Earlier text: The Ceremonial and Moral LawsTHE following from St. Nicholas is of interest inasmuch as it gives some idea of the immense destructive power of modern engines of war:— So great and marvelous are the powers and the effects of gunpowder and the huge cannon of to-day, that it seems hard to decide which wonder I should first describe. Let us commence with "machine guns," as they are termed. These are guns which, by means of mechanism or machinery, rapidly discharge a great many bullets. The best, as well as the earliest, machine guns are American inventions. The Gatling gun is the invention of Dr. Gatling, a citizen of Hartford, Conn., where also the manufactory is situated. It consists of a number of rifle barrels—generally ten—arranged around a central shaft. At the rear of the barrels is a casing of metal containing the breech mechanism. One man holds a case containing cartridges over an aperture of the casing, and they drop in and fit themselves in the barrels. Another turns a crank which revolves and thereby operates the mechanism inside, so that as each barrel comes underneath, it is discharged, and the empty cartridge shell thrown out. When the man turns the crank twice around he has discharged all the barrels; and as he can turn the crank, if he be adroit, two or three times677 a second, it is possible to discharge as many as one thousand shots a minute. Of course no gun can be fired so rapidly very long, for the barrels would get too hot, and all the parts become so fouled with soot and gas as to jam together. A century ago it was thought wonderful that a regiment in the army of Frederick the Great of Prussia could load and fire six times a minute. As there are one thousand men in a regiment, it will be seen that six of these guns, requiring only five men each—thirty, all told—to operate them, could do as much firing as one thousand men one hundred years ago. Indeed, the amount of work accomplished is much greater, since the Gatling gun throws its leaden bullets a thousand yards, and kills at that distance, while the old flint-lock of the Prussians was useless for any range greater than two hundred yards. The Nordenfeldt and Gardner guns are machine-guns in which the barrels are horizontal and in one plane, instead of mounted together in cylindrical form as in the Gatling. But the most wonderful gun of all is the Maxim gun. This is actually a weapon that loads and shoots by itself. Think of how astonished the ancients would have been if suddenly confronted with one of these machines, a half mile away from them, striking down their men with imperceptible missiles! It is well known by every boy that when he fires a gun or pistol it gives a backward jump. This is called the "recoil," or, as the boys term it, the "kick;" and it is this force that is made use of in the Maxim gun. The gun consists, unlike the rest, of but a single barrel and a breech mechanism. A long strip holding cartridges is put in position, the hammer released against the first cartridge, and a cartridge is thus fired. The recoil strikes a pin, which puts another cartridge in position, fires it and casts out the old shell, and the next recoil is utilized in the same way. This is repeated until all the cartridges are gone. It is possible to fire as many as 666 cartridges, only the first having to be fired by hand; the gun automatically discharges all the rest. The famous Mitrailleuse, used by the French in the Franco-Prussian war, fired eighty-five cartridges at once; but they all went nearly to the same mark, and, once discharged, it required some time to load the gun. The new machine guns have a motion from side to side, so that their fire sweeps over a wide stretch of ground and is practically continuous. Going a step further, we have what are called revolving cannon, as the famous Hotchkiss—another American invention. These are cannon similar to huge revolvers, and threw shells from a half pound up to thirty-two pounds in weight, and discharge five to twelve shots a minute. All cannon are divided into these general classes: 1. Field-guns, or cannon which are light and can be carried about by an army wherever it goes. These rarely throw shells of over eighteen pounds in weight. 2. Siege guns, which are too large to be moved rapidly, but still may be carried from place to place in special wagons, cars, or boats constructed for them, and used in laying siege to places. These throw shot or shell from 18 up to 200 pounds in weight. 3. Sea-coast guns, or permanent guns. These are too large to be moved about, and are mounted on special carriages in sea-coast or other large forts. They throw projectiles of from 100 pounds up to 3,300 pounds, and require the aid of steam and electricity in loading and firing. As an example of field-guns, a new gun which has just been made for the United States army is, perhaps, the finest in the world. It is made of steel, and weighs less than 800 pounds. It is mounted on a steel carriage and throws a thirteen-pound shell, requiring a charge of three and one-quarter pounds of powder. It will throw this shell, which is a little more than three inches in diameter, over 7,000 yards—that is about four miles—with terrific power and wonderful accuracy. As yet, in the United States we have no siege or sea-coast guns which will compare favorably with the huge monsters found in European countries. There are a few in the navy, and it will not be long before we shall have in the army many guns which will be quite as good as anything of the kind abroad, and, perhaps, even better. I said that these huge guns require steam and electricity to operate them. Let us see. Some of these enormous steel shells weigh 3,300 pounds—about equal to the weight of three horses. They are six feet high, and as large around as a man. The gun which fires them is called a 138-ton gun, because it weighs 138 tons. It requires 1,000 pounds of powder to load the guns once. Now, think what a terrific weight 138 tons—276,000 pounds—is to move about. Yet, to aim the gun, it must be moved about. And as it takes some time to load it, all the gunners would be picked off by sharp-shooters if they were not protected. So the gun has to be moved down behind a safe wall or rampart while it is loaded, and then raised up again to be fired. Only steam can do this. Again, such a weight as 3,300 pounds of steel and 1,000 pounds of powder can be lifted and inserted in the gun only by the help of steam. The noise of the discharge and the danger of exploding 1,000 pounds of powder are so great that it is not safe for a man to fire one of these huge guns close by, as he could fire a small one. So electricity is brought into play, and the powder ignited by means of the electric spark. Now, let us measure the power of these huge machines. A foot-ton is the force with which one ton raised one foot and then let fall, would strike the ground, or the force with which one pound raised two thousand feet from the ground would exert in falling that distance. Now, the force, or energy, exerted by a projectile from one of these huge guns is more than 57,000 foot-tons at a distance of 1,000 yards from the gun. Very few of us can understand what a tremendous power this is; but if we were to take the obelisk in Central Park, and carry it bodily to the very top of the spire on Trinity Church, and then let it fall, it would strike Broadway with far less force; still it would be sufficient to crush any building on which it should happen to fall. These great guns, if they could be given the proper elevation on board ship—that is, if the construction of war-ships allowed the muzzle of the gun to be pointed upward sufficiently—could throw their shells from far outside of Coney Island into the heart of New York City, to crush whatever the missile might strike. Yet this distance is over twelve miles. If one such projectile could retain the velocity with which it leaves the gun—2,000 feet a second—it would reach the moon, 270,000 miles distant, in eight days. Yet, wonderful as are these guns, the limit of their power is not reached; and in a few years more, the present weapons will appear small beside the new ones to be constructed. Before long there will be guns to fire shells charged with dynamite or other high explosives, so that nothing can withstand the bursting shells. These guns will add to the horrors of war; but some philosophers are of the opinion that it is only by making war so frightful that human beings cannot endure its terrors, that the millennium will be brought about. Good nature is a very bad thing, generally; it is without backbone. Goodness by grace, puts grit, backbone, and ribs into the soft parts. Many a preacher doses his congregation with all kinds of notices because he has too much good nature in his make-up. Over-politeness and over-easiness are out of place in the pulpit. The flood of pulpit notices are frequently so long, so varied and diverting, that the sermon and service, if not lost, are seriously affected. We clip this:— "A Michigan pastor, discussing this question in a ministers' meeting not long since, made this telling point: 'A pulpit notice is a pulpit indorsement. Some people may, at first thought, dissent from this, imagining that a pastor is simply a fleshly phonograph to grind out the notices put into his hands into audible sound. But second thought will convince anyone that a minister should never read a notice of any sort which either himself or some wise and proper officer of his church does not personally know to be worthy of recommendation and of a pulpit reminder.' When this principle is established and acknowledged, church members and society workers will learn to recognize what a serious offense it is to seek pulpit advertising by imposing on a pastor's good nature."—St. Louis Christian Advocate. SLAVERY IN CENTRAL AFRICA.
It was in the western part of this district that Lieutenant Wissmann in 1882 visited a Bene Ki town, whose single street extended for ten miles, whose huts were twenty feet high, and surrounded by neat court-yards, whose men toiled in the fields behind the houses, while all the inhabitants bade the stranger welcome, and about five thousand of them visited his camp that evening. Two years ago Wissmann passed again through that place. There was nothing left of the happy homesteads. In the tall grass that choked the long street were found many charred poles and blackened skulls. The hordes of Tippu Tib within six months had paid three murderous visits to this large settlement. Many women were carried off, all who offered resistance were killed, and the fields, gardens, and banana groves were laid waste. Small-pox, introduced by the Arabs, and famine, completed the tragedy. The powerful tribe of Bene Ki had ceased to exist, and only a few individuals had escaped south to Zappu Zapp, a chief who was himself a refugee from Arab aggression. Along three hundred miles of the Congo, between Nyangwe and Stanley Falls, the Arabs, according to Gleerup and Lenz, have depopulated about fifteen thousand square miles of territory. The numerous tribes whom Stanley first saw have become slaves, or in greatly depleted numbers wander through the forests far from the river. About two thousand square miles of the rolling prairie west of Tippu Tib's home at Kasongo have been utterly drained of their people. About twenty thousand square miles on the western headwaters of the Congo are no longer a profitable field for slave hunting. In the very region where Livingstone died, and where his heart was buried, extending southeast from Lake Banweolo and embracing about fifteen thousand square miles, the Arabs, we are told by Giraud, have completely ravaged the country. And from all these centers of devastation the paths of the destroyers leading to slave marts and shipping-points may be traced by the bones of the victims who fall by the way. It cannot be possible that the civilized world will much longer permit this colossal crime of the century to add its murderous results, without taking earnest measures to put a stop to it.—The American. OUR GENERAL CONFERENCE.
By Editor
WE have not been there except in spirit, but judging from the Daily Bulletin and reports from delegates, the Conference has up to this writing been one of great interest and much labor. The delegates number upwards of one hundred and twenty, from nearly all parts of the world. The number of standing committees is every year increasing, numbering this year fourteen. Much improvement in every phase of the Conference is manifest in the Bulletin reports. In the first place, a well-digested plan of the meetings was decided upon before the Conference began. The regular work was put into systematic shape. The officers of the various associations and the delegates from various fields have presented the wants and needs of their respective charges in well-prepared reports, thus enabling the delegates and committees to grasp, in the least possible time, the problems with which they have to grapple. Some of these reports it will be of interest to note. The president's address lucidly, though briefly, sets forth the progress which the work has made during the past year, and points out matters which ought to be taken into consideration, among which are the amendments to the constitution, to meet the growing needs of this people, and the districting of the great field, each district being placed under the charge of a member of the General Conference Committee. All matters for consideration are brought in systematic form before the Conference, referred to the proper committee if practicable, and printed in the Bulletin, before final action is taken thereon, thus giving to all the privilege of considering the matter thoroughly before voting upon it. We know that these methods will prove much more effective and satisfactory than the methods less defined, generally pursued in such conferences. The work in foreign fields is encouraging. The publishing house in Basel, Switzerland, built at great sacrifice and labor a few years ago, this year for the first time shows a balance in its favor of $1,559.55 for the year. There is a call for tracts and books in the Spanish and Turkish languages. Reports were presented from the Southern field by R. M. Kilgore; from the Eastern field by R. A. Underwood; from the Western field, by E. W. Farnsworth; from New Zealand by A. G. Daniells; from Australia by G. C. Tenney; from Scandinavia by Lewis Johnson; from South Africa by P. W. B. Wessells, a part of which will be found in our missionary department. Two new Conferences were admitted, namely, the Atlantic Conference, embracing the two southern counties in New York, Staten and Long Islands, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and District of Columbia; and the Conference of New Zealand. The International Tract Society, the Educational Society, the American Health and Temperance Association, the International Sabbath-school Association, the National Religious Liberty Association, and the Central Publishing Association, have all held their preliminary meeting and are well under way. A report of all these will be given in due time. The first General Conference was held, we believe, in 1862, composed of the merest handful; but God was in the work. And what we now see is not what man has wrought, but it is all of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. To his name be all the praise. Is Sunday the Sabbath of the Lord? Is it the "Lord's day"? Is it holy? In replying to these questions the first thing which confronts us is the fact that the great majority of the Christian church regard Sunday as holy. Many of these men are eminently learned and great, many are as truly conscientious in this observance as are any Christians in any observance. Surely this wealth of numbers and power and influence all upon one side may well make us pause to consider whether the question is worth asking, Is Sunday the Sabbath, or Lord's day? A very small part of the great body of Christians observe the seventh day. Why do they do this, thereby bringing to themselves great inconvenience? Were these questions to be decided by the preponderance of numbers, there would not be needed a moment's consideration. We could decide only in favor of Sunday. But this manner of deciding would satisfy no true Protestant among Sunday observers. They well know that the majority in this sinful world has, on great and important questions, been too often upon the side of error to place any reliance upon the testimony of mere numbers. Neither are we to accept of the seventh-day Sabbath, because it is held by the minority. Numbers are of no value whatever in such questions as the above. The Scriptures expressly declare that we shall not follow a multitude to sin (Ex. 23:2), and the Lord tells Israel that they have eaten the fruit of lies, because they trusted in the multitude of their mighty men. Hosea 10:13. The principle would hold just as good as regards following or trusting a minority. Numbers are nothing in deciding duty to God. What is the truth of the matter? will be what the honest in heart will ask. The question of the Sabbath is a Bible question. The Sabbath originated with God; to the revealed will of God we must go to ascertain the truth. What say the Scriptures? will be the question of every true Protestant, will be the question of every true Bible believer, will be the question of every Christian. How was it regarded by the Lord Jesus Christ, our only perfect pattern? What was his example? All other considerations sink into insignificance compared with these. Where the word of the Most High speaks, where the example of the Divine Word is before us, what are numbers, or customs, or anything human? Let us, then, come to the Scriptures of truth with unprejudiced mind, with a desire to know what is the will of God, with the purpose to do that will, because God's will is always best, however better man's ways may seem to the human judgment, or to a conscience perverted or blinded by sin, or warped by education. In the Scriptures, God has revealed not only man's duty but his whole duty. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. If the Scriptures thoroughly furnish to perfection the man of God "unto all good works," his whole duty is most certainly contained therein. What the Scriptures say concerning the first day of the week is very brief. It is mentioned only eight times in all the New Testament, as follows:— "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him [Jesus]. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils." Mark 16:9. "And they [the women who followed Jesus] returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 23:56; 24:1. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." Acts 20:7. "Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16:1, 2. Here is every instance in which "the first day" occurs in the entire New Testament. The first six of these instances refer to one and the same first day, the day on which our Saviour rose from the dead, though it is from these texts we must learn the sacredness or non-sacredness of the day. It is upon these texts that first-day observance as a Christian duty, or a moral obligation, must be based. It is argued from these texts that Christ rose from the dead on that day; that he sanctioned the day as one of religious observance by repeatedly (some say, "invariably") meeting with his disciples on that day, thus leaving us a divine example of our duty with reference to first-day obligation. But do these texts reveal this? Have we a right to draw from them unwarranted conclusions? The first, second, fourth, and fifth texts record the simple fact that after the Sabbath, on the morning of the first day, those women who loved our Saviour went to the sepulcher and found he was not there. The third text declares that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. The sixth text (John 20:19) speaks of a gathering on that day, that Jesus met with that gathering, and said, "Peace be unto you." There is no precept or example thus far which proves first-day sacredness, unless it be the last text. The above, of course, would not be a fair examination of these passages. We must take the context into consideration. What lessons can we draw from these accounts of that first day? 1. We learn from the record that the first day of the week was not the Sabbath, but was the day following the Sabbath. See the first three texts. Therefore, as the next day after the day called by the New Testament writers "the Sabbath," was "the first day of the week," it follows without controversy that the Sabbath was the seventh or last day of the week in the time when the gospels were written, namely, Matthew in A.D. 38, Mark in A.D. 61, Luke in A.D. 63, John in A.D. 97. And it certainly follows that as the seventh day was the Sabbath, the first day was not the Sabbath. 2. We learn from the sacred record that there was no meeting on that first day until its very close, or evening. Luke 24:29-36; John 20:19. 3. The first part of this day was spent by two of the disciples in going to Emmaus, some seven and one-half miles from Jerusalem. Luke 24:13-35.679 4. Those women who had seen Christ after he had risen, and the two who had met with Jesus at Emmaus, told the eleven, "neither believed they them." Jesus soon after met with them and "upbraided them for their unbelief." Mark 16:9-14. 5. The meeting of the eleven was not a religious meeting in honor of the day; for (1) the disciples did not believe that Jesus had risen; and (2) they were only gathered in their own common abode (Acts 1:13), at the very close of that day, and had shut the door for fear of the Jews. John 20:19. 6. When Jesus met them, they supposed that he was an apparition. Luke 24:36-41. They were certainly not met together to honor the day, for they knew no reason why it should be honored. 7. If it was designed of God to set apart Sunday as his Sabbath, he would (reasoning from analogy) have performed some act connected with this object, something which would show the connection between the resurrection and Sunday-keeping. Now there is nothing whatever to indicate this. The record does not say when Jesus rose. He had risen early Sunday morning; that is all. The disciples met at their own room, and when Jesus met with them, the day must have closed or have been closing. It was "far spent" when the disciples were at Emmaus, before their evening meal. Luke 24:29. From that meal they walked seven and one-half miles back to Jerusalem, when they told the story to the eleven, who did not believe. Mark 16:12, 13. Afterward Jesus appeared. A few possible moments of Sunday is a poor foundation for a Sabbath. The record of six texts teaches no more than the above. The entire day was one of busy activity or settled despair on the part of the disciples, with that almost universal belief that he had not risen; and the meeting of Jesus with them indicated in no way that he designed to honor the day, or that he was laying the basis of a religious institution. His appearance was to convince them by "many infallible proofs" that he had risen. Acts 1:3. His next meeting with his disciples was when Thomas was present, after eight days from the time he first met with them. "After eight days" from Sunday night would carry it at least over to the next Monday or Tuesday. John 20:26. The reason why Jesus appeared this time is expressly stated. Thomas, who had doubted the testimony of his brethren, was present. There is not a shadow of inference for first-day sacredness here. The third meeting with his disciples is recorded in John 21, and was on a fishing occasion, certainly not on that of a religious meeting. The time might have been the first day of the week, but it certainly was not a day holy unto the Lord. The seventh text in which “the first day of the week” occurs is Acts 20:7, before quoted. From this passage and its context the following conclusions can justly be drawn:— 1. This is the only religious meeting occurring on the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2. It occurred on what would be our Saturday night, the Bible day beginning at sunset. It was therefore at the close of the Sabbath, Paul wishing to hold communion with them before he departed. That it was in the evening is indicated by the fact that there were “many lights.” Paul preached till midnight. At this time Eutychus fell from the window, and was restored to life by Paul. The breaking of bread then took place, after which Paul preached till day-break. Sunday morning then having been reached, Paul departed on his journey across the isthmus to Assos, a distance of some nineteen miles. Verses 8-14. 3. While Paul was holding his closing meeting at Troas, his companions, among them Luke, were navigating their boat around the promontory, a distance of some fifty miles, meeting Paul at Assos the next night. Verses 13, 14. 4. The reason why the narrative of the meeting is given is evidently to reveal the working of God’s power in the raising of the dead. We can come to no other conclusion than this. The day had nothing whatever of a sabbatarian character about it; for the meeting might have been held on any day by a traveling preacher. The whole of the day was spent in travel by Paul. For this reason the Holy Spirit mentions “the first day of the week” to forever show to the world that legitimate work on any working-day was just as legitimate on the first day. Would that our zealous Sunday-law advocates might heed the lesson. The last text in which “the first day of the week” is found is 1 Cor. 16:2. What does it teach? that everyone was to put funds into the collection of the church as God prospered him? The text says, “Lay by him in store;” does this mean to lay away from him? To lay by him in store is to lay up in his own house, or in his own presence, as every version and translation proves. After the working-days of the previous week and the Sabbath were past, he would know what could be spent for the poor saints. The text teaches a secular duty by implication, namely, the reckoning up of accounts. This must be done in order to know how much they were prospered. Had the term “third day of the week” been in the text instead of “first day of the week,” those who now argue that it is a proof of Sunday sacredness would in that case consider the text of no importance as proving a Sabbath. Here are the eight passages of Scripture which speak of the first day of the week. What do they teach? What is their import? Simply this: That the first day was not commanded as a Sabbath or holy day; that there is no example that it was regarded as a holy day by either Christ or his apostles; that instead of the first day of the week being the Sabbath it is the day immediately following the day which Inspiration called the Sabbath; that the only injunction we have concerning the first day in the New Testament is one which pertains to monetary matters; that the first day is only known by the term “first day of the week,” and never by any term which would indicate that it was in any wise sacred. "THE LORD'S DAY."
By M. C. W.
But is it not called the "Lord's day" in the text, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day"? Rev. 1:10. The text does not say what day of the week the Lord's day was; we must learn this from other scriptures. In Mark 2:27 Jesus says, "The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." We have clearly seen that the texts which we have considered call that day the Sabbath which immediately preceded the first day; and God expressly declares that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. The Lord through Isaiah called it, "My holy day." Isa. 58:13. Therefore according to the Holy Scriptures, which "cannot be broken" (John 10:35), the seventh day of the week is at once both the holy Sabbath and Lord's day, while the first day has no claims whatever to either. Now, candid reader, how will we decide? Here is the testimony of the word of God to the first day. That word our Saviour says is truth. John 17:17. It is the duty of all who worship God to worship him not only in spirit but in truth. John 4:24. Shall we continue to observe or revere an institution which has no foundation in Scripture, but is based on the uncertain traditions of an apostate church? or will we heed that institution based on the sure and unchangeable word of God, by which we will be judged in the last day? God would justify our transgression while we were walking according to the best light we had in the past; but "to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17. Christ lived our example. He never kept the first day of the week as sacred; he ever kept the Sabbath. John 15:10. He died to redeem us from sin (the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4), and "from all iniquity" (lawlessness, Titus 2:14). Will we not follow him instead of error? It is "will-worship" to do what he has not commanded; it is living "faith which worketh by love" that keeps God's commandments. 1 John 5:3; Gal. 5:6. SECRETARY FOSTER ON CHURCH AND STATE.
By C. P. B.
REV. J. M. FOSTER, one of the district secretaries of the National Reform Association, has an article in the Christian Cynosure of October 17, which is noteworthy as showing, rather more plainly than anything which any officer of that association has said recently, the real purpose of the association. They all deny most persistently that they want a union of Church and State, but almost their every utterance shows that they do demand and are working for just such a union. A few quotations from Mr. Foster’s article will show that this is so. Of the relation of Church and State, he says:— “This has been the vexed question of all the ages. The Papacy thought it was settled when the church became the supreme ruler of the State in the exaltation of Stevens, in 756. The prelatic party supposed it fixed when King Henry VIII., of England, made the State the sole arbiter of the church, in 1534. The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 imagined it was disposed of when they embodied the secular theory of government in the fundamental law of this land. But the problem is not yet solved. Neither the enthronement of the church by Constantine in 323, nor her divorcement by America in 1787, correspond with the scriptural model, or peacefully adjust the intimate and delicate relations existing between Church and State.” This paragraph is only introductory, and does not state just what Mr. Foster’s idea of the proper relation of Church and State is, though it does reveal the fact that he does not approve of the American and Protestant doctrine of total separation of Church and State as provided for in our National Constitution. It is also noteworthy that, while he disapproves of Constantine’s plan of making the State the ruler of the church, he has naught to say against letting the church rule the State. The reason for this will appear presently. In order to make the subject perfectly plain, Mr. Foster treats it under three propositions, each of which he attempts to prove, though the second and third are point-blank contradictions of the first. His first proposition is:— “1. According to the Scriptures, Church and State are mutually separate and independent divine institutions.” This is true, and some of Mr. Foster’s reasons for holding it are good. He says:— “They exist by the decree of God, and are answerable to him. ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ This divine ordination establishes the church’s independence. ‘The powers that be are ordained of God.’ ‘Rulers are God’s ministers to thee for good.’ This determines the freedom of the State.”680 This is good, but he spoils it all by attempting to show that Church and State were not united under the Jewish theocracy. It is scarcely necessary to remark that in this he utterly fails. Mr. Foster’s second proposition is:— “2. According to the Scriptures, the State and its sphere exist for the sake of, and to serve the interests of, the church.” This he supports by a lot of arguments, but not reasons, drawn from the theocracy. Among other things he says:— “The true State will have a wise reference to the church’s interests in all its legislative, executive, and judicial proceedings. Public vice and crime, immorality and licentiousness—the wild boar from the forest that devours the garden of the Lord—it destroys; and morality, virtue, and good order, the handmaids of religion, it promotes and encourages. The expenses of the church, in carrying on her public aggressive work, it meets in whole, or in part, out of the public treasury. Thus the church is protected and exalted by the State. David and Solomon made provision for the building of the temple, and Hiram, king of Tyre, assisted them. Cyrus, king of Persia, issued a decree respecting the rebuilding of the temple, and it is expressly declared that the Lord stirred up his heart to do it. Darius afterward issued an edict to the same effect. Another royal enactment was made by Artaxerxes to the same purpose. And all this was done with divine approval.” If that would not be a union of Church and State we confess that we do not know what would be. His third proposition agrees with the second, and is:— “3. According to the Scriptures, the Church and the true State will exist in friendly recognition and co-operation.” In support of this, he says:— “Because the State is distinct from the church, it does not follow that it is divorced from her. The Christian family is a divine institution. It is independent of the church, and yet it exists in friendly recognition and co-operation with her. The church will recognize the good offices of the Christian State; and the true State will formally acknowledge its obligation to ‘serve’ the church. They may swear the same covenant bond, in which are embodied the duties which each, in its sphere, owes to the king. The nation and the church of Israel seem to have sworn the same bond at Sinai. The church of the British Isles and the three kingdoms, Scotland, England, and Ireland, swore the same covenant in 1643, —‘The Solemn League and Covenant.’ “Rev. William Milroy has well said, in reference to ‘the duty of the State, as such, to enter into alliance with the church of Christ, and to profess, adhere to, and maintain the true religion:— “‘Ever since Christianity became a power among the nations of the world, the minds of legislators have been occupied with the difficult question: Can Church and State enter into mutual alliance and yet each prosecute, untrammeled, its respective ends, and exercise, uncontrolled, its important functions? Though the verdict of the Christian people of the United States, if called to-day to answer this question, would probably be overwhelmingly in the negative, yet we conceive the pious, profound, and sagacious men of the second Reformation, more than two hundred years ago, solved the problem correctly, answering in the affirmative. And not only so, but for a brief period in the land of the covenants they presented to the world what has nowhere else been witnessed, the solution in practical operation.’ May our land soon be thus in covenant with God, and in a state of friendly recognition and co-operation with the church of Christ.” And still Mr. Foster does not want a union of Church and State! Oh, no, he only wants them to be married and not divorced! And he wants it to be an Indian marriage, reversed at that, so that the State (the husband) shall become the slave of the Church (the bride)! We certainly think that the verdict of the American people ought to be against any such wicked scheme as that thus unblushingly proposed by the National Reform Association. One more thought: In his second letter to the Corinthians Paul says: “I am jealous over you with godly jealousy, for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” 2 Cor. 11:2. But Mr. Foster thinks it does not follow that it (the State) is divorced from her (the Church). But what does the apostle say in Romans?—“For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.” Rom. 7:2, 3. It follows that Mr. Foster wants the church to live in adultery, having at the same time two husbands, the State and Christ. But will our Lord consent to be a party to any such union?—Nay, verily. The Church may be united with the State, as Mr. Foster indicates, but she cannot be united with Christ at the same time.