So true is it that it has almost become a proverb, should a poor man steal a loaf of bread to keep his famished wife and children from starving, that he will, almost to a certainty, be sent to prison. But let a Fisk steal from the nation, and a Stokes murder; let a Tweed embezzle the commercial metropolis of a continent, and they will be sure to go unwhipped of justice. From all parts of the country, and from all sorts of public officials, legislative, judicial and executive, come up reports of fraud, corruption, defalcation, breaches of trust, robberies of public funds, and other malfeasances, never known in our country in any former period of its history. The evil seems to be general, almost a radical element in official life. Investigation by legislative and congressional committees, and by the courts, are the order of the day. The sacredness of the elective franchise is violated; political rights are ignored; usurpations are recognized and tolerated in high places; in short, everything seems to be out of joint. We are either coming to the end of this by a sweeping, all-pervading moral and political reaction, or we are coming to the end of our liberties and our republican form of government. While we are aware that this country can bear a terrible strain, there is a point beyond which it cannot go and survive, and at the rate of our downward progress for the past ten years in this direction, it would not take long to reach this point.
And all this is being done in a free nation, and by representatives of the people, and at a time when every crowned head in Europe is uneasy at the spread of Republican ideas; when political liberty is the watch-word in countries where the divine right of kings to rule was acknowledged only a little while ago. It certainly is mortifying to witness the depths of shame to which so many of our public men have descended. “The forty-second Congress” has just terminated its existence, and the history of the corruption of the men who composed it is before the world. Every pure patriot, every true lover of his country, blushes as he contrasts the record of these men with that of those who formed the government, or who supported it, in its earlier years. A large number of the members have been proved, as clearly as human evidence can prove anything, of accepting stock in a swindling enterprise, and of pocketing the dividends. This stock was given to them outright, or sold for a nominal sum, generally to be paid for by accrued dividends. The object of thus disposing of this stock was to secure their votes and influence, and they were secured. There is but one word which describes such a transaction, and that one word is bribery. It is true it was not in evidence that so much money or so many shares were given for so much influence or so many votes. A shrewder plan was adopted, that of making each man personally interested in carrying out the scheme to make a few men rich at the expense of the country.
One would suppose that this nation had been sufficiently humbled in the sight of God, and the angels, and of men, by terrible war which swept over this land only a few years ago, when thousands from the plains and from the mountains marched to the field of carnage, to bleed, to suffer, and to die, because of a great national sin which had reached unto the very heavens. It took us four long years of blood, of treasures poured out, of heavy taxation, of suffering untold, to learn that God rules in the affairs of nations. But, oh, how soon the lesson is forgotten! . . . .
Bribery and corruption, beginning at the political fountain-head, are doing their unhallowed work. The individual sells his vote at the polls; the legislator barters his away for a consideration; and the member of Congress or Senator, having expended largely to secure his place, reimburses himself out of the public treasury by becoming the paid agent of some subsidized enterprise, or a party to a Credit Mobilier steal, on a larger or smaller scale. Judges sell their influence; and administrative officers combine to swindle the government in contracts, and the national Congress insults High Heaven by contemptuously breaking God’s Sabbath. So we go, until distrust of the honesty of our public servants has crept in everywhere.
Thus the scramble after wealth, the unholy desire to possess power and place, steal away the conscience of the people. If the deterioration of national morals goes on for the next decade as it has during the last, the sickening spectacle shown by the prophet Isaiah will be realized: “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint: from the crown of the head to the soles of the feet, there is nothing but wounds and bruises and putrefying sores.” So long as the question of partisan ascendancy is elevated above the law of God, nothing better can be hoped for. “It is high time for Christian people to carry their Christian principles into civil and political life.”—Golden Censer.
Not Very Good, and Not Very Bad.
“From what you have said, John, it seems you think yourself a fair kind of man.”
“Well, Mr. F——, I will tell you my opinion about that exactly. I don’t think I ever did much that was bad; nor can I say that I ever did a great deal of good. I think you may call me a middling man.”
“That is your opinion, John? But don’t you think that everything that exists must have had a cause from which it sprung?”
“Certainly I do, Mr. F——, for old John is not so void of sense as not to know that.”
“Well, John, what do you suppose causes a man to be good?”
“God, of course, sir.”
“And what do you think causes a man to be bad?”
“The devil, most certainly; for God never made anything bad.”
“But, John, what is the cause of a middling man?”
“W-e-ll, I sup-p-o-s-e——,”
“John, I perceive you have got fast there. You say God is the cause of a good man, and Satan is the cause of a bad man, but you say you are neither! You are middling. Doubtless, John, you must have had a cause that made you what you are.”
“But as there is no middle being between God and Satan, and only the two revealed causes of good and evil in man, then I am at an exceedingly great loss to know what has been the great moral cause that made you middling.”
“Why, sir, I have heard a great many folks like me saying that they were middling, that is, neither good nor bad; but, really, when I think of the matter in the way you put it, I begin to be somewhat doubtful whether I am right. Yet, I assure you, sir, I do not think I should be called a bad old man.”
“John, did you ever see a middling gold dollar? Or did you ever see a middling bank-note?”
“No, never, Mr. F——; they are always either good or bad. But I have known some bad ones to pass for good ones.”
“Well, John, if you never saw middling money, you never saw middling men; that is, as before God. God is a being of perfect holiness, infinite purity, and he judges according to a perfect standard. To be accepted of him we must be perfectly fitted for his approval. He cannot adopt middling men, and call them good. You must be either righteous or unrighteous—either saint or sinner. A middling man has no existence in God’s sight. So, friend John, I want you, when you go home, to think seriously on this matter. ‘You cannot serve two masters.’ At this moment you are either serving God or Satan. You cannot be a middling man. You have no middling cause, no middling life, no middling death, and no middling destiny!”
Reader! as I have said to John, so I say to you. You are, at this moment, either good or bad, righteous or unrighteous, in God’s sight. You can not be middling. You are either a child of God or a servant of the wicked one. You are pardoned or unpardoned. You are either a subject of God’s grace, or you are under his condemnation.—Child’s Banner.
Higher Thoughts of God and Kinder Thoughts of Others
LET your thoughts be fit and suitable for the subject. Every day have higher thoughts of God, lower thoughts of self, kinder thoughts of your brethren, and more hopeful thoughts of all around you.
THE GATE AJAR.
The following beautiful hymn, by Philip Phillips, has been blessed of God to many souls:—
THERE is a gate that stands ajar,
And through its portals gleaming
A radiance from the cross afar,
The Saviour’s love revealing.
Chorus—Oh! depths of mercy, can it be
That gate was left ajar for me?
That gate ajar stands free for all
Who through it seek salvation;
The rich and poor, the great and small,
Of every tribe and nation.
Press onward, then, though foes may frown,
While mercy’s gate is open;
Accept the cross and win the crown,
Love’s everlasting token.
Beyond the river’s brink we’ll lay
The cross that here is given,
And bear the crown of life away,
And love Him more in Heaven.
Thoughts, Words, and Actions.
By N. Orcutt
“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.”
As by our words we shall be justified or condemned, how important that we put forth a mighty effort, as from our hearts and lips goes up the earnest petition to our Heavenly Father: “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”
Did we find the putrid carcass of some animal in the fountain whence we drew our supply of water, should we be wise to attempt to remedy the evil by simply straining or filtering the water before using? We might thus somewhat improve the quality, but should we not deem the individual very unwise who should pursue such a course, when, by promptly removing the cause, he might forever be rid of the loathsome, disastrous result?
So long as the reeking, filthy cause of impurity remains, the stream will be tainted, and, too, just as long as the spring whence all our words and actions flow, is not clean, so long from it will proceed unbecoming words, and unholy deeds, blasting our influence for good over others, and disastrous in their effects upon and result to ourselves. How earnestly we should strive, with the help of the Lord, to purge out the old leaven, and have our hearts filled with sweet meditations of the goodness of God, an understanding and appreciation of his claims upon us, and strong resolutions—a fixed determination—to do his will, that the stream that flows from thence may be pure, pleasing to God, and exerting a gathering influence upon our fellow-men.
He that hath clean hands and a pure heart shall ascend into the hill of the Lord, and stand in his holy place. See Ps. 24. “Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.” Matt. 5:8.
N. ORCUTT.
South Vineland, N. J., Oct., 1873.
Every Hour Charged With Duty
EVERY hour comes to us charged with duty, and the moment it is passed, it is registered for or against us in the final account which all must give of their actions.
“Come Under.”
LAST winter I noticed for the first time this call to the oxen when about to be yoked for their daily labor. From this homely farmer phrase may we not learn useful lessons? The ox, though sometimes reluctant, yet soon comes and bows his neck to the yoke. We, too, are often called in various ways to “come under” the yoke. Sometimes it is sickness, laid long and heavily upon us; sometimes loss of property; sometimes bereavement; and sometimes living troubles, worse than all. We each know our own grief—feel our own yokes. Do we “come under” cheerfully, and bear it patiently, feeling that our Heavenly Father will not lay upon us more than we are able to bear? Or do we fret and chafe beneath the yoke, and so make our burden heavier? Our trials, though hard to bear, are doubtless for our good. And for our encouragement we have a precious promise given along with Christ’s invitation in Matt. 11: 28, 29, and 30; “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
Dr. Watts well expresses it:
“Blest is the man whose shoulders take
My yoke, and bear it with delight;
My yoke is easy to his neck,
My grace shall make the burden light.”
Christ as a Free Gift
How?—Says some one: “I would like that Christ, but how am I to get him?” Get him as a free gift, or not at all. A poor woman, passing the king’s conservatory, saw in it flowers, fruits, and grapes. “Oh! if I could only get that bunch of grapes for my sick child!” She went home, and by her spinning earned half a crown; then went to the gardener, and said: “Can I have the bunch of grapes? Here’s a half crown for them.” “No; that won’t buy them,” said the gardener. She thought: “I must get it.” She sold a blanket she could spare, and went again, saying: “Here’s all this money; will not this buy me that bunch of grapes?” “No—they are the king’s; we don’t sell them.” He took her roughly by the arm to put her out. The king’s daughter went to see what was the matter. She heard the poor woman’s story. She said: “My father is not a merchant. We don’t sell grapes; we give,” and she dropped the grapes into the poor woman’s apron. My Lord Jesus is not a merchant, to sell his pardon; he is a king; he gives “without money and without price.”—Talmage.
Exposure of a Sunday Fraud.
In the first edition of the History of the Sabbath was given a very complete refutation of the popular fable that the martyrs were tested by the question: “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” The facts there given were principally drawn from the writings of a learned English author, Sir Wm. Domville, on the Sabbath.
Mr. Gilfillan, of Scotland, in a large work on the Sabbath, written since the publication of Domville’s book, revived this story, and attempted to prove it by other authority than that to which it had been attributed. In the second edition of the History of the Sabbath, Mr. Gilfillan’s statements are thoroughly exposed; and because of the interest and importance of this testimony, we insert it in the REVIEW. After stating the former evidences as given by Mr. Domville, the second edition continues as follows:—
Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. It will not do to give up this argument because of its dishonesty; for others will have to go with it for possessing the same character.
Since the publication of Domville’s elaborate work, James Gilfillan, of Scotland, has written a large volume entitled, “The Sabbath,” which has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville, as appears from his statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore acquainted with Domville’s exposure of the fraud respecting “Dominicum servasti?” But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville had shown up the matter from the Acta Martyrum, it was necessary for Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan’s words:—
“From the days of the apostles downwards for many years, the followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change of the Sabbatic day. The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, Dominicum servasti?—have you kept the Lord’s day?—Baron. An. Eccles., A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc.”
Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority the annalist Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and repeat the story after him. Now they are all right, as they think. What if the Acta Martyrum has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in this matter. Had he done this, they say, he would have been saved from misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the Acta Martyrum.
1. That no such question as “Dominicum servasti?” was addressed to any martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years after the time of Pliny.
2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the Lord’s day, but to the Lord’s supper.
Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart’s Acta Martyrum, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from that work! Domville’s first and most important statement is therefore vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say this in so many words.
Domville’s second point is that Dominicum, when used as a noun, as in the present case, signifies either a church or the Lord’s supper, but never signifies Lord’s day. He establishes the fact by incontestable evidence. Gilfillan was acquainted with all this. He could not answer Domville, and yet he was not willing to abandon the falsehood which Domville had exposed. So he turns from the Acta Martyrum in which the compiler expressly defines the word to mean precisely what Domville asserts, and brings forward the great Romish annalist, Cardinal Baronius. Now, say our first-day friends, we are to have the truth from a high authority. Gilfillan has found in Baronius an express statement that the martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” No matter then as to the Acta Martyrum from which Bishop Andrews first produced this story. That, indeed, has failed us, but we have in its stead the weighty testimony of the great Baronius. To be sure he fixes this test no earlier than the fourth century, which renders it of no avail as proof that Pliny’s stated day was Sunday; but it is worth much to have Baronius bear witness that certain martyrs in the fourth century were put to death because they observed the Sunday-Lord’s day.
But these exultant thoughts are vain. I must state a grave fact in plain language: Gilfillan has deliberately falsified the testimony of Baronius! That historian records at length the martyrdom of Saturninus and his company in northern Africa in A. D. 303. It is the very story which Domville has cited from the Acta Martyrum, and Baronius repeatedly indicates that he himself copied it from that work. He gives the various questions propounded by the proconsul, and the several answers which were returned by each of the martyrs. I copy from Baronius the most important of these. They were arrested while they were celebrating the Lord’s sacrament according to custom. The following is the charge on which they were arrested: They had celebrated the Collectam Dominicam against the command of the emperors. The proconsul asked the first whether he had celebrated the Collectam, and he replied that he was a Christian, and had done this. Another says, “I have not only been in the Collecta, but I have celebrated the Dominicum with the brethren, because I am a Christian.” Another says, “We have celebrated the Dominicum, because the Dominicum cannot be neglected.” Another said that the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house. The proconsul questioning again one of those already examined, received this answer: “The Dominicum cannot be disregarded, the law so commands.” When one was asked whether the Collecta was made (or observed) at his house, he answered, “In my house we have celebrated the Dominicum.” He added, “Without the Dominicum we cannot be,” or live. To another, the proconsul said that he did not wish to know whether he was a Christian, but whether he participated in the Collecta. His reply was: “As if one could be a Christian without the Dominicum, or as if the Dominicum can be celebrated without the Christian.” And he said further to the proconsul: “We have observed the Collecta most sacredly; we have always convened in the Dominicum for reading the Lord’s word.” Another said: “I have been in [literally, have made] the Collecta with my brethren, I have celebrated the Dominicum.” After him another proclaimed the Dominicum to be the hope and safety of the Christian, and when tortured as the others, he exclaimed, “I have celebrated the Dominicum with a devoted heart, and with my brethren I have made the Collecta because I am a Christian.” When the proconsul again asked one of these whether he had conducted the Dominicum, he replied that he had because Christ was his Saviour.
I have thus given the substance of this famous examination, and have set before the reader the references therein made to the Dominicum. It is to be observed that Collecta is used as another name for Dominicum. Now does Baronius use either of these words to signify Lord’s day? It so happens that he has defined these words with direct reference to this very case no less than seven times. Now let us read these seven definitions:
When Baronius records the first question addressed to these martyrs, he there defines these words as follows: “By the words Collectam, Collectionem, and Dominicum, the author always understands the sacrifice of the Mass.” After recording the words of that martyr who said that the law commanded the observance of the Dominicum, Baronius defines his statement thus: “Evidently the Christian law concerning the Dominicum, no doubt, about celebrating the sacrifice.” Baronius, by the Romish words sacrifice and Mass, refers to the celebration of the Lord’s supper by these martyrs. At the conclusion of the examination, he again defines the celebration of the Dominicum. He says: “It has been shown above in relating these things that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment.” He presently defines Dominicum again, saying, “Though it is a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum, that only the sacrifice of the Mass can be understood.”
Observe this last statement. He says though the word has been employed to designate the temple of the Lord, yet in the things here related it can only signify the sacrifice of the Mass. These testimonies are exceedingly explicit. But Baronius has not yet finished. In the index to Tome 3, he explains these words again with direct reference to this very martyrdom. Thus under Collecta is this statement: “The Collecta, the Dominicum, the Mass, the same [A. D.] 303, xxxix.” Under Missa: “The Mass is the same as the Collecta, or Dominicum [A. D.], 303, xxxix.” Under Dominicum: “To celebrate the Dominicum is the same as to conduct the Mass [A. D.], 303, xxxix.; xlix.; li.”
It is not possible to mistake the meaning of Baronius. He says that Dominicum signifies the Mass! The celebration of the supper by these martyrs was doubtless very different from the pompous ceremony which the church of Rome now observes under the name of Mass. But it was the sacrament of the Lord’s supper concerning which they were tested, and for observing which they were put to a cruel death. The word Dominicum signifies “the sacred mysteries,” as Ruinart defines it; and Baronius, in seven times affirming this definition, though acknowledging that it has sometimes been used to signify temple of God, plainly declares that in this record, it can have no other meaning than that service which the Romanists call the sacrifice of the Mass. Gilfillan had read all this, yet he dares to quote Baronius as saying that these martyrs were tested by the question, “Have you kept the Lord’s day?” He could not but know that he was writing a direct falsehood; but he thought the honor of God, and the advancement of the cause of truth, demanded this act at his hands.
Before Gilfillan wrote his work, Domville had called attention to the fact that the sentence “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in the Acta Martyrum, a different verb being used every time. But this is the popular form of this question, and must not be given up. So Gilfillan declares that Baronius uses it in his record of the martyrdom in A. D. 303. But we have cited the different forms of question recorded by Baronius, and find them to be precisely the same with those of the Acta Martyrum. “Dominicum servasti?” does not occur in that historian, and Gilfillan, in stating that it does, is guilty of untruth. This, however, is comparatively unimportant. But for asserting that Baronius speaks of Lord’s day under the name of Dominicum, Gilfillan stands convicted of inexcusable falsehood in matters of serious importance.
A Great Wrong.
By J. H. Waggoner
For some time I have thought of saying at least a few words concerning a remark which was conveyed to me soon after our last camp-meeting. It was to this effect, that it did not seem right for the members of the General Conference Committee to occupy the time so fully, while there was an individual (or more than one) on the ground of better education, who could interest the people. On this I wish to remark to several points.
1. It is far from being true that either of the ministers on the Committee is disqualified by want of natural ability or lack of education for effective ministerial labor.
2. It is far from being true that the best educated man is necessarily the best minister. A man may have the wisdom of Solomon, may “understand all mysteries,” and have “all knowledge,” and yet be only as “sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.”
3. It was a recommendation to the preaching of certain of the apostles that they were “unlearned men.” There was a power in their preaching which their enemies could not resist. Had they been men of great learning, they would have received credit for their abilities; but being unlearned men, their persecutors “took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”
4. Paul did not regret that, in the eyes of some, his “bodily presence was weak, and his speech contemptible,” knowing, as he once said, that “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.”
And we must therefore judge that all who measure a man’s fitness for efficient work in the ministry by his natural ability or his education merely, take a worldly, and not a Christian or gospel, view of the matter. But
5. There was no other individual at the camp-meeting so well qualified to meet the demands of the time and the occasion as were those who had been in the work of the camp-meetings through the season, who had made the wants of the cause their special study and care, and had learned by observation and experience how to meet these wants, and best to serve the interests of the churches in these large assemblies. There is a fitness in all things in the cause of God, and this should be considered lest we judge “according to appearance,” and not “with righteous judgment.”173
Now, having noticed these points, which should always be considered in forming decisions in regard to duty or qualifications for ministerial labor, I come to the main point; the one to which it was my intention especially to speak.
6. These men were intrusted with this work by the highest deliberative body of the Seventh-day Adventists. The General Conference elected them to their position; and while they are faithfully discharging the duties of the position, they should receive the confidence and support of all who have any interest in the success of the cause. But what order would there be, and what prospect of success, if those who are properly intrusted with certain responsibilities were obliged to give way and to let others occupy their positions at the suggestions of any who chose to criticize their work? Many in the United States firmly believe that there are men in the country who are better qualified to discharge the duties of President than is Gen. Grant; but what then? Shall Gen. Grant therefore be required to step aside and let these men try their skill? Were such a course to be pursued, confusion and anarchy would be the result, and our government would soon come to an end.
It may be said, in reply, that it was not intended that others should occupy the office or position of these. But if that is so,—if there was an entire willingness that they should occupy the position assigned them—then I ask, Why not accord to them the respect and support to which their position entitles them? This is a weighty matter, and it reaches to all parts of the work of God. And the teachings of the Scriptures are very plain upon the subject. Notice two examples.
When David was pursued by Saul, he well knew that Saul had no just cause to persecute him. Yet when Saul was in his power, he would not injure him, and even blamed himself for having cut off Saul’s skirt, because it might make some lose their respect for the king. Saul was “the Lord’s anointed,” chosen to occupy that position for the time being, and as a respecter of the order of Heaven, David would not rebel against God by rebelling against the order of his work on earth.
The apostle Paul was once struck upon the mouth by the order of the high priest. Upon this, Paul rebuked him in sharp terms, but immediately recalled his words when he understood the office that he held, quoting the Scripture where “it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.”
If it would have been wrong in David to retaliate upon Saul, or to do anything to destroy respect for him as “the Lord’s anointed,” even when Saul was acting unjustly; and if it was wrong for Paul to rebuke the high priest when he abused his office, because he was “the ruler of the people,” how much greater must be the wrong in professed Christians to pursue a course calculated to destroy respect for the officers of the church, or for any who are appointed to occupy a responsible place in the work of God. If there is any light in the church, we have the fullest assurance that God will sanction the choice of the church in regard to its leading workers and officers; and they who lightly esteem the officers, despise the order of God’s house, and bring the work of God into contempt. And the strength or force of this truth is increased when we have the evidence that the workers are especially chosen of Heaven to occupy their positions.
Said the apostle, “Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in word and doctrine.” 1 Tim. 5:17.
Ruling, then, is an official duty in the church of God. This may grate on the feelings of the restlessness and independence of this degenerate age; but where is order without it? Where there are no officers there is no government, and without official authority, an office is a nullity.
The same is again taught in these words: “Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God; whose faith follow.” Heb. 13:7.
And still more impressive, if possible, are the words of verse 17: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves; for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy and not with grief; for that is unprofitable for you.”
It is objected that the democratic spirit of this age will not submit to such an order in the church; the idea of being inconsistent with the generally received ideas of personal liberty. But we do not find it inconsistent with the principles of liberty to have rulers in our government; on the contrary, it is the only way to preserve the government, and so to preserve our liberties, of which the government is our only safeguard and guarantee.
While professed Christians of this age are quite willing to submit to properly constituted authority in the civil government, they will submit to no rule in the church, though the Scriptures in both Testaments explicitly teach that rulers or governments are set in the church as well as in the State. And in this they have exactly reversed the order as held by Paul. He strongly rebuked the officer who acted as a judge, he knowing him to be such; but he immediately retracted his words when he learned that he was high priest, thus readily yielding to him a respect as an ecclesiastical ruler which he would not grant to him as a civil ruler.
There is, indeed, this noteworthy difference between the church and our civil government. In the latter, all power is derived from the people; and officers are chosen to legislate, to frame and administer laws, only according to the wishes of the people. But so far as legislation is concerned, the church is not republican. It has no law-making power within itself; the laws are all prepared by our Lord, and the office of the ruler extends only to exposition and discipline—as the Scripture says, to “rule well,” and to “labor in word and doctrine.” They may devise the best methods of carrying into effect the divine injunctions, but not a jot or tittle have they the right to add to or take from those injunctions.
Now it is the truth beyond dispute that in any government whatever, a refusal to yield obedience and honor to the properly constituted officers is rebellion against the government; and is never to be tolerated except as a last resort when the officers persistently usurp authority not granted to them in the government.
The Catholic church has gone to the very extreme of arbitrary power. It assumes legislative powers to the fullest extent—powers which were never conferred upon the church; and to these it attaches the most rigid methods of execution. Thus it is an absolutism within itself. The Protestant churches, in the effort to avoid her errors, are running to the other extreme. The true order of the gospel lies between the tyranny of the former, and the anarchy and confusion of the latter.
In our efforts to correct this anarchy and confusion, we are frequently met with the assertion that the spirit of the nineteenth century will not submit to such restraint as we think is provided for in the word of God. But to this we reply that the “spirit of the nineteenth century” is the great opposing power which the church of Christ has to meet in “the last days.” In describing the perils of these days, Paul says men—even those who have a “form of godliness”—will be “truce breakers,” “fierce,” “traitors, heady, high-minded.” And Jude, who also speaks of the last times and the coming of the Lord, describes certain professors as “spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear,” and says they “despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.” God set “governments” in the church; 1 Cor. 12:28; but they are despised by the “heady” irreverence of this restless and reckless age.
All observant and thoughtful men will confess that this is an age of great lawlessness. Children are not trained to reverence their superiors, the aged, nor the worship of God. Men of all classes are restive under just restraint, and as a consequence, “iniquity abounds.” These feelings are carried into the church, and the grace of meekness or submission is scarcely known or recognized as a grace. Did not this restless, irreverent spirit prevail, that system of lawlessness, spiritualism, could not flourish as it does. And it belongs to us, who plead for the law of God, who profess to labor to restore the order of Heaven, to go back to first principles, to dig deep and lay a good foundation, and illustrate in our lives the spirituality of the law of God, which can be fulfilled only by love, and by cultivating the graces of the Spirit of Christ. May God help us to confess and correct the errors of the past; and if we thereby meet the scorn of the heady and high-minded, we shall win the approbation of our Saviour, who was “meek and lowly in heart.” J. H. WAGGONER.