BESIDES the Sabbath, there are two objective points in the plan of redemption toward which the minds of the fallen race were directed as the center of their hope. First, the sinless life of the promised Seed, given unto death for sinners, and, second, his coming again after his ascension, as King of kings and Lord of lords, to bring the lost ones home to glory, henceforth to preside as Prince of Peace forever. Together with the Sabbath, these two events are to fully reveal the character of God; so, against these two points, Satan also directs his forces in special attack. Determined that the world shall not see the 'Seed of the woman' in his true character, he leads them little by little, farther and farther from the word of God, until in the days of Nimrod he finds opportunity to present before them the theory that God is so very far away from the earth that he does not see our actions or attend to our cries. Nimrod, therefore, formulated into a system the worship of the gods of their own making, to whom they gave a character like unto their own; and them they worshiped. After the death of Nimrod, his queen, Semiramis, who, from an originally humble position had been raised to share with him the throne of Babylon during his life, purposed that, as he had been honored as a hero during his life, in death he should be worshiped as a god, yea, as the 'Zero-Ashta' (Chaldee, Zero, the Seed). The world was at this time well acquainted with the primeval promise of Eden, and they knew right well that the bruising of the heel of the promised One meant his death, and through death the curse was to be removed from the earth by the grand Deliverer.
The story was immediately circulated that after the death of Nimrod, or Thammuz, 'all the images assembled from the ends of the earth into the temple of Babylon, to the great golden image of the sun, which was suspended between the heaven and the earth. That image prostrated itself in the temple, and so did all the other images around it, while it revealed to them all that had happened to Thammuz. The images wept and lamented all night long, and then in the morning they each flew away, each to his own temple again, to the ends of the earth. And hence arose the custom every year on the first day of the month of Thammuz, of mourning and weeping for Thammuz.'—More Nevochin, p. 426 (as quoted in 'Two Babylons').
Immediately after this the mysteries were introduced, and it was proclaimed that, on account of their weeping, the wrath of the gods was appeased and Nimrod was raised from the dead, and now in the temple appeared in glory as the deliverer. Then, during the introduction of the mysteries, in the midst of the dense darkness, the face of Nimrod suddenly appeared, thrown upon the canvas from a magic lantern, with a halo of light encircling his head. A profligate priest behind the scenes did his talking for him. The effect was all that had been hoped, and soon images were erected in all parts of the world under different names for the worship of Nimrod, the promised Seed and the deliverer. Images of the child with the serpent biting its heel, while the child was bruising the head of the serpent, were also erected. (See 'Coleman's Indian Mythology,' plate 12, p. 34, 'Backus' India in Greece,' p. 300, 'Wilkinson,' vol. 4, p. 395, 'Credeni Compendium,' vol. 1, pp. 29, 30, and 'Plutarch's De Iside,' vol. 2, p. 369, as quoted in 'Two Babylons,' pp. 58-74.)
The worship of this child under the names of Osiris, Tammuz, Nimrod, Adonis, etc., was always connected with sun worship, and was of the most degrading character. (See 'Two Babylons,' 'Kitto's Encyc. of Relig. Lit.,' and 'Lib. of Univ. Knowl.') In order that the minds of the people might be entirely taken away from the true God and his true character, that they might practice all forms of wickedness, undisturbed by the thoughts of a holy God, pure in character, the pagans transferred the day of worship from the true Sabbath to Sunday. (See Webster on definition of Sunday, North British Review, vol. 18, p. 409, 'Craft's Sabbath for Man,' pp. 375, 376, 'Lib. of Univ. Knowl.,' art. 'Sunday and Fire Worship.')
Thus with all the pagan worshipers, the true God is forgotten, the true Sabbath is set aside, and the promised Seed has come in the person of Nimrod, that exceedingly wicked rebel against God, and prince among the pagans. The pagan world being now under his control, rejoicing in licentious revelry, no longer remembering the Sabbath or the God of the Sabbath, and no longer looking for the promised Messiah, there is but one other class to divert from the worship of the true God, and from the acceptance of the promised Seed, when he shall come in his true character as God has promised. These are the descendants of faithful Abraham. The evil one first comes to them with this child worship, which was, in fact, sun worship, under the names of the images of Baal, Thammuz, Molech, etc., which were all sun images. Many of the Israelites fell under this appeal to the carnal passions, and were led into Sunday keeping and the licentious practices of sun worship. They also worshiped the child Nimrod as the promised Seed, ate with the pagans the sacrifices of the dead, and caused their children to pass through the fire to Molech. Ps. 106: 21, 28, 29, 37; 1 Kings 18: 17-39; 2 Kings 23: 4, 5; 2 Chron. 34: 4, margin; Eze. 8: 14-16; Rev. 2: 14.
During all this period of apostasy a portion of the children of Israel remained true to the worship of the true God, and, later on, many of those who had apostatized, under the judgments of God, mercifully inflicted, returned, and God in love forgave them. Ps. 106. Now, the devil sets about continuing to hold in their minds the pagan idea of God. Many in Israel, yielding to this temptation, worship God through fear, and, to do penance, they load the Sabbath, which was given as a day of spiritual rest in Jesus, in which to delight themselves in the Lord, with their traditions, and thus make it a yoke which neither they nor their children could bear. This resulted in formal Sabbath keeping, from fear occasioned by the pagan idea that God is a God of vengeance.
The next turn in the ever-changing kaleidoscope of Satan was to get the minds of Israel shut up to themselves, so that they would not disturb other nations with the true Sabbath or with the truth concerning the promised Messiah. Having instilled into their minds the idea that God was a God of vengeance, this was easily accomplished. Many of them no longer saw a God of infinite love reaching out to save those poor lost pagans about them, but they saw God in vengeance standing over them awaiting an opportunity to cut them down. They in self-righteousness arose and inclosed the truth in their garments of self-righteousness, with the feeling, 'Come not near me, for I am holier than thou,' and redoubled their penances, that they might appease the wrath of their god of vengeance which the devil had given them to worship.
One more step and the devil has all secured. His purpose will then be accomplished, and the coming of the promised Messiah, entirely thwarted. He now, with all his devilish skill, directs their minds toward the idea that the Messiah is coming as a temporal king, who, with a political sword, will wage a carnal warfare against sinners, and will destroy all who will not yield to him this enforced submission and worship. Thus they looked to see him restore the kingdom to Israel, and rule over the nations as a temporal King. With all this subtle scheming, the devil awaits with fiendish delight the privilege of tempting the Son of God with this base ingratitude on the part of the creatures whom he came to save. But God does not forget his everlasting covenant, formed between the Father, and the Son in the counsels of eternity, to love his people. And because he still loves them with an everlasting love, with loving-kindness he still continues to draw them (Jer. 31: 3), for all the promises of God in Christ are yea and amen, and not yea and nay (2 Cor. 1: 20, 21).
In his all-wise care and tender pity for those who desire to know and receive the promised Saviour, when he comes, he foretold by the prophets, in the utmost simplicity, ages before his coming, every important event of his life. Commencing with his ancestry and birth, and closing with his resurrection and ascension, his entire history is given in advance. These predictions were not all made at once, and by the same prophet, but were given at intervals, during a period of nearly four thousand years, and by men living in different parts of the world. Since they are given in the Old Testament writings, and the Old Testament was translated from the Hebrew into the Greek about two hundred and eighty-seven years before the birth of Christ, the predictions must all have been made at least more than two hundred years before the birth of Christ.
JOAN OF ARC.
JOAN OF ARC has been made a saint by the Roman Catholic Church. Last Sunday the pope entered the basilica for the purpose of venerating the new saint. We trust that the Roman Church will never object to any of the history connected with the burning of that remarkable woman. It would hardly do to teach in the public schools that she was condemned to death by the Roman Catholic Inquisition, an account of which, by the way, we must also take out of our histories. But perhaps we may be allowed to meekly state that Joan was condemned by the Inquisition to be burned at the stake for the serious offense of wearing pants, contrary to the rules of the Catholic Church; and also the charge that she had allied herself with evil spirits. No doubt the Board of Education of San Francisco would order this expunged from the text-books, on the ground that it was sectarian teaching.—The Occident.
THE PURITANS OF MASSACHUSETTS BAY.
By Percy T. Magan
BY PERCY T. MAGAN.
(Continued.)
[This article is No. 28 in the series entitled "A Review of Sunday Legislation in Century Nineteen," but it will be of equal interest to those who have not read preceding numbers.—Ed. S. of T.]
AGAIN, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay passed a law requiring every male sixteen years of age and over to take the "freeman's oath." This oath was one of allegiance to the general court. The general court was Puritan—essentially Puritan—in its composition and sentiment. The whole aim of that body was to enforce the Puritan belief throughout the colony. Therefore to take an oath of allegiance to the general court was to take an oath against the Government of England—against the charter. This is made very clear by no less important a personage than John Cotton himself:—
The magistrates and other members of the general court, upon intelligence of some episcopal and malignant practices against the country, made an order of court to take trial of the fidelity of the people, not by imposing upon them, but by offering to them an oath of fidelity, that in case any should refuse to take it, they might not betrust them with places of public charge and command.
Now, then, what was the reason for offering the oath?—Oh, the "magistrates and other members" (that is, the Puritan ministers) had received "intelligence of some episcopal and malignant practices against the country"! But episcopacy was a synonym for the Church of England. And that was the church they had virtually sworn to uphold in their charter. Lest there should be any question in regard to the position I have taken upon this matter, I append the "freeman's oath" in full:—
I, A. B., being by God's providence an inhabitant and freeman within the jurisdiction of this commonweal, do freely acknowledge myself to be subject to the government thereof, and therefore do here swear, by the great and dreadful name of the ever living God, that I will be true and faithful to the same, and will accordingly yield assistance and support thereunto with my person and estate as in equity I am bound, and I will also truly endeavor to maintain and preserve all the liberties and privileges thereof, submitting myself to the wholesome laws and orders made and established by the same. And, further, that I will not plot nor practice any evil against it, nor consent to any that shall do so, but will truly discover and reveal the same to lawful authority now here established, for the speedy preventing thereof. Moreover, I do solemnly bind myself in the sight of God, that when I shall be called to give my voice touching any such matters of this State, wherein freemen are to deal, I will give my vote and suffrage as I shall judge in mine own conscience may best conduce and tend to the public weal of the body, without respect of persons, or favor of any man; so help me God in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Such was the oath. John Cotton said that it was only "offered," not "imposed." This may have been the case at one time; but when the assembly met at Cambridge, later about a year (March 4, 1635), they enacted as follows:—
It is ordered that every man of or above the age of sixteen years, who hath been, or shall hereafter be, resident within this jurisdiction, by the space of six months (as well servants as others) and not enfranchised, shall take the oath of residence before the governor, deputy governor, or two of the next assistants, who shall have power to convent him for that purpose, and, upon his refusal, to bind him over to the next court of assistants, and, upon his refusal the second time, to be punished at the discretion of the court.
It is ordered that the freeman's oath shall be given to every man of or above the age of sixteen years, the clause for election of magistrates only excepted.
Let the candid reader judge from this whether the oath was only "offered," or whether it was "imposed."
It is morally certain that this oath was meant to act as an antidote to certain measures that were at that very time being proposed and passed in England. The oath is found upon the records of the general assembly, May 14, 1634. Upon April 28, 1634, just sixteen days previously, King Charles had given a commission to Archbishop Laud and five other councillors, ordering them to enforce episcopacy in the colonies. The two measures were just sixteen days apart. Without a doubt the governor and assistants of the Massachusetts Bay Company were not aware what the king had done, when they fixed the form of the freeman's oath. That is not saying that they had not intimations of what he was going to do. But certain it is that they did know what he had done when, in March, 1635, they made the freeman's oath obligatory upon all, with a penalty to be fixed at the discretion of the court. So, by this oath, they were deliberately plotting against the laws of England, and trying to offset the plans of the Government of England, which, according to their charter, they were bound to uphold. Not only were they bound by their names in the charter, but they were bound by the oath which they had taken to support the crown of England, which oath I very much doubt they ever had the slightest intention of keeping. So much for the value of the oaths of the leading Puritans of Massachusetts Bay.
I said that by the charter they were bound to make no laws contrary to the laws and ordinances of England. This is stipulated, not only once in the charter, but three times, so that by no just method of construction can it ever be said to have been by mere form or accident that those words were in the charter. They were in it three times; they are in it three times to this very day in every authentic copy of it; they are in it as immortal witnesses of the perjury and falsehood of the Puritans.
Roger Williams, to his everlasting praise be it spoken, refused to take the freeman's oath. He refused to take it because it would virtually transfer his allegiance from the Government of England to the church brethren of the colony. He refused to take it because it would contravene the stipulations of the charter, which he, along with all the rest, was sworn to uphold. He refused to take the oath because he was the friend of chartered rights and constitutions, and the enemy of tyranny and despotism. He refused to take the oath for another and still a grander reason, as stated by Professor Knowles:—
"To this oath, under such circumstances, Mr. Williams, as a friend of liberty, was opposed. He would not renounce an oath which he had taken, and substitute another which bound him to obey whatever laws the magistrates might deem wholesome. The reason assigned for the new oath, moreover, was to guard against "episcopal and malignant practices." This gave it the appearance of a law to restrain liberty of conscience.
So much for the intentions and honesty of purpose of the Puritans from the standpoint of the charter. It will now be in order to take their own writings upon the subject of religious liberty. They have left us abundant testimony expressive of their ideas. Hearken to the words of Samuel Willard, writing in 1681:—
I perceive they are mistaken in the design of our first Planters, whose business was not Toleration; but were professed Enemies of it, and could leave the World professing they died no Libertines. Their business was to settle, and (as much as in them lay) secure Religion to Posterity, according to that way which they believed was of God.
It is thus that the Rev. Nathaniel Ward delivers himself:—
My heart hath naturally detested foure things. . . . Tolerations of divers Religions, or of one Religion in segregant shapes:—He that willingly assents to the last, if he examines his heart by daylight, his conscience will tell him, he is either an Atheist, or an Heretique, or an Hypocrite, or at best a captive to some lust. Poly-piety is the greatest impiety in the world. . . . I lived in a city where a Papist preached in one Church, a Lutheran in another, a Calvinist in a third; a Lutheran one part of the day, a Calvinist the other, in the same pulpit. The Religion of that place was but motley and meagre, their affections Leopardlike. . . . Concerning Tolerations, I may further assert, That Persecution of True Religion, and Toleration of false, are the Jannes and Jambres ["Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Tim. 3: 8.] to the Kingdom of Christ, whereof the last is farre the worst. . . . It is said that men ought to have liberty of their Conscience, and that it is Persecution to debarre them of it. I can rather stand amazed than reply to this; it is an astonishment to think that the brains of men should be parboy'd in such impious ignorance.
(To be continued.)
FIRST PRINCIPLES. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS DEFINED.
By H. F. Phelps
Limited in Their Exercise.
BESIDES, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion.—Thos. Jefferson.
How true are these words: "The spirit of the times" have "altered." "Our rulers," the people, have become "careless" and "corrupt." They have forgotten that they have any rights worth guarding, "but in the sole faculty of making money." More than one "zealot" has already commenced persecution. The "shackles" (religious laws enacted by the State), which bind individual conscience, were not all "knocked off at the conclusion" of that war, and they are growing "heavier and heavier," till our rights are about to expire in a convulsion.647It is time, therefore, that all were better acquainted as to the nature, value, and limitation of the exercise of their rights. Therefore, we ask: What are these rights? What their origin? In whom are they vested? And what is the limitation of their exercise? A proper answer to these questions, a thorough understanding of the subject, with a correct application of the principles, in the intercourse of man with his fellow-man, would furnish a solution to all those vexed questions that arise in the social, political, and religious relations of mankind. We do well, therefore, that we consider the subject carefully and prayerfully. And if all would observe and apply these principles, there would be no need of organized society. But in the present state of things, in man's fallen condition, it becomes necessary to organize under some form of government.
There are governments intolerant and despotic, where rights and powers are supposed to be vested in the ruler, where one man's brain serves to regulate the wheels of government in all private as well as public affairs, in all matters, religious as well as civil, where the subject is in the most complete bondage of both soul and body, the absolute slave to his superiors.
Such was not the purpose of God in man's creation. Such was the intent of Satan in the subjugation of man to his hellish devices. Such was not the purpose of God in the promise of redemption; and with the words, "I will put enmity" toward the evil one and his works, is found more than an implication of a love implanted for the good and freedom of choice. Such ever has been the purpose of Satan in all his relations to all fallen beings—the absolute enslavement of the will—while the purpose of God, as shown in all his works, as unfolded in the plan of salvation, as revealed in the gospel of Jesus Christ, was freedom of the will, individuality in all things, and in religion above all things, hence the full and free enjoyment of all their rights, both civil and religious.
There has been one government, the last, the noblest offspring of time, where individual rights have been acknowledged and respected. And a century of prosperity without a parallel has been the result. The general government even "dared to set the example," vindicating these rights in her Constitution, that most noble of all human documents. And this—the Constitution—was designed both as a guarantee and safeguard of these rights; and so we turn and read:—
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
All men are not equal in social position. All are not equal in physical powers or mental ability. But all are endowed equally by their Creator with "certain unalienable rights." Being "unalienable," they cannot be transferred to another. In the very nature of the case, they are therefore vested in the individual. It is, therefore, a fact that no man or set of men can of right dispossess another of these rights. Neither can men by any compact of law divest their posterity of these rights.
Inasmuch as all are "endowed by their Creator" with these rights, they are, therefore, gifts of God. They are an endowment of nature. They are, therefore, divine in their nature. And any man or set of men who assumes, under any pretense whatever, to enter the domain of these rights, treads upon sacred ground. He enters the domain which God has set free, and which bears the imprint of the Divine. Let him, therefore, tread softly. Let no man attempt to coerce that which God has set at liberty.
Again, as "all men are created equal," and as "our Father" has been impartial in the bestowal of these gifts, it becomes evident that all men are equally privileged in the enjoyment of these gifts. Has one the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? So has every other man the same right. It is equally evident that if there is any limitation in the exercise of these rights, this proscription must affect all alike. But what limitation can exist in the exercise of these gifts of God, bestowed upon all alike?—In the very nature of the case, there can be but one limitation, and that is the equal rights of another. Mr. Spencer has very aptly expressed the idea in these words:—
Every man has the right to do whatsoever he wills, provided that in the doing thereof he infringes not the equal right of any other man.
Now, to the mind of the writer, an application of this principle would solve every perplexing question arising in all our relations, whether in civil or religious matters. It is simply an application of the Golden Rule, or this rule expressed in another form.
Thus, in brief, the answer to our questions is that our natural rights are few, and they come from God, and are vested in each individual alike; and infringement of another's equal rights is the only limitation that can possibly arise. In other words, the only question that can properly come before the tribunal of society is that a man should be civil. To infringe upon the equal rights of another is uncivil. All men should be civil. But this all men will not be. And here is the domain of civil law and civil courts. It is not the province of courts or law to deprive anyone of his just rights. Thos. Jefferson once said:—
Our legislators are not sufficiently apprised of the rightful limits of their power, that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights and duties, and to take none of them from us.
These words are just as true to-day as when they were first uttered. Our government was founded upon these rights; and our fathers said:—
The only proper objects of civil government are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and the property of the citizen.
Our States were organized with respect to these rights; hence all, or nearly all, define these rights in their constitutions, under the titles "Bill of Rights," or "Declaration of Rights," or "Rights and Privileges," or "A Declaration of Rights of the State of —," and similar expressions. The Virginia "Declaration of Rights," in 1776, declared "that all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them."
Our fathers were most emphatic in declaring for religious rights. They said "that religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." They also said they were "well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion." (Will our National Reform friends make a note of this?) Again they said: "The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right." And Mr. Madison once declared that "there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most fragrant usurpation." Hon. R. M. Johnson said:—
It should, however, be kept in mind that the proper object of government is to protect all persons in enjoyment of their religious as well as civil rights. . . . What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as an act of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizenship, however small. Despotic power may invade these rights, but justice still confirms them.
Judge Cooley also declares that the American constitutions "have not established religious toleration merely, but religious equality." Let it ever be remembered that "there is a very great difference between toleration and liberty." Lord Stanhope once said:—
The time was when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon; it is now demanded as a right; but the time will come when it will be spurned as an insult.
The very thought of being tolerated is distasteful to the person who has been educated according to the facts in the case, that all men have equal rights. All men enter into society on exactly the same terms; and no man or set of men can with consistency talk of granting toleration to some other person or persons. Not only is it a fact that natural rights are few, and all enter into society equally endowed with those rights by their Creator, but, each individual being vested with these rights, they are in no way, or for any cause, to be alienated from the man. He comes into society already possessed of them. He does not owe them to society, nor does he surrender them on entering society. They belong to the individual as the sole possessor, just the same as he possesses any member of his body. My neighbor has eyes and ears, hands and feet; so have I, just the same. My neighbor comes into society—the world—possessed of rights, in the same way as he is possessed of the several members of his body. So do I. We come into the world to use these members of our bodies, so also to exercise these unalienable rights. Talk about toleration! As well might one man be tolerated by another in the use of his eyes or ears. If it were offered me, I would spurn it with contempt. So will I spurn with contempt the idea of toleration in the exercise of any of God's gifts to man. I will exercise them because it is my God-given right. Thos. Jefferson said:—
The idea is quite unfounded that, on entering into society, we give up any of our natural rights.
And Madison's Memorial says:—
All men are to be considered as entering into society on equal conditions, as relinquishing no more, and, therefore, retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.
If any surrender of rights could be required, it would be from the weak to the strong, from the minority to the majority. Upon this point Mr. A. H. Stephens says:—
Upon entering into society, however, for the purpose of having their natural rights secured and protected, or properly redressed, the weak do not give up or surrender any portion of their priceless heritage in any government constituted and organized as it should be.648The Government of the United States, organized with respect to these rights, and founded upon them, has, in the past, protected all men in the exercise of those God-given rights. But now that our Constitution has been interpreted to mean what it does not say, we may be asked to surrender our rights. Shall we be so base as to do it? We may be asked to accept of toleration. We will spurn it with contempt, and demand protection, as citizens, in the exercise of all our rights.
In closing this article, we would credit the quotations to "American State Papers," and commend its study to all who are interested in these questions.
POPERY A FORM OF PAGANISM.
By James Aitken Wylie
POPERY is but the church of Satan, and is a counterfeit church. We run our eye over it, and see how the form of the church of God has been copied, while the spirit is utterly extinguished and the end completely inverted. First of all, Satan's counterfeit church has its high priest, not to speak of its pontiff, who, like the great Druid of our ancestors, and the Pontifex Maximus of the Romans, stands at the top of the system. There is a body of men in the Church of Rome who profess to offer for the sins of the living and the dead, and to mediate between God and men in virtue of their powers as a priesthood. Second, this church has its great sacrifice—the mass, to wit. The worshiper is bidden look, not to the sacrifice on Calvary, but to the sacrifice on the altar, for the pardon of his sins and the salvation of his soul. Third, this church has its Bible—the traditions of the fathers, together with the canon law; the Canons of the Council of Trent occupy the place in the Church of Rome which the Scriptures do in the church of Christ. They are her rule of faith, and are held by her to be an infallible revelation of the will of God, and an infallible director of the conscience. Thus Christ as the one Priest, his death as the one all-sufficient sacrifice, and the Bible as the one infallible guide, Popery puts aside, and puts counterfeits in their room.
For an apostolic succession, which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, it substitutes a succession of matter; a long succession of official men, who alone have the power of conveying grace; a chain which has not in it, from beginning to end, one broken link; while the fact is, if history is to be believed, that all the links are broken, and one whole link there is not in it all.
Popery denies God the Father by installing the pope as the divine vicegerent of the world and infallible ruler of the conscience. It presents him sitting aloft, above magistrates and kings, with power to annul their laws, cast them down from their thrones, plant or pluck up nations, and abrogate even the precepts of the moral law. Popery writes on the papal chair: This is the seat of God, the throne of the infallible and holy One. He who sits here can pardon or retain men's sins; in other words, save or destroy their souls.
Popery denies God the Son. It robs Christ of his priestly office by assuming the power of offering efficaciously for the sins of men. It is the priest's sacrifice, not Christ's, that saves the sinner. Popery robs Christ of his prophetic office, by presenting itself as the infallible teacher of the will of God, and the only authorized expositor of the true sense of Scripture, without whose guidance we are sure to err in interpreting the Bible. It robs Christ of his office as the one Mediator and Intercessor, by making Mary and the saints intercessors with God for men. It robs Christ of his kingly office by exalting the pope to his royal seat as head of the church, and head of the world for the church. In his vesture and on his thigh the pope has a name written, "King of kings and Lord of lords."
Popery denies the Spirit of God. For the Spirit it substitutes the sacrament, by giving to the sacrament the power, by its own inherent efficacy, to regenerate the soul, and to make men holy, and heirs of heaven. It robs the Spirit of its honor as the medium through which divine blessings are communicated to the soul, and by which at last it is made perfect in holiness, by making its priesthood the only channel of communication betwixt God and men, without whose agency all grace and blessing are utterly beyond the reach of men.
Here, then, is what professes to be a church, a perfect and complete church, and yet is an out-and-out counterfeit. Every element of strength and every principle of evil that were found in the ancient idolatries lives over again in the Papacy. That same paganism whose cradle was rocked in Chaldea, whose youth was passed amid the olive groves and matchless temples of Greece, and whose manhood was reached amid the martial sounds and iron organization of Rome, has returned anew in the Papacy, bringing with it the old rites, the old festivals, the flowers, the incensings, the lustral water, the vestments, the very gods—but with new names—everything, in short. And, were an old pagan to rise from the dead, he would find himself amid his old environments, and, without a moment's doubt, would conclude that the ancient Jove was still reigning, and was being worshiped by the same rites that were practiced in his honor two thousand years ago.
To conclude, popery is an effacement of the Christian church; by the substitution of a pantheon of idols, extinguishing the great lights of revelation, it rolls back the world, and places it once more amid the ideas, the deities, and the rites of early and idolatrous ages.
A BAPTIST VIEW OF THE CHRISTIAN AMENDMENT.
By Editor
A BROTHER desires us to express our views as to the so-called Christian amendment for inserting the name of God and of Jesus Christ in the United States Constitution. Religion is something with which the Constitution of the United States has nothing to do, except to guarantee to all citizens liberty in the exercise of their non-religious sentiments. If we put into the Constitution a recognition of God and of Jesus Christ, we disfranchise all who cannot subscribe to these sentiments. It is an approach toward the union of State and Church, which has been one of the most mischievous and baleful things existing on earth. There would be just as much reason for putting the name of God and of Christ into the charter of every town and village, and the incorporating act of every bank or insurance company. If it is said that the laws of God lie at the foundation of all government, it is also true that they lie at the foundation of every contract and of every corporation. Civil government is a secular institution, intended to promote the temporal welfare. In making laws it recognizes certain acts as harmful to civil society.
Again, the amendment is futile. It accomplishes nothing. It will not change the sentiments of anyone; it will not prevent the most wicked and unchristian legislation or action. No one would propose to carry out the amendment to its logical result and to disfranchise Hon. Oscar S. Strauss, or Mayor Sulzberger, or any other of our fellow-citizens, because they are Jews, or Prof. Felix Adler or his associates, who, it is generally supposed, do not believe in a personal God. We object to the amendment, because it is futile if not carried out; it is despotic and contrary to religious liberty if it is carried out.
Good men, very good men, are prone to lack confidence in the power of God. We have seen Christianity make its way; in spite of obstacles and menaces and persecution; now we are afraid that it cannot continue to exist without a great deal of legal help. Christianity has asserted itself against the dominion of Nero, of Louis XIV., of the Inquisition. It will still conquer, and it will not allow itself to be indebted to the legal power for the triumphs which it will win.—National Baptist.
Truth Endures Forever
By Rev. Jesse S. Gilbert, A.M.
FORMS of human thought and systems of philosophy may dissolve and be reformed in new modes, but truth sits enthroned in the heart of God, “the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.”—Rev. Jesse S. Gilbert, A.M.