Earlier text: Revising the Confession of FaithGOD'S OBJECT LESSONS. NO. 8.
By H. F. Phelps
THERE are some who can find nothing of interest in what is said in the Bible about sacrifices and offerings of the Levitical priesthood. To such the books of Leviticus and Numbers are dry and uninteresting. It was once so with the writer. But now there is a beauty in all these things. Let us for a moment look at some of them. The first mention in the Bible of sacrificing is in Genesis, chapter 4. Cain and Abel each brought an offering. That of Cain was of the fruit of the ground. "Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect." Why was this? Where was the difference? Cain was a farmer, while Abel kept sheep. They both brought offerings of what they had. Why were not both accepted? Where was the difference? The fault was not in God. But there was something that was not right with Cain, for we read, "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." Here is the answer. Heb. 11:4: "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which [faith] he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts [by having 'respect' thereto]; and by it [his faith] he being dead yet speaketh." Why were the gifts of Abel more acceptable to God than Cain's? Because they were offered in faith according to God's plan. His faith led him to do just as God had said. Then, if this faith was pleasing to God, and Cain did not please God, it was because he had no faith. He was filled with unbelief. He fed upon doubts and cherished unbelief till it ripened into murmuring and murder. Abel's faith led him to come according to God's plan, while Cain's unbelief would not allow him to do this. In the offering of Abel there was blood; in that of Cain there was none. Abel could see something in the blood of the lamb slain by his own hands. Cain could see nothing in this; he did not see any necessity for it. Abel believed, Cain disbelieved. Cain brought of the fruit of the ground. He would worship God, but he would do it according to his own ideas; and in doing this he did not worship God at all, but a god of his own making, and that was self. He could not believe that God would be very particular. Abel believed that God meant just what he said, and believing he acted. Cain had no sense of his own lost condition. Abel did have a sense of this condition, and his need of help from God. The plan of salvation through Christ was too foolish a thing for Cain to believe. He could see no value in blood. In fact, he could not have believed in the coming of the Just One. Abel had faith in Christ; he believed the promise of God. By faith he could grasp the idea that Christ should come and give his life a ransom for the human race. He could see no righteousness in himself; he could sense the fact that without a Saviour he was a lost man, and lost forever. Cain could not see this. Abel could see in himself only sin and guilt. In the lamb of his flock he could see innocence; in himself, no way of salvation, but only a sinner condemned to die. As he lifted his own hand to take the life of the victim, he could see, and by this acknowledge, that he himself deserved to die. In this victim he could also see a type of Christ. In its blood as it was poured out beside the altar he could see the blood of his Saviour as he poured out his life for the world. And every time he brought a lamb, he could see an object lesson before him that said, "Christ will come." By faith he took hold of hope through Christ. And every offering that was ever made was an emblem or an object lesson impressing upon the believer that Christ the Saviour should come. It was also a lesson showing that man must die; that he stood condemned by a just law that had been violated, but could not be changed. It was an object lesson showing that there was no salvation in the law; that man could not be saved except in God's appointed way. The victim must be spotless, without blemish. This was an object lesson, to show that the offering to be made for man was without fault. While these things set forth in truth and verity the fact of man's lost condition, they show but feebly the value of the plan of salvation. These were but types, shadows, figures of the true. Cain's unbelief led him to ignore all this. Of course he should be saved, but in his own way, not in God's way. Had it not been for unbelief, Cain would have offered a lamb. Had it not been for unbelief, Cain would not have ripened into a murderer, and dyed his hands with his brother's blood. O cruel unbelief! O faith, thou art a jewel more precious than all else in this world. It was faith that led Abel to see, even in a shadow, the living reality,—Christ, the Lamb of God; Christ, the living fountain, who should wash away his sins. By faith he could see Christ as the Saviour of the world, and by these things "he being dead yet speaketh." Oh, for more of this living faith! "Have faith in God." Oh, for a faith that will grasp the promises of God, and, appropriating them, will "follow on to know the Lord" in all things, whom to know aright is life eternal. LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.
By Bible Echo
To very many minds the moral teachings of the Bible appear so complicated as to involve actual doubt of the inspiration of the sacred Book. Such have come to regard the precepts and principles taught as being, in their relations to each other, complex and contradictory. But such an impression is entertained only by those who study to doubt, or to magnify the supposed discrepancies into insuperable mountains of difficulty. The opposite is exactly true of the Bible. No book the world has ever seen is so unanimous in the declaration of its great objective principles; and no set of principles, so comprehensive in their application, can be as concisely stated as those taught in the Bible. The tree of Bible virtue has for its trunk the principle of love. This the Saviour separates into two grand principles of love to God and love to man; and adds, "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Thus every precept of the Scriptures is declared to be tributary to the love we owe our Maker, or to that which we owe our fellows. With his own voice, God has subdivided these, the first into four and the second into six precepts, forming ten words, or commandments, which are recognized as the basis of all just laws. These form a law which the writers of the Bible pronounce "perfect," "holy," "the truth," "righteousness," "spiritual." Springing out of these ten commandments, we have all the principles which regulate moral and Christian life. For instance, the first commandment exalts the reverence and service of God above every other object or consideration. It is, therefore, directed against covetousness, pride, arrogance, self-exaltation, and the whole brood of selfish vices. The Saviour analyzed some of the ten precepts in his sermon on the mount. He makes them apply to the thoughts and purposes of the heart. They not only forbid the outbreaking sin in which a course of transgression will end, but they recognize every desire and thought which is tributary to the crime. And every such lust or impulse becomes sinful. To violate the sixth commandment it is not necessary to murder; but hatred, envy, unkind words, and epithets of reproach, are violations of the command which says, "Thou shalt not kill." Unclean words and thoughts are sin in the light of the seventh command. Under such teaching, we begin to realize what the psalmist felt when he said, "I have seen an end of all perfection; but thy commandment is exceeding broad." Ps. 119:96. Thus the branches which spring from the ten commandments reach in every direction, and in a beautiful and symmetrical manner cover the whole field of human character. We now have before our minds the figure of a perfect tree. When the enlivening influence of the Spirit of God gives life and force to these principles in human nature, humanity displays to the admiring world, to angels, and to God, the lovely adornment of Christian virtue and perfection. And this is quickly succeeded by the golden "fruit of the Spirit," which is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." All these graces spring from the grand central principle of love, and are exemplified either in love to God or to man, and may be traced through one of the ten commandments, and perhaps through one or more lateral branches. We believe that all can see the beauty and harmony that there is in this picture which is drawn out in God's word. Now, let us suppose for a moment that we cut out of this beautiful tree these ten main stems. What is the result?—The destruction of the entire frame-work of Christian character. And this is what many would have us do. It cannot be, however; for Jesus has said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no-wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18. Perfection in Common Things
The best perfection of a religious man is to do common things in a perfect manner.—Bonaventura. CAUSE AND RESULT OF UNTHANKFULNESS.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." IN the two preceding articles upon this portion of Scripture, we have seen that the Sabbath, when kept in the way that God designed that it should be kept, is the thing by which we show our knowledge of the true God, and which tends to increase that knowledge, so that it stands as the one great safeguard against idolatry. It follows, then, as has been shown, that the heathen who became so by not glorifying the Creator as God when they knew him, lost that knowledge by departing from his Sabbath. There is another expression which should be noticed in this connection. It is the phrase, "neither were thankful." The apostle states that their darkness and degradation were due to the fact that when they knew God they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful. Unthankfulness to God tends to the commission of the greatest sins. Let us see how this is. When men do not thank God for his goodness and mercy shown, it is an evidence that they have no just conception of him. No one who realizes the love of God, as shown even in creation alone, can fail to express love and gratitude to the Creator. And this will bring him in still closer relation to God, for God will reveal himself to such an one still more. But when a person does not thank God for life and breath and all things which are enjoyed at his hand, it is an evidence that he does not regard God as the giver of these things. He does not, in fact, glorify God as God. He has separated himself from God by his ingratitude, and is necessarily left to himself and to the commission of all the evils to which human nature is subject. Too much importance cannot be attached to the words of the psalmist, "It is a good thing to give thanks unto the Lord." A continual expression of thanks to God is no more than justice demands, for he is continually bestowing blessings. The continual exercise of thankfulness keeps in mind the blessings and their Giver, and thus brings the soul nearer to God. So Paul says in his letter to the Philippians, "Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God." This is not a mere matter for theorizing concerning the heathen, but is a practical question for every Christian. The Christian who does not continually thank God for his mercies in whatever condition he may be, is in a dangerous position. According to the apostle's words just quoted, no prayer should be offered without thanksgiving; but this does not mean simply thanksgiving for something received in the past. It means thanksgiving for the blessings asked for in the prayer; the giving of thanks for them even before they have been received. Unless this thanksgiving accompanies the petition there can, indeed, be no blessing received; because nothing can be received without faith, and thanksgiving is an indication of the possession of faith. Take the words of Christ, recorded in Mark 11:24: "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them." Note that the receiving of the things is contingent upon believing that we have them. It is our faith that makes them real to us; but if a person greatly desires a thing and is fully persuaded that he has it, surely thanksgiving to the one who has brought it to him is the most natural thing to follow. But how can he believe that he has it?—Why, he has simply the promise of the Lord, who cannot lie, that if we ask we shall receive. What stronger evidence can be desired? Take an illustration of our application of this scripture. Here is a poor man who is in great need of food for his family. After suffering the pangs of hunger for some time he goes to a wealthy farmer who is noted for his generosity, and makes known his want. The man responds at once to this appeal for help, and says to his poor neighbor, "I will give you a sack of flour which stands in my store-house. Take this key, and go and help yourself." Now what would be the first impulse of that poor man?—Why, it would be to thank his benefactor. What for?—For the flour. But he has not received any yet. No; but his confidence in the man's word leads him to believe that the flour is his, and he thanks him first, and then goes and gets it. Surely the Christian should express no less confidence in the promise of God that he delights to give good things to his children, and will grant grace to help in time of need; and when he has once made his request should accompany that request with thanksgiving that God is so liberal. This is an evidence of faith, with which alone God is pleased; but if the petitioner, after making his request, says, "Now I will wait and see if this is granted; and if it is I will thank God," he will never offer thanks, for his course is an evidence that his petition was not offered in faith. Surely, then, it is a good thing to give thanks unto God; and since thanksgiving is so absolutely necessary for the Christian, we may well understand how a neglect to thank God for his mercies, leads to forgetfulness of God as the giver of mercies; and finally into all the abominations into which the heathen sank. WHAT DO THE TALENTS OF MATTHEW 25 REPRESENT?
By M. C. W.
It is not our purpose to give a thorough exposition of this parable, which is found in Matt. 25: 14-29. The parable of the pounds, which is very similar, is found in Luke 19: 11-27. The first two verses of the parable of the talents read as follows:— "For the kingdom of Heaven is as a man traveling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey." The man traveling into a far country represents the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to offer himself a sacrifice for sinners and to redeem the world, which had passed from its rightful lord to the dominion of Satan. Christ was successful in his mission to earth. He died and rose again, triumphant over death and the grave. He then leaves the world, for which he had paid the purchase price, and goes to "a far country" (Luke 19:12), there, in the end of his ministry as priest, to appear before the Father (Dan. 7:13, 14), "to receive for himself a kingdom [this earth], and to return," to judge the world and take possession. Luke 19:12; Matt. 25: 31-34. The talents represent something that is intrusted to his servants, to use to his glory, till his return. This use would cause increase or growth of that represented by the talents. What do these "talents" or "pounds" represent? It is an important question. The "well done" to those who improved their talents, and the fate of him who buried his in the earth, indicate in no meaningless way the importance of not only knowing what these talents are, but possessing them and using them to the glory of God. Those who interpret the parable by itself, or, rather, by their own imagination, have made many guesses as to what these talents represent. The general meaning given to them is that they represent the natural intellectual or physical abilities of the individual, that which makes men of use in life everywhere, which gives them success. But notice, the talents are not the natural ability; for they were given "to every man according to his several ability." The ability was before the talents. The servants possessed the ability (natural ability, presumably) prior to the bestowal of the talents by their lord. Therefore, the talents are not the ability. What then do they represent? The parable does not inform us, nor does it so present it that we would naturally adopt a right interpretation. Are we left to the parable and our own imaginations alone? It cannot be that in so important a particular the Lord has thus left us. In fact, a parable is not designed to reveal truth, but to illustrate and enforce truth. We must base doctrines on those scriptures about which there can be no question. The parable must be understood by comparing it with these scriptures, taking into consideration, of course, the circumstances under which it is given and the lesson designed to be taught. In these latter particulars there would, doubtless, be no difference of opinion. What then do the talents represent? Are there other scriptures that will make this plainer?—There are. God has revealed in plain terms just what he bestowed upon his people when our Lord left this world to go to the "far country;" and by comparing these, spiritual things with spiritual, we will find that the parable of the talents will glow with new life and beauty, and while it may increase our responsibility it will give added encouragement. The first scripture to which we will turn as explanatory of the talents is Eph. 4: 8-11. The eighth verse speaks of the ascension of Christ, that is, the time when he went away into a far country, and presented before his father the multitude of captives, the first-fruits of his triumph. See margin, and Matt. 27: 52, 53. The last part of the verse states in positive terms that when he ascended, or went away, he "gave gifts unto men." This is what is stated in the parables. Before he left for the "far country," he gave the pounds and talents.391 The next two verses are parenthetical. Verse 11 states what some of these gifts were: "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers." Verse 12 states for what purpose these gifts were bestowed: "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ." These were all for the glory of God and the advancement and increase of the cause of Christ. The talents were given by the lord to his servants, in order that he might receive increase of his own. Matt. 25: 27. The gifts were to be placed in the church for a certain time, which is shown in Eph. 4: 13: "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." The unity of the faith has not yet come, nor will it till just previous to the return of the Master. Then that which is perfect will come (1 Cor. 13: 8-10), then these gifts of prophecy, etc., will cease. So the pounds were given to the nobleman's servants, and they were told to "occupy till I come." Those pounds were to be used to the glory of Christ till he came. The gifts were given for the same time, another proof that they are identical. In the twelfth chapter of 1 Corinthians is another enumeration of the gifts. We are there told that they are not natural endowments received by birth, but are gifts of the Spirit of God. Verses 4-6. So the talents were not the natural ability, but they were bestowed according to that ability. The gifts were given to each one, and were given that they might profit by their use. Verse 7. The talents were also given to each one that they might profit by their use. Matt. 25: 15, 27, 29. God divides the gifts "severally as he will" (1 Cor. 12: 11); so does the bestower of the talents. In all these particulars the evidence is conclusive that the talents represent these gifts. They are given by the same one, at the same time, to the same ones, for the same purpose, to continue the same period of time, namely, the gospel age. Certainly the evidence is sufficient to show that the gifts of the Spirit and the "talents" and "pounds" are identical. These gifts and their use we will consider in a future paper. WHAT THEY WANT TO SECURE.
By C. P. B
THE leaders in the Sunday-law movement have been engaged for some time past in explaining that what they want is not to enforce the religious observance of the first day, but simply to secure rest for working people. It is rather unfortunate for them, however, that their witnesses do not agree, and in their meetings the less discreet are continually giving expression to their true sentiments. This will be understood by a few points from the report of the meeting of the Kings County (New York) Sabbath Association, held May 19, 1889, published in the New York Mail and Express of May 24. After the devotional services, Mr. A. A. Bibbins, Esq., the president, delivered an address, reporting some of the practical workings of the society since its organization. The first important item noticed was the efforts of the society to secure the closing of candy stores on Sunday. Concerning this, the president said that the Legislature had so amended the penal code as to allow drug, cigar, and candy stores to do business on the Sunday. He continued: "It was thought in this association that it was very important that the law should be re-amended so that the candy stores might be closed, realizing that perhaps above all other ways in which the Sabbath might be violated that was the worst, for the reason that it teaches our children to grow up with the impression that candy selling is right on the Sabbath. Of course as they grow older it will be difficult for them to distinguish the reason why candy stores should be open and others should not." This shows conclusively that the motive of the Kings County Sabbath Association is not to secure a day of rest for the working people, but simply to secure the religious observance of Sunday, or perhaps more properly speaking, to secure the general observance of Sunday because they regard it as sacred. Another item noticed by the president was the delivery of ice-cream on Sunday after 10 o'clock A. M. He said that restricting the delivery to the morning hours was one of the matters which the society had had in hand for some time, and he believed that it is very important. Just why this is so important from a religious standpoint is not as easy to see as in the case of the candy stores. For it is difficult for the uninitiated to understand why the hours of Sunday from 10 o'clock forward are any more sacred than the early hours of the same day. However, the report by the secretary which followed that of the president will aid us somewhat in understanding just why this is. Said the secretary:— "The delivery of ice-cream after 10 o'clock Sunday morning has proven a great annoyance to many sections of the city, and has disturbed public worship in many of our churches." This of course requires some further explanation. How the delivery of ice-cream could disturb public worship in churches may not be readily understood, but the secretary also makes that clear. He says:— "We regret to state that many church people absolutely ignore their duty in these premises by requiring ice-cream to be delivered to them for their Sunday dinner." This explains it. The unavoidable conclusion is that the delivery of ice-cream disturbs public worship in the churches because church-members cannot be prevailed upon to live consistently with their profession! They profess to regard Sunday as a sacred day, and yet persist in buying ice-cream upon that day for their dinners. This is about parallel to the case of some of the Christians in the fourth century, when a law was demanded that public shows should be transferred from Sunday and fast days to some other days of the week, in order that the Sunday might be devoted with less interruption to the purpose of devotion, and, as stated by Neander (vol. 2, p. 301), that the "devotion of the faithful might be free from all disturbances." The matter of disturbance is also explained by the same writer in these words: "Owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially of the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same day which had been consecrated by the church as some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair of the heart and of the life." Why this was is also explained in these words: "Church teachers were often forced to complain that in such competitions the theater was vastly more frequented than the church." And it seems that in the case of the "Christians" in Brooklyn, Kings County, N. Y., the Sunday dish of ice-cream proves a greater attraction than the church services; hence the demand for a more rigid Sunday law. The secretary also reported that through the influence of the society, a bill had been introduced into the Legislature to close all barber shops on Sunday at 12 o'clock noon. This he seems to think would be a great victory, but why, we cannot imagine. So far as we are acquainted with barber shops, it is a rare thing to find one open after 12 o'clock on Sunday, even where there is no law requiring them to close. And here again the question arises, Why is it any worse to keep a barber shop open after 12 o'clock on Sunday than before that hour? Another point worthy of note in the secretary's report is the matter of closing art galleries on Sunday. It will be remembered that it is persistently urged by the friends of Sunday legislation, that Sunday laws are for the purpose of securing to the working people a day of rest. But in his report the worthy secretary of the Kings County Sabbath Association strongly deprecated the idea of opening art galleries on Sunday, and said:— "The patrons of art are the better educated and more cultivated of any community. Their tastes and aspirations are more refined. They take advantage of all reasonable opportunity to cultivate their tastes in this direction. It is this class of people who patronize art exhibitions. They attend them whenever and wherever they are held. They enjoy them at any and all times. Art exhibitions on Sunday simply prove an additional facility to enjoy this taste. Sunday exhibitions refine them no more. They would be no more gross without them. The people of depraved, gross appetites do not attend them. They absolutely fail in exerting a refining influence upon these classes in the community. They cannot therefore be indorsed on this account." The conclusion arrived at by the gentleman is, that art exhibitions should not be open on Sunday; which is only to say that "the people of depraved, gross appetites"—which is the description he gives of the working people—and those who are not able to attend such exhibitions on other days, shall not be privileged to attend them at all. Sunday is about the only day in the week upon which thousands of people can have an opportunity of going to such places, and it is far from being true that all these people are "depraved" and "gross." Many of them are quite as refined in their tastes as those who are more highly favored by fortune, and as far as physical rest is concerned, it would certainly do them quite as much good to attend an art exhibition occasionally as to spend Sunday in any other way; which only shows that it is the religious, and not simply a secular, observance of the day which is demanded by the Kings County Sabbath Association. The secret of the whole movement is that these people regard Sunday as a sacred day, and they are determined to compel others to at least act as though it were sacred whether they so regard it or not. JEGAR-SAHADUTHA—GALEED.
By Milton C. Wilcox
"AND Laban call it Jegar-sahadutha; but Jacob called it Galeed." Gen. 31:47. But both terms, that used by the Chaldean as well as that used by the Hebrew, mean one and the same thing, namely, "The heap of witness." And yet to two parties not exactly understanding the meaning of the terms, one party remembering one name, the Chaldean, and the other remembering the Hebrew term, how easily a dispute might arise, which, uniting with itself other elements, would grow into a bitter controversy. We believe that differences among brethren and friends often arise in some such way as this. They may have been educated in different parts of the country or different countries, and thus they have come to use different terms to express the same idea. They both hold the same faith as regards the Scriptures of truth, but they use different words to express the same idea. One perhaps is naturally of a combative nature, and he picks up a word used by the other, invests it with his own meaning instead of endeavoring to ascertain the meaning of his brother, utters a sharp criticism which wounds his brother's pride, and the battle begins, to end in a relentless and wearing war. Many others are brought into the strife, and friends mourn, and foes rejoice. How much better it would have been if these brethren had tried to ascertain each other's real meaning. These meanings would probably have proved to the edification of both Jegar-sahadutha and Galeed. Thus doing, the seeming difference might prove a bond of union, and the heap of witness would become a Mizpah, ever delightfully and gratefully remembered by both. Gen. 31:49. Sometimes difference arises between men engaged in the same cause, who love as brethren, because one looks at and emphasizes one side of a truth and the other the other side. One has studied it from one standpoint, and he thinks that nothing can be so clear and beautiful, and so thinks the other looking at the same truth from392 another point of view. There is one doctrine which furnishes a good example of this, namely, that of conversion, or, more properly speaking, the work which changes a man who has loved and practiced sin to one who hates sin and loves righteousness and is fitted for a home in the kingdom of God. A part of this work is God's, a part of the work is man's. God does his part, ever faithful; man must do his part. The Scriptures speak very distinctly on both aspects, often laying down positive injunctions to men without referring to God's part in the work; often positively declaring what God will do without referring to man's part. He for whom God has done great things, who has been plucked as a brand from the burning, will very probably magnify God's part; while he who has to some extent prided himself on his good character, will be more inclined to magnify man's part. One will dwell on one class of scriptures, the other on the other class, and yet at heart and in life, so far as character is concerned, they are agreed. They are like the knights who fought over the color of a shield which they had seen. They were traveling in different directions, one had seen one side of the shield by the way, and it was white, the other had seen the other side, and had found it black. The shield was both white and black. Both were right so far as they had seen. And so it is in regard to the above-named doctrine many times. Men are right so far as they have seen, but they have seen but one side. Keeping these common difficulties in mind, remembering how short-sighted is man, and how liable to be mistaken, seeking to know a brother's meaning rather than making him an "offender for a word," studying God's word prayerfully, faithfully, diligently, with a desire to know and do the truth, brethren may arrive at the unity of the faith, and find that it takes both sides to make a perfect whole; that each has lost nothing and gained much. By thus doing, the doctrine which has been a bone of contention may become a bond of union, even as poor sinners through the grace of Christ "out of weakness" may be "made strong." M. C. W. THE ORIGIN OF EASTER.
By C. P. B.
A CORRESPONDENT in Eureka, Cal., asks for some account of the origin of Easter, and inquires, "How can Easter Sunday be kept or celebrated without holding services on Sunday?" And says that by keeping the seventh day Easter cannot be observed. By referring to the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, No 16, April 22, 1889, our correspondent will find an article in reference to this matter, but, as he may not have the paper at hand, we will say briefly that Easter is a word of Saxon origin, and was applied to the goddess of the Saxons, to whom sacrifices were annually offered about the time of the passover, or about the time of year at which the festival is now celebrated. It is of purely heathen origin, and the reason for its adoption by the Christian church is the same as the reason for which many heathen practices were adopted by the early Christians. It is thus stated by Gibbon:— "The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rustics would more cheerfully renounce the superstitions of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century the final conquest of the Roman Empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the acts of their vanquished rivals."—Decline and Fall, chap. 28. The fact that Easter occurred about the same time of the year as the passover and the resurrection, naturally led to its association with the latter event, but there is no scriptural authority for its observance. It is true that the word occurs in Acts 12:4, but, as McClintock and Strong say ("Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastic Encyclopedia," article Easter), "it is chiefly noticeable as an example of the want of consistency in its translators." On the same subject the "Encyclopedia Britannica" says: "There is no trace of the celebration of Easter as a Christian festival in the New Testament or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers." The same work also quotes the ecclesiastic historian, Socrates, as saying that "the apostles had no thought of appointing festival days." And this historian attributes the introduction of the festival of Easter into the church to the perpetuation of the old heathen custom of celebrating Easter in honor of one of the heathen goddesses. Much more might be given to the same import, but this must suffice. As to the question, "How can Easter Sunday be kept without holding services on Sunday?" we would say that it is a matter of no importance whether it is observed or not; or we should say that, being a heathen festival, it would be much better if it were entirely ignored by Christians. Says the apostle (2 Cor. 6:15, 16): "What concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God." What then can Christians have to do with the celebration of heathen festivals?