FROM the time when man fell in the garden of Eden a Saviour had been earnestly looked for. Ceremonies were performed that typified his work; prophets had prophesied of his coming; and many an Israelitish maiden had prayed that she might be the mother of the child that should be born. At the time of the first Advent many were expecting the Messiah, and some knew perfectly by the prophecies of Daniel that the time had come. Thus we read of one Simeon, a just and devout man, "who was waiting for the consolation of Israel" and who hailed the infant Saviour with joy. But the great majority, in spite of all their expectations and professions, would not receive him—he was not desired of them. The first thing we read about him in his life was that there was no room for him. The Saviour of the world had to be laid in a manger, for "there was no room for them in the inn."
All through his life we find this same thing; he was despised and rejected of men. He went about to do good, to preach the gospel to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, to restore sight to the blind, and to set at liberty them that were bruised. Yet everywhere he was hated and scoffed at and forsaken. In his own country, when he announced himself to the people, they would have hurled him from the brow of the cliff, had he not miraculously delivered himself from their hands. When he visited the country of the Gadarenes, they besought him to depart from them. Because he did not come as a mighty prince to set up his temporal kingdom and deliver the nation out of Roman bondage, the haughty rulers would have nothing to do with him—save to slay him.
As it was with his first coming, so we are shown it will be with his second. When he shall "appear the second time without sin unto salvation," "to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe," to raise the righteous dead and to give rewards to the faithful, and to fulfill the blessed hope of the gospel, still he will not be gladly received; still he is not desired. By many the soon-coming of Jesus is regarded with regret if not with terror, and any serious thoughts upon that subject are dismissed from their minds as soon as possible. Their minds are all taken up with worldly cares, with thoughts of pleasure and amusement; but, like the Bethlehem inn, there is no room for Jesus there. Christ particularly told his disciples that these things would be so; said he, "As the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be," and we read that before the flood "the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Paul also tells us that evil men shall "wax worse and worse." Is it to be wondered at that Christ will not be desired, if such men as these are to receive him? To them he will come with vengeance, to dash them in pieces as a potter's vessel, and they will hide themselves in the dens and the rocks of the mountains, and say "to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb."
There are also many to-day who, like the Jews of old, profess to expect the Saviour, but they too would try to force upon him a temporal kingdom. But how differently will he come from what they expect. To them Christ says as he said to the Jews, "My kingdom is not of this world." And "when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ," they too will not be glad and rejoice, for even by them he is not desired.
But there will be a people who at that time will desire him, for in Isaiah 25:9 we read of some who will look up and cry, "Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us; this is the Lord; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation." "Even so, come, Lord Jesus."
THE HEART.
By B. F. Manire
THE great trouble with man is a heart-trouble; his great disease, a heart-disease. The heart being right, all else is right; the heart being wrong, all else is wrong. When the fountain-head is pure, the waters that flow from it are pure and refreshing; but when the fountain-head is unclean, its waters are foul and poisonous. On this point the testimony of the Scriptures is full and explicit.
There is a boundless wealth of wisdom for the young in Solomon's admonition to his son: "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life." Of a man, he says: "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." The Saviour declares: "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man." Men, therefore, in their moral character and conduct, are just what their hearts make them.
In the recovery of man from the dominion of sin, the Lord begins with the heart. He applies the remedy at once to the seat of the disease. The healing power of the gospel, when received into the heart, sends its life-restoring currents throughout the entire being. Speaking of the return of his people from a period of sad apostasy, the Lord says, through Jeremiah: "And I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto me with their whole heart." Through Ezekiel, he says: "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh."
The great prominence of the heart in the work of conversion is shown by the wonderful effect of the gospel on those who heard it when it was first preached both to Jews and Gentiles. The heart was opened to attend to the things spoken to the apostles and others. Men were pierced through the heart with the conviction of their own sin in crucifying the Lord of glory. Both men and women believed in Jesus with all the heart, obeyed from the heart, and rejoiced in heart, when they were "delivered from darkness" and "translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son." Indeed, this was one of the distinguishing features of the New Covenant in contrast with the Old, as foretold by Jeremiah, and repeated by Paul. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people." The gospel, therefore, is addressed to the heart, is received into the heart, and is enjoyed by the heart. A religion that does not purify the heart is false and ruinous in the highest degree.—B. F. Manire, in Christian Standard.
SELF-EXALTATION.
Is THERE anything more offensive to good taste than pretentious littleness—an assumption of superiority where no foundation for it exists in fact! Yet there are many very small men who assume to be great, and whose whole bearing indicates the exalted opinion which they entertain of their abilities. As the apostle says, "They think of themselves more highly than they ought to think," and their lofty pretentions only serve to bring their deficiencies into fuller view. There is no greater evidence of a man's weakness than self-conceit, and it is well said of such, "There is more hope of a fool than of him." The more a man knows, the more fully he is conscious of his deficiencies, and the more humble and unassuming he will be. Men who seek for recognition are seldom worthy of it, while men whose worth entitles them to recognition have no need to seek for it. "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted," but "the lofty look of man shall be brought low."—Selected.
SPIRITUAL DARKNESS.
By A. F. Schauffler, D. D.
LIGHT and darkness are opposites. Where one prevails, the other must give way. This is true in the material world. But there are more kinds of light than one. There is intellectual light and intellectual darkness. So, also, there is spiritual light and spiritual darkness. To explain anything is to pour light upon it, and the result is that the listener says, “I see.” Not that he sees anything new with his bodily eye, but that, intellectual light having been furnished, his mental vision is clear. If the explanation is not grasped by him, he is still in mental darkness; and with puzzled face he says, “I cannot see it.” He whose deeds are wicked and contrary to the right is in spiritual darkness. He may know what is right, but, so long as he prefers to do what is wrong, he refuses to walk in the way of light. On the other hand, he who sees the right, and does it, is a child of the day, and loves the light of truth.
By nature, men are in spiritual darkness. To prove this is not difficult. We need only go to those lands where the revelation of God has not come, to see how dark are men's minds, and how black their deeds. All forms of idolatry, whether they are the rude idolatries of Africa, or the more refined idolatries of Asia, or the dreadful idolatries of ancient Mexico, prove this. In John's day, Rome, Greece, Egypt, were all in black darkness, having no clear idea of God, of sin, or of duty. But even in so-called Christian lands men are still in spiritual darkness, when left to themselves. In any town or city in this Christian land, there are more Sabbath-breakers than Sabbath-keepers, more liars than truth-tellers, more godless than godly people. And when we turn to those who are truly godly, they will with one consent bear witness to the fact that there was a time when they, too, were in darkness. By nature, the “whole world lieth in wickedness”—which is the same thing as spiritual darkness.
Now, all admit that to live in physical darkness is a great evil. One of the horrors of the Arctic regions is the long, long night. All admit, also, that intellectual darkness is a great evil. For this all our schools are established, and parents are forced to send their children to school, so that they may not abide in darkness. Any parent who locked his child up always in a dark room, and prevented him from learning anything, would be called a monster. And any person who preferred the dark, and sought for ignorance, would be thought insane. Yet, strange to say, parents often make no effort to give their children spiritual light, and children themselves are content to dwell in darkness from year to year. Since this is a great evil, however, we must go on to ask how we may escape from this dark and evil bondage.—A. F. Schauffler, D. D.
"A WEIGHTY AND TIMELY UTTERANCE."
(Continued.)
THE FATHERS—THEIR UNRELIABILITY.
THE next head under which Mr. Bailey "proves" his proposition is the testimony of the Fathers. And right here a quotation from the Examiner and Chronicle, a standard Baptist paper, is to the point. Some years ago a correspondent of this paper, signing himself Rev. Philetus Dobbs, D. D., stated that he had received a letter from a young minister, asking how he should prove a thing when there is nothing with which to prove it; and a portion of his reply is as follows:—
"I regard, however, a judicious use of the Fathers as being on the whole the best reliance for anyone who is in the situation of my querist. The advantages of the Fathers are twofold: First, they carry a good deal of weight with the masses; and secondly, you can find whatever you want in the Fathers. I do not believe that any opinion could be advanced so foolish, so manifestly absurd, but that you can find passages to sustain it on the pages of these venerable stagers. And to the common mind one of these is just as good as another. If it happens that the point that you want to prove is one that never chanced to occur to the Fathers, why you can easily show that they would have taken your side if they had only thought of the matter. And if, perchance, there is nothing bearing even remotely or constructively on the point, do not be discouraged; get a good, strong quotation, and put the name of the Fathers to it, and utter it with an air of triumph; it will be all just as well; nine-tenths of the people do not stop to ask whether a quotation bears on the matter in hand. Yes, my brother, the Fathers are your stronghold. They are Heaven's best gift to the man who has a cause that cannot be sustained in any other way."
The aptness with which this applies to the case in hand will be seen as we proceed. But first we want to give a few quotations to show in what esteem the Fathers are held by some of the best writers, who are themselves first-day observers. We first quote from Mosheim. Speaking of certain works by Clement, Justin Martyr, Tatian, Theophilus, etc., he says that these works are lost, and adds:—
"But this loss is the less to be regretted, since it is certain that no one of these expositors could be pronounced a good interpreter. They believed the language of Scripture to contain two meanings, the one obvious, and corresponding with the direct import of the words, the other recondite, and concealed under the words like a nut by the shell; and, neglecting the former as being of little value, they bestowed their chief attention on the latter; that is, they were more intent on throwing obscurity over the sacred writings by the fictions of their own imaginations, than on searching out their true meaning."—Ecclesiastical History, book 1, cent. 2, part 2, chap. 3, sec. 5.
Archdeacon Farrar in his latest work, "History of Interpretation," says of the Fathers:—
"There are but few of them whose pages are not rife with errors,—errors of method, errors of fact, errors of history, of grammar, and even of doctrine; this is the language of simple truth, and not of slighting disparagement."—Pp. 162, 163.
On page 164 of the same book, Farrar says:—
"Without deep learning, without linguistic knowledge, without any final principles either as to the nature of the sacred writings or the method by which they should be interpreted,—surrounded by Paganism, Judaism, and heresy of every description, and wholly dependent on a faulty translation,—the earliest Fathers and apologists add little or nothing to our understanding of Scripture. . . . Their acquaintance with the Old Testament is incorrect, popular, and full of mistakes; their scriptural arguments are often baseless; their exegesis—novel in application only—is a chaos of elements unconsciously borrowed on the one hand from Philo, and on the other from Rabbis and Kabbalists. They claim 'a grace' of exposition, which is not justified by the results they offer, and they suppose themselves to be in possession of a Christian Gnosis, of which the specimens offered are for the most part entirely untenable."
Dr. Clarke in his comment on Proverbs 8 says of the Fathers:—
"But of these we may safely state that there is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine their authority is with me nothing."
Chambers's Encyclopedia says of the Fathers:—
"Of those who head the list, the Apostolic Fathers—so called from their supposed connection with Christ and the apostles—very little need be said, as their writings, which are mostly of an ascetical character, have come down to us in a corrupt and mutilated state, and as the writers themselves owe their chief celebrity to the times in which they happened to live."
We might add many more testimonies to the incompetency and unreliability of the Fathers, but we will pass to notice the special ones which are referred to by Mr. Bailey. He begins thus:—
TESTIMONY OF "BARNABAS."
"Barnabas was a fellow-laborer with Paul. Several of the epistles of Barnabas have been published, believed by many of the best scholars to be genuine, though not inspired. Yet as a witness of the customs of the early churches, we may believe his testimony. General epistle of Barnabas 13:9, 10: 'Lastly he saith unto them, Your new moons and your sabbaths, I cannot bear them. Consider what he means by it; the sabbaths, says he, which ye now keep are not acceptable unto me, but those which I have made, when, resting from all things, I shall begin the eighth day, that is, the beginning of the other world. For which cause we observe the eighth day with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead, and having manifested himself to the disciples, he ascended into Heaven.' Did not Barnabas know what day the early churches were to keep as the Christian Sabbath?"
We are strongly of the opinion that Mr. Bailey has never seen a set of the writings ascribed to the Fathers. He says "several of the epistles of Barnabas have been published." We have two editions of the Anti-Nicene Fathers, and in neither of them is there more than one epistle ascribed to Barnabas. All the church historians of which we have any knowledge speak of "the epistle of Barnabas," but never of the epistles. But that is a matter of no consequence, for if there were forty "epistles of Barnabas" the world would only be so much the worse off. We will now investigate this so-called "epistle of Barnabas," and its author. Bishop Arthur Cleveland Coxe, in his introductory note to the epistle of Barnabas, published by the Christian Literature Publishing Company, says:—
"The writer of this epistle is supposed to have been an Alexandrian Jew of the times of Trajan and Hadrian. He was a layman; but possibly he bore the name of 'Barnabas' and so has been confounded with his holy apostolic namesake."
The original introductory note by those who translated the epistle for the Edinburgh edition contains the following:—
"Nothing certain is known as to the author of the following epistle. The writer's name is Barnabas, but scarcely any scholars now ascribe it to the illustrious friend and companion of St. Paul. . . . On perusing the epistle the reader will be in circumstances to judge of this matter for himself. He will be led to consider whether the spirit and tone of the writing, as so decidedly opposed to all respect for Judaism—the numerous inaccuracies which it contains with respect to Mosaic enactments and observances—the absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture which it suggests—and the many silly vaunts of superior knowledge in which its writer indulges—can possibly comport with its inscription to the fellow-laborer of St. Paul. When it is remembered that no one ascribes the epistle to the apostolic Barnabas till the times of Clement of Alexandria, and that it is ranked by Eusebius among the 'spurious' writings, which, however much known and read in the church, were never regarded as authoritative, little doubt can remain that the external evidence is of itself weak, and should not make us hesitate for a moment in refusing to ascribe this writing to Barnabas the apostle. . . . In point of style, both as respects thought and expression, a very low place must be assigned it. We know nothing certain of the region in which the author lived, or where the first readers were to be found."
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says of this epistle:—
"The opinion to-day is that Barnabas was not the author. The epistle was probably written in Alexandria at the beginning of the second century, and by a Gentile Christian."
Mosheim says:—
"The epistle of Barnabas, as it is called, was in my judgment the production of some Jewish Christian who lived in this century [the first] or the next, who had no bad intentions, but possessed little genius and was infested with the fabulous opinions of the Jews. He was clearly a different person from Barnabas, the companion of St. Paul."—Book 1, cent. 1, part 2, chap. 2, sec. 21.135
These last two quotations show how little is known about the man who wrote this epistle. One supposes that he was a Jew, the other a Gentile, and none pretend to know when he lived.
McClintock and Strong's Encyclopedia says:—
"An epistle has come down to us bearing the name of Barnabas, but clearly not written by him. . . . The writer evidently was unacquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, and has committed the blunder of supposing that Abraham was familiar with the Greek alphabet some centuries before it existed."
Dr. Kitto in his "Encyclopedia of Religious Literature" says:—
"He makes unauthorized additions to various parts of the Jewish Cultus; his views of the Old Economy are confused and erroneous; and he adopts a mode of interpretation countenanced by none of the inspired writers, and at utter variance with every principle of sound criticism, being to the last degree puerile and absurd. The inference is unavoidable that Barnabas, 'the son of prophecy,' 'the man full of the Holy Spirit and of faith,' was not the author of this epistle."
Dr. Schaff, "History of the Christian Church," sec. 121, says:—
"A genuine production of Barnabas would doubtless have found a place in the Canon, with the writings of Mark and Luke and the epistle to the Hebrews. Besides, the contents of this epistle are not worthy of him. It has many good ideas and forcible testimonies, such as that in favor of the observance of the Christian Sabbath, but it goes to extremes in opposition to Judaism, and indulges in all sorts of artificial, sometimes absurd and allegorical fancies."
But what if he does? What if the epistle is a forgery by some unknown and irresponsible person? What if its writer was an ignoramus who indulged in the most absurd notions? He gives "valuable testimony" in favor of the observance of the "Christian Sabbath," and that is sufficient to secure the epistle a place in "Christian literature" as long as time lasts. It will not be long, we apprehend, before these principles will be carried out to a greater extent, and the vilest man will be welcomed in so-called Christian churches, if he is only zealous in his observance of Sunday, and in persecuting those who do not observe it.
But what about this "valuable testimony" given by this fellow who steals the name of Barnabas? Why, he says that "we keep the eighth day with joyfulness." Perhaps some admirer of this epistle will tell us when the "eighth day of the week" comes, and how Sunday can be both the first day and the eighth day of a week of seven days. We might quote from the epistle abundance of matter demonstrating the truth of what has been said about it, but much of it is unfit for publication in these columns. We will however give one quotation, which the author of the epistle regarded as much more valuable testimony than that concerning the "eighth day." In the last part of chapter nine he says:—
"Learn, then, my children, concerning all things richly, that Abraham, the first who enjoined circumcision, looking forward in spirit to Jesus, practiced that rite, having received the mysteries of the three letters. For (the Scripture) saith, 'And Abraham circumcised ten, and eight, and three hundred men of his household.' What then was the knowledge given to him in this? Learn the eighteen first, and then the three hundred. The ten and the eight are thus denoted—ten by I, and eight by H. You have (the initials of the name of) Jesus. And because the cross was to express the grace (of our redemption), by the letter T, he says also, 'Three hundred.' He signifies therefore Jesus by two letters, and the cross by one. He knows this who has put within us the engrafted gift of his doctrine. No one has been admitted by me to a more excellent piece of knowledge than this, but I know that ye are worthy."
With this we leave the pseudo-Barnabas. w.
(To be continued.)
THE PAPACY AND PEACE.
By Alonzo Trevier Jones
IN the midst of the alarms of a great European war, the Papacy, as might be expected, is constantly strengthening itself, increasing its prestige, and enlarging its power. The relations established last year between Bismarck and the Pope were only the prelude to more important movements on the part of both Germany and the Papacy, and each one has been a stepping-stone to the steady aggrandizement of the Papacy. And now that the German Parliament refuses to vote the assurance of war supplies and forces for seven years, the Papacy throws all its influence into the scale in favor of Bismarck and the emperor and all their demands for war materials, and for the establishment of the forces upon the strongest possible war footing. Official letters have been sent by the Pope instructing the Catholics in Germany and the Parliament to support the Government demands, and thus he makes complete his alliance with Germany, and his position secure so far as Germany is concerned.
For about two years, or perhaps more, the relations between France and the Papacy have been at a pretty high tension; but now on account of the threatening aspect of affairs, France is making advances which the Papacy receives very cordially and graciously, as a matter of course, and at the same time very condescendingly grants favors that amount to nothing, and concessions that cost her nothing.
The Papacy has also made overtures to Russia. But as her proffers were rather too extravagant, the Czar would not entertain them at all. We have no doubt, however, that there will be such modifications that, in some way, the connection will be secured. As for Austria and Spain, the Pope owns them bodily, almost.
All these negotiations, too, are entirely in the interests of peace! That is, if Germany cannot be placed upon the strongest possible war footing for seven years, there will be war before seven years pass. Therefore, as a "distinguished prelate" stated it, Prince Bismarck "quite unofficially" dropped the merely casual remark that "if the Pope will speak the word now in favor of the Septenate, he will be helping to keep the peace." And "so with purely peaceful views, the holy father thought it right to speak."
Yet as "purely peaceful" as his views may be, there is one thing that the Pope has in view in it all, and that is the re-establishment of the power of the Papacy, especially in Italy. Said the aforesaid "distinguished prelate," "The Vatican had serious reasons to believe its intervention would improve the position of the Holy See, especially in its relation with Italy." That is the one grand view that underlies and pervades all the Pope's "peaceful views;" it is to make firm his alliance with all these other powers, and then by their united power bring such a pressure upon Italy that she shall be compelled, in one way or another, to recognize the sovereignty of the Papacy, and consent to the restoration of its power. And if such a result can only be accomplished in the end by a general European war, then into such a war all Europe will be plunged without a moment's hesitation. And such is the purity of the peaceful views with which "the holy father thought it right to speak," and with which he labors everywhere and in all things in the interests of "peace." The movements and the workings of the Papacy just now are an important study. J.
SUNDAY-LAW MEETING IN OAKLAND.
By Editor
According to previous appointment in the newspapers of Oakland and San Francisco, a meeting in the interest of a Sunday law was held in Oakland, on the evening of the 18th ult. This meeting was called for the purpose of "discussing the merits" of the bill which was introduced into the Legislature February 15, by Mr. Knox, of Los Angeles. Unlike the convention that was held in San Francisco, last fall, and which was reported in the Signs of December 9, this meeting was remarkable for the unanimity of sentiment expressed. The meeting seemed to have been carefully planned, and everybody knew just what was expected of him. The principal speakers of the evening were Mr. Fox, an Oakland criminal lawyer, and Rev. Dr. M. C. Briggs, of Napa. The stand was occupied by quite a number of the leading clergy of Oakland, who manifested their approval of the sentiments expressed, by frequent applause.
As showing how careful the managers of the meeting were to secure perfect harmony, we will state that at the close of the meeting some resolutions favoring a Sunday law were read, and, as reported in the papers, were adopted by "a rising and almost unanimous vote." But we were there, and saw the proceeding. The chairman called for all who favored the resolutions to arise. Perhaps more than half the congregation arose, when the chairman immediately announced, "Carried," without giving any a chance to dissent except by keeping their seats. This is possibly a good way to get a vote "without a single dissenting voice," in order to spur on unwilling legislation, but it is not a good way to convince thinking people of the justice of a cause. Any cause that cannot endure a free expression of opinion, and that is not so strongly intrenched in reason and justice as to be willing to court the fullest investigation, ought to fall by its own weight.
The bill under consideration is known in the lower House as Assembly Bill, No. 520, and reads as follows:—
"SECTION 1. There is hereby added a new section to the Penal Code, to be known as section two hundred and ninety-nine, which shall read as follows:—
"299. Every person who shall expose to or offer for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or shall keep open any store, workshop, or other place of business, bar, or saloon, or shall sell or give away to be drunk as a beverage any spirituous, vinous, malt, or other intoxicating liquor, upon the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
"SEC. 2. There is hereby added a new section to the Penal Code, to be known as section three hundred, which shall read as follows:—
"300. Every person who shall engage in any riot, fighting, horse-racing, gaming, or other public sports, exercises, or shows, on Sunday; and any person who shall keep open on Sunday any place where such public sports, exercises, or shows are carried on, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
"SEC. 3. There is hereby added a new section to the Penal Code, to be known as section three hundred and one, which shall read as follows:—
"301. Every person who shall either labor himself, or compel his apprentice, servant, or other person under his charge or control, to labor or perform any work, other than works of necessity or charity, on Sunday, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
"SEC. 4. This Act shall not extend to any person who conscientiously believes that the seventh day of the week ought to be observed as a Sabbath, and who actually observes such Sabbath; provided, that in the pursuit of his labor or business he disturbs no other person.
"SEC. 5. Each violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be construed to constitute a separate and complete offense; and for each violation the person or persons offending shall be liable to the penalties provided for by law.
"SEC. 6. This Act shall take effect immediately."
Mr. Fox, the first speaker, read the first four sections of this bill, and then announced himself as unqualifiedly opposed to section 4. Said he: "The strongest argument in favor of a Sunday law is based on the law of nature. It is an argument which is presented by God himself. Everything that lives must have a weekly day of rest, or must suffer. This is a divine command, made manifest through all nature. Hence all civilized nations should provide for the observance of that command; and you cannot provide for it unless you make the day of rest universal. Therefore the Sunday law must not except anybody."
This bit of sophistry was greeted with uproarious applause, the clergy on the stand using both hands and feet vigorously. We cite this to show the spirit actuating those who plead for a Sunday law. We were privately informed by one of the reverend gentlemen who was instrumental in getting up the meeting, that the managers were not responsible for the sentiments expressed by Mr. Fox, and that they did not indorse him. We told him that if that were the case they should have disavowed such sentiments at the time. Instead of a word of dissent, however, the other speaker of the evening came out still more emphatically, mentioning Seventh-day Adventists by name, and said that although he had respect for them as a people, no exemption should be made in their behalf; and this statement was also received with applause. If the advocates of Sunday laws are in favor of justice, they have an unfortunate way of showing it.
Let the reader carefully examine the proposed law, and then consider Mr. Fox's "strongest argument," by which he "proved" the impossibility of making any exception in favor of Sabbath-keepers. The bill provides that no work whatever, except works of necessity or charity, shall be performed on Sunday by anybody, unless he has actually rested on the seventh day of the week. Thus the proposed law, if carried into effect, would insure a weekly rest of one day to every individual in the State; and yet the speaker claimed that the "law of nature" which demands a weekly rest could not be obeyed if section 4 were retained. Is not "sophistry" a mild term to apply to such "argument"? He virtually claimed that this "law of nature" demands that the weekly rest shall fall on Sunday; that if men rest on Saturday instead of Sunday they will suffer physically! The only "law of nature" which demands that men shall rest upon Sunday, and on no other day, is the natural depravity which is in the heart of man, which receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God.
To say that such a law as was pleaded for at that meeting would not be unjust, and would not result in the persecution of those who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week, is an insult to the intelligence of thinking people. Read the speech of Senator Crockett on pages 131, 132 of this paper, for a refutation of such a claim.
The speakers were careful to let it be understood that they did not want a religious law, but a civil law. They did not want any law in behalf of religion, but only to help the poor laboring man. This is a bit of sophistry that looks so plausible that it will catch very many. Of course they want a civil law, for a State law could be nothing else. But Sunday is a religious institution; we do not mean that it is a divine institution, but that it is purely a church ordinance, and therefore a religious institution, even though human in its origin. Now a State law compelling men to keep Sunday is a civil law, to be sure, but a civil law establishing a custom of religion. Such laws constitute, so far as they extend, a union of Church and State. Baptism is purely a religious ordinance, but a State law compelling all men to be baptized would be a civil law. But such civil laws are what we protest against. We do not believe in the State stepping out of its sphere to interfere in matters purely religious.
But it was not possible for those who took part in the meeting to conceal their desire for a law upholding Sunday in its religious aspect. In his opening prayer, Dr. Gray prayed that the people might be made to feel the necessity of "hedging about with legal enactments that holy day which came to us from Sinai." The Doctor must have misspoken himself, for it is not the seventh day, but the first, that they desire to have upheld by civil law, and he well knows that the Sunday-sabbath has no more connection with Sinai than has the Friday rest of the Mohammedans. But nevertheless he showed what he wanted. He also prayed that the people of this city, and the legislators, might "realize the sanctity of the Lord's day." And Dr. Briggs, in his speech, complained that moral instruction was relegated136to the churches, and then the people were allowed to go their own ways on Sunday, so that they could not get at them to give the needed moral instruction. That is to say, the gospel which they preach has not power enough to reach the masses, and they want a law enforcing Sunday observance, so that people will be drawn to church on Sunday for want of any other place to go. With such a desire in the minds of the Sunday-law advocates, how long would it be before they would beg for a law compelling all people to go to church on Sunday, if they should find that in spite of the rigid Sunday law, the people persisted in neglecting church privileges?
We have still further evidence that it is not simply in the interest of good order, and to insure rest for the laboring man, that the Sunday law is wanted. Mr. Fox said: "Strike out section 4 [loud "Amens" from the ministers behind him], because it gives everybody a choice of two days; and then those who don't want any Sunday won't have any." True; pass a law requiring all people to keep Sunday, excepting those who keep the Sabbath, and then those who believe in keeping the seventh-day instead of the first, won't keep Sunday! Of course not; and that is what some, at least, of these Sunday-law advocates object to. We can inform them that whatever law they pass, those who conscientiously believe that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," will not keep Sunday. When civil laws run in direct opposition to the plainly expressed commandment of the Lord, duty is very clear.
We have not space in this article to notice all the "arguments" that were put forth to show the absolute necessity of a strict Sunday law. They were all as strong as those which we have mentioned, and we shall refer to them in future articles. We wish it distinctly understood that we do not antagonize persons, but principles. We do not charge the reverend gentlemen who plead so strenuously for a strict Sunday law, with having a desire to oppress any people because of their conscientious convictions. We are perfectly willing to concede that they are deceived as to what would be the inevitable result of such a law as they desire; and we write for the purpose of enlightening people as to what the result will be. The bill if passed with section 4 struck out, would cause the most bitter persecution to arise against those who observe the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It would be persecution for conscience' sake as much as any persecution instigated by the Inquisition. If the bill should be passed as it stands, it would grant, at the most, religious toleration, and not such religious liberty as should be guaranteed in this land of boasted freedom. It would leave the conscientious Sabbath-keeper liable to be arrested at the instance of every hyper-sensitive person who might fancy himself disturbed by quiet labor on Sunday; and although many of these charges might not be sustained, no end of trouble would be caused.
For this reason, we propose to do all in our power to agitate this matter. It is scarcely possible that a Sunday law can be passed at this session of the Legislature; but the friends of such a law say that they propose to begin now to work the matter up in season for the next session. We shall work with them; and while they show one side, we will show both sides. This is not a local matter, but one that concerns everybody; for the same arguments are used wherever Sunday laws are proposed. We desire that the matter shall be so fully canvassed that no one can be ignorant as to the natural working of Sunday laws; so that when such laws are finally adopted, as the prophecy foretells that they will be, no one need work for them except those who are perfectly willing to see persecution practiced upon the conscientious minority.
w.
Missionary Influence in Africa
Mr. Joseph Thompson, the English traveler, read a paper not long since before the British Association in Birmingham, upon the Niger and Central Soudan, in which he stated, that for every negro the missionaries had influenced for good by their Christian teaching, a thousand had been driven into deeper degradation by anti-Christian influences.