"In the blind fury of civil discord, Constantius had abandoned to the barbarians of Germany the countries of Gaul, which still acknowledged the authority of his rival. A numerous swarm of Franks and Alemanni were invited [A. D. 351] to cross the Rhine, by presents and promises, by the hopes of spoil, and by a perpetual grant of all the territories which they should be able to subdue. But the emperor, who for a temporary service had thus imprudently provoked the rapacious spirit of the barbarians, soon discovered and lamented the difficulty of dismissing these formidable allies, after they had tasted the richness of the Roman soil. Regardless of the nice distinction of loyalty and rebellion, these undisciplined robbers treated as their natural enemies all the subjects of the empire, who possessed any property which they were desirous of acquiring. Forty-five flourishing cities—Tongres, Cologne, Treves, Worms, Spires, Strasburgh, etc.—besides a far greater number of towns and villages, were pillaged, and for the most part reduced to ashes. The barbarians of Germany, still faithful to the maxims of their ancestors, abhorred the confinement of walls, to which they applied the odious names of prisons and sepulchres; and, fixing their independent habitations on the banks of rivers, the Rhine, the Moselle, and the Meuse, they secured themselves against the danger of a surprise, by a rude and hasty fortification of large trees, which were felled and thrown across the roads. The Alemanni were established in the modern countries of Alsace and Lorraine; the Franks occupied the island of the Batavians, together with an extensive district of Brabant, which was then known by the appellation of Toxandria, and may deserve to be considered as the original seat of their Gallic monarchy."
In a note Gibbon fixes the date of this permanent entrance of the Franks into Gaul, as follows:—
"The paradox of P. Daniel, that the Franks never obtained any permanent settlement on this side of the Rhine before the time of Clovis, is refuted with much learning and good sense by M. Biet, who has proved, by a chain of evidence, their uninterrupted possession of Toxandria one hundred and thirty years before the accession of Clovis."
The accession of Clovis was in A. D. 481; and one hundred and thirty years carry us back to A. D. 351, as dated above.
"From the sources to the mouth of the Rhine, the conquests of the Germans extended above forty miles to the west of that river, over a country peopled by colonies of their own name and nation; and the scene of their devastations was three times more extensive than that of their conquests. At a still greater distance the open towns of Gaul were deserted, and the inhabitants of the fortified cities, who trusted to their strength and vigilance, were obliged to content themselves with such supplies of corn as they could raise on the vacant land within the inclosure of their walls. The diminished legions, destitute of pay and provisions, of arms and discipline, trembled at the approach, and even at the name of the barbarians. Under these melancholy circumstances, an unexperienced youth was appointed to save and to govern the provinces of Gaul, or rather, as he expresses it himself, to exhibit the vain image of imperial greatness."—Decline and Fall, chap. 19, par. 20, 21.
In A. D. 355, Nov. 6, Constantius associated Julian with himself in the rule of the empire, and appointed to his administration the provinces of the West, with the immediate task of driving out these barbarians whom Constantius had invited in with the promise of a grant in perpetuity of all the lands which they should subdue.
"After Julian had repulsed the Alemanni from the province of the Upper Rhine, he turned his arms against the Franks [A. D. 358], who were seated nearer to the ocean, on the confines of Gaul and Germany, and who from their numbers, and still more from their intrepid valor, had ever been esteemed the most formidable of the barbarians. Although they were strongly actuated by the allurements of rapine, they professed a disinterested love for war, which they considered as the supreme honor and felicity of human nature; and their minds and bodies were so completely hardened by perpetual action, that, according to the lively expression of an orator, the snows of winter were as pleasant to them as the flowers of spring. In the month of December, which followed the battle of Strasburgh, Julian attacked a body of six hundred Franks, who had thrown themselves into two castles on the Meuse. In the midst of that severe season they sustained, with inflexible constancy, a siege of fifty-four days; till at length, exhausted by hunger, and satisfied that the vigilance of the enemy, in breaking the ice of the river, left them no hopes of escape, the Franks consented, for the first time, to dispense with the ancient law which commanded them to conquer or to die."
"The Cæsar immediately sent his captives to the court of Constantius, who, accepting them as a valuable present, rejoiced in the opportunity of adding so many heroes to the choicest troops of his domestic guards. The obstinate resistance of this handful of Franks apprised Julian of the difficulties of the expedition which he meditated for the ensuing spring, against the whole body of the nation. His rapid diligence surprised and astonished the active barbarians. Ordering his soldiers to provide themselves with biscuit for twenty days, he suddenly pitched his camp near Tongres, while the enemy still supposed him in his winter quarters of Paris, expecting the slow arrival of his convoys from Aquitain. Without allowing the Franks to unite or deliberate, he skillfully spread his legions from Cologne to the ocean, and, by the terror, as well as by the success, of his arms, soon reduced the suppliant tribes to implore the clemency, and to obey the commands, of their conqueror. The Chamavians submissively retired to their former habitations beyond the Rhine; but the Salians were permitted to possess their new establishment of Toxandria, as the subjects and auxiliaries of the Roman Empire. The treaty was ratified by solemn oaths, and perpetual inspectors were appointed to reside among the Franks, with the authority of enforcing the strict observance of the conditions."—Id., chap. 19, par. 25.
From this time onward the power of the Franks in Gaul steadily grew until the time of the establishment of the Visigoths in Aquitain, A. D. 419 (as already related), when they were powerful enough to share with the Visigoths, and the Burgundians, in almost equal proportion, the province of Gaul.
"The Franks, a loose confederation of German tribes, were in existence in the third century on the right bank of the Rhine, and for a long time showed no wish to migrate into Gaul. By degrees one of these tribes, the Salians, headed by a family called the Merewings or Merwings (the Merovingians), began to take the lead; they soon made themselves formidable by their incursions into Northern Gaul, and established themselves masters of the left bank of the lower Rhine. As the Roman power declined along that district, their authority increased; early in the fifth century they had spread from the Rhine to the Somme."—Encyc. Brit., Art. France, History, par. 13.
Thus the Franks had northeastern Gaul below the Moselle; the Visigoths held all of southwestern Gaul from the Loire to the Bay of Biscay and the Gulf of Lyons; and the Burgundians possessed southeastern Gaul, now Switzerland, with the country of the Saone and the Rhone clear to the sea.
Gibbon states it thus:—
"About the same time [A. D. 419-420] in the last years of the reign of Honorius, the Goths, the Burgundians, and the Franks, obtained a permanent seat and dominion in the provinces of Gaul. The liberal grant of the usurper Jovinus to his Burgundian allies, was confirmed by the lawful emperor; the lands of the First, or Upper, Germany, were ceded to those formidable barbarians; and they gradually occupied, either by conquest or treaty, the two provinces, which still retain, with the titles of Duchy and of County, the national appellation of Burgundy. The Franks, the valiant and faithful allies of the Roman republic, were soon tempted to imitate the invaders, whom they had so bravely resisted. Treves, the capital of the Gaul, was pillaged by their lawless bands; and the humble colony which they so long maintained in the district of Toxandria, in Brabant, insensibly multiplied along the banks of the Meuse and Scheld, till their independent power filled the whole extent of the Second, or Lower, Germany."—Id., chap. 31, par. 39.
Are We Sincere?
By Margaret E. Sangster
You and I, dear friend, say and think that we are sincere in wishing and praying for the conversion of our little ones. Nothing else is of so much importance in our eyes, nor do our desires for their earthly advancement compare with our intensity of longing that they may be the Lord's, in full, sweet, and entire surrender, while still the dew of their youth glistens tremblingly upon their brows.
Our children have heard us, now and then, profess this yearning, perhaps at family prayers, perhaps in our talk with Christian friends; yet, if we were asked, and our replies were given honestly, and without reserve, how few would dare to claim that the impression made upon our dear ones by our conduct is consistent with our words on the subject. To use a frequent phrase, do we not need to look more than we do to our walk and conversation?
For instance, do we manifest the same solicitude about Minnie's private Bible reading that we show with regard to her daily piano practice? Are we as particular in ascertaining whether Dick and Harry say their prayers every morning as to whether they have prepared their examples? The school report comes home at the close of the week, and we scrutinize it with anxious fidelity, deeply regretful if the "excellent" of the last account has declined to "fair," sorrowful exceedingly if "poor" or "unsatisfactory" be entered in the record against any study, or if the minimum instead of the maximum has been registered with regard to conduct or punctuality. Too tenderly loving to be indifferent to the character-building which is deciding the style of the future man or woman growing up in our sight, we deprecate any arrest in the school progress. Our congratulations stimulate, or our censures condemn, the child who has been diligent or the child who has been idle. We care more than a little about the matter, and our interest is so genuine and so hearty that it affects its subject.
Is it thus in our feeling with regard to the conversion of our children, and is it usual for us to show this interest in anything like so marked a degree? The mother whose solicitude for the spiritual welfare of her children manifests itself in look and tone, in prayer with them alone, in tender bed-time talks, in the constant tenor of the home life, cannot, in whatever else she may fail, but succeed in bringing them face to face with their duty. Her interest will kindle theirs. Almost insensibly they will be won to the Master.—Mrs. Margaret E. Sangster, in Congregationalist.
"A Plain Declaration."
By H. B. Sevey
"For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country." Heb. 11: 14.
In this chapter, we have set before us the faith of many of the worthies who believed God, and whose "works" were "made perfect" through their faith; for "without faith it is impossible to please him." Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, a reliance on a promise made, with an unshaken confidence of its truthfulness. Thus, "Noah being warned of God of things which had never been seen, prepared an ark" for a coming flood; believing it would come in due time, by which he condemned the world; making a plain declaration of his faith by his works. If, at the same time, he had engaged in worldly pursuits which did not correspond with his faith, would he have condemned the world? Would he have "declared plainly" that he believed God?
By faith Abraham sojourned in the land of promise as a stranger with Isaac and Jacob, heirs of the same promise; "for he looked for a city [not a church] which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God," and thus they "confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." "Now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly; wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a city."
After summing up a large company of the faithful ones, who, through faith, did many wonderful works, Paul said, "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." We, whom the apostle includes with the faithful ones, are looking for and expecting the thing promised by God to the fathers, and are we making a plain declaration by our works? Do our works harmonize with our professed faith? We are saying to the world by our profession that we believe Jesus is at hand, and that we are expecting "a heavenly country;" if so, shall we not be pilgrims and strangers on the earth, so free from any earthly ties that the world will be constrained to say, They believe what they say, for their works correspond with their faith? Dear brethren and sisters in Christ, who are saying Jesus is soon coming, do not our works give the evidence of our belief? Are we declaring plainly by our works that we expect Jesus, or are we laying our plans for a long time here on earth? Remember that our lives are a plain declaration of our faith.—H. B. Sevey, in Bible Banner.
The Pledge of Our Resurrection.
The resurrection of the dead is a great mystery. We cannot fully understand its possibility when viewed only in the light of reason. But when we come to a study of the subject from the light of revelation it is vastly different. Many things are not clear to reason which are nevertheless true. Revelation states the fact clearly that man shall rise again. It matters little to us how this shall be accomplished, as long as we believe it. That it will be done is as certain and plausible as any other fact stated in the Scriptures. These are matters of faith, and as such may baffle our minds, but to the infinite Creator this is no more difficult than to create a universe and hold it together by his own omnific power.
The Scriptures, however, declare Christ to be the pledge of the resurrection of all his children. He is "the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming."
When we are in doubt concerning this subject, we find the solution in him who is the resurrection and the life. He it is who solves every mystery, who settles every doubt, and who lightens every avenue of human faith and reason. In him and by him we have hope, for he it is who overcame death and the grave and ever liveth to make intercession for us. He is the pledge, assurance, cause of hope of our resurrection, for he is abundantly able to open the grave of every mortal, and to speak to every sleeper in the words, "Come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."—Sel.
Scripture Exposition.
By Advance
"I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." Rom 12:1.
The apostle does not tantalize us with simply painting before us an unattainable ideal. He suggests some considerations that may inspire us to realize that ideal in our own experience. Such a sacrifice as he has urged is our "reasonable service." Most readers suppose this to mean, our just and proper service, one enjoined by reason as wise and becoming. But this is not the apostle's thought. The word translated "reasonable" rather means "spiritual," as it is rendered in the margin of the New Version. It denotes what pertains to the inner man in distinction from what appeals to the senses, as did the animal sacrifices of the Jews. And the term "service" means not merely work or duty, but it applies to religious service. The American revisers properly render it in the New Version, worship. By the whole phrase, "your reasonable service," the apostle means that such a consecrated Christian life is the truest spiritual worship of God. This is the way in which especially he wishes us to express our loyalty to him. Not, of course, that we are to abandon the sanctuary. But of what avail is church or secret prayer, if unaccompanied by a well-rounded Christian life? It is only a gag upon conscience. The worship which, beyond any other, God desires of us is the daily life, vitalized at every point with the Spirit of Jesus.
But not only is this the truest and most acceptable form of spiritual worship; the apostle gives us also the one and all-sufficient reason why every one should thus worship God: "I beseech you by the mercies of God." Many other reasons may be given why we should consecrate our lives to the service of our Father in Heaven, but this one is ample. God's ceaseless mercies to us surely furnish reason enough why we should present our bodies a living and holy sacrifice to him. These mercies are a revelation of his character and show him to be infinitely worthy of our love and our obedience.
We are not to live the Christian life simply to avoid the consequences which await those who do not. There is no true piety in that. It is a mere calculating prudence. It shows no love toward God or loyalty to Christ, but only a love for our own welfare and a loyalty to our own interests. Nor are we to live the Christian life merely to win the bliss of Heaven. There is no more piety in serving God merely for expected compensation than there is in delving in the Nevada mines for an expected fortune. God will compensate us with a divine munificence if we lovingly serve him rather than ourselves. But the man who imagines that he is serving God when his supreme aim is to advance his own good, whether in this life or the next, is simply deluding himself, but not his Judge. He is not serving God, but only trying to use God as the means of serving himself. Not mainly because God commands it, but in the joy of a filial love for him who is supremely worthy, are we to consecrate our lives to him.—Advance.
What Is Sin?
By William Kincaid
"SIN is the transgression of the law." That is, any indulgence which violates the law of love is a sin. It becomes conscious sin in him who, perceiving it to be a violation of that law, still continues to practice it. The process of converting unconscious transgression into conscious sin is continually going on where the truths of the gospel are applied to the lives and consciences of men. As the constant prayer of the true Christian, "Search me, O God, and see if there be any wicked way in me," is progressively answered, the "wicked ways" in which he had ignorantly and hence innocently walked, become in him subjective sin in which he cannot continue without guilt.
These simple principles remind us that the initial step in every reform must be the distinct and emphatic bringing men to a knowledge of sin. In this the Spirit of Truth takes the lead. He convinces men of sin. The human tongue, or pen, he uses in the same great work. That men generally, that Christians generally, nay, that "a few of the most earnest, most honored, and most successful workers for Christ," do not recognize a sinful practice as sin is the very fact that makes necessary this work. It is the Christian's lament that he cannot "understand his errors." It is his prayer that he may be "cleansed from secret faults." The voice that points out his failings is to him "a voice crying in the wilderness," and he bids it "cry aloud and spare not."
The false charity that should hesitate to stamp a sin as sin because there are godly men who do not recognize it as such, would put an effectual quietus on all reform. There have been godly men in all ages who have been radically mistaken in matters of right and wrong and have afterwards acknowledged their mistake. Let it be emphasized, indeed, that the lips that are moved to speak the truth upon such themes should speak in all humility, tenderness, and love, keeping ever in mind the distinction between sin that is conscious, incurring guilt, sin that is unconscious and hence without present condemnation, and all the varying degrees of light between. But to wait until all Christians recognize a sin as sin before exposing and denouncing it is to expect the result before using the means divinely appointed to secure it.—William Kincaid.
Not a Sinecure.
THE ministerial office can never be innocently a sinecure. A lazy preacher is a disgrace to his calling and a scourge to the church. Idleness in him is deeply shameful and even positively criminal. There is always before him a field to be broken up, or sown, or reaped; God and conscience demand the culture. The urgencies of the work press upon him; the field, white to the harvest, allows no procrastination; it is a question of salvation or destruction; it must be reaped or it is lost. As with the Master, it must be ever in heart and upon lips, "Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" and "how am I straitened till it is accomplished?" —often baffled by difficulties and discouraged by apparent failure, but always at it.—Southwestern Methodist.
The Sun of Everlasting Love
By Charles Haddon Spurgeon
A GREAT sun of everlasting love shines upon the globe of our life with tropical force, but we get away to the North Pole of doubt and fear, and then complain that the sun has such little heat, or that he is so long below the horizon. He that will not go to the fire ought not to complain that the room is cold.—Spurgeon.
Sympathy Through Suffering
By Rev. T. A. Nelson
If a man would sympathize with trouble and sorrow, he must have sorrowed and been troubled himself. It is that which has made the heart of Jesus the refuge of the sorrows of the world.—Rev. T. A. Nelson.
A Feature of Catholicism.
By W.
IN the "decrees" of the Plenary Council held in Baltimore, the following is found:—
"We earnestly appeal to all Catholics, without distinction, not only to take no part in any movement tending toward a relaxation of the observance of Sunday, but to use their influence and power as citizens to resist in the opposite direction. Let them make it not only a day of rest, but also a day of prayer."
The Congregationalist prints the above with simply the following comment: "Here is a feature of Catholicism which we most heartily indorse." We doubt if the Congregationalist realized the full import of its comment. Sunday observance is indeed a "feature of Catholicism," and is, in fact, its principal feature, as may be seen by the following:
The apostle Paul gave as the chief characteristic of the papacy that he "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." 2 Thess. 2:4. And the angel told Daniel how the papacy would fulfill the specification of opposing and exalting himself above God, namely, by thinking to change the law of God. Dan. 7:25. In no other way could the Pope exalt himself above God. Of course no power on earth could really make a change in the law of God; but the papacy was to think itself able to do so. That the Catholic Church fills this specification, putting itself above God, by thinking it has power to change God's law, is evident from its own testimony.
"Ques.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?
"Ans.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."—From "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine."
"Ques.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Ans.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her; she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority."—From the Doctrinal Catechism.
To the statement that "all modern religionists agree with her" in substituting Sunday for the Sabbath, we must take exceptions. We agree that she has done it, but we do not agree that she had any right to do it. But some one will say that there was no papacy until about the fifth or sixth century, and that as the Sabbath was changed before that time, it could not have been done by the papal power. To this we reply that the "mystery of iniquity" was working even in Paul's day, and that before Justinian's decree making the bishop of Rome head over all the churches, the Catholic Church existed just as really as it did afterwards. All the difference lies in the fact that after that decree the papacy was firmly established, as we may say, on a legal basis. An act performed before the beginning of papal supremacy, was just as much an act of the Catholic Church as one performed afterwards.
In writing of the Trinitarian controversy, which took place in the time of Constantine, Gibbon refers to the two parties as the Arians and the Catholics. The party which finally became dominant, and which Constantine favored, is invariably termed the Catholic party. Thus we see that it is a recognized fact that the Catholic Church, so-called, had an existence in the time of Constantine. Although Constantine was not baptized till near his death, he favored the nominally Christian party from the year 313. He is called "the first Christian Emperor;" and as the influential "Christians" in his day were the Catholics, it follows that any decree issued by him concerning a matter of religion, would be a Catholic decree. It is well known that in the year 321 A. D. Constantine did issue a Sunday edict, and of that edict Chambers's Encyclopedia, article "Sabbath," says:—
"Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day [Sunday] is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, A. D. 321."
More testimony to the same effect might be given, but this is sufficient to show that the Catholic Church is responsible for the change that has been made in the Sabbath, a change which has no Scripture warrant, and that this change of the Sabbath is claimed by the Catholic Church as the mark of its authority. It is not simply a feature of the Catholic Church, but it is the feature of that church. As we said before, the Congregationalist probably did not realize the import of its own words; but it is a fact, nevertheless, that in indorsing that "feature of Catholicism," it is simply indorsing Catholicism itself. As a Catholic writer said in a book entitled, "A Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-day:" "It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath [Sunday]—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. . . . Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the [Catholic] Church."
What do you say, friends? Will you indorse this "feature of Catholicism," and thus indorse Catholicism itself, with all its abominations and horrible deeds of blood? This is a question that will not down. The time has come when it must be answered by each person for himself. It may be passed by once or twice, or even more times, but it will surely come again and call more loudly for an answer. The Lord says, "with a loud voice," "If any man worship the beast and his image . . . the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God." Would it not be better to serve God by doing just as he says? "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve."
The Real Point Involved.
By W.
THERE is one strange thing about this Sunday-sabbath, and that is that an argument which is universally used by its advocates, and is relied on as conclusive, is not considered of any force whatever when used in favor of the Sabbath. For instance, an extended Sunday argument is scarcely ever made without reference to the number of times that Christ met with his disciples on Sunday, and the number of religious meetings held on that day. Now the facts are these: We have a record of just one meeting of Christ and his disciples on the first day of the week, and of but one meeting of people for worship. The first meeting was while the disciples sat at supper, in which they were joined by Christ, and the second was an evening meeting just before Paul was to take leave of the brethren at Troas after a week of labor among them.
Concerning Sabbath worship we have the following: It was the "custom" of Jesus to worship in the synagogue on the Sabbath day. Luke 4:16. He also told his disciples that because it was made for man, not against him, they would not be violating it by doing a charitable act on that day. We also find Sabbath meetings spoken of in Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 17:2, and 18:4. We find also that it was Paul's "manner" to hold meetings on the Sabbath. Now if custom is to be taken as evidence in favor of either day, certainly the verdict must be in favor of the seventh day.
But this is not all, nor is it the main point at all. The mere fact that meetings were held on a certain day proves nothing, because the disciples were accustomed to meet every day, and Christ and the apostles preached every day. But here is the point: The first day of the week is invariably spoken of as "the first day of the week." No sacred title is ever applied to it. There is absolutely nothing in connection with the mention of it to indicate that any sacredness was attached to it. On the contrary it is spoken of as being devoted to secular employments, and is designated, the same as the other working days, only by its number. The seventh day, however, the Sabbath, is always spoken of as "the Sabbath"—the rest day. This is wherein we find evidence in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath in the New Testament. Christian men, moved by the Spirit of God to write for Christians, writing at periods varying from five to thirty years after Christ's ascension, invariably refer to the particular day enjoined in the fourth commandment as "the Sabbath." Surely, then, there can be no doubt as to what day is the only Sabbath for Christians to keep. The Spirit of God has set its seal on the seventh day, and has declared that it is the Sabbath day.
Still further, the inspired apostles have left on record the statement that only the seventh day is the Sabbath. There is no question but that the day on which the Jews met for worship was the seventh day of the week. Now Paul, when he was at Antioch, in Pisidia, showed, in the following words, how inconsistent the Jews were in rejecting Christ: "For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew Him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, they have fulfilled them in condemning Him." Acts 13:27. If the Scriptures were read in the Jewish synagogues on the seventh day, which no one will think of denying, then, according to Paul, they were read every Sabbath day, which effectually shuts Sunday out of any claim to be called Sabbath.
The apostle James, also, in an assembly of the apostles and elders, which is generally spoken of as "the first Christian Council," and where the Holy Ghost was present to direct, said, "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." Acts 15:21. Here we have, in an assembly of Christians twenty years after the crucifixion, an unmistakably Christian declaration to the effect that the day on which the Jews read the books of Moses in their synagogues,—the seventh day,—is the Sabbath to the exclusion of every other day.
We cannot see how Christians can ignore such facts as these. If the Holy Spirit declares that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the only Sabbath, why should we not say so too? How can we be Christians if we walk not as Christ and the apostles walked, and talk not as they talked? If holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, why should not their words be an end of all strife? For our part we will maintain before the world that the seventh day of the week is the only Sabbath, and the day which God and Christ demand shall be kept by Christians; and we know that this position cannot be contradicted by the Scriptures. W.