Earlier text: EVIL EFFECTS OF THE PLATONIC PHILOSOPHY“IS CHRISTIANITY A FAILURE?”
The following article, written for the New York Herald, James Gordon Bennett’s paper, was called out in response to articles which had previously appeared in the Herald discussing the subject, “Is Christianity a Failure?” A correspondent sends it, and asks if it was written by an Adventist. We leave the reader to judge. Before complaining that Christianity has failed, should we not examine fairly what Christianity was meant to accomplish so far as the only authority we have on the subject (the Bible) tells us? All through the New Testament we have Christ’s own words that he came not to rule this world, but to warn it—to make it perceive that it is a fallen world in need of redemption. He says, “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” “Father, glorify thy Son, as thou hast given him power over all flesh that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” “I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world.” “I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me.” He never once urged his followers to seek influence in worldly affairs, to look after politics or fame, or even intellectual influence. He said: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things [for daily living] shall be added unto you.” There is no word that the mission of the church was to reform the world. He came to redeem sinners out of a condemned world. The Bible tells us that this world is for a length of time in Satan’s power; that it will grow worse and worse until the time of Christ’s coming again, when he will conquer Satan and become the real ruler. Until that time he only wants his followers to remain patient in suffering, steadfast in faith, and to keep unspotted from the world. We are never told to rule it or guide it. St. Paul says, “We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not without help.” “Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.” “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places;” and “beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,” etc. “In every direction,” says one of your correspondents, “we find a yearning after something new in religion.” Alas! what he wants is simply the true faith, the love of Christ. Then his own soul will be renewed, and that is the only thing new any one can find about any religion. Because he has the yearning, let this anxious soul pray earnestly, giving up all intellectual speculations for a while, allowing the still, small voice of spiritual life to enter his mind, and he will find the new light, which is new to every one of us in a certain moment, although old as eternity in itself. He complains over the “extraordinary disturbance that prevails in the religious elements”—well! and in all other elements? In social, political, commercial elements as well? Was there ever so much trouble, and stagnation, and breaking down, and disaster? Is that the Christian’s fault? Can the true believers possibly help that among them, in all congregations and denominations, hypocrites and shallow, formal shams of people intermingle, calling themselves Christians and drawing blame and shame over the few faithful ones? In the parables the Lord foresaw all this, and told us how the good seed must grow with the tares until the harvest time should come. Your correspondent speaks of “the pain and anxiety of those who believe that in a pure and undefiled Christianity lies the permanency of governments, and the happiness and prosperity of peoples.” Let him wait for the harvest time, and not expect the fruit before the time. Who runs this world, after all? The Bible tells us that this dispensation shall come to an end, with all those signs of distress of nations, famines, plagues, wars, that we now all see. A conflict is raging between good and evil far beyond our little interferences. We are told that before the day of Christ shall be at hand, much tribulation and disorders will appear; “for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin [anti-Christ] be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” 2 Thess. 2. “Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?” And instead of watching and noticing the fulfillments of all these warnings, instead of cheering one another in faith and hope, remembering his words, shall we put forth our criticisms, saying, “Why does God do this, or allow that, or neglect this?” Can we dare to accuse him and his gospel of failure? If everything seems to go wrong, shall we not comprehend that he may have his reasons; that he knows what we know not, and so learn to stoop down to our daily task, and wait, and say, “His will be done.” The fruit of the Lord’s personal ministry when on earth was only about one hundred and twenty souls. The population of the world, as reckoned now, is about one billion four hundred millions. Of these, only three hundred and thirty-five millions are Christians, even in name. This does not prove that Christianity has failed. It proves that Christianity never was meant to conquer and rule during this dispensation, but to stand as a witness until the prince of this world should have done with his experiment to rule it without God, should be cast out, and bound. We must not forget that Satan has power yet, and that he works even in the world’s religions. Does not the Bible speak of an apostate church, and how God remembers her iniquities and will utterly destroy her? Rev. 18. Forms of churches will crumble, are crumbling. The faithful are secretly marked, Rev. 7: 3, and will be gathered to the true church of God. Remember how “two men shall be working in the field, and one shall be taken and the other left;” how only half of the virgins going out to meet the bridegroom will be ready and acceptable; and when the foolish other half of them shall knock, and call, “Lord, Lord, open to us!” he shall answer them, “I never knew you.” “Many are called, but few chosen.” No, no! let not your hearts be troubled, but believe in God, and let him manage it all. As John says, “Little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue, but in deed and in truth.” H. A. STEINHAUER
By H. A. Steinhauer
Weak and weary, worn with care,
Feeling life's load hard to bear,
Striving hourly, failing oft,—
Looking still to Thee, aloft,—
Pitying Father, hear my cry,
Make me perfect—by and by! Home on earth Thou know'st I've none—
Scarce a friend beneath the sun!—
Sick and lonely, pining sore
For the dear ones now no more;
Pitying Father, hear my cry,
Waiting for “the by and by.” Give me strength to do Thy will,
And, if needs be, suffer ill;
Give me patience as I wait,—
Heaven's help is ne'er too late,—
Pitying Father, hear my cry,
And send succor by and by. Give me wisdom from above
How to treat the friends I love;
How to live so that they may
Know me as a child of day;—
Pitying Father, hear my cry,
Let us all meet—by and by! “I CAN'T GET ACQUAINTED WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH.”
So said a lady who had recently been admitted by letter into the membership of a large church, to the pastor. “I am very sorry, my sister, was the reply; the members are generally considered quite friendly, and there is much pleasant social intercourse among them. Do you speak to them?” “I do not like to speak first. It was so very different in the first church I joined.” “Where you passed the days of your childhood and youth, you were, of course, more widely known; and your baptism was a more direct appeal to the Christian sympathies and affections of the church. Do you attend the prayer-meetings?” “No; I have not been yet.” “The best place to form acquaintances among the members is at prayer-meetings. The Sabbath congregations are so large, and so many strangers attend, that members can scarcely become acquainted with one another, if they meet only there. But if you are in regular attendance at the prayer-meeting, you will soon be recognized and welcomed. Have you been to the Dorcas Society?” “Oh, no; I do not like to go where all are strangers to me.” “But how are they to become acquainted with you, if you do not give them an opportunity? I hope you have visited the Sabbath-school.” “No; I should like to take a class, but have been waiting for an invitation.” “My dear friend, do you not perceive that you are far more to blame for remaining a comparative stranger among us than the members of the church generally can be? You are waiting for advances from those to whom you give scarcely an opportunity for friendly intercourse. You give them no reason to think that you desire an acquaintanceship. Now, my advice to you is, attend the more familiar meetings of the church, manifest an interest in its spirituality and prosperity, kindly recognize any whom you know to be members, dispense with the worldly courtesy which requires a formal introduction to the disciples of Jesus. If they remain indifferent to you, the blame will then be with them.”—Watchman and Reflector. Applicable in other climes. Asking God, Who Is Ever Giving
Sir Walter Raleigh one day asking a favor from Queen Elizabeth, the latter said to him, “Raleigh, when will you leave off begging?” To which he replied, “When your Majesty leaves off giving.” So let us be asking from God, who is ever giving, and is ever willing to give. “A little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts and almonds.” Gen. 43:11. WHAT God wants is millionaires in grace. Get rich if you wish to. If you remain poor, it is your own fault. A MAN ought to grow in grace every minute, from the time he is converted to the time of his death. I RECKON him a Christian indeed who is neither ashamed of the gospel nor a shame to it.—Matthew Henry. THOSE who pray with an unforgiving spirit curse themselves every time they say the Lord’s prayer.—Matthew Henry. POWER is not a stock in trade for us to hoard up within, and dispense when we please. It is just the ability to do at the right moment what God requires of us. Work on in perfect trust,
Nor think some other field
Might, with the self-same toil,
More harvest yield.
’Tis thine to sow the seed,
God gives the sun and rain
And, in his own good time,
The ripened grain. WE cannot love God without first believing him. Faith, therefore, stands first in order, and may be regarded as the intellectual condition of sonship. Love, taking a more inward and central position, is the emotional or affectional condition of sonship. So that, if faith stands first in order, love stands first in rank.—Upham. GET to the root of things. The gold mines of Scripture are not the top soil. You must open a shaft. The precious diamonds of experience are not picked up in the roadway; their secret places are far down. Get down into the vitality, the divinity of the word of God, and seek to possess it with all the inward work of the blessed Spirit. WHAT you find to do, do it with your might. Be diligent in business; do one thing at a time, and finish what you begin. Let nothing divert your study of the interests of your employer. Make his interest your interest; he will, in time, if not at first, appreciate and reward your efforts. Be prompt, temperate, industrious; never “in the drag;” always up to time, or a little ahead. There has been considerable discussion, and there is destined to be still more, over the question whether the first day of the week is called the Sabbath in the Greek New Testament. There would be no discussion on this point at all, if those who presume to handle the question had sufficient acquaintance with the original to treat it intelligently from that standpoint. Appeal is made to the Greek of Matt. 28:1, and the seven parallel passages in which the first day of the week occurs in the English version to support the claim that the first day of the week is called the Sabbath, because the word from which week is translated is sabbaton. When we defend the common translation, it is thought by some that we are trying to make out a case, and our testimony is discounted accordingly. But we are happy to present below testimony on this point which is as impartial as any that we may reasonably hope to obtain, and the reliability of which no one can question. The matter was lately referred to the Faculty of Oskaloosa College, who deal with it as scholars, not as theologians, and one of their number, G. T. C., publishes the following in the Sigourney (Iowa) News of April 3, 1879. Those, both papers and preachers, who have used the Greek ignorantly or deceitfully in this controversy (for it has been one or the other), if they are not so far gone in the path described in Eph. 4:19 as to be without feeling, should blush when they think of their work. The article is headed, “Sabbath—First Day of the Week,” and reads as follows:— “Not long since a dispute arose between certain religionists, as to whether Matt. 28:1, and parallel passages, should be translated ‘first day of the week’ or Sabbath. The question was referred to the Faculty of Oskaloosa College, not as theologians, but as scholars. As the results of the examination of the subject are fresh in our minds, we have thought a few notes upon the subject might interest our readers, especially as the Sabbath question is still one of some interest in certain localities. “There are two Greek words in the New Testament that have been rendered Sabbath. These are Sabbaton and Sabbata. Perhaps it would be more nearly correct to say that there grew up two forms of the same word; one of which belongs to the second declension, from which we have Sabbatoon for the genitive plural; in which case stand seven of the eight occurrences of the word where it is rendered ‘first day of the week,’ in the Common Version. Since it is well known that the common rendering of Sabbatoon is Sabbath, it is very natural that those having a very little knowledge of the original should confound the two words, and seek to uniformly render them by the word Sabbath. Perhaps few instances better illustrate the new popular adage: ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring,’ than the one under consideration. “As already indicated, the expression, ‘first day of the week,’ occurs only eight times in King James’ Version; viz., in Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; and 1 Cor. 16:2. In each of these passages the genitive plural (Sabbatoon) occurs, except in Mark, where the singular is used. But even in this instance, Greenfield, in his Greek Lexicon, supplies the plural in the margin, which, doubtless, is correct. Thus we invariably have the genitive plural (Sabbatoon) where we have rendered it ‘first day of the week.’ The word Sabbatoon in these passages means only week, the associated words being translated from other words, expressed or understood, in the original. “That the word Sabbatoon may be properly translated week, is held by all the Greek lexicographers and critics known to us. We have seven different versions before us, among which are Rotherham’s, the Bible Union, and the Living Oracles, all of which recognize such a rendering. We know of no standard authority that renders the word in the passages cited, Sabbath. It should never be thus translated when it refers to the Lord’s day, the first day of the week. “The absurdity of attempting to always translate Sabbatoon Sabbath, will be sufficiently apparent by the consideration of a few passages. “In John 20:1, we have mia toon Sabbatoon (first day of the week) mentioned as referring to the early Sunday morning; whereas in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter we have the same form of expression following the word day (heemera), and referring to the evening. Now, it cannot be that these two periods of time, not less than fourteen hours apart, can refer to the first (mia) of the Sabbath day, but only to the first day of the week. Greenfield supplies the word heemera (day) in these instances. But it would make nonsense to say ‘the first day of the Sabbath day.’ Again, in Luke 18:12, we have the Pharisee boasting that he fasted ‘twice a week,’ (dis tou sabbatou). Now it does not seem to us a matter of which to boast that a man should fast twice on the Sabbath day, surely the fasts were of no great duration! Beyond all cavil, the passage is properly rendered ‘twice a week.’ “Greenfield very properly defines the original term under consideration (singular and plural): ‘A Sabbath; a period of seven days; a week,’ etc. To this agree other standard lexicographers. Hence the apparent error of those who would attempt to fasten the name Sabbath upon the first day of the week by a reference to the original. Others, with no better reason, have attempted to refute Sabbatarians by claiming that one set of Sabbath days gave way to another series of Sabbath days. In both cases there is a coloring of learning, but neither sound erudition nor truth. “We shall do well, therefore, if we restrict the use of the word to the seventh day of the week, and in its Jewish recognition, while we apply the term first day of the week, or Lord’s day, to the day commonly called by its civil appellation, Sunday.” C. R. Voorheis: Our views of the 2300 days, and the events to transpire at their close, are fully set forth in the work entitled, The Sanctuary and its Cleansing. What law was it to which reference is had when it is said that Jesus took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross? F. STEWART. ANS. The law of types and shadows. The apostle qualifies all his statements on this point by saying, “Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:17. For an answer to your other queries, and for a full exposition of the distinction between the two laws, moral and ceremonial, we refer you to the pamphlet, “The Two Laws.” 1. Is the word covenant applicable to a law, when that law is not related to, or has no connection with, a contract? 2. What is the sense of the word covenant in Ex. 19:5? 3. Could “written and engraven in stones,” 2 Cor. 3:7, have reference to Deut. 27:2, 3; Josh. 8:32? H. A. S. ANS. 1. No; but is not a contract implied in all law; namely, that by obeying we are to receive, and by disobeying we forfeit, certain benefits? 2. We understand that by the word “covenant,” in Ex. 19:5, God refers to his moral law, called his covenant, because it is the condition of that original and universal contract which God entered into with the human race, through Adam. 3. We do not think that 2 Cor. 3:7 can refer to the scriptures named in this question; for the time to which Paul evidently points us is the time when Moses came down from the mount with the tables of stone in his hand, and was obliged to veil his face on account of the glory of his countenance. Did Adam and Eve possess immortality before their fall? W. C. ANS. In one sense, yes; in another, no. Mortal means “subject to death;” but to this they were not subject so long as they refrained from sin, and thus perpetuated their access to the tree of life. In this sense they were not mortal; and as immortal means not mortal, in this sense they were immortal. But immortal is also defined to mean, “exempt from liability to die;” and this exemption they did not possess; for they were liable to sin, and did sin, and thereby incurred death; in this sense they were mortal. The reader may, perhaps, more readily comprehend their condition, if he will consider what his own would be, should he, in his present state, be granted access to the tree of life, and be told that as long as he, through obedience, maintained that relation and partook of that tree, he would live; but if he sinned, which it was possible for him to do, he would be denied longer access to the tree, and death would follow. Under these circumstances, reader, which would you be, mortal or immortal? Duty to Pay Our Pledges.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
In carrying on the various branches of the third angel’s message, it often becomes necessary for our brethren and sisters to make definite pledges to assist in the different departments of the work; such as pledges for our houses of publication, foreign missions, meeting-houses, tents, etc. These pledges are made in good faith, and those who make them intend to pay them; but sometimes they are allowed to run on year after year unpaid, and in some cases they are never paid. Those who made them seem to forget their obligation to fulfill their promise. Times are harder than they expected, and they have found other ways for their means, and they persuade themselves that it is not a debt anyway, and they can let it go unpaid. But the Lord does not regard it in that light, as we shall show from the Bible. He plainly and repeatedly declares that a pledge, or vow, once made to the cause of God, is sacred, and must be fulfilled; that the Lord will hold it as a sin against them if it is not paid. Thus the Lord says: “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay.” Eccl. 5:4, 5. It is right to make vows and pledges to the work of God; for the Bible says, “Vow, and pay what thou vowest.” Generally these pledges are made to the cause of God when our brethren and sisters are in favorable circumstances to see their duty in this respect. The wants of the cause are set before them. Their hearts are touched by the Spirit of God and the power of the truth. Others are making pledges, and the servants of the Lord are earnestly appealing to them to do their duty. Under these circumstances, they begin to have some proper sense of what they ought to do, and they pledge accordingly. But afterward, when they are no longer under these good religious influences, and their fervor decreases, and the cares of life press upon them, and selfishness returns, and there is no one to urge them to duty, they forget the promises they have made. They excuse themselves in various ways, and then finally make themselves believe that they are not able to pay these vows, or will put it off indefinitely, and thus virtually neglect to pay them at all. This is nothing new; for the Lord has frequently spoken in the Bible upon this point. In the text above quoted, the Lord says, “When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it;” that is, do not keep putting it off, serving yourself, gratifying all your own wants, and leaving the cause of God until the last. Then he says, “Pay that which thou hast vowed. Better is it that thou shouldst not vow, than that thou shouldst vow and not pay.” While it is our duty under certain circumstances to make solemn vows to the Lord, and the Lord is pleased with such vows, yet it is far better never to make them than to break them after we have vowed. So the Lord decides. In another text we read:— “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the Lord thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.” Deut. 23:21–23. Here the Lord says that when you have made a vow to God, you should not be slack about paying it. This is the same idea again. Do not put it off, keep deferring it, neglecting to do it, and let your own wants come in first. By doing this way, you will finally neglect it entirely. But will not the Lord forget it, and let it pass? No, indeed; for he explicitly says, “The Lord thy God will surely require it of thee, and it would be sin in thee.” Thus we see that every pledge we have made to God is recorded in Heaven; it will never be forgotten; the Lord will not excuse us; it must be paid. It will be sin in us if we do not pay it. Once more I read: “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond, he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.” Num. 30:2. This is to the same effect. When you have given your word in a vow to God, you shall never break your word. The Lord says you shall do according to all that you vow and your mouth has spoken. Dear brethren and sisters, look over the promises you have made to God, sacred promises, recorded in Heaven and remembered of the Lord. Have you done your duty in fulfilling them? Have you not allowed self to come in, and take its place before the sacred cause of God? I find in different States, and districts, and churches, old pledges on the College, on tent funds and our missions, and particularly on S. B. Some of these are three or four years old. This looks bad; it is certainly displeasing to God, and the Lord says it is a sin. Don’t think you can excuse yourself in not paying them. You should use judgment in making these pledges, but when once you have made them, remember they are sacred promises, and it will be sin in you if you do not fulfill them. A MORAL nervine for men who are clinging to a false hope; a theological sedative for minds that desire to rest where they are, but find it difficult; a Biblical counter-irritant that will remove mental inflammation by a transfer thereof to another’s mind; a Scriptural alternative that will gently alter the forlorn circumstances of anybody who desperately desires to prove something, yet has nothing with which to prove it. Every theological doctor in the country is satisfied as to just what the needed remedy is, as these doctors are in most cases as subject to these internal agitations as are the patients for whom they prescribe; but, alas! like those ancient alchemists who grew gray and died in their fruitless endeavors to discover the “Elixir of Life,” these moderns, who have now sought diligently for more than thirty years, without a ray of light to cheer their anxious search, are likely to fade away, and expire before this universal panacea may be found. The thing so much desired is a text which says, The first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; or, Sunday is the Christian Sabbath; or, The first day of the week is the Lord’s day. Such a text is in so great demand that, could it be found by the doctors, the sound of their horses’ feet would not die away till every hamlet in the land had received the prescription. It would be neatly wrought in a silken banner, and raised upon a sanctified flag-staff in every little village. Yea; it would grace the walls of every church, be written upon the door-posts of the houses and shops, and engraved upon the bells of the horses. But, alack-a-day for the D. D.’s! that text non est. Therefore, as is the practice in all schools, no specific having been agreed upon, each doctor takes the liberty to experiment. One recommends the fluid extract of the “Seventh-part-of-time,” to be taken, of course, when the patient feels like it. This remedy does not prove universal, as it does not necessarily fall on the first day of the week, but is as liable to select Tuesday as any other day. Moreover, it seems to produce no effect at all upon the seventh-day people, for they long ago agreed that a seventh part of time is sufficient, provided it come upon the day that God appointed,—“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:8–11. For these patients the doctors recommend a Hebrew emetic. It is labeled thus: “The seventh day is an old Jewish Sabbath.” They hope first to make the patients sick of the institution, when they hope they will throw it up. This medicine is to be swallowed in a solution of ridicule, and administered with a sneer. The doctors are very careful not to swallow any of this poison themselves; for they well know that it would cause them to throw up their faith in the Bible, for that was all written by Jews, excepting Job perhaps. Away would go the promises, and even Christ must be cast out, for he was a Jew. Rom. 9:4, 5. And as “salvation is of the Jews,” that must be ejected also. John 4:22. But the seventh-day people do not take this medicine at all; for they see that unless the Jews made the world in the six days, it could not have been the Jews that rested on the seventh. God made the world; God rested. That day became God’s rest-day. It was instituted about two thousand years before ever a Jew was born. For these reasons it is plain that the Sabbath is not Jewish, but the “Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Many of the doctors give the third trituration of extracts from the “fathers” in homeopathic doses. It is well known by all physicians who study their books that the solid extract will spoil117 any man’s theology. Dr. Adam Clarke says of the “fathers,” “There is not a truth in the most orthodox creed that cannot be proved by their authority; nor a heresy that has disgraced the Romish Church that may not challenge them as its abettors. In points of doctrine their authority is with me nothing.”—Comments on Prov. 8. In his Autobiography, p. 134, he says, “We should take heed how we quote the fathers in proof of the doctrines of the gospel; because he who knows them best, knows that on many of those subjects they blow hot and cold.” Thus this eminent physician condemns the use of this medicine. Besides, it is well known that much of it is very badly adulterated. For instance, there is one kind which bears this trade-mark: “The Epistle of Barnabas.” This is universally acknowledged by the chemists to be spurious. The doctors ought not to use it, but they do. It is too bad to be forced to buy our drugs of the fathers of a backsliding church, some of whom were prophesied of by Paul as “grievous wolves” (Acts 20:29), and then to take them so badly adulterated. But the last remedy generally prescribed by the theological school of physicians, as a sort of croton oil to be given when all other cathartics fail, is a large pill called “The Round World.” It is said that the world is round, and therefore it is impossible to keep the seventh day anywhere. This pill must be swallowed whole. It is said that the effect is very wonderful. It acts chiefly upon the eyesight, making the world appear round on Saturday, but quite flat on Sunday. This pill is kept by nearly every practitioner, and we wonder why it is not administered at the first appearance of this mental trouble, since its effect is such as to render every other drug unnecessary. It should be used like the first reason of a certain lawyer: “May it please your honor, there are three reasons why my client is not present to-day. First, he is dead. Second,”—“No matter about the other reasons,” said the learned judge, “your first is quite sufficient.” But the real reason why this pill is not thus used is probably on account of its enormous size. It is not often that a person is found who is capable of swallowing it. It is thought by those who have examined the matter that the effect which this pill has upon the eyesight is not due to any medicinal property which it contains, but is simply a mechanical injury caused by over-exertion in swallowing. In conclusion, let me suggest the propriety of taking a simple hygienic treatment for a few days. All that will be found necessary to correct this difficulty effectually is the good old family Bible well studied. There I read, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. . . . The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:8–11. Then in Matt. 28:1 and Mark 16:1, 2, I find that the Sabbath comes the day before the first day of the week. That was this side of the crucifixion. The disciples kept the “Sabbath day according to the commandment” after the crucifixion. Luke 23:56. Luke, while recording those facts nearly thirty years after the crucifixion, still calls that day the Sabbath, and shows that the day following it was the first day of the week. Chap. 24:1. In answer to the troublesome question, “Shall we keep Saturday or Sunday?” I reply, If you follow the Bible, you will keep the seventh day; if you follow the fathers, you will partly observe both days or no day; if you follow the “doctors,” you will keep Sunday till you find that “you cannot do it because the world is round”? LIBERALITY
By Roswell F. Cottrell
LIBERALITY is a good thing, especially when exercised in the use of that which we may claim as our own; but we are often inclined to be more liberal with others' goods than with our own. Sectarian bigotry and exclusiveness have prevailed to such a degree that a reaction has set in, and many now pride themselves upon their extreme liberality. It is well to cherish the spirit of liberality, and to extend our sympathies and good wishes to those not of our creed, even if we have to yield that which costs us a struggle; but liberality in some seems to consist in leveling all distinction between truth and error, and fellowshipping all conflicting creeds, and making divine truth of little importance. In other words, the truth of God is yielded for the sake of union. They are liberal to the extent that they will waive what they know to be the divine requirement; and this they esteem a real virtue. This I call a liberality with things which belong to God, and not to themselves. To make myself better understood, I use the following illustration: A Baptist minister, conversing with some of his friends, to evince his liberality of sentiment and feeling, stated that he had acted as pastor of a Congregational church for a year, and enjoyed the best of feeling. Said he, “I loved those brethren, and our hearts seemed knit together, so that I felt loth to part with them. Of course,” said he, “I did not teach them my views of baptism. They knew my views, but I did not urge them upon them.” This is the tenor of the conversation. Now that man, being a Baptist, and being professedly acting under the apostolic commission to teach all nations and baptize, spent a whole year in teaching a congregation of unbaptized persons, according to the best of his knowledge and belief, and never once presented this duty to them. This looks like being liberal in that which was not his own. What right had he to rob God by suppressing his truth, and defraud men by keeping back a portion of the truth which it was their interest to know and obey. This is a sample of modern liberality,—a liberality which places the truth of God upon a level with the doctrines and commandments of men. And this is the basis of the modern idea of Christian union. If they would propose a union by renouncing their errors, giving up that which is decidedly the property of sinful humanity, and holding to all that which the word of God plainly enjoins, that would be a union that would please God. Then would the church all “speak the same thing,” and there would be “no division” among them. They would be liberal of that which is their own, and not of that which belongs to God. But we are told that men do not see things alike. That to one the Bible teaches immersion, to another sprinkling, to another pouring. To one it teaches a seventh-day Sabbath, to another a first-day Sabbath. If this is so, the fault is in the Bible, and it were better to throw it away; and this they virtually do, when they propose a union which ignores its teachings, putting no difference between truth and error—between the commandments of God and the doctrines of men. R. F. COTTRELL.