A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN. NO. 17.
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.
HISTORIANS still recognize the importance of the date 476 [A.D.] as that which left the bishop of Rome the dominant personage in Italy and marked the shifting of the political center of gravity from the Palatine to the Lateran. THIS WAS ONE OF THOSE SUBTLE CHANGES WHICH ESCAPES NOTICE UNTIL AFTER SOME OF THEIR EFFECTS HAVE ATTRACTED ATTENTION.—John Fiske.357The object of this article will be to tell what the Holy Roman Empire was, and in the narration of the facts setting forth what it was, to show clearly what it was for. To write the factual history of this extraordinary, impracticable, sublime, yet ridiculous, religio-political governmental monstrosity is not the design of this paper. To do this would require a good-sized book. We will therefore confine ourselves to the theory upon which the Holy Roman Empire was built, rather than to the facts which make up the annals of its career.
The old Roman Empire, that is, the Pagan Roman Empire, was a despotism of the worst sort. This is a fact so patent that it needs no proof here. In it the pagan Church was allied with the pagan State; but the church was subordinate to the State. The deities of those days were only great because they had been made so by the Roman State. The Romans used to create their gods. And after they had made them, they mocked at them; that is, all the educated and intelligent Romans did; for they knew that their creations (these gods) were humbugs of the completest kind, to be used in duping the common people on matters of State. So Seneca in his tract "Against Superstition" wrote:—
The whole of that vulgar crowd of gods which for ages past a protean superstition has been accumulating, we shall worship in this sense, viz., that we ever remember the worship we pay them is due rather to good manners than to their own worth. All such rites the sage will observe, because they are commanded by the laws, not because they are pleasing to the gods.
In the Pagan Empire the religion was "an integral of the political constitution, a matter far more of national or tribal or family feeling than of personal." When Constantine adopted Christianity as the religion of the State, and threw off the languid paganism of his times, he adopted a system which hitherto had never been "an integral part of the political constitution," but which "was already a great political force, able, and no more able than willing, to repay him by aid and submission."
Now since the Christian Church "was already a great political force," it was impossible to make her an "integral part of the political constitution" in the same way and on the same basis that the pagan church had been. The ministers of the pagan church had ever been willing to be obedient servants of the State. The pagan church had been perfectly content to be the submissive wife of the pagan State, a domineering husband. The Christian church was equally determined to be the domineering mistress of a submissive State, a passive and pliant husband. It is therefore manifest that, with the feelings existing in the Christian church, she could never be identical with the civil power in the same way that the pagan church had been. She therefore became the counterpart of the State, and, in due process of time, elevated herself to the paramount place in all things in heaven and in earth, in civils and in spirituals. Then well indeed might Pope Boniface VIII. show himself to the crowding pilgrims at the Jubilee of 1300 A.D., seated on the throne of Rome, equipped with scepter, crown, and sword, shouting aloud, "I am Cæsar! I am emperor!"
Constantine the Great,—"great," in the elegant language of Dean Stanley, "rather by what he did than by what he was," gave to the fallen Christian church an ecclesiastical organization, which was the exact counterpart of the civil administration. For every civil officer there was a corresponding ecclesiastical functionary. How bitterly did his successors rue the day when he thus forged fetters which in after days bound them like bands of iron! That nothing of permanence can be accomplished without organization is an undisputed fact. And the more oppressive the proposed despotism, the more perfect must be the organization designed to carry it out. Pagan Rome was a despotic power, and to the perfection of her organization the united voices of governmental theorists in all ages since declare. And when her first Christian emperor gave to the fallen church an organization similar in every detail to that of the State, he placed in her hands that which was afterwards to become a terrible engine of tyranny to be used against his own successors with fearful success.
The pagan religion of the old empire was extinguished by Theodosius I. A.D. 379–395; but the empire itself lingered on in the West until A.D. 476. Then it was that Odoacer, chief of the barbaric Heruli, "sent the handsome boy Romulus, son of Orestes, better known as 'Little Augustus,' from his imperial throne to the splendid villa of Tucullus, near Naples, and gave him a yearly pension of $35,000 [6,000 solidi] to console him for the loss of a world."
While it is true that the old Roman Empire of the West passed away in A.D. 476, when Odoacer became patrician—while this is true in an attenuated sense, in the strictest sense it is not true at all. The real truth of the situation is summed up by John Fiske in the language which forms the motto of this treatise, and which, for the sake of perspicuity, we quote again, viz., "Historians still recognize the importance of the date 476 as that which left the bishop of Rome the dominant personage in Italy, and marked the shifting of the political center of gravity from the Palatine to the Lateran."
Such is the significance in verity of 476 A.D. For by the events which occurred in 476 the papal church secured such a foothold upon things political that all power was indeed removed from the Palatine to the Lateran—from the seat of the empire to the chair of St. Peter.
This transition of power came about after this manner: Odoacer, the barbarian conqueror of Italy, compelled, as has been said, Romulus Augustus to relinquish his throne. He then commanded a deputation from the Senate to journey to the Eastern court at Constantinople and lay the insignia of royalty at the feet of the reigning emperor, Zeno. This act was not regarded by those living at that time as the extinction of the Roman Empire of the West, but merely as a reunion of the empire of the West with that of the East under one head, as in days of old. And it is true that there was no legal extinction of the empire of the West at all. Rome (Papal) afterwards made great use of this to her own aggrandizement.
To Odoacer was given the title of PATRICIAN—one pregnant with meaning to after ages. This title had been introduced by Constantine "at a time when its original meaning had been long forgotten; it was designed to be, and for a while remained, the name, not of an office, but of a rank, the highest after those of emperor and consul. Gradually it came to express 'undefined authority,' implying 'in particular the duty of overseeing the church and promoting her temporal interests. It is usually associated with the terms 'defensor' and 'protector.'"
Now legally this title could of right emanate from the incumbent of the imperial throne alone. But early in century eight the Roman bishop threw off the yoke of the Eastern Empire because the latter did not believe in the worship of images. Gregory III. was the reigning pope. Freed from the emperors of the East, he was in immediate peril from the Lombard sovereigns of North Italy. In his dilemma he appealed to Charles Martel, mayor of the Frankish palace, and virtual ruler of the Frankish realm, begging him to haste to the succor of the Holy Church. Charles Martel died before he could obey the summons; but Pepin, his son, surnamed the Short, made good use of the new friendship with Rome. There is something interesting about this scene in the drama.
Charles Martel desired the throne of the Franks for himself and his line (the Carolingian). There was no earthly reason why he should have it any more than the Merovingian line, which had held it ever since the days of Clovis, who was the real founder of the Frankish monarchy.
The Carolingians were therefore clearly usurpers. They knew it and the Frankish (French) nation knew it, and they knew that the Frankish nation knew it, and would resist their illegal endeavors to secure the throne. The pope wanted protection from the Arian Lombard heretics. He also wanted to be a temporal sovereign in Italy. The Carolingian wanted the Frankish throne. "I know you are a rascal; but if you will defend me from the Lombard, I will tell the good Catholic nation of the Franks that your claim to the throne is a valid and a holy one, and they will accept you without a blow. Moreover, I will depose Childeric, the present Frankish king of the Merovingian line." "Agreed, said the Carolingian, and the bargain was struck." Says Bryce:—
A course was taken whose dangers no one then foresaw: the Holy See, now for the first time invoked as an international power, pronounced the deposition of Childeric, and gave to the royal office of his successor, Pepin, a sanctity hitherto unknown, adding to the old Frankish election, which consisted in raising the chief on a shield amid the clash of arms, the Roman diadem, and the Hebrew rite of anointing.
This does not speak very well for infallibility. It does not speak very well for Rome's first escapade in trying to arrange the internal affairs of a European nation. She took the side of a usurper, one whom the nation would not have received had it not been for the cloak of sanctity which she threw over his crimes. She is indeed a faithless friend, ever ready to barter her services to him who is the highest bidder, and who promises to be the most docile ally.
Pepin's son Charles, or Charlemagne, succeeded his father to the Frankish crown and the Roman diadem. At the bidding of Pope Hadrian he crossed the Alps, and in a single campaign annihilated the power of the Lombards.
He immediately proceeded to Rome with his triumphant troops, "the first," says the historian above quoted, "to find her love more deadly than her hate." "He yielded to the pontiff the place of honor in processions, and renewed . . . the gift of the Exarchate and Pentapolis, which Pepin had made to the Roman Church twenty years before."
In A.D. 796 Pope Leo III. succeeded Pope Hadrian. And on Christmas day A.D. 800 he crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Romans, in the basilica of St. Peter. Before gazing at the scene itself, or at the consequences of the scene, let us glance for a moment at the motives which had led each of the principal actors to play their part in the dramatic role.358To be called "emperor of the Romans" was an empty honor to the Frankish chief. But the name aroused his vanity. When this has been said about Charlemagne, there has been said, as far as we know, the worst thing that can be urged against him in this particular connection.
How now stands the case of the popes? Let Sir James Bryce answer:—
The policy of the popes was prompted by motives less noble. Ever since the extinction of the Western Empire had emancipated the ecclesiastical potentate from secular control, the first and most abiding object of his schemes and prayers had been the acquisition of territorial wealth in the neighborhood of his capital. He had indeed a sort of justification—for Rome, a city with neither trade nor industry, was crowded with poor, for whom it devolved on the bishop to provide. Yet the pursuit was one which could not fail to pervert the purposes of the popes and give a sinister character to all they did. It was this fear for the lands of the church far more than for religion or the safety of the city—neither of which were really endangered by the Lombard attacks—that had prompted their passionate appeals to Charles Martel and Pepin; it was now the well grounded hope of having these possessions confirmed and extended by Pepin's greater son that made the Roman ecclesiastics so forward in his cause. And it was the same lust after worldly wealth and pomp, mingled with the dawning prospect of an independent principality, that now began to seduce them into a long course of guile and intrigue.
And now the Holy Roman Empire was really set up—strange fabric of a strange age. And the steps of the Papacy to bring about this desired end had been marked, as has been seen, by trickery and cunning. Craft prospers ever in her wicked hand. The worst has not yet been told. The pope gave the Roman diadem to Charlemagne; but it was not his to give. He did not own it. No vote of the people had ever given it to him. He had no more right to give it to Charlemagne than I have a right to take your property and give it to your neighbor. His action was illegal, unlawful. He showed that God had named him aright "that lawless one." History and historians can never denounce this flagrant usurpation too strongly. The pope took good care that the legal side of his act should not be discussed—a practice which the Papacy has steadfastly adhered to—and the greatest fact that stood out to posterity was that the crown was bestowed by the pontiff. This fact the Papacy advertised far and wide, while all facts of a legal nature she sedulously avoided. This is the character of the Papacy now and always.
(To be continued.)
THE LORD'S PRAYER. NO. 3.
By Elder R. A. Underwood
BY ELDER R. A. UNDERWOOD.
"GIVE us this day our daily bread." Here the term "bread" is used as a symbol of all the life-sustaining elements necessary to man's physical and spiritual wants. Notice, the petition asks not for man's future needs but for "this day." A merchant in a Western State advertised over his counter: "To-day we sell our goods for cash; to-morrow we give them away." He was safe; to-morrow never comes. All that we need is to-day. This prayer is the fullest expression of a living faith in our God. Oh, that we might grasp, the perfect trust that is expressed in this petition! Then there would be no worrying about the future.
The most of the trouble in this world is that which comes only in our imagination. We make ourselves miserable, and everyone around us, by worrying and fretting about something that we are afraid is going to happen, or about what we are to eat, drink, or wear. When we have done what we can in God's order, why should we worry? All this fear, and miserable, wearing, anticipated trouble, is of Satan. Why should we borrow trouble of the father and dispenser of all trouble? But this is what millions are doing all the time. If we have been dealing in this kind of traffic, let us stop right where we are, and henceforth believe that our Father is able and ready to supply "our daily bread." Thus we shall know that "perfect love casteth out fear," and with the fear will go all the torment of our lives. Why not let it go? We have read what God has said on this point, but we have not half believed that God meant just what he said. Let us read it again:—
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your Heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? . . . Wherefore, if God so clothed the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? . . . for your Heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." Matt. 6: 25–33.
"For the Lord God is a sun and shield; the Lord will give grace and glory; no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly." Ps. 84: 11.
"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." Rom. 8: 28.
It is not God's plan or will to give us grace to-day for to-morrow. He gives grace for to-day, for the present, now, and this is all that we shall ever need.
It is said of one of the martyrs that, while he was being led from the dungeon to the stake, he was asked by his persecutors, with the hope that he would recant, if he were ready to be burned for his faith. He replied, "No, I am not; but I have grace to be led to the stake." When he reached the place of execution, the same question was repeated. His reply was, "No, but I have grace to be tied." When this was done, the same was repeated. He replied, "No, but I now have grace to have the fagots piled around me." When this was done, the officer said, "Are you ready to be burned for your faith?" He still replied, "No, but you can light the fire if you wish." One that stood by said, "If God gives grace in your expiring moments equal to your need, lift your hands toward heaven." Slowly, but surely, the flames did their work, and by and by the hands of the trusting servant of God were lifted heavenward. Blessed be God that, where sin abounds, grace does "much more abound." So when trials and persecutions abound, grace does much more abound if we trust God as a "present help in trouble." Ps. 46: 1.
Present help is all that we need now, or ever will need, and we have the promise of present help if we seek it by faith. Then away with all the dark forebodings of the dark future. Let us live in the sunlight of God's present blessings.
"And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." In this we ask God to forgive us our sins against him as we forgive those that sin against us. We sometimes hear it said that this is a dangerous prayer to ask of God. But it matters not whether we ask God to deal with us in the same manner that we do with our fellow-men or not, God will act on this principle with us when our case comes up for final judgment. Many go through this life with hatred in their hearts and holding grudges against their neighbors or brethren, yet they expect that God will take them into heaven with the pure and lovely at last. Oh, what a disappointment such are doomed to experience when it is too late to forgive those who may have wronged them!
Few study the word of God upon this point; nevertheless, God speaks clear and positive upon it: "And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any [why?]; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses." Mark 11: 25. "Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned; behold, the Judge standeth before the door." James 5: 9.
Do you not see that the promise of forgiveness is predicated upon the fact that we forgive if we have "ought against any"? We are to forgive, it matters not whether we are asked to do so or not. God deals with us on the principle of mercy, treating us better than we deserve. He prayed for those who put him to death, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." Luke 23: 34. It is often the case when we are injured by others that they know not or realize not359what they have done. When we hold this against them, or demand that they shall humble themselves before us and ask our forgiveness before we forgive them, we in this sever our connection with Christ, and are lost, lost to all eternity, unless we repent of this sin and forgive them from the heart. We can turn the injury over to Christ, and this we will do if we are his, and his life is in us. Then the injury is done to Christ and not to us. Why not, then, let Christ take care of all such matters? We can safely leave it with him to deal with the individual. Oh, what a load this would take from many a sad heart! This is what James 2:13 means: "Judgment is merciless for him who has not practiced mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment." (Emphatic Diaglott.) When we practice this way of disposing of all our injuries, real or imaginary (and many are only imaginary), then mercy and love triumph over this wicked spirit of judging our fellow-creatures. Praise God that we can pray, with a depth of meaning and in faith, "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."
A MARKED DIFFERENCE.
By W. N. Glenn
BY W. N. GLENN.
CHRIST taught and practiced non-resistance against insult (Luke 6: 28, 29), and his true disciples have always followed this principle (1 Thess. 5: 15). It is not recorded that he kept an armed body guard to punish those who were so ill mannered as to insult him. We read of his rebuking his followers for suggesting the summary punishment of such offenders. Luke 9: 54–56; John 18: 11.
The pope assumes to be the "vicar of Christ," and poses as the head of the church on earth. But the papal manner of sustaining the dignity of the position is quite different from that of the Master. When the people are admitted to an audience with the pope, the Vatican etiquette obliges them, no matter what their religion may be, to kneel when he draws near. The Catholic News tells of a young man, a tutor in the family of an English duke, who thought to disregard the requirement at an audience with Leo XIII., and declined to kneel. The News continues the narrative as follows:—
There are four gigantic Swiss that follow the Holy Father as he moves about during an audience. One of these men seems to be about six feet eight inches in height, and his helmet, with its upright plume, makes him as big as St. Christopher. The tutor stood there defiant, asking with his eyes, "What do you intend to do about it?" If he really had any doubt as to what was to be done, the doubt was soon dispelled. The pope noticed the insult to his dignity, and he whispered to the Swiss, "Remove him." The fellow was removed so thoroughly that when he reached the Vatican door he must have thanked heaven, if he had any gratitude in him, that the Swiss are not Irish. When the news reached the duke's hotel, the tutor's baggage was removed to the sidewalk. The duke dismissed him from his service, and the English colony sent an apology to the pope.
A BAPTIST DOCTOR ON SUNDAY LAWS.
[The following report was written for another paper four years ago, and has never appeared in the SIGNS. How Dr. Reed now stands we do not know; we hope the same; but the truth he then uttered is always timely, and we commend it once more to our Baptist brethren, wishing that we could give in cold type the power which accompanied what the speaker said.]
A BAPTIST Bible Conference was held in the First Baptist Church, Oakland, April 2, 3, and 4. Several subjects were considered, among them being the "Lord's Day," Rev. Daniel Read, D.D., instructor. This gentleman is a thorough scholar, having been president of an Illinois college for some years, and withal a strict observer of Sunday, so much so that when he came to California he paid one hundred dollars extra for his conscience, so that he and his family could stop over on Sunday instead of traveling on that day.
His subject in the regular program of the conference dealt only with the religious phase of the question, he of course holding that Sunday was of divine authority. At the close of the lesson the question was asked, "Doctor, do you believe in a Sunday law?" The reply came at once, "No, sir." "But do you not believe in a Sunday law for the protection of workingmen?" The reply was that working men are already protected. "But," it was argued, "here is a railway which runs on Sunday and employs on that day one hundred men; ought not those men to be protected?" The doctor's reply was: "They are protected. No one compels them to work. You have no right to say the railroad may not run on that day, or that people shall not go to picnics on that day, or work on that day. It is a sin for men to break the sabbath, but that matter we have nothing to do with. They have a right to employ men on the sabbath, if men wish to work."
The doctor said that his brethren seemed to have wrong ideas about protection. Men are now protected against working on Sunday. The railroad could not compel a man to work if the man did not wish to work. No man could be compelled to sin. The railroad authorities simply gave men their choice—work or quit. They could quit and seek work elsewhere. "But," the question was further urged, "supposing it was work or starve?" "Then," said the doctor, "Let them starve. Men have endured greater things than that for conscience' sake. You would not have Christians a lot of children, would you?"
The doctor went on to show that a Sunday law would make men worse, for if they desired now to cease labor in order to worship God on Sunday, they could do so; and if they did not wish to spend the time in that way, all that a law would result in would be compulsory idleness; and Satan always finds something for the idle to do. And then when would we stop this legislation? We do not believe that the laboring man would get any good at the Roman Catholic Church. The Unitarian Church dishonors Christ. Men had better be at work. To be logical, we would not only have to compel people to attend church, but would have to compel them to attend the Baptist Church. He said it would be better for the drunkard if he worked all the time.
It was said, "Suppose that a German band should stop before a church door on Sunday during service, and there play and sing; what would you do?" "Arrest them for a nuisance," was the reply. "They have no right to disturb a religious meeting at any time."
Then a lady made a pathetic appeal for the boys against the Sunday saloons, which seduced and led away the guileless youth. What would the doctor do with these wolves which were devouring the lambs? He replied that he would go much farther than the sister; he believed in the absolute prohibition of the liquor traffic for all the time; and as regards the wolves, did not Christ say to his disciples, "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves"? We are not to escape the temptations of this life. While we should not be of the world, yet are we in the world. But in whatever path we go, we may know that the great Shepherd is near. Sheep have little power to defend, but the Shepherd, who is ever watching, will care for the sheep.
But the question between classes was not yet over. One member asked, "Supposing that our Adventist friends were worshiping down here in their church on Twelfth Street, and the next door to them were a number of carpenters at work on a building; ought the carpenters to stop?" "They ought," replied the doctor. "The Adventists have vested rights, and they have a right to worship, and ought to be protected." This, however, did not satisfy. Another asked, "What if the carpenters outnumbered the Adventists; what then? Ought they to stop?"
"Brethren," said the doctor, and the venerable man grew eloquent, "this is not a question of numbers, but of RIGHT. If there is but one man and the millions of this country are against him, he has his rights equal to theirs; no matter whether he is an Adventist, a Jew, or a miserable Chinaman, whom everybody thinks he has the privilege of kicking, who desires to worship Joss in a Joss house, no one has a right to interfere with him."
"When," the doctor asked, "did the church of God gain the greatest victories? Was it when all the pomp and power of the world were given her? Or was it otherwise? She gained her greatest victories when all the world was against her, and when her children laid down their lives for the word of God. Sunday laws were contrary to all Baptist tradition, and, what is more, they were contrary to the teachings of Christ."
This is but a mild abstract of the doctor's reasons and answers so admirably and forcibly put. May Baptists and Christians everywhere read and ponder.
THE DEVIL'S MISSION OF AMUSEMENT.
By Archibald C. Brown
(Concluded.)
[The following is from a tract by Rev. Archibald C. Brown, of East London (England) Tabernacle, published by Fleming H. Revell Co., New York.]
HOW DID the apostles carry on their mission work? Was it in harmony with their teaching? Let the Acts of the Apostles give the answer. Anything approaching the worldly fooling of to-day is conspicuous by its absence. The early evangelists had boundless confidence in the power of the gospel, and employed no other weapon. Pentecost followed plain preaching. When Peter and John had been locked up for the night for preaching the resurrection, the early church had a prayer meeting directly they returned, and the petition offered for the two was, "And now, Lord, . . . grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word." They had no thought of praying, "Grant unto thy servants more policy, that by a wise, discriminating use of innocent recreation they may avoid the offense of the cross, and sweetly show this people how happy and merry a lot we are."
The charge brought against the apostles by the members of the council was, "Ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine." Not much chance of this charge being brought against modern methods. The description of their work is, "And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ." Then, if they "ceased not" from this, they had no time for arranging for entertainments; they gave themselves continually "to the ministry of the word." Scattered by persecution, the early disciples "went everywhere preaching the word." . . .
The congregations in those days did not expect anything but the word of the Lord, for Cornelius says to Peter, "We are all here present before God, to hear all things that are commanded thee of God." The message given was "words whereby thou and all thine house shall be saved." Cause and effect are closely linked in the statement that men of Cyrene "spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them; and a great number believed and turned to the Lord." Here you have their method—they preached. Their matter—the Lord Jesus. Their power—the hand of the Lord was with them. Their success—many believed.
What more does the church of God require to-day?
When Paul and Barnabas worked together, the record is, "The Lord gave testimony unto the word of his grace." When Paul, in a vision, hears a man of Macedonia saying, "Come over and help us," he assuredly gathers that the Lord had called him to preach the gospel unto them. Why so? How did he know but that the help needed was the brightening of their lives by a little amusement, or the refining of their manners by a collection of paintings? He never thought of such a thing. "Come and help us" meant to him, "Preach the gospel." "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures"—not about the Scriptures, mark, but out of them—"opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead." That was the "manner" of evangelistic work in those days, and it seems to have been wonderfully powerful; for the verdict of the people was, "These that have turned the world upside down are come hither8also."
Just now the world is turning the church upside down; that is the only difference.
When God told Paul that he had much people in Corinth, I read, "And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them." Evidently, then, he judged that the only way to bring them out was by the word. A year and a half, and only one method adopted. Wonderful! We should have had a dozen in that time. But then Paul never reckoned that providing something pleasant for the ungodly was part of his ministry; for on his way to Jerusalem and martyrdom, he says, "Neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God." This was all the ministry he knew. The last description we have of the methods of this prince of evangelists is of a piece with all that has gone before: "He expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening," "preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus." What a contrast to all the nonsense now being perpetrated in the holy name of Christ! The Lord clear the church of all the rubbish that the devil has imposed upon her, and bring us back again to apostolic methods!
Lastly, the mission of amusement utterly fails to effect the desired end among the unsaved; but it works havoc among the young converts. Were it a success, it would be none the less wrong. Success belongs to God; faithfulness to his instructions, to me. But amusement is not a success. Test it even by this and it is a contemptible failure. . . .
Let us see the converts who have been first won by amusement. Let the harlot and the drunkard to whom a dramatic entertainment has been God's first link in the chain of their conversion, stand forth. Let the careless and the scoffers who have ceased to thank God that the church has relaxed her spirit of separation and met them half way in their worldliness, speak and testify. Let the husbands, wives, and children who rejoice in a new, holy home through "Sunday evening lectures on social questions," tell out their joy. Let the weary, heavy-laden souls who have found peace through a concert, no longer keep silent. Let the men and women who have found Christ through the reversal of apostolic methods, declare the same, and show the greatness of Paul's blunder when he said, "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." There is neither voice nor any to answer. The failure is on a par with the folly, and as huge as the sin. Out of thousands with whom I have personally conversed, the mission of amusement has claimed no convert.
Now let the appeal be made to those who, repudiating every other method, have staked everything on the Book and the Holy Ghost. Let them be challenged to produce results. There is no need. . . . Ten thousand times ten thousand voices are ready to declare that the plain preaching of the word was, first and last, the cause of their salvation.
But how about the other side of this matter—what are the baneful effects? Are they also nil? I will here solemnly, as before the Lord, give my personal testimony. Though I have never seen a sinner saved, I have seen any number of backsliders manufactured by this new departure. Over and over again young Christians, and sometimes Christians who are not young, have come to me in tears, and asked what they were to do, as they had lost all their peace and fallen into evil. Over and over again has the confession been made, "I began to go wrong by attending worldly amusements that Christians patronized." It is not very long since that a young man, in an agony of soul, said to me: "I never thought of going to the theater until my minister put it into my head by preaching that there was no harm in it. I went, and it has led me from bad to worse, and now I am a miserable backslider; and he is responsible for it."
When young converts begin to "damp off," forsake the gatherings for prayer, and grow worldly, I almost always find that worldly Christianity is responsible for the first downward step. The mission of amusement is the devil's half-way house to the world. It is because of what I have seen that I feel deeply, and would fain write strongly. This thing is working rottenness in the church of God, and blasting her service for the King. In the guise of Christianity it is accomplishing the devil's own work. Under the pretense of going out to reach the world, it is carrying our sons and daughters into the world. With the plea of, "Do not alienate the masses by your strictness," it is seducing the young disciples from "the simplicity and the purity that is toward Christ" (Revised Version). Professing to win the world, it is turning the garden of the Lord into a public recreation ground. . . .
It will be no wonder if the Holy Ghost, grieved and insulted, withdraws his presence; for what concord hath Christ with Belial, and what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
"Come out," is the call for to-day. Sanctify yourselves. Put away the evil from among you. Cast down the world's altars and cut down her groves. Spurn her offered assistance. Decline her help, as your Master did the testimony of devils, for he suffered them not to speak, because they knew him. Renounce all the policy of the age. Trample upon Saul's armor. Grasp the Book of God. Trust the Spirit who wrote its pages. Fight with this weapon only, and always. Cease to amuse; seek to arouse. Shun the clap of a delighted audience, and listen for the sobs of a convicted one. . . .
Let the church again confront the world; testify against it; meet it only behind the cross; and, like her Lord, she shall overcome, and, with him, share the victory.
TREES OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.
By W. T. Heald
BY W. T. HEALD.
Just as in spring the oak takes upon itself the covering of new leaves, so in the new birth the Christian takes upon himself the soft but substantial shades of divine grace, beneath which the weary traveler may rest his soul and delight himself in the glories of a new creation.
Fresh from the hand of God as was Adam in the Garden of Eden, he becomes a creature of inspired and inspiring hope, to behold which is a comfort and relief to the soul longing for full and free salvation. In him the longing soul feels to repose its trust, yet never does the renewed feel himself worthy to hold in his own keeping the precious soul of a brother; but to his great Master he offers the honor of trust, and it is accepted of him as a jewel of rarest worth.
How delightful it is to be clothed upon with the Spirit of God! Then is everything seen in a new and brighter light. The trees themselves seem to glory in their gift of new leaves, and we, having come in touch with creation itself, glory in the same God, whose bounties have given leaves to the trees and graces to his children.