1. Of the "Apostolic Fathers" whose writings bear some semblance to genuineness, neither Clement, Hermes, Polycarp, nor Papias mention Sunday in any way, observing the same silence noticeable in the New Testament, for, although in the New Testament the first day of the week is mentioned, yet, without enlargement or emendations, one would never think of it as the Sabbath day.
2. Near the middle of the second century, when, as I have before shown, the church was overwhelmed by Gentiles from all the religions and philosophies of polytheism, Justin mentions the Sunday as a day of assembly at Rome. For, although born in Samaria, he traveled extensively, and was at Rome when he addressed the apology to Antoninus Pius (138-140 A.D.), according to Du Pin. It should be remembered that Rome, the mistress of the world, was the seat of Satan, the centralization of heathenism. Sunday at this time, according to Justin, was but a voluntary festival, not a sabbath; nothing is more certain in history than this; for Justin expresses his opinion, and, presumably, the opinion of the Roman Church at that time, that no sabbath was given to the Christians, or that, indeed, every day is a sabbath. He distinctively abrogates the Decalogue and the Sabbath law over and over again, asserting that the "new law requires you to keep a perpetual Sabbath;" that to be idle a day is nothing, and "the Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances;" and accordingly we find the whole school, from Justin down,—Clement, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, expressing this identical doctrine. They would scorn to keep a Sabbath day as such.
But Justin did not even call the first day "the Lord's day," neither does anyone before the time of Clement and Tertullian. It is with him "the day after that of Saturn," or "the day of the sun," or "the day called Sunday." We may conclude that the Roman Church, and many of the Western churches leavened in a like manner, were in possession of the Sunday festival in Justin's day. So, coming on a little later to the times of Clement and Tertullian, who both died about the year A.D. 220, we find the festival is commonly held, and now beginning to be called "the Lord's day." Twice over Tertullian was driven to defend and exonerate his brethren from the charge of sun worship, "because it is a well-known fact that we pray toward the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity." Here he makes, on the part of some, the Sunday festivities a sufficient reason for thinking them to be sun worshipers, evidently showing to us that sun worshipers observed the day in the same manner.
ORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
3. It is time for us now to look to the Gentile practice of Sunday keeping, to show from whence the church received her precedent. According to the straight testimony of Sozomen, the historian, and also according to the testimony of Nicephorus, Sunday was kept throughout Greece, and, presumably, all the East, in honor of their chief god, the sun. Religious syncretism came to its height in Rome when Elagabalus, an Assyrian priest of the sun god, for whom he was named, came to the throne of the Roman Empire. The sun god was brought from Emesa to Rome. This Persian Mithras, the sun god of Elagabalus, came to be the patron of the warriors, and wherever the Roman armies went, there the images and caves of Mithras have been found; for his worship was always held in a cave. The one at Rome extended deep into Capitoline Hill. For all this we have the sure testimony of Uhlhorn. And to this Persian sun god, which came most universally to be worshiped, the Sunday was dedicated; for Elagabalus was contemporary with Tertullian, who said that Christians were accounted sun worshipers because they made Sunday a day of festivity. With reference to this, Tertullian said further, "Oh, thus believe that the sun is our god; we shall be accounted Persians, perhaps, though we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth!" And, further, he says to the sun worshipers, "It is you, at all events, who have even admitted the sun into the calendar of the week, and you have selected its day" for "taking rest and banqueting."
We may see, therefore, that the Assyrian and Grecian custom of Sunday keeping came to its height in Rome in the times of Elagabalus and Tertullian. One hundred and twenty-one years after Tertullian wrote, Constantine made a famous Sunday edict, which I will quote:—
Let all judges, and all city people, and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and at full liberty attend to the culture of their fields, since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines; hence the favorable times should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of harvest be lost.6
"It seemed especially shameful," said the emperor, "that the sun's day, so celebrated for its venerable character, should be passed in brawls or legal controversies." Constantine was not a Christian, and this was not a Christian edict. "The sun's day, so celebrated for its venerable character," had been celebrated from of old, as we have shown. It was the sun's day, not Christ's day. Moreover, it is well known that the manners, morals, and religion of ancient Egypt were transferred to Greece, whence the "venerable day," covered with a mantle of hoary antiquity, was transferred to Rome; and everybody ought to know that sun worship was in its youth, its glory, its strength, in Egypt. The sun gods Ra and Osiris were everywhere worshiped, as will be seen by consulting the monolith transferred from Egypt to Central Park, New York, some years ago. "The sun god Ra ordained his victories in every land," is a model of the many inscriptions thereon. The word "pha-ra-oh," given to all the kings of Egypt, indicates a worshiper of Ra. The wonderful temple of Baalbeck was "the house of Baal," in Egypt. The sun god Baal is simply another name in another language of the same god. Morer, a learned divine and historian of England, says: "It is not to be denied that we borrow the name of this day from the ancient Greeks and Romans, and we allow that the old Egyptians worshiped the sun, and, as a standing memorial of their veneration, dedicated this day to him." So says Jennings, in "Jewish Antiquities."
What havoc sun worship wrought in ancient Israel one can scarcely realize who has not read the Old Testament with reference to it. The sun god Bel, Baal, Belus, or Belinus, was worshiped from Babylon and India to England, and whoever reads ancient Scandinavian theology will find that our forefathers from the north of Germany were sun worshipers, and kept Sunday. (See "Imperial Dictionary," art. Sunday.) I will also quote from Vestergan:—
The most ancient Germans being pagans, and having appropriated their first day of the week to the peculiar adoration of the sun, whereof that day doth yet, in our English tongue, retain the name of Sunday, and appropriated the next day unto it unto the especial adoration of the moon, whereof it yet retaineth with us the name of Monday, etc.
So Tuisco, and Woden, and Thor, and Frigga, and Saturn gave names to the rest of the week—names which we still retain. No wonder the sun's day was so celebrated for its venerable character in Constantine's time. It was about as old as the world itself, the eternal rival of the true Sabbath, "the wild solar holiday of all pagan times." And the "pagan Christians," as Uhlhorn calls them, thought best to retain their honorable and aged institution still, together with the Saturnalia, Matronalia, and various other festivals which came down to us in the Catholic Church, as I have before shown, for so ordered Gregory; and Tertullian declared that the church was one with the heathen in the celebration of these old-time pagan church days. Milman says, referring to Constantine's edict:—
The act would be received by the greater part of the empire as merely adding one more festival to the fasti of the empire, as proceeding entirely from the will of the emperor, or even grounded on his authority as supreme pontiff [of the pagan religion, an office which he held until his death], by which he had the plenary power of appointing holy days. In fact, as we have before observed, the day of the sun would be willingly hallowed by almost all the pagan world, especially that part which had admitted any tendency toward the oriental theology.
(Concluded next week.)
PROHIBITION IN IOWA.
By Elder J. O. Beard
(Continued.)
THE THIRD FAILURE.
DURING all these years prohibition was a leading issue in all State campaigns. Through that and other means the Democrats elected a governor for two terms from January, 1890, to January, 1894. During his administration the efforts at enforcement rapidly declined, for the reasons already given, and also because the governor pardoned a large portion of those who were convicted.
That the law was in many cases a dead letter was evident from the fact that in many towns in the interior, as well as along the borders of the State, open saloons were common. And into other towns liquor was shipped in large quantities, sometimes secretly but often openly. And while the saloon element daily grew bolder, one seldom heard of their trial and conviction.
These statements were easily verified by anyone who was a close observer. The town in which this is written has a population of nearly 3,000. It has no open saloons, but from one who had been engaged in selling liquor it was learned that at six or seven places it was kept for sale, besides four drug stores. Drunken men could be met on the streets almost any day, and yet no effort appeared to be made to prosecute the offenders.
Having twice elected a governor, and almost gained control of the Legislature, the Democrats advocated more boldly than ever their demand for license. The Republican party became alarmed at their loss of power, and last year said:—
The Republicans of Iowa in State convention declare:—
That prohibition is no test of Republicanism. The general assembly has given to the State a prohibitory law as strong as any that has ever been enacted by any country. Like any other criminal statute, its retention, modification, or repeal must be determined by the general assembly, elected by and in sympathy with the people, and to it is relegated the subject, to take such action as they may deem just and best in the matter, maintaining the present law in those portions of the State where it is now or can be made efficient, and giving to the localities such methods of controlling and regulating the liquor traffic as will best serve the causes of temperance and morality.—Bedford Times.
As to the meaning of this there was much disagreement. In Prohibition districts it was claimed to be a definite promise to retain the present law, but to provide for a "mulct tax" or some other system of fines that would amount to a high license for the "river counties." But in those river counties it was asserted that it left the whole subject to the Legislature, and if that body thought best it would enact local option or a license law. But all agreed "that prohibition is no test of Republicanism." And it was quite apparent that most of the men would follow party rather than principle. The following, from an independent Republican paper, is to the point:—
Nearly one-half the population of Iowa has been morally opposed to the law, and their influence has been great toward its destruction. . . . The law has suffered at the hands of its enemies and at the hands of its friends. Between these two influences, its friends being divided and its enemies united, the law has well nigh been ground to powder in the great mill of public opinion.
The crowning mistake of all on the part of Prohibitionists has been that after all the legislation was enacted, they lay down and went to sleep on their arms.—Daily Iowa Capital.
The people thought if the law was once enacted it would be enforced, like other laws, by the regular police officers. But this the officers would not often do; and if the law was enforced at all, private citizens had to secure evidence, file informations, and appear as prosecutors.
What the outcome will be cannot now be told, but the prospects are not encouraging. The Legislature last winter enacted a "mulct tax." It provides that in cities of five thousand inhabitants, or more, a petition signed by fifty per cent of the voters shall authorize the authorities to issue a permit to sell alcoholic liquors as a beverage. Where the population is less than five thousand, sixty-five per cent must sign the petition. And while the old law is not repealed, yet when it is so stated in the petitions the payment of six hundred dollars "mulct tax" shall bar all prosecutions under the prohibitory law. Besides the six hundred dollars "mulct tax" the city may add what it wishes to for its own revenue. The law has not yet received interpretation by the courts, and as it is very complex, and some of its provisions are peculiar, no safe conclusions can be drawn until it is known what they will say. But it is generally considered as amounting to local option.
There were many who would have preferred to make no change in the law, but they would not step outside of the party lines to support it. For proof many statements like the following could be given:—
Now I conclude the best thing for us to do is to stand by the party that has saved this country and made it what it is, and by so doing we will be serving our country aright.—Hon. Lewis Todhunter, a lifetime Prohibitionist.
I have been a voter in Iowa for thirty-five years, and during that period every vote I have cast, where the saloons have been an issue, has been against them. . . . I do not believe that we, as true temperance people, should be wedded to one plan of liquor control, especially when it has been proven unsuccessful in those localities where regulation and control are most needed. Local option is in a sense prohibition. There is nothing implied in the term that need be feared.—Rev. Moulton, in a "Plea for Local Option," in Red Oak Express.
Ex-Governor William Larrabee led the fight for the change in the plank. He said that personally he was not satisfied with the backdown from prohibition which would be indicated by the plank, even after the adoption of the amendment. He was willing to accept it, however, in the interest of harmony.—St. Joseph, Mo., Herald, Aug. 24, 1894.
That platform will win thousands of votes for Frank Jackson and the Republican State ticket.—Guthrie Co. Guthrian.
But this much is sure; the people, having failed to enforce one of the strongest and most clearly defined prohibitory laws ever enacted, will not be apt to succeed in enforcing a weaker law. And the supporters of the saloon, having forced the adoption of a compromise measure, will work all the more earnestly for still greater freedom. And, further, the same methods of boycotting, bribery, and violence that prevented enforcement of the prohibitory law, will operate just as surely in the nullification of this law.
(Concluded next week.)
Believe and Love One Another
"AND this is His commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another."
Music: Its Power and Significance
By Elder E. W. Whitney
MUSIC. NO. I.
Its Power and Significance.
BY ELDER E. W. WHITNEY.
THERE are doubtless but few persons, provided they give the subject thought, who do not recognize in music a power which produces under certain circumstances effects which nothing else will. These effects are exceedingly varied both in kind and degree, according to the nature of the music and the mental condition of the individual. The least reflection will supply illustrations of such effects, as, for example, upon the battle field its effect is to secure precise and united movement, and to inspire courage; while, on the other hand, under certain conditions it subdues the most intense feelings of passion and hatred. It sometimes excites the most pleasurable emotions, while at other times it will produce those the most sad and gloomy. The effect of a musical chord upon the feelings of an infant child is often surprising and wonderful. Its effects are not confined to the civilized alone but are equally potent upon the uncivilized. Brutes are also susceptible to its influence in a marked degree.
But in no direction are the powers of music so manifest and remarkable as in its religious use. In fact, when rightly comprehended, religion and music are inseparable. When pure religion is experienced in full measure, the soul will be filled with the truest kind of music. Thus Paul says: "Be filled with the Spirit; speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody [Greek, music] in your heart to the Lord" (Eph. 5:18, 19); and, again, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord" (Col. 3:16). Notice that when one is "filled with the Spirit" and "the word of Christ dwells richly" in him, the effect is music in the soul, expressed in singing of "psalms and hymns and spiritual songs."
This intimate relation between religion and music appears evident and natural from a careful study of the true idea of both. The highest conception of true religion is only obtained by such a knowledge of God and his character as brings to the soul a living conviction of the harmony and absolute perfection of all his work; and by this conviction the soul itself is brought into harmony with God. In other words, the plan of God in the salvation of men is harmony from beginning to end. Understanding, appreciating, and coöperating in the plan brings the soul into this harmony. Now Webster's primary definition of music is "harmony." It is the science of all sciences based solely upon the principles of harmony. Indeed, one has no just conception of music to whom it is not the most complete expression of harmony of anything which affects the senses.
It may be objected that discord is necessary to the production of the highest type of music, which is certainly true; or, otherwise expressed, the proper use of discords heightens the effects of the concords. This fact, however, instead of being a real objection, only strengthens the idea that music is an expression of the harmony existing in God's plan, the harmonies representing God's part in the work, and the discords, the seeming imperfections connected with it in consequence of sin.
And as discords heighten the effects of concords in music, so the imperfections which enter into the work of God through sin will demonstrate, as nothing else can, the absolute perfection of God's plan. And when the plan shall result in the final and complete destruction and eradication of sin from the universe, placing it beyond the possibility of a second contamination, then the beauty and perfection of the work will appear more wonderful and striking by contrast.
That this is the purpose of God in permitting sin may be clearly seen from the following scriptures: "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself; that in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:9, 10); and therefore "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); and also that "we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth" (2 Cor. 13:8); because "through death [which has come only as a consequence of sin] he [Christ] might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:13). "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." 1 Cor. 15:26. Then comes complete victory to the universe, for "death is swallowed up in victory." Verse 54. Then "there shall be no more death" (Rev. 21:4), because no more sin; for "the wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23). Thus the perfect harmony following the discord is reached, in which "every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them," John hears saying, "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever." Rev. 5:13.
Any use of music which tends to or results in evil, as is often the case, is simply a perversion of the good which God designed in it. It is possible to turn any or all blessings into curses by not making a proper use of them, and the richer the blessing designed, the greater curse it becomes if perverted. Thus music often becomes more of a curse than a blessing; but its design and effects when rightly secured are good and good only.
(To be continued.)
NEW KIND OF INSULATION.
By N. Y. Christian Advocate
Two weeks ago last Sunday a citizen of Stapleton, S. I., was thrown from his buggy, inflicting injuries which resulted in his death. His wife was a communicant of the Church of the Immaculate Conception of Stapleton; he was a Protestant. She applied to the Roman Catholic pastor for permission to bury her husband in St. Mary's Cemetery. He felt compelled to deny the request. She then applied to another priest in a neighboring town, and at the same time wrote to Archbishop Corrigan. The archbishop being absent from the city, the second priest appealed to used his influence with Mgr. Farley, and at eleven o'clock on Tuesday the monseignor and the two priests above referred to met and had a conference, with this, to the public, probably astonishing result: The desired permission was granted "on condition that the grave be lined and bottomed with brick." The local priest told the undertaker, the undertaker told the widow, the widow agreed to have the grave lined. The undertaker arranged for the construction of the brickwork, and the unconsecrated man was buried in unconsecrated brick in consecrated ground.
We know that glass is an insulator against electricity, but learn now that, according to Roman Catholicism, bricks will insulate a cemetery from heresy. We have compared several accounts of this transaction, and are in a state of surprise as to why the grave did not have to be roofed with brick.
Such are the consequences of surrendering reason to Rome. It may be presumptuous for us to make a suggestion, but why did not they simply perform the act of deconsecrating so many square feet of earth and then line, bottom, and roof the grave with brick? This would have made it impossible for the presence of a heretic's body to do any harm.
—N. Y. Christian Advocate, Aug. 30, 1894.
THE BIBLE READINGS AT BREWER'S.
By M. B. Duffie
BY M. B. DUFFIE.
THE Brewer family had gathered around their cheery fireside for a pleasant evening of study and conversation. The attention of Miss Mabel Brewer, a sprightly, earnest-faced lass of some seventeen summers, had been especially directed of late to a consideration of the word of God, and, notwithstanding the good-natured parries of Tom, a brother next older than herself, about her being an "old sobersides," she had, with the aid of various text-books, commentaries, etc., steadfastly pursued her investigations of the sacred writings.
Several mornings before there had called at their door a mild-mannered, pleasant-faced gentleman, who stated that he was engaged in the circulation of a handsomely illustrated work, in which the various subjects of the Bible had been carefully gotten together by various authors and Bible students. While the book was sold on subscription, to be delivered at a specified time in the future, Mabel manifested so great a desire to secure a copy of the work without delay that an extra copy, which the gentleman happened to have in his possession, was left in her hands. She had been poring over its contents almost constantly ever since, even along into the still hours of the night, and now it was the first thing in her hand at the time our story opens.8
"Father," she said to Mr. Brewer, a staid business man of the place, who laid down his evening paper, and looked over his spectacles to hear what she had to say, "do you know, father, that the Bible contradicts the idea we have always held that when we die, if we have been real good, we go right up to heaven the first thing, and live there forever in happiness, and if we have been bad, why, we go to that awful hot place, and live there just as long in eternal, conscious misery?"
"I know, my daughter," responded the father, "that such a doctrine has been taught, and, while I could see no particular objection to the first, or pleasant part of it, I could but think that the latter view must be in some way erroneous. I believe that horrible doctrine of an ever-punishing God has made more infidels than Christians. But what have you found, my dear, which tends to refute that idea?"
"Why, here it is, pa, in the ninth chapter of Ecclesiastes, the fifth and sixth verses, which say in substance that while those who are living are aware that they will sooner or later die, those who are dead do not know the first thing, also that they realize nothing of love, hatred, nor envy."
"Does the Bible say that, Mabel?" asked her mother, a sweet-faced woman, looking up from a perusal of the latest number of the Ladies' Home Journal. "Why," she continued, as she took up the family Bible from the table near which she sat, and opened to the place indicated, "I declare it does! How strange that in all my study of God's word I never had my attention called to that before!"
"And did you know, pa," said Mabel, "that if you should die, and Tom and Willie should be bad boys, and get into some trouble, you would not have to mourn and worry over it? The Bible teaches, in the twenty-first verse of the fourteenth chapter of Job, that a dead man's sons may come to honor or are brought low and he knows nothing about it. See if it does not, father."
Mr. Brewer took his Bible, looked up the passage, and said it would be a comfort to know that when he came to die, in case either of his dear, manly boys should turn their feet into by and forbidden paths.
"I am obliged to admit," said Mr. Brewer, "that I did not know there was such a text, either, though I have not made the study of the Bible much of a life work, not as much, perhaps, as I should have done."
"I fear none of us have studied it as much as its importance demands," said Mabel, "but I, for one, intend to know what it really does teach, and to make it hereafter 'the man of my counsel.' I have always supposed that when a man dies he goes away off to heaven, somewhere, and comes back home once in a while to comfort his folks, but I find this is not the case, for it says in the tenth verse of the seventh chapter of Job that when a man dies he does not return to his house."
"Let me read that," said Tom, "and see if it does really say so."
After Tom had rummaged all around through the New Testament in his search for Job, his sister smilingly told him that he would find that book in the Old Testament, just between Esther and Psalms. He found the place at last, and read the passage aloud.
"That is certainly straight," said Tom, "and to my mind it knocks Spiritualism out."
"Yes, Tommy, and here is more proof. You will find it in the fourth verse of the one hundred and forty-sixth psalm, where it says that when a man dies, and is put into the earth, every thought he ever had has perished."
"The reason he don't have any thoughts is because his brain has ceased work, and a man can't do much thinking without any brains, can he?" queried Willie.
"There is surely no other conclusion at which to arrive," his good mother thoughtfully replied, "but it all seems so strange after all we have heard and read to the contrary."
"I have often wondered," said Mr. Brewer, "what could be the object of our Lord's return to this earth for his people, as the Bible seems to imply, if they all go to their reward immediately after death. I never could see the least consistency in such an arrangement."
"They do not go there then, I am sure," said Mabel, "for their chief employ would be in praising the Lord, and I learn from his word, which cites me to Ps. 115:17, that dead people do not praise the Lord."
"Well, Mabel, if we do not go to heaven as soon as we die, when do we go there?" meekly inquired her aunt, Mrs. Westmore, a widowed sister of Mrs. Brewer's and a member of the family.
"I think," Mabel said, "that we shall find out how that is by turning to the fifth chapter of John, and reading the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth verses, where it says that there is an hour coming when all who are in their graves shall hear his (Christ's) voice, and shall arise, and come forth, some of them to the resurrection of life eternal, and some to the resurrection of eternal death."
"That is surely what it says," Mrs. Westmore said, as she thoughtfully closed her Bible.
"Now turn," Mabel continued, "to the last verse but one of the sixteenth chapter of Matthew, and you will see that when our Saviour comes, with all his holy angels, then is the time when every man will receive whatever reward he may be entitled to."
"That is just what it says," said Tom.
"How interesting this is!" said Mrs. Brewer and her sister in chorus. "Is it not singular that we never understood this question before?"
"These readings have given me something to think of," said Mr. Brewer, "and I think I will ask some of those preachers down town to rise and explain, next time I meet them."
"I will call your attention to only three more passages," said Mabel, "and then we will retire, perhaps with as much as we can at present digest. In the fourth chapter of the first book of Thessalonians, the sixteenth and seventeenth verses, you will find it stated that when Jesus himself comes down from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and the trump of God, those who shall arise first are the dead in Christ. Then all those who are alive, and who have lived godly lives, will be taken up with them to meet the Lord in the air. Again, by reference to Matt. 16:27, we find that when Christ comes in the glory of his Father, with all his holy angels, then is the time the rewards are to be bestowed. This is further emphasized in the twelfth verse of the twenty-second chapter of Revelation, which represents the Lord as saying that he is to come quickly with his reward to every man as his work has been."
"If that is the way it is to be I want to know it," said Mrs. Brewer, as she readjusted her spectacles.
Mabel found the place for her, and she read it aloud, every member of the family giving earnest and respectful attention. When she had finished reading, each face seemed to take on the expression of an astonished exclamation point.
"I move," said Tom, "that we now adjourn for one week."
"Hold on," said Mr. Brewer, "before you put that motion. We have found out what the reward of the righteous is to be, and when it is to be given. Now I am a little anxious to know what becomes of the other fellows. Won't you look that up, Mabel, and let us know a week from to-night what is done with them?"
"I will gladly do 'so," said Mabel, and the meeting adjourned for one week, each one present declaring this had been the most interesting evening they had spent together for a long time.
"It beats anything I have struck down town," said Tom, "and you can count on my being present every time."
TRUE TO NAME.
By H. E. Giddings
WE often hear the listless expression, "What's in a name?" There is much in a name. Some names, invented for sound or oddity, may signify nothing, but there is a large class of expressive names which either tell the truth or a falsehood whenever employed. These names grow out and are indicative of some great truth or principle, to which they always direct the mind. To illustrate, Jacob was named Israel because of his steadfastness of purpose to prevail with God and earnestly seek his face until he secured the needed blessing. That is what Israel signifies, prevailing faith with God; "and so all Israel shall be saved."
When one bears the name Israel, he is either true to the name or the name is misleading. Paul said (Rom. 9:6), "They are not all Israel, which are of Israel." And when the Jews were boasting that they were the children of Abraham, Christ rebuked them, and laid down the principle that a significant name is, in its use, a wisely applied truth or a hypocritical lie. John 8:39-45. He said that if they were Abraham's children they would do the works of Abraham, and live as he did. But because they cherished Satan's spirit, they by right were entitled to and should bear his name. As they entertained murder, Christ said they were the children of the devil, and they would work on the same line as he did.
When Jesus Christ brought the light of God's character and purpose to earth, it was called the gospel. It was the good news that God purposed to use his infinite power to save sinners. Rom. 1:16. The way men were to act to secure this power, and live with its help, was called Christianity, because it was Christ's way of living. When a lost sinner learns of this salvation, and accepts it as his mode of life, he is properly a Christian, because he lives the life of Christ. Gal. 2:20; 1 John 2:6.
In Rom. 8:9 we are told that "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." When a man has that Spirit from God, and lives that kind of life, he is a Christian true to name, but if a man outwardly appears to be righteous, and professionally takes the name Christian, while his heart is full of evil plans, and his secret life is in harmony with the devil, the name of Christ is a lie in its use, for he has no right to it, and it is intended to mislead and deceive.
When the mystery of iniquity began to develop "antichrist" in the apostolic days (2 Thess. 2:4-7), it was only the beginning of the Papacy, or Catholic power, which was to adopt Satan's own plans and do his work in the earth. It would exalt itself above God. Verse 4. Satan did the same. Isa. 14:13. Back of this mystery of iniquity was Satan, who aided it on to consummation.713
Rev. 12:9 states that the dragon is the devil and Satan, and chapter 13, verse 2, shows that this adversary gave a seat, power, and authority to an earthly organization, and that those composing it would worship him (verse 4), thus assimilating his spirit, who was a murderer from the beginning. John 8:44.
Those possessing his spirit would murder also; and Rev. 12:7 shows that the works of their father they did do. The long and bloody history of murder, in the name of Christ, shows that the papal hierarchy is the power specified. While they claim to be the true people of God, the work they have done, and the principle they maintain, show who is their father, and whose spirit they are cherishing.
The Papacy as an organization is founded on certain principles and adopted certain fundamental doctrines.
Prominent among these is the claim that she is endowed with infallibility and must therefore be absolutely right in all her conclusions concerning faith and morals.
This being true she argues that it is her duty to compel all men to conform to her standard of right. This is antichristian, for Christ said (John 12:47), "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not." "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." Verse 48. "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come." 1 Cor. 4:5.
The Papacy claims that the State exists in part, at least, to execute the decrees of the infallible church, to keep the peace by putting down heresy—everything distasteful to the church.
Protestantism, according to the Protest of Spires, 1529, condemned the two abuses, the arbitrary authority of the church, and the right of the civil magistrate to adjudge differences of belief. Those who adhere to the principles of this protest are Protestants, and those who advocate the fundamental dogmas of the Papacy are papal. It matters not what name they bear outwardly, whether they are true to name or not, their works determine what name would tell the truth. Where professed Protestants advocate the devil-born doctrines of the Papacy, do they not forfeit the name Protestant? The name, then, becomes a lie. They are not true to name unless they firmly adhere to the principles.
The so-called Protestant ministers, and a large per cent of their churches, are loudly claiming that they are so certainly right and positively infallible, because of their numbers and intelligence, that it is proper for them to demand that all other people be compelled to act as they do in the matter of Sunday observance. They are really frantic in their efforts to get the civil power to interfere in their behalf, and suppress the liberty of all who oppose them or hold different views. Will they be true to name, and when they leave the Protestant principle, lay off the name, and, adopting the papal dogmas, be honest and adopt the name, and manfully profess to be just what they are? If not they certainly wish to cover their design by wearing the sacred mantle of true Protestant Christianity, while doing the Satanic work of the Papacy.
Christ warned against such in Matt. 7:15,—ravening wolves in sheep's clothing. The Holy Spirit described the work of Satan's ministers, and said they would appear as the ministers of righteousness. 2 Cor. 11:13-15. By their works ye shall know them.