The pilgrim members of the Greek Church who make their way to Jerusalem frequently buy in the holy city a tract printed for their special benefit. It professes to be a letter which fell from heaven on the tomb of the Virgin at Gethsemane, and declares itself to have been written by the hand of Christ. This document, in various editions, has a wide popularity throughout the Slavonic world,—in Russia, Poland, Bohemia, Bulgaria, and Roumania. The “heavenly letter” has a long and curious history, and furnishes an object-lesson of credulity, superstition, and “pious fraud.”
Toward the close of the sixth century, Licinianus, Bishop of Carthagena, wrote to another bishop, Vincentius by name, dissuading him from a belief in the genuineness of an alleged letter of Christ. This document he thus describes:—
“In principio ipsius epistolae legimus ut dies dominicus colatur. Quis enim Christianus non propter ipsum diem sed propter resurrectionem domini nostri Jesus Christi, eo quod in ipso a mortuis resurrexit, reverendissimum non habeat? Sed quantum sentio, ideo novus istae praedicator hoc dicit, ut nos judaizare compellat, ut nullus sibi in eodem die necessaria victus praeparet aut viam ambulet. Sed hoc quam pessimum sit, sanctificatas tua perpendat. Utinam populus Christianus si die ipso Ecclesiam non frequentat, aliquid operis faceret et non saliaret. Absit ergo a sanctitate tua hoc credere ut epistolae nunc nobis mittantur a Christo. Sufficiat enim quod locutus est in prophetis per seipsum et per suos apostolos. Nam et his non litteras transmittit e caelo, sed spiritu sanctum eorum cor da replebat. Exceptis enim decem praeceptis, quae in tabulis mirabiliter data sunt, ad nullum Prophetarum aut Apostolorum epistolae missae sunt de coelo. Non igitur credas quae numquam facta leguntur, quae etsi facta essent, post praedicationem Evangelii jam necessaria non sunt. Et si forte ipsum nomen novum te delectavit, quia ipsa epistola, sicut simulator scripsit, de caelo descendit super altare Christi in memoria S. Petri apostoli, scito diabolum esse figmentum.”
Altho there are no quotations from the Christ-letter, the description given by Licinianus clearly identifies it as one in which Sunday observance is strictly enjoined as a divine command, and in which the first day is described as having the place and authority of the Hebrew Sabbath.
The Second Instance.
We next hear of a “heavenly letter” in the year 745, when Pope Zacharias held a council in the Lateran. On this occasion Denardus denounced as heretical the teaching of Clement and Aldebert, and produced a letter which the last-named had widely circulated. This was said to have fallen from heaven, and to have been found by Michael the Archangel at the “Effrem” gate of Jerusalem. A copy was sent by Icore, a priest of “Geremiam civitatem,” who, in his turn, sent a copy to Leoban, a priest of “Arabiam civitatem,” and he sent it to “Vetfaniam civitatem,” where it was received by Macrius, a priest of God, who sent it to the holy mountain of the Archangel Michael. And then, we are told, angelic hands brought it to Rome and placed it “on the tomb of St. Peter, where are the keys of heaven.” Twelve papati, who were in Rome for three days, watched, prayed, and fasted day and night. At this point the quotation made by Denardus breaks off.
Aldebert had an immense following, and claimed to be the “servant of God.” He was raised to the episcopal rank, but excited the suspicion of his colleagues, and was deposed and imprisoned as a heretic. He claimed to know the secrets of those who came to him to confess, and gave absolution without hearing them—a summary process, which, if effective, saved time to both priest and penitent. The pope regarded Aldebert as a madman. Another condemnation of the “heavenly letter” occurs in a capitulary of Charlemagne of the year 789. This refers to the circulation of pseud-epigraphic writings and dubious narratives, and among them is the “letter fallen from heaven,” which, it is declared, should not be believed or read, but rather be burnt. But while some might condemn it as a doubtful document, or even as a forgery, it continued to circulate.
Version III.
A version published by Baluze, but copied by Marca from a MS. at Tarragona, makes the letter to have fallen in Jerusalem, and to have been carried by Michael to the Effrem gate, where fifteen bishops watched, fasted, and prayed. It insists upon the sanctification of Sunday, and the payment of tithes, in order to escape from the coming anger of the Lord. This copy is assigned to the Carolingian period by Baluze, but Delehaye and others hold it to be later.
In the English Church, before the Norman conquest, the “heavenly letter” must have had a considerable vogue. It is incorporated in more than one of the homilies formerly attributed to Wulfstan, but of which recent criticism is disposed to deny him, for the most part, the credit. In Anglo-Saxon the “heavenly letter” exists, as Dr. Priebsch has shown, in three differing editions. In the first the letter is said to have fallen from heaven at a gate of Jerusalem, where it was found by a priest, Achorius, and was finally placed on the altar of St. Peter at Rome. In the second, a certain deacon, Nial, dies, but comes to life again, and announces that fire is to fall upon the earth because men will not accept the “heavenly letter,” which is said to have been found on St. Peter’s altar when Florentius was pope and Petrus bishop of Rome. In the third, Peter, bishop of Antioch, is the recipient.
Prof. Napier prints an Anglo-Saxon version from an eleventh century MS. belonging to Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. “It is noteworthy,” he says, “that in both the Old English representatives of this group (and therefore in their Latin original), it is an angel who is the actual writer and bearer of the letter, while in the other non-English versions no mention whatever is made of an angel.”
(1) Anglo-Saxon versions differ, to some extent, from such, but they agree in their main object, of enforcing the ecclesiastical restrictions on the first day of the week by the authority of a direct message from heaven.
(2) A curious proof of the popularity of the “Christ letter” is the fact that it was written in shorthand in the tenth century. The use of Tironian notes continued in the Middle Ages, and in the Vatican there is a MS. in which the rubric “Incipit epistola Salvatoris Domini” remains, altho the original text has been effaced, and a fresh one written over it.
THE INTERNATIONAL PROPHETIC CONFERENCE.
By F. C. Gilbert
Boston, Mass., Dec. 10-15.
Boston, the seat of learning, the center of culture and refinement of New England, the city of religious devotion and influence, has just had held in her midst a convention which will certainly go down into history as one long to be remembered. The Clarendon Street Baptist Church,—the walls of which for nearly three decades echoed with the sound of the beloved Dr. A. J. Gordon, that devoted servant of Christ, that conscientious Christian gentleman, that friend to everybody, the great lover of the “blessed hope” of Christ’s soon coming,—for five days successively heard from the voices of many persons some of the teachings of Jesus concerning His coming again to this earth. While we are sure, had Dr. Gordon, the beloved pastor, been alive, he would have dissented from much that was set forth by many of the speakers and writers, still he too would have been glad to witness the efforts put forth to revive the people to a more reverent study of the prophecies of the Bible, particularly those portions which relate to the coming of our blessed Lord.
It was a cosmopolitan gathering, having among its speakers Henry Varley from Australia and England; Dr. Sholto Douglass from Scotland; Dr. Elmore Harris from Toronto, Ontario; several other prominent speakers from various parts of the United States; as well as a number of interesting and scholarly papers from such men as Sir Robert Anderson, K. C. B., LL. D., and Prof. D. S. Margoliouth, M. A., Oxford, England. One also from the learned Bishop Niles, D. D., bishop of New Hampshire. Hundreds, yes thousands, of visitors attended the conference from near and from far, some of the far Western States being well represented, as well as the Southern States.
The prime object of the conference was to study prophecy; the prophecies of the past with their past fulfilment; prophecies of the future, their fulfilment yet to come; prophecies concerning the present time, which concern both the church, the world, and the nations of earth in their national and political capacity. Still the kernel thought seemed to be the prophecies which portray the coming again of the blessed Lord,—the manner, the result, the prospect. It was also the intention of the conference to have the people see the practical bearing of the truth of the coming of the Lord on the pure living of the Christian, thus making the second advent an incentive to the children of God to “live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Titus 2: 11-13. In connection with this phase of the doctrine the dogmatic truth was also to be presented, that the church might see the relation between the two; thus showing the importance of studying and believing what the Bible terms “doctrine.” While the speakers of the Conference did not contribute much toward the advancement of the former, they most certainly did their best, most of them at least, to impress the latter phase; for aside from two or three practical and spiritual discourses preached by Evangelist L. Broughton, the papers and essays, either delivered or written, were almost altogether theoretical, putting forth the ideas and theories of the different authors.
While much time and study had been given by the speakers to the topics assigned each, it might be expected that every man had his own psalm, his own shade of belief, his own peculiar ideas, his own form of doctrine. And as we might expect, every one was sure and positive that his view of the prophecy on the given point under consideration, was the correct one. From the foregoing the reader will not be surprised at the statement the chairman of the meeting made, the closing evening of the conference, when giving a summary of thoughts concerning the previous few days’ work:—6 (22)There has been such blessed unity, and so much diversity; the conference was one of great certainty, as well as of much uncertainty. There were about a score of things upon which the brethren differed.
While a large number of the people were much pleased and gratified at the eloquence and scholarship of the speakers and of the papers read, a great many were perplexed at the results attained. The people could not take away with them a representative thought of the conference on prophecy nor on the coming of the Lord, save that prophecy was true, and that the Lord would come sometime. To some “it was as clear as mud,” as the people were heard to remark; to others “there were so many perplexities involved.”
There was one thing with which the writer was very much impressed during the entire conference, and that was the earnestness there seemed to be on the part of many to impart to others what they themselves believed to be true, and their strong and vehement desire to have the people believe those things, and know that that was what the Scriptures taught on those points under consideration. Still earnestness, nor scholarship, nor learning, nor eloquence, nor great productions, are evidences of the simple truth of the Word of God; all these may be achieved, yet the truth of the blessed Bible be left out, and error be imparted. The Jews were always in earnest, and are to this day; still their zeal did not save them from rejecting their Messiah, and crucifying their Lord. Their successors were well qualified to their own liking by their learning and scholarship of the Scriptures, still it did not save them from putting Stephen to death, and always rejecting the Gospel of Christ, ever persecuting those who would believe. As Paul says of his brethren, “They have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.”
The particular ideas and theories of the different writers and speakers will be noticed in future articles, considered by themselves; and will be compared with the Scriptures of truth. It is one thing to divide the Word of God; another thing to rightly divide the Word of Truth. And this latter thought was evidently lacking in a great many, tho we have no doubt they presented the best they had.
In all this diversity of opinions there were three things in which there was the greatest unity of sentiment, tho the writer is assured there were a few who even dissented from these, but very few, however. The three points of unison were: The second coming of Christ to this earth again; the millennial reign of Christ on this earth, or a thousand years of righteous rule in this world with the saints and Israelites as the leaders; the literal restoration of the Jewish people to the land of Palestine. Still in the application of the time and manner of these events all were not united; tho the sentiment was generally recognized by nearly all. That which would bring about the coming of the Lord was recognition of the fact that Israel would be renationalized, and the literal seed of Abraham made the world rulers.
In other words, the thought which was made most prominent in the entire conference was that the coming of the Lord was so intricately interwoven with the literal restoration of Israel; that if the one did not happen the other would not occur, and the success of the one depended on the other. The basis, the foundation, the root, the subsoil, the underlying rock-bottom thought of the entire structure of the combined ideas of the conference was the “return of the Jews.” This being so, it is evident to the writer why many went away disappointed, and did not get what they anticipated. This is not the first time that people who believed in this same doctrine have been disappointed in not seeing their hopes realized. The disciples of Jesus were disappointed; Jesus was disappointed in His disciples because of their belief in it; many of the early church were disappointed by it; for nearly two millenniums the scattered, the broken, and the peeled Jews have been disappointed, and thousands more will yet be disappointed who believe or who will believe that the Jews as a nation are to be restored to the literal country of Palestine.
No person loves the Jews more than the writer; few people have affiliated more with them than he has; many a prayer has he united with them that “the year to come he might be in Jerusalem;” few have hoped and prayed and longed more than he has that the weeping city might once again be turned into joy and gladness; yet when the blessed Lord Jesus opened his eyes to see the truth as it is in Him, and illuminated the blessed words of Holy Writ, he discovered that the sweets of salvation were in Jesus Christ, and in Him only; that the restoration was to be through Christ and in the “Israel of God;” and to this blessed thought and truth he felt that he must confine himself as the words of eternal truth. This was what Paul believed and taught; this is the blessed truth for the present time. When we get our eyes off from the literal Jerusalem, and place them on the Jerusalem which is above, which is free, which is the mother of us all, we shall then have larger and broader views of Jerusalem and its promises than we now have. Much more will be said on this point later.
One very interesting feature of the conference was the questions and answers, considered at the morning sessions. Many answers shed light on the Scriptures; others were quite mystical; and to some no answer was suggested. It was evident that the answers of those apparently difficult questions might have been as clear as the noon-day sun, if only the Word of God had been considered from its true standpoint, instead of from the viewpoint of the literal restoration.
One thing is certain—the conference must have stimulated many to a more personal study of the Word of God, and a stronger desire to know the truth as it is in Christ; to ascertain the sweet and blessed harmony on the many prophecies for these days, that the people may be prepared for the glorious appearing of the blessed Lord. We were glad for the many good things presented; we wish many more might have been; we pray that many souls may be led to see the whole truth, and thus escape the many errors which are possible from some of the views presented. More upon the papers and speeches in future articles. F. C. GILBERT.
BOND-SERVANTS OF CHRIST.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
The Price Paid.
WITH what has the Lord bought us? and what is the strength of our bondage to Him? “Ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, . . . but with precious blood, . . . even the blood of Christ.” 1 Peter 1:18, 19. The church of God “He hath purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28. The price paid is great enough, and the transaction is valid.
As great as is the price paid for us, so powerful are the bonds that hold us in our servitude to God. Hear Him: “Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with loving-kindness have I drawn thee.” Jer. 31:3. “I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love.” Hosea 11:4. Ah, then, it is not hard, cruel bondage to which we have been sold, altho it is everlasting, and stronger than death. No; our fetters are bonds of love, and the service is the service of love. “This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3. His yoke is easy, and His burden is light.
Why Purchased?
Why has the Lord bought us? What does He want of us?
He wants to use us as instruments of righteousness through whom His will may be done on earth as it is in heaven. Of this He assures us in the very words in which He makes known to us our lawful condition of slavery: “Know ye not that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” And stronger still: “Yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall have no dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Rom. 6:13, 14, 16. E. J. WAGGONER.
Keeping the Commandment
He that keepeth the commandment keepeth his own soul; but he that despiseth his ways shall die.—Proverbs.
Eternity in God
God is not in eternity, but eternity in God.
GETHSEMANE AGAIN.
By Clifford G. Howell
We have a Counselor who has been admitted to the bar,—the bar of the universal Judge; but let us not forget that He once stood at Pilate’s bar, accused as a traitor against the government of earth. He holdeth in His right hand the seven stars; but that hand retains the print of earth’s cruel nails. Out of His mouth goeth a sharp sword; but these lips were first silent in Joseph’s tomb. This is the Man that has shown us the way to heaven. Forget not, beloved, that it is by Gethsemane’s shadow and the cross. The world is entering again Gethsemane; multitudes with swords and lanterns and staves; many to slumber or betray, a few to watch with their Lord.
CLIFFORD G. HOWELL.
THREE WORDS.
By Schiller
THERE are three lessons I would write,
Three words as with a burning pen,
In tracings of eternal light
Upon the hearts of men.
Have hope! The clouds environ round,
And gladness hides her face in scorn,
Put thou the shadow from thy brow;
No night but hath its morn!
Have faith! Where'er thy bark is driven,
The calm's disport, the tempest's mirth,
Know this: God rules the hosts of heaven,
The inhabitants of earth.
Have love! Not love alone for one,
But man, as man, thy brother call,
And scatter, like the circling sun,
Thy charities on all.
Thus grave these lessons on thy soul,—
Hope, faith, and love,—and thou shalt find
Strength when life's surges rudest roll,
Light when thou else wert blind!
—Schiller.
LAWLESSNESS FOR GAIN.
[Circular from Secretary of the Treasury Relative to Shipment.]
COLLECTOR STONE has received from the Secretary of the Treasury a circular relative to the shipment of beef and meat of all other species of animals exported to European ports. The collector said that the provisions of the law and regulations would be strictly enforced at this port.
The circular directs attention to the fact that the regulations provide that all beef which is exported to foreign countries shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by an inspector, and that meat which is not certified shall be legibly marked in such a manner as clearly to indicate the species of animal from which the meat was produced. It is stated that there is reason to believe that a shipment of pickled meat recently made contained horse meat, and that an extensive traffic is conducted in the shipment of such meat without regard to law or the regulations of the department. It is asserted that the meat, on arrival in foreign countries, especially Scandinavian countries, is placed in cans with American brands, and sold as corned beef.
The Secretary of Agriculture states that the practice has become a serious menace to trade in reliable products, such horse meat being sold at a lower price than must be demanded for inspected cattle meat. The law requires that the inspection stamp shall clearly indicate the species of animal from which the meat was produced.—Baltimore American. Dec. 13, 1907.
THE NEEDLESSNESS OF A CREED.
In a paper before a Protestant ministerial union of Baltimore, the 11th ultimo, one minister, Mr. B. H. Abbott, declared that creeds were useless, and his argument is certainly a cogent one. He contended that “if a creed contains more than is expressed in the Bible, it is too much; if it contains less than is expressed in the Bible, it is too little, and if it contains the exact context of the Bible, it is unnecessary, because we have the Bible.”
The root origin of the creed is generally this: men fear that the Spirit of God can not lead the church. Of course, the fear does not come in that form. They think that they believe just right, that they understand God’s Word, and that therefore they must fix its interpretation for others. But this amounts to the declaration that God can not lead other men as well as the creed-builders.
JEHOVAH-NISSI
THE above term is a compound from the adorable name of our covenant-keeping God, and a word meaning signal, flagstaff, token, banner, ensign.
The occasion of its use was the great victory of Israel over the Amalekites through the manifest help of God. The Amalekites sprang from the fruit of the adulterous union between Esau’s son and a concubine named Timna. The mother of Eliphaz was a Hittite. In the whole people there seems to have been instilled a fierce hatred against God. So great was this enmity that Inspiration speaks of the Amalekites as “a hand against the throne of the Lord.” Ex. 17:16, margin. The descendants of Esau ought to have shown hospitality to the descendants of Jacob, Esau’s brother; but the “hand against the throne of the Lord” was against the Lord’s people; and what is the puny opposition of earth to the moving, yet unmovable, throne of the universe? And therefore when the hand of utter perverseness and hatred was turned against His people, God fought for them, and with the faithful co-operation of His servants, won a glorious triumph.
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua; that I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. And Moses built an altar, and called the name of it JEHOVAH-NISSI.” Ex. 17:14, 15. The expression means “Jehovah my banner,” margin.
It was a visible token that the most vindictive of Israel’s enemies, “the first of the nations” (Num. 24:20), should forever perish before the trusting people of God.
So the record comes to us as a blessed assurance. Man’s strongest, greatest foe is sin, personified in Satan, vindictive, revengeful, implacable, deceitful, destructive. But God gives victory over sin to every soul who will co-operate with Him. Let the man (or woman) who has conflict with the enemy, take the Word of God as Moses took “the rod of God,” and plead with Him. Let him persist in pleading. Let him persevere in his intercessions. Let him “continue instant in prayer,” whether at work or otherwise. In the strength of God he shall conquer the greatest of foes. And each victory that he wins will be a divine token that God will give continual victory. Over every battlefield he may raise aloft the ensign of “Jehovah-nissi,” the Lord my banner. Let him call others to that ensign. Tell them that victory lies only, but surely, under its streaming glory in the breezes of salvation. And thus it is that God has “given a banner to them that fear Thee, that it may be displayed because of the truth.” Ps. 60:4.
It is the banner of glorious victory—a victory that demands fullest co-operation on the part of the victors. For while the Lord declared of that hand against His throne, “I will utterly blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven,” and that “his latter end shall be that he perish forever” (Ex. 17:16; Num. 24:20), yet God commanded His people, “Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.” Deut. 25:19.
So God charges His people: “Wash you; make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before Mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well.” There must be no compromise with sin. We are to co-operate with Him, and he will give the victory; for is it not written: “He will subdue our iniquities; and Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea;” and, “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.” Micah 7:19; Phil. 2:13. Every victory shall be a victory of God and us. On every field will float the token of that victory, “Jehovah-nissi,” the banner of eternal triumph.
Is He Jehovah-nissi to you, reader? If not, why not?
THE REAL PURPOSE OF “NATIONAL REFORM.”
By G.
A resolution of the last National Reform Convention says, “The right and duty of the State to establish and maintain a system of public instruction free from sectarian bias and control, we deem fundamental to the State’s welfare.” Yet the National Reform Association persistently advocates a system of public instruction which logically would be dominated by sectarian bias. Any attempt to carry out the association’s scheme of teaching religion by the State must inevitably result in the formation by State authority of certain religious tenets that must be taught. Whenever the State undertakes to prescribe a course of religious teaching for the public schools, or for any other purpose, then we will have a State religion. No such thing could be done without “sectarian bias and control.”
Just a little retrospect will refresh the minds of some of our readers as to the aim of the National Reform Association; and the attention of all others is called to the fact that the same men, in the main, have been all along, and are yet, the manipulators of its policy. The Reformed Presbyterian for the month of January, 1870, published an article by Rev. James Wallace, in which he said, “The distinctive principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church are the principles, and the only principles, of National Reform.” Further along he said, “The principles of National Reform are our principles, and its work is our work.” To this was added, in italics, this emphatic declaration: “National Reform is simply the practical application of the principles of the Reformed Presbyterian Church for the reformation of the nation.”
This shows the character of the religious education by the State that would be acceptable to the National Reform Association. The movement originated in that church, and its leading men have been and are connected with that church. That church is a lineal descendant of the Scottish Covenanter Church, which is intensely Church and State in principle—and in practice when the opportunity comes her way. Such is its history. And a minister of this Reformed Presbyterian Church, who is also a prominent factor of the National Reform Association, said several years ago that he was “proud to belong to a denomination which appropriated $10,000 of its funds for political agitation each year.” Just how much is appropriated now we do not know; but this we do know: The money which that church spent for “political agitation” was spent mainly for overturning a fundamental principle of the government, namely, its distinctively secular character—the principle of Church and State separation. That none of such appropriation was spent in support of the government is evident from the fact that its members would not participate in the government, even so much as to vote, because it did not take on a religious phase and assume a religious function.
Therefore the foregoing facts show what the National Reform Association means by the “right and duty of the State to establish and maintain a system of public instruction free from sectarian bias and control.” Of course any sect that could get its “distinctive principles” established in the government, would scorn the idea of being termed a sect. If this were all of the demand, the present public school system would be their ideal. But they are opposed to that because it is not religious. A further expression of the same resolution confirms all that we have here represented, and reads as follows:—
We believe it to be the duty of Christian patriots to join in an effort to make our educational system thoroughly Christian.
This means “thoroughly Christian” from a Reformed Presbyterian-Covenanter-National Reform standpoint. And this is what all the various societies and church representatives of other denominations, who have given their encouragement to National Reformism, have really pledged themselves to sustain. It is but justice to say that many of them are not aware of all that is involved in their adherence to this association, but it is all there, nevertheless. National Reformers are not as bold as they used to be in declaring their intentions to “disfranchise,” to “banish,” or otherwise summarily deal with opponents, when the power came into their hands. They have learned that to gain adherents to their cause, they must be more politic, and show a more conservative front. But the State-religion idea has not been abandoned, and all that they have ever avowed is involved in it, no matter how fairly it may be presented to those who are susceptible to its wiles.
G.
HE SPEAKS TRULY.
A TOBACCONIST in Philadelphia, Printer’s Ink—the “Little Schoolmaster” in advertising—tells us, bulletins his pernicious wares in the following startling, frank way:—
“Pipes to Hit,
“Tobacco to Burn,
“Cigars to Light,
“Cigarets to Kill,
“At Prices which will paralyze you.”
“Pipes to hit everybody possible.” The pipe is a “hard hitter,” and the sufferer is not only the user, in shattered nerves, affected sight, weakened heart, and numerous other ills, but it poisons God’s pure air which others must breathe.
“Tobacco to burn,” and it burns not only itself out, but the very vitality of soul, mind, and body. Would that it all, seed, leaf, root, and branch, manufactured and unmanufactured, would burn up in one grand bonfire. There would be growling for a few weeks; but after that the world would bless God for the fire, and date a new era from that day.
“Cigars to light” the way to the saloon, to the gambling hell, to beer, and wine, and whisky-drinking, and perdition. The cigar light is an ignis fatuus of evil.
“Cigarets to kill.” The dealer speaks truly. They are killing thousands of the youth, and blighting the mentality of millions more, many of whom are worse than dead, walking lazar-houses of disease, infamy, and shame.
“At prices which will paralyze” every soul who buys and uses. The money paid, tho reaching way up into the millions, more than is paid for bread in “Christian” America, is small as compared with the price paid in benumbed consciences, in hardened sensibilities, in ruined morals, in ways paved to drunkenness, in the destruction of nervous energy: aye, even in the literally paralyzing influence upon the physical, mental, and moral man.
There are noble men who use the cursed weed,—noble despite the paralyzing influence of the thrice-poisoned drug. May God enlighten and save as many as desire it from the debasing influence of tobacco.
MAN-MADE “HOLY” DAYS.
By G.
The assumption that grows out of religion based on human sentimentality is sometimes appalling. For instance we find this expression in a religious exchange: “Thanksgiving, of all holy days by man appointed, one of the most sacred.” Where did man get the authority or the power to appoint holy days? How many days has man made more or less sacred?
Protestants always have denied the power of Rome to sanctify feasts, or to impart holiness to anything. But has not the Roman Church as much power in this respect as the President of the United States, or the governor of any State? Or whence did the New England pioneers derive authority to establish a sacred custom? Moreover, where is the proof that they ever made claim that Thanksgiving was a sacred day? A striking peculiarity of the Thanksgiving festival is that its appointment is altogether optional with the President; he, no matter what his character may be, no matter what his religion, or whether he professes any religion, must each year designate this “holy” day; it is his authority alone that makes it a “sacred” day.
But the assumption by Protestants that man may appoint holy days, is a surrender of Protestant principle. If man has that power, then the church has the power; therefore Rome’s assumption of such power is correct, and Protestantism has no standing ground. The doctrine of the infallibility of the pope as head of the church in earth, logically grew out of that very assumption. The adoption of Sunday as a holy day, and the formal rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, was the work of the Roman Church; therefore the recognition of Sunday as a holy day by Protestants is an acknowledgment of Rome’s authority in such matters. And Rome is right in charging them with inconsistency in not acknowledging her authority in other respects.
But this seed of Romanism, which Protestants have so long nurtured in their creeds, is bearing fruit in the observance of other so-called holy days, and in adherence to unscriptural dogmas. This is notable in the observance of Easter with much pomp and ceremony; also in the many absurd ideas growing out of the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead; and quite conspicuously in the demands for religious legislation—in other words, the principles of Church and State union. Leading professed Protestants are wont to boast of the growing harmony between Catholics and Protestants in methods of work, pertaining to both religious and political objects. At the same time leading Catholics are boasting that “Rome never changes.” We have plenty of evidence, aside from this boast, that Rome does not change, and prophetic assurance that she will not change; but somebody is changing, else there would not be this marked drawing together, with the trend all in the direction of Rome. G.
