Earlier text: The MessiahTO PARENTS ON THE TRAINING OF CHILDREN.
By Henry Ward Beecher
I do not believe in bringing up the young to know life, as it is said. I should just as soon think of bringing up a child by cutting some of the cords of his body and lacerating his nerves and scarring and tattooing him and making an Indian of him outright as an element of beauty, as I should think of developing his manhood by bringing him up to see life—to see its abominable lusts, to see its hideous incarnations of wit, to see its infernal wickedness, to see its extravagant and degrading scenes, to see its miserable carnalities, to see its imaginations set on fire of hell, to see all those temptations and delusions which lead to perdition. Nobody gets over the sight of these things. They who see them always carry scars. They are burned. And though they live, they live as men who have been burned. The scar remains. And to let the young go out where the gazing courtesan appears, to let them go where the lustful frequenter of dens of iniquity can come within their reach, to let them go where the young gather together to cheer with bad wit, to let them go where they will be exposed to such temptations—why, a parent is insane that will do it. To say "a child must be hardened, he has got to get tough somehow, and you may as well put him in the vat and let him tan"—is that family education? is that Christian nurture? is that bringing a child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? I thank God for two things—yes, for a thousand; but for two among many: First, that I was born and bred in the country, of parents that gave me a sound constitution and a noble example. I never can pay back what I got from my parents. If I were to raise a monument of gold higher than heaven, it would be no expression of the debt of gratitude which I owe to them for that which they unceasingly gave, by the heritage of their bodies and the heritage of their souls, to me. And next to that I am thankful that I was brought up in circumstances where I never became acquainted with wickedness. I know a great deal about it; for if I hear a man say A, I know the whole alphabet of that man's life, by which I can imagine all the rest. If I see a single limb, I have the physiologist's talent by which I know the whole structure. But I never became acquainted with wickedness when I was young by coming in contact with it. I never was sullied in act, nor in thought, nor in feeling, when I was young. I grew up as pure as a woman. And I cannot express to God the thanks which I owe to my mother, and to my father, and to the great household of sisters and brothers among whom I lived. And the secondary knowledge of these wicked things, which I have gained in later life in a professional way, I gained under such guards that it was not harmful to me. To all husbands and wives whom these written words may reach, I say, If you have children, bring them up purely. Bring them up with sensitive delicacy. Bring them up so that they shall not know the wickedness that is known, unfortunately, by the greater number of men. And if there are children that are sometimes impatient of parental restraint, let me say to them, You do not know what temptation you are under, and if, held back by your mother, if, held back by your father, you shall escape the knowledge of the wickedness that is in the world, you will have occasion by and by to thank God for that, more than for silver or for gold or for houses or for lands. Keep your children at home at night. There is many a sod that lies over the child whose downfall began by vagrancy at night, and there is many a child whose heart-breaking parents would give the world if the sod did lie over it. What a state is that for children to come to in which the father and the mother dread their life unspeakably more than their death! What a horrible state of things that is where parents feel a sense of relief in the dying of their children! Then, I say, take care of your children at night.—Beecher. THE apostle Paul twice uses this phrase in writing to the churches at Rome and Corinth, and many times, in common with other New Testament writers, applies the term "saint" to all those who had embraced the Christian faith. Accustomed as we are to a more restricted use of the word, the broader significance thus attached to it by the sacred writers is somewhat startling at first view. And it well may be. For if all who profess faith in Christ are literally "called to be saints," it is clear that the New Testament conception of Christian character and living is a very different one from that which Christians ordinarily hold— or at least from that they commonly "live up to" from day to day. The word means one who is sanctified, set apart. Like the sacred vessels used in the temple worship, the believer in Christ, according to this high conception, is separated from the world in which he lives, and consecrated to a high and holy service. The thought is expressed in many ways. It is said of him that he is "holy"; that he is not his own; that he no longer lives, but Christ lives in him; that his life is hid with Christ in God; that though in the world, he is not of it; that his citizenship is in Heaven. In a word, he is declared to be a new creature, freed from the bondage of sin, and brought into new and most blessed relations with the Lord and Redeemer of men. This, and much more, the word of God teaches respecting those who have accepted Christ as their divine Saviour. None are excepted; all are "saints." But we are not to suppose that this broader use of the word in anywise detracts from its significance. The New Testament writers, moved by the Holy Spirit, often put new meaning and power into words; they never lessened their value. So when Paul tells his Roman and Corinthian brethren that they are "called to be saints," he does not lower the ideal of saintship. He means that they are called, every one of them, to the highest, purest, holiest life that is possible to man. And what kind of life that is, the Bible is at infinite pains to make plain to the dullest comprehension. No artificial distinctions are insisted upon. The word of God, unlike some of its would-be interpreters, is not arbitrary in its prescriptions. It demands nothing but what is just and reasonable. It puts bounds only to unwholesome passions and desires. Its aim is to ennoble the whole man, developing his best powers and renewing in him the "image of God," defaced and broken by sin. And so, in the person and teachings of the Son of man, as revealed in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, the model of the "saint" is set forth in bold and beautiful relief, that all believers may know to what they are called, and how to attain the fullest possible development of the saintly character. The thought of this divine call ought to deepen our conception of the meaning and glory of the Christian life. While carefully guarding ourselves against those erroneous notions of "holiness" which have gained currency in recent years, it is well to bear constantly in mind that we are in truth "called to be saints," and that only as we respond to the summons with all our powers of body and soul shall we fulfill, wisely and well, the end of our being as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ.—Baptist Examiner. A WARNING WORD STILL TRUE AND NEEDED.
MAKE peace if you will with Popery, receive it into your Senate, enshrine it in your chambers, plant it in your hearts. But be ye certain, as certain as there is a heaven above you and a God over you, that the Popery thus honored and embraced is the very Popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your fathers; and the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance, which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity, crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God.—Canon Melville. THE DAY OF THE SABBATH.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"REMEMBER the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but THE SEVENTH DAY is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work; . . . for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested THE SEVENTH DAY; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day, and hallowed IT." Language could not be framed so as to express more clearly the fact that the Sabbath of the Lord was permanently fixed upon a definite specified day. The last charge to be brought against the fourth commandment is that of indefiniteness. If it is not definite, then language cannot be made to convey ideas. But among the "inventions" that men have "sought out" is the theory that the commandment does not prescribe the observation of a certain day recurring at regular intervals, but that it enjoins the observance of one-seventh part of our time. The term "sought out" is fitly applied to this invention, for no trace of this theory appears in the commandment. It was brought to light about two hundred years ago as the only alternative of those who wished to persuade themselves and others that they were keeping the commandment, while at the same time they were observing a day of their own choosing. But this is one of the thinnest disguises ever invented. It is a very easy matter to show its absurdity, as we will demonstrate. Notice carefully the following argument:— If God sanctified an indefinite seventh part of time, he must of necessity have left it optional with man to choose which day he would keep; the only thing commanded would be rest; man could suit his own convenience as to time. It would then follow that whatever day man should choose to rest upon, that would be the portion of time sanctified; and thus the act of the Creator would be dependent on the act of the creature. But it is not at all consistent with the dignity of even a human law-giver to make the meaning of his enactments contingent on the caprice of the people; much less would such a course reflect honor upon the government of God. But this is not the worst result that would naturally follow. If an indefinite seventh part of time were sanctified, then not only would it be left to man to choose the day for rest, but each individual would be at liberty to rest upon the day which might please his fancy. One man might take the seventh day, and another might take the fourth, and then, according to this theory, not one-seventh but two-sevenths of the time would be sanctified. Or, to suppose a case which would be very likely to happen if men should actually try to put their theory into practice, every day in the week might be kept by different individuals, and then it would appear that in the beginning God had sanctified or set apart all the time! But in that case what would become of the theory that he sanctified only a seventh? We submit to anyone that this is not a forced conclusion; if the conclusion is absurd, it simply proves that the theory in question is absurd. But before men reach this point in their endeavors to evade the law of God, they usually recover their reasoning faculties to some extent, and say that it is necessary for all men to keep one and the same day. The exigencies of business require it. Then we ask, Who shall appoint the day? What man is there whose judgment all will follow? There is no man or class of men whose authority even a majority of persons will acknowledge, so as to defer to it. In a case that is left open, every man is on an equality with every other. There is positively no way out of this dilemma but to admit that the commandment plainly declares,—that God, in the beginning, decided definitely which day of the week should be observed. So we see that the one-seventh-part-of-time theory is an impossibility when reduced to practice. And even if it were possible for all men to agree upon some day of their own choosing, that day would be their sabbath, and not the Sabbath of the Lord, which the commandment enjoins. But some will say, "Granting that a definite day was set apart, how can we tell which one it was?" This must be an easy question to answer, else it were useless to have a definite day appointed. The commandment says, "The seventh day is the Sabbath." Mark, the seventh day, not a seventh day. The seventh day of what? Not of the month, for that would not meet the demand for a rest after six days of labor. For the same reason it cannot mean the seventh day of the year. It must mean the seventh day of a period of time of which seven days is the sum. But this is the week; and we therefore are shut up to the conclusion that the commandment enjoins the observance of the seventh day of the week. A really candid thoughtful person could not decide otherwise. For further proof that the seventh day of the week is meant read Luke 23: 54-56; 24: 1. The sacred historian after describing the crucifixion and burial of Christ says: "And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women also, which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." Now if we can find what day it was on which they rested, we shall know beyond all doubt which day is "the Sabbath-day according to the commandment." The next verse says: "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared." To avoid any possibility of cavil, we turn to Mark 16: 1, and there read that this visit took place "when the Sabbath was past." Luke, then, has given us in consecutive order the record of three days as follows: Christ was crucified on "the preparation day;" the day following was the Sabbath, upon which the women rested "according to the commandment;" and the next day was the first day of the week. This proves unmistakably that the Sabbath of the commandment is the seventh day of the week. E. J. W. THE ULTIMATE PARTY.
By M. C. W.
IN the (N. Y.) Voice of August 15, in a letter to that journal, H. Clay Bascom says:— "Referring to the Prohibition vote, the Hon. Edward Evans says in a private letter:— "It must be obvious that when a principle on non-partisan lines can command in Pennsylvania 300,000 votes, and in Ohio 360,000 votes, and in Massachusetts 80,000 votes, and in Michigan 268,000 votes, and that when these voters are asked to support the Prohibition party it can only get from 10,000 to 20,000 in these States, there is something wrong with the make-up of the party." "And Mr Evans invites Prohibition party men to a counsel looking to the abandonment of the Prohibition party and the organization of the 'National Reform Party,' whose corner-stone shall be the prohibition principle, but whose platform shall be more comprehensive." Mr. Evans cherishes the belief that such a party and platform would command all of the Prohibition ballots that have been cast in the non-partisan contests. His ambitions are most laudable. In an open letter to the Hon. John P. St. John, in the Chicago Express, Mr Evans quotes Hon. T. R. Carskadon as saying upon the subject of the proposed conference: 'No harm can come from a free and open discussion of the question of uniting all reform forces.'" Mr. Bascom says that "Mr. Evans marches in advance of his question;" and that "he is right in the objects sought." Mr. Bascom's chief objection to this scheme is that it would be impossible to translate the whole Prohibition party into the National Reform party, and therefore no more votes would be won than now. But whenever it is possible, he says: "We shall be most happy to welcome the coming coalition." We notice the above to call the attention of our readers to the religio-political trend. Whether this refers to the National Reform party which has already existed for years, we know not. It probably does, but whether it does or not, it means a similar organization, holding the same wrong ideas of government. The reform sought includes instruction in the principles of the Christian religion in the public schools, God in the Constitution, better and general divorce laws, laws for stricter observance of Sunday, and prohibition of the liquor traffic. Some good things, and some equally bad. National Reform means a union of Church and State, and into such union the country is now drifting. M. C. W. JESUS—SAVIOUR.
By Milton C. Wilcox
THE most precious thought in connection with Christ as a Saviour is that he saves from sin in its fullest sense, the root of all evil, woe, and misery. Said the angel, "Thou shalt call his name JESUS [Saviour]; for he shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. And it matters not how great those sins have been. The individual may be with whole head sick and whole heart faint, with nothing but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores (Isa. 1:5, 6), if he but hate the sin and desire to be separated from it, he can come to that blessed Redeemer and find pardon. Through his Spirit (1 Peter 1:10, 11) he brings us this message, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord; though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Isa. 1:18. That is, it matters not how deeply dyed our sins may be; they may be as scarlet, the most permanent of all dyes, if we will only come to Christ, he will heal and pardon; he will wash us white as snow. He will cure the leprosy of sin so that the eye of God can only see the wholeness of righteousness. Truly "blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered." Rom. 4:7. What a gracious work! What a change in condition! From being "holden with the cords of his sins," (Prov. 5:22) he is set "free indeed" by the Son of God. John 8:36. Once a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3), now a child of the promised inheritance. Gal. 4:28. Then at enmity with God (Rom. 8:7), now the enmity is slain (Eph. 2:16), and we reconciled to God (2 Cor. 5:18), and the heart filled with a peace which the world cannot give. Rom. 5:1. We will not contrast all these opposite conditions between the sinner condemned and the sinner justified. Language cannot depict the wondrous transformation. It must be known by experience to be realized. O taste and see that the Lord is good. But this is not all of the preciousness of this Saviour. It is but a small part. In fact, if simply forgiveness of past sins were all that Jesus does for us, if we were left to fall back in the old ruts of degradation, in the old habits of sin, if the diseased body were merely healed over on the outside,535 while within it were as corrupt as ever, the forgiveness would be worse than nothing. It would only aggravate the sin and misery. It would be like taking the poor, half-frozen beggar out of the street, washing, clothing, feeding him, and placing him in a palace of warmth and light and luxury for a day, and then stripping him of all that was sweet and comfortable, investing him again with rags, and turning him out again upon the street, hungry, and homeless, and shelterless. This is not what Christ does for us. He does not pardon to deceive. He does not begin the work to leave it unfinished. He is the author [the beginner] and the finisher of our faith. He is able to save "to the uttermost" all who come unto God by him (Heb. 7:25), able to keep them from falling (Jude 24), able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think (Eph. 3:20); and he will for all who trust him, perform the work he has begun "until the day of Christ Jesus." Phil. 1:6. This Saviour from sin, therefore, is a Saviour from sinning; and not only from sinning, but from all of the consequences of sin. When his work of redemption is finished, death and the grave will be destroyed. God's universe is clean, the people are all righteous, and righteousness is life. There shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain [of body, or worse, of heart]; for the former things are passed away. Sin is forever removed. "There shall be no more falling away" (Rev. 22:3, Syriac). God will therefore dwell with his people. "The tabernacle [dwelling place] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them," "and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads." Rev. 21:4, 3; 22:4. Such is the salvation offered through our Lord Jesus Christ. "Whosoever will may come," and partake freely. M. C. W. EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT.
By M. C. W.
"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal." Matt. 25:46. THE above text is one of the strongholds of those who advocate eternal torment. They hold that the period of time is the same in the case of the wicked as in the case of the righteous, and that the punishment is torment, or misery; and as the life of the righteous is endless, therefore the torment of the wicked is endless. Is this true? Let us examine the text. 1. The text contrasts the ultimate reward of the righteous with the ultimate fate of the wicked. It is the execution of the final sentence of the great Judge. The classes were opposite in character; their doom also will be opposite. 2. The extent of the punishment is the same. The same word in the original is used in both cases. "These shall go away into everlasting [aïonion] punishment; but the righteous into life eternal [aïonion]." The Greek term aïonion, is sometimes limited in its meaning, the same as the substantive aïon, from which it is derived, and which is defined by lexicons to mean "age," "period," "lifetime," "unlimited duration," "eternity." Its proper meaning is "age," whether longer or shorter, a period, the beginning or ending of which is hidden from man. We will give the adjective aïonion, "age-lasting," in the text its fullest meaning—eternity, without end.—Eternal life and eternal punishment,—no change ever comes to either as respects the conditions indicated in the terms. 3. We know as well as mortals can know what the eternal life [aïonion zoe] is. It is living in the kingdom of God, a life which measures with the life of God. To such a life happiness must be a necessary concomitant; but of this the text says nothing: it is not its object. It sets before us two opposite classes—righteous and unrighteous. It also places before us two opposite conditions as their destinies—life and the only opposite of life—death. It is eternal life or eternal death. The text does not state everlasting life in happiness and everlasting life in misery, as it should have said if the wicked are to be endlessly tormented. For life without end is as much eternal life in misery as in happiness. Not the conditions of life are presented; but the ultimate destiny of two classes of opposite characters, therefore opposite destinies. As the one was life, reason would say the other was death. 4. The term torment has been read into the text. "Punishment" might mean "torment" or "misery," and it might not. For instance, two criminals are before a judge for different offenses. The punishment of the one, as expressed in the sentence of the judge, is to receive sixty lashes at the whipping post; the punishment of the other is to be shot through the heart. The first has a punishment which means much pain and misery; the second suffers but momentary pain. Which is the greater punishment? All will reply, the latter. And yet it did not have a tithe of the suffering which the former had. Then wherein is it greater? We reply it deprives of life. If the criminal were thirty years old, he might in the natural course of events have lived forty years more. His punishment has deprived him of forty years of life, what he probably would have lived if he had not been punished. So with the punishment of the wicked. If they had not rejected Christ, they might have had eternal life. But because of unrepented, unconfessed, unforgiven sin, they are deprived of that life which they otherwise would have had, even eternal life. But the deprivation of eternal life is eternal death, and that is eternal punishment. 5. Notice further: The term used indicates a completed, final act. It is not punishing, but punishment. Punishing would denote a continued process, punishment would denote a completed one. So "eternal salvation" (Heb. 5:9), "eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:2), "eternal redemption" (Heb. 9:12), do not mean eternal saving, eternal judging, and eternal redeeming, but these terms denote finality and completeness. They are not processes forever going on, but things accomplished and irreversible. So everlasting punishment is final and completed punishment. 6. What do parallel texts say? What is the punishment which they set forth? By what term do they indicate what our Saviour used "punishment" to indicate? Says Paul: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23. The one is opposite of the other. It is death and life. Again, 2 Thess. 1:9: "Who shall be punished with everlasting DESTRUCTION from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power." The "punishment" of Matt. 25:46 is therefore shown to be, by unambiguous and positive language, "death" and "destruction." Says one apostle, "What shall be the end of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1 Pet. 4:17) and another furnishes the reply, "Whose end is destruction." Phil. 3:19. Again Peter says, that they "shall utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12. Certainly this is everlasting death, not misery. A few words will make this clear. If death should be visited upon the sinner, and then at the end of a thousand years he should be raised, he would only have been punished a thousand years; that is, he would have been deprived of a thousand years of life, which otherwise he would have had. If he were raised at the end of a million years, that period would be the length of his punishment. There would be taken from him a million years which he could have used had it not been for the punishment. Even so, if the wicked are never raised from that second death (and they never will be), their punishment is eternal, for it is eternal death. We now have the privilege of choosing life or death. The life is as endless as the life of God with naught to mar its blessed fruition. The death is the loss of this eternal life, and is therefore eternal. One is given through repentance and obedient faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the other may be chosen by making no choice. "As I live saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked." "Therefore choose life." "WHAT IS THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE?"
By C. P. B.
OUR last article on this subject closed with a reference to the deadly wound which the Papacy received from the French in 1798. But just as that power was temporarily overthrown the prophet saw another power coming up. He says: "And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast whose deadly wound was healed." Rev. 13:11, 12. It will be observed that the prophet expressly states that this is "another beast." And we learn that it comes up out of the earth, whereas the others were seen coming up out of the sea. By referring to Revelation 17:15 we learn that the sea is a symbol of peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues; we also learn from Jer. 25:31-33 that winds mean war and strife among the people, therefore when we read in Dan. 7:2 that the four winds of heaven strove upon the great sea, and that as a result, four beasts symbolizing four kingdoms came up, we understand that it means that these kingdoms were the result of war. And certain it is that these nations arose in countries already thickly peopled, and that they were the result of war. But in Rev. 13:11 we have another and quite different symbol introduced; it is a beast, or nation, coming up out of the earth, or growing up as a plant. It is not formed all at once of people already existing, but like a sturdy plant it grows up and occupies territory not previously occupied; it is not the result of strife, but of growth.536 This leads us to inquire what part of the world was at this time in a condition to meet the specifications of this prophecy? We find that in 1798 Europe, Asia, and Africa were occupied by peoples, and multitudes, and organized nations, and that they had been so occupied from time immemorial, therefore as the symbols which are directly connected with the beast representing the Roman power embraced the principal parts of all these countries, and as all the rest of the known parts of the Eastern Hemisphere were occupied by established nations, we must of necessity look for the other beast in the Western Hemisphere. But not only was the Eastern Hemisphere occupied by the power symbolized by the beast having the ten horns, but France, Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain, parts of what was once the Roman Empire, held by far the greater part of the Western Continent, so that at this time the United States was the only independent government occupying territory not previously occupied by other and older governments, therefore we are shut up to the conclusion that the United States is the power indicated in Revelation 13:11-17. But of course such a conclusion will not be readily accepted unless we can point to events showing that the work indicated in the prophecy, namely, the making of the image to the Papacy, is being done in this country. This makes it necessary that we understand the characteristics of the Papacy, for an image to that power must resemble it. The Papacy is, as all Protestants agree, referred to in 2 Thess. 2:1 and onward. Dowling refers this scripture to the Papacy, and says:— "There is a remarkable passage in Tertullian's Apology, that may serve to justify the sense which Protestants put upon these verses; and since it was written long before the accomplishment of the predictions it deserves the more attention. 'Christians,' says he, 'are under a particular necessity of praying for the emperors, and for the continued state of the empire; because we know that dreadful power which hangs over the world, and the conclusion of the age, which threatens the most horrible evils, is restrained by the continuance of the time appointed for the Roman Empire. This is what we would not experience; and while we pray that it may be deferred, we hereby show our goodwill to the perpetuity of the Roman State.'"—History of Romanism, chap. 1, sec. 5. It is manifest from this extract that the Christians even one hundred and twenty years before the pagan government of Rome came to its end looked forward to that period as pregnant with calamity to the cause of Christ. "For while," says Dowling, "the long and harassing persecutions, which were carried on by the pagan Roman emperors, continued, and all secular advantages were on the side of paganism, there was little encouragement for anyone to embrace Christianity, who did not discern somewhat of its truth and excellence." Continuing, the same historian says:— "Many of the errors, indeed, of several centuries, the fruit of vain philosophy, paved the way for the events which followed; but the hindrance was not effectually removed, until Constantine the emperor, on professing himself a Christian, undertook to convert the kingdom of Christ into a kingdom of this world, by exalting the teachers of Christianity to the same state of affluence, and grandeur, and influence in the empire, as had been enjoyed by pagan priests and secular officers in the State. The professed ministers of Jesus having now a wide field opened to them for gratifying their lust of power, wealth, and dignity, the connection between the Christian faith and the cross was at an end. What followed was the kingdom of the clergy, supplanting the kingdom of Jesus Christ." "Every feature in the inspired description corresponds to that of a religious power, in the assumption of divine authority, divine honors, and divine worship; a power which should arrogate the prerogatives of the Most High, having its seat in the temple or house of God, and which should be carried on by Satan's influence, with all deceit, hypocrisy, and tyranny; and with this corresponds the figurative representation given of the same power, in the thirteenth chapter of Revelation."—Id., sec. 6. "In all these transactions, the substitution of human for divine authority, contentions about words instead of the faith once delivered to the saints, pomp and splendor of worship, for the primitive simplicity, and worldly power and dignity instead of self-denied labors of love and bearing the cross. This baneful change operated in darkening the human mind as to the real nature of true Christianity, until, in process of time, it was lost sight of."—Id. sec. 6. As appears from this testimony, the distinguishing feature of the Papacy is a union of civil and ecclesiastical power. Writing directly on this point, Dowling says:— "It was owing to forgetfulness or disregard of the important principle that Christ's kingdom is not of this world, that the Emperor Constantine, soon after his remarkable, and as some suppose, miraculous conversion to Christianity in the year 312, took the religion of Christ to the unhallowed embraces of the State, assumed to unite in his own person the civil and ecclesiastical dominion, and claimed the power of convening councils and presiding in them, and of regulating the external affairs of the church."—Id. sec. 5. The emperor's first mistake was in taking the religion of Christ into "the unhallowed embrace of the State;" and the second, that of assuming to rule the church, naturally followed; indeed, this assumption on the part of the emperor was inevitable; having united Church and State, he, as emperor, must of necessity either rule the church, or allow the church to rule both him and his empire. Where both Church and State keep within their proper spheres, each may be supreme within its sphere, but when the two form a partnership the one must rule and the other be ruled. Prior to the time of Constantine the bishops of the Christian church had gained such influence in the Roman Empire that the emperor desired to use them to advance his own interests. In fact, he found it necessary to do so, for if their influence were not exerted in his behalf it would be against him, and as he could not destroy it, he had to turn it to his own advantage. In regard to this, Killen gives the following testimony:— "As early as the middle of the second century the bishop, at least in some places, was entrusted with the chief management of the funds of the church; and, probably about fifty years afterwards, a large share of its revenues was appropriated to his personal maintenance. His superior wealth soon added immensely to his influence. He was thus enabled to maintain a higher position in society than any of his brethren; and he was at length regarded as the great fountain of patronage and preferment." "In the third century the chief pastor of the Western metropolis must have been known to the great officers of government, and perhaps to the emperor himself. Decius must have regarded the Roman bishop as a somewhat formidable personage when he declared that he would sooner tolerate a rival candidate for the throne, and when he proclaimed his determination to annihilate the very office."—The Ancient Church, pp. 590, 591. It is even so in our own country at the present time. The churches have become numerically and financially strong, and those who stand high in them exercise a powerful influence in political affairs. This would perhaps not be dangerous were this influence exerted by each church separately, for the influence of one would neutralize that of another; nor is it so hurtful when exercised in the proper direction; but when the influence of several is united and used for the accomplishment of political objects it becomes dangerous. This fact was recognized in 1829 by the Committee of the United States Senate on post-offices and post-roads, to whom was referred a petition asking that the carrying of mails on Sunday be suspended. On that occasion Hon. Richard M. Johnson, chairman of that committee, submitted a report in which the following language occurs:— "Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of this kind calls for the establishment of a principle which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the government will be strongly marked, if not eventually controlled, by the same influence. All religious despotisms commence by combination, and, when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences." It was even so in Rome, and will likewise prove true in this country even as it has in every country and in every age. But notwithstanding the danger and the fact that this danger is recognized, there are extensive religious combinations in this country for the express purpose of effecting political objects. Prominent among these are the National Reform Association, and the American Sabbath Union. The latter, though the younger organization is probably even now the most powerful. Both of these organizations are demanding legislation which involves the principle of the union of Church and State, because it demands official recognition of Christianity as such, and it follows of necessity that if Christianity is to be recognized by the government, the government must define and tell what Christianity is. It must, in fact, as was stated by Professor Blanchard in the National Reform convention held in Pittsburg in 1874, either "establish a standard of religion or admit anything called religion, as it has already the Oneida Community in New York, the Mormons in Utah, and the Joss House in California." But a definite analysis of the work and aims of these associations must be left for another paper.