
"Now I don't propose to submit to a taxation in behalf of my weaknesses and vices, and be niggardly with the church I've promised before God and man to support and increase.
"There, you have it all. I spent over $300 a year, you see, in the service of appetite and fashion, for things that made me less a man. I've transferred that mortgage; yes, I can8afford easily that $25, especially when it is to rescue some other fellow deeper in than I was. Come to think of it, make it thirty. The other five is a thank offering."—Sunday School Times.
THE AMERICAN SUNDAY.
By H. A. St. John
BY ELDER H. A. ST. JOHN.
[Thoughts suggested on hearing the celebrated evangelist S. M. Martin on the above theme, in San Francisco, Cal., Sunday, Sept. 23, 1884.]
TEXT: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath."Mark 2: 27.
Mr. Martin—This was the old Sabbath. Even that was made for man's good—intended for a blessing—adapted to his temporal and spiritual well being. But the bigoted Jews in Christ's day had perverted its purpose—just as mankind are wont to do with all of God's institutions and ordinances. The Jews virtually said the Sabbath was made first, and man was made to fit it, thus making it a tyrannical master. It is the old story of the iron bedstead. If the man is too short, stretch him; if too long, cut him off. I am not in favor of religious Sunday laws, but I do favor civil or secular Sunday laws.
Thoughts—True, it was the old Sabbath, and the only weekly Sabbath of divine appointment, that Jesus meant. It is also true that it was made for man's highest good, and still is, when not perverted. True, that the Jews had perverted it by loading it with rigorous exactions, and then trying to make themselves and others conform to it, after the iron bedstead idea. But it is also true that the Lord's Sabbath has been grievously perverted both as to the day of its occurrence and the spirit of its observance, and that, too, by those who are great sticklers for a religious day. And now they cry out for an iron bedstead in the shape of a universal Sunday law. And when they get this, whether it be called civil Sunday, secular Sunday, religious Sunday, or Lord's day, it will not matter much as to the name, so it is set up and operated by the government. It will be the same iron bedstead; and when they get it, if they find a man too short (one who keeps the Sabbath just the day before), then they will stretch him with fines, chain gangs, imprisonment, and the like, so as to stretch him over the Sunday rest. If a man is too long—does not regard any day—then he must be cut off to fit, even though it result in being cut off from society or the earth. All must be made to fit the iron bedstead, invented and patented by Rome, and set up by human governments. Wherein do such people differ from the old bigoted Pharisees, who put Jesus to death because they could not make him fit their iron bedstead?
Mr. M.—Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and the Holy Ghost was poured out on the day of Pentecost, which was Sunday, and the church was then and there established.
Thoughts—It is true that Jesus rose from the dead on Sunday; but it is also true that he died for a world of sinners on Friday, and that he ascended to heaven to plead for a world of sinners on Thursday. Now, why not have a Thursday law, and a Friday law, as well as a Sunday law? Is there not just as much Bible authority for all as for either? If one is to be made into an iron bedstead, why not the others also? Perhaps Pentecost was Sunday, but learned men differ. Why not also guess at the day of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles at the house of Cornelius, and keep that day also? Church established on the day of Pentecost! Where is the proof? Jesus said, "Tell it unto the church" (Matt. 18: 17), and yet we are told that the church was not established at that time. Jesus gave himself for the church (Eph. 5: 25), and yet there was no church. Moses was in the church in the wilderness. Acts 7: 38. How could this be so long before the church was established? A slender foundation truly for Sunday observance and for Sunday-law iron bedsteads!
Mr. M.—We need Sunday laws, that we may have a day to impart religious instruction to the unconverted. They need the instruction. They do not want it, nor desire it, but they need it. The bad boy needs a flogging. He does not want it, or desire it, nevertheless, when he needs it, it should be administered. The sick child needs medicine. It does not want it, or desire it, but may fight it; nevertheless, the medicine must be taken, if we have to hold its nose.
Thoughts—This is the papal method of propagation, dealing, and discipline, pure and simple. And what wonder is it that papal methods, papal ideas, and the papal spirit should accompany a papal institution?
It was Saint Augustine that said: "It is indeed better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not, therefore, be neglected. Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain to the highest grade of religious development." —Schaff's Church History, vol. 2, sec. 27. Of this sentiment says Neander: "It was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded which . . . contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism of intolerance and persecution, which ended in the tribunal of the Inquisition."—Neander's Church History, p. 217. More of the iron bedstead, you see. Religion and religious institutions of human origin, called secular or civil, and enforced by a so-called Protestant government,—truly a veritable image of the Papacy!