Earlier text: Uncertainty of Geological ScienceIN his Autobiography, Benjamin Franklin tells of a sermon which he heard on one of the verses in the passage assigned by the Committee for the Sunday-school lesson of May 17. The incident is worth recalling in this connection, as an illustration of how not to teach this lesson. Franklin paid his annual subscription, he says, for the support of the only Presbyterian minister in Philadelphia, and attended the church, though not with any great regularity, as the sermons seemed to him aimed rather to make his hearers Presbyterians than good citizens. "At length he took for his text that verse of the fourth chapter of Philippians, 'Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of good report, if there be any virtue, or any praise, think on these things.' And I imagined, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having some morality. But he confined himself to five points only, as meant by the apostles; viz., 1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day; 2. Being diligent in reading the Holy Scriptures; 3. Attending duly the public worship; 4. Partaking of the sacrament; 5. Paying a due respect to God's ministers. These might be all good things; but, as they were not the kind of good things I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more."
—Christian Union. A Child’s Bible Text Mistake
A CHILD's mistake in the words of a Bible text will sometimes give us a gleam of a child's liability to misunderstand the tenor of such a text; and it will suggest afresh the importance of carefully explaining both the separate words and the connected sense of every Bible verse memorized by the little ones. A bright little fellow of three years old had been hearing at family prayers and in primary class, the story of Paul's shipwreck, and he seemed full of sympathy with Paul when he was fairly on the Italian shores, bound by land toward Rome. The golden text for the third Sunday in April—as he understood it—seemed, to the little fellow, a peculiarly appropriate one, as Paul was greeted by his fellow-Christians from the metropolis. “He thanked God and took a carriage,” was his idea of that text; and it seemed a reasonable idea, under the circumstances.—Sel. Escaped Safe to Land
By H. Clay Trumbull
“So it came to pass, that they all escaped safe to land.” Of course it did. God had promised that this should be so. His word never fails. When we can put our finger on a promise of God, we can be sure that neither earth nor hell can hinder the fulfillment of that assurance. What if the times are hard? What if our best friends have failed us? What if this burden seems sure to crush us? What if the wisest of human counselors declare that there is no help or hope for us? If we are trusting disciples of Jesus, the word of God is pledged to carry us through, to sustain us in, and finally to deliver us from, every trial and danger and trouble. So it shall come to pass that from perils of famishing, massacre, drowning, from every disappointment, sorrow, and bereavement, we shall escape safe to rest and joy and peace.—H. Clay Trumbull. "A man's pride shall bring him low; but honor shall uphold the humble in spirit." "How shall we escape?" He not only has given us words of life, he has given his life itself, for our salvation. If this be neglected, how can salvation be obtained? Is there a more precious life to be given? No. Is there a greater One to come than He? No. "What could have been done more, that I have not done?" saith the Lord. Yes, all has been done. Therefore the question is not, How shall we be saved if we neglect it? But it is, "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?" This fearful death, this awful sacrifice, this great salvation, has not been accomplished in vain on either hand. Those who appreciate it shall enjoy it; those who neglect it shall not escape. "For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord?" If every transgression of the word spoken by angels was recompensed, how much more shall it be to the transgressors of the word spoken by Him who is so much better, so much higher, than the angels. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Two Great Compromises.
By Editor
Of the "little horn" or papal power, Dan. 7:26 says: "They shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." But that does not indicate the consumption and destruction of the papacy itself. Of other powers the same chapter, verse 12, says: "They had their dominion taken away; yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time." The prolonging of their lives was necessary that Dan. 2:35 may be fulfilled, which says of these same powers, they were "broken to pieces together." Though the power of the papacy is consumed by the nations, the papacy itself is consumed by the brightness of the coming of the Lord. 2 Thess. 2:1-8. Through the priests the papacy has had control, more or less, of the Governments of South America; but, in fulfillment of the prophecy, the consuming process seems to have reached the whole world. Even now we hear that these States are freeing themselves from the arrogance of the priests. The secular power is asserting its independence in its rule. But amid all these changes, the people of these kingdoms, as in most of those of Europe, remain Catholic. And most of them recognize no other religion—they know no other religion. If we could realize this fact we would often have more sympathy for the irreligious of those countries. Their opposition to religion has largely grown from their intimate knowledge of the errors and senseless ritualism, the bigotry and intolerance, of the Romish system. Trained from their infancy to believe that this is the only religion that has any claim on our faith or reverence, they become infidels and often atheists. But on the subjects of Christian morals, and of faith and reverence, they are profoundly ignorant. They are still filled with blind superstition. The following will show the influence of the training to which they are subjected from infancy:— Some years ago we became acquainted with an intelligent and educated gentleman from the continent of Europe. He was a graduate in eight languages, and at the time of our acquaintance was teaching four languages in a Catholic College. As we were under his instruction, and he attended our meetings, listening attentively to a series of our sermons, we had many conversations on religious matters. He confessed the truth which we preached; he found much fault with both the teachings and the practices of the priests, even in this land. When we urged him to embrace the truth of the Bible and to connect himself with us, his only reply was: "I cannot; I am a member of the Catholic Church." And we could not make him realize that it was possible for him to dissolve that connection. His judgment and his conscience would have led him to renounce Catholicism if he could have been brought to see that separation from "the church" was possible. Now if this man, intelligent and educated, having spent some time in the United States, every way dissatisfied with the papal church, could not break the chain of superstition which was woven around him from his infancy, what are we to expect from the masses who never had his privileges? They are taught to believe that their baptism made them life-members of that church, no matter where they are nor how they live. They can more easily dissolve their relation to fathers and mothers than to the church; that is a relation which cannot be severed in this life. The only door out of the church is that of death leading to endless perdition. Now if through fear or coercion these masses of irreligious or indifferent people shall ever be led to embrace, to uphold any religion, what will it be? What can we reasonably expect of them? To this there can be but one answer. A few may accept the religion, the doctrines of the Bible; but that demands conversion and personal piety, of which the great majority in Catholic countries have no conception. They have never heard it taught or seen it exemplified by the priests. As religionists their only trust was in their baptism and the power to the priests to conduct them to Heaven. The position of the papacy has long been anomalous. Professing to be the only true church, and the pillar and ground of the truth, it has persecuted the true church and hid the truth of God from the people. It has burned both the Bible and those who dared to read it and believe it. Professing to be the vicegerent of Christ and the sole representative of God upon the earth, it has degraded the worship of Christ, giving his office and his power to Mary, and exalted itself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped. And at this time, while the powers which have long yielded to the sway of the pope and to his prime officers, are breaking away from his despotic authority, the more enlightened nations, and especially the churchly influences within those nations, are drawing nearer to the papal church, and recognizing and paying more respect to his spiritual power. It was the knowledge of this fact which caused us to say that "the train is being laid for a return to the darkest phase of religious bigotry and intolerance." Are these things so? Look at the United States and at England, and answer. When Cardinal McCloskey returned from Rome, where he went to receive the right to wear the purple and scarlet (the adopted emblems of royalty and fornication), he was received as a prince, and more honor was given to him by public men than is accorded to ambassadors of the empires of earth. The Catholic Church receives largesses and privileges, especially in our chief cities, which are granted to no other church. But the most significant fact is that representative men of the various denominations are not only willing to affiliate with, but are seeking affiliation with the Catholics. Under the plea of liberality and Christian charity such men as H. W. Beecher have done what they could to break down the dividing line between Protestants and Catholics. It is true that the influence of Mr. Beecher has greatly waned; but his efforts in that direction were made when he had influence, and that influence still makes its impress on the public mind. One D. D. has gone so far as to say that the mission of Protestantism is ended. And if so, what need that Protestantism should longer have an existence? History is changed, mutilated, that it may not wound the feelings of the descendants of the Inquisitors. Everybody knows that the antagonism which has so long existed between the two parties is being softened down; that stirring denunciations of the mockery of forms, of indulgences and the confessional, of the power and immorality of the priesthood, are left to a few "converted Catholics," who receive but a small share of sympathy from their Protestant neighbors. Although there has been strong opposition raised in New York against the "Freedom of Worship" bill, which was introduced to favor the Catholics, yet it would be difficult to get any minister of high standing in New York, or in any other large city in this country, to utter the burning words of warning against the wickedness and the ambitious designs of the papacy, that are being uttered at this time in Rome by "Father Gavazzi"! But while the dividing line between Catholics and Protestants is being broken down; while the two parties seem to be drawing nearer together, it is a fact that the process of breaking down, the drawing, is all on the part of Protestants; the Catholics have not yielded one jot or tittle. Not one word of conciliation has been spoken by a representative Catholic. They offer no apology for the acts of the church in past centuries. The works of the Inquisition are as just, the auto-da-fe is as sacred, in their eyes, as they were five centuries ago. That all may be assured on this point—that the church of Rome is not changed—we quote from the "Syllabus of Errors," issued by the authority of Pius IX., the infallible, in 1864:— "Every man is free to embrace and profess the religion he shall believe true, guided by the light of reason." If the last sentence separates the light of revelation from the light of reason, we, too, might regard the declaration as an error. But the following shows the extent of the definition given:— "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in the Catholic Church." "Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the church, but are superior to the church, in litigated questions of jurisdiction." "The church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the church." "In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other modes of worship." "Whence it has been wisely provided by law, in some countries called Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship." All these are condemned as errors; from which we learn: (1) That State and church ought by right to be united; (2) That the church has paramount jurisdiction; (3) That the religion of the State should be Catholic, to the exclusion of all others; (4) That a person coming to reside in a Catholic country shall not enjoy the public exercise of his own religion; (5) That Protestantism is not a form of the Christian religion, in which it is possible to be equally pleasing to God as in the Catholic faith. Another article places "Biblical Societies" in the list of "pests" which have been "frequently rebuked in the severest terms." When Protestants curry favor of the Catholics, they may as well understand that the complaisance is all on one side—the compliment will never be returned. It has seemed necessary to take this space to show the relative position of the parties. The above extracts are from a publication of Pius IX. himself. The reader may think, if he has not examined the subject, that the second quotation only denies to the Protestant equal favor before God with the Catholic. But "approved" Catholic works show that more than this is intended. Keenan's Catechism, speaking of the saints in the Catholic Church (those acknowledged by all to be saints), says: "If he can be saved in the church, it must be the true church, and he can be saved in no other." And Mgr. Segur's "Plain Talk," says: "All Protestant sects acknowledge that salvation can be attained in the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has unceasingly protested that she is the only true church, and that it is necessary to belong to her to be a child of God." The leaning toward Catholicism is more strongly marked among the Protestants of Europe than among those of America. But this we must reserve for another paper. Sincerity and Final Perseverance
By Flavel
If you should endure some slight troubles, and faint at last, giving out when a severer trial befalls you, all your labors and sufferings are vain. Sincerity and final perseverance are the conditions of all special promises.—Flavel. "Our Sunday; Whence and What?"
By Editor
BEFORE giving quotations from Dr. Nisbet's argument against the Sunday as a day divinely ordained to be observed, we must notice his abuse of the words of Jehovah as to the significance and importance of the rest day of creation. Thus he speaks:— "God's thought in the gift of the seventh-day Sabbath to the Jew, was not merely cessation of labor on it—there was in it as its deepest, fullest, most precious significance, prophecy backwards and prophecy forwards. The seventh-day rest pointed backwards, was memorial of God's deliverance from Egypt, and sign that Jehovah their covenant God, and no idol, brought them that deliverance; pointing forwards, it was promise of the perfect rest in Christ, in Heaven. The rest day given the Jews by Jehovah on his leading them out of Egypt, in the divine thought of it, how far-reaching, precious, cheering! to the heart rightly interpreting it, how well fitted to nourish courage, and allegiance to Jehovah, the seventh-day Sabbath giver! How much more worthy of God this conception of the Jewish seventh-day rest, than conceived of simply as a twenty-four hours' cessation from labor, required because God ceased his labors of creating after six days!" Mr. Nisbet's style is anything but happy, but we care only for his sentiment, which is generally very unfortunate. Perhaps if we were "degreed" to write D. D. to our name we should be able to appreciate the expression, "prophecy backwards." But with the open Bible before us, we cannot appreciate the idea which he aims to enforce. The seventh-day Sabbath was not a "prophecy backwards," nor yet a memorial of their deliverance from Egypt. The Lord said by Moses that he commanded them to keep the Sabbath because he brought them out of Egypt, where, in their rigorous servitude, we know they could not keep it. And for the same reason he required them to do justice in judgment, to be honest in deal, and to observe all his statutes. Lev. 19:35-37; Deut. 24:17, 18. We might say, with equal propriety, that all these things were memorials of their deliverance from Egypt. There may be local reasons for enforcing the observance of an institution or obedience to a precept, while that local reason does not at all lie at the foundation of the institution or the precept. It may be said in truth that we in America ought to praise and worship God for the enjoyment of so many privileges of light and liberty. But that does not prove that they are not under obligation to worship who do not enjoy these same privileges. Mr. Nisbet certainly engages in a work of supererogation when he attempts to point out what is "much more worthy of God" than the word and action of God himself! The Creator needs no such vindication of his character. The force of our remark will be appreciated when it is considered that God never gave the reason for the institution which Mr. N. adopts, while the only reason which the Scriptures give for the Sabbath is that which he belittles! When he declares that it is less worthy of God to conceive of or enforce the Sabbath because Jehovah rested upon the seventh day after creating six days, he places himself against the words of inspiration in Gen. 2:3, and the words of Jehovah himself in Ex. 20:8-11. Search the Scriptures through and you will find no other reason for the institution than that God made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested the seventh day. Says Jehovah: "Wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day (the day of the rest), and hallowed it;" consecrated it, or set it apart to a sacred use. In this day of increasing light on this subject, we must think that nothing but the vail of prejudice prevents the wise of the world seeing the force of the Scripture declarations concerning the significance and importance of the Sabbath. That much stress is laid upon "the knowledge of God" in all the Scriptures, we need not stop to prove. The nations that "know not God" shall perish. Now hear what the Lord says of his Sabbath:— "Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." Eze. 20:12. "And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." Verse 20. With these connect Ex. 31:17: "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." Thus the Sabbath is a sign whereby we may know the Lord God, and that Jehovah is the true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. Compare Jer. 10:2-12. There are some who profess to know God, but in works deny him. Titus 1:16. "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." 1 John 2:3. The characteristic that Jehovah has given to distinguish him from false gods is that he is the Creator of all things. Had this Sabbath of the Lord been always kept, the nations could not have forgotten him. The world—we mean the civilized world—now affects to be wise enough to stand no longer in need of this Heaven-given means of the knowledge of the true God. But in this even the educated in philosophy and theology are following in the wake of the nations which preceded them, of whom the apostle said: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." Rom. 1:22. Although his eternal power and Godhead are "understood by the things that are made," the visible creation, these give the glory that belongs to Jehovah to the things of earth, and to the works of their own hands. They who thus "become vain in their imaginations" in these days, who profess themselves to be wise, turn away from God, the Creator, and worship a figment of their own brain which they call "Evolution." But we are thankful that there are a few, "a remnant," on the earth, who will not turn away from the Creator, but believe his word and keep his commandments. We might strengthen this position, but now turn to the words of Mr. Nisbet on the "whence" of "Our Sunday." And here we would gladly transfer pages to our columns if our space permitted. He examines Hessey's arguments for the divine New Testament institution of Sunday, and says:— "Hessey denies that Christ rising from the dead on the first day of the week, consecrates it. 'I cannot see,' he says, 'how an act or fact can establish an ordinance not necessarily connected with it, unless it is declared by the agent (as in the case of the Mosaic Sabbath and the manna), that it is intended to give sanction to it.' Christ gives no hint that his resurrection on the first day of the week in any way teaches its consecration. The meeting of Christ with his disciples after his resurrection on two successive first days of the week, Hessey regards of small weight in the matter, and justly, for the peculiar happenings of the first day would naturally call the disciples together, and naturally for their encouragement the Risen One would show himself to them, and nothing of the perpetual ordinance of a sacred day even be thought of as taught in this gathering nor in the similar gatherings of the next weekly return of the wonderful and glad event. If Christ proposed to institute the first day as a new positive sacred ordinance, it may fairly be claimed that by some word during the forty days' stay with his disciples he would have so indicated, and that the Holy Spirit—the churches' teacher—would have so recorded—but not a hint—silence here is negation." "Hessey claims that the first day of the week 'received a most signal mark in the descent of the Holy Spirit' on the day of Pentecost (that year falling on the first day, but even this depends upon a specific way of reckoning the fifty days). Hessey's own argument just given in respect to the resurrection on the first day, applies equally well here. There is nothing in the act itself declarative of the institution of a new sacred day, nor does the agent of the act—the Father—by any word so interpret the act. Much more reasonable is this view—Pentecost was a very famous festival of the Jews—Jews were gathered to it from all quarters of the world, and many Gentiles; the Holy Spirit was given on that day because of the multitudes in Jerusalem, that these multitudes might be eye-and-ear witnesses of the wonders resulting from the descent, and throughout the world spread the news. 'So that the thing being casual as to the day,' says Morer, 'and special as to the business then by God intended, it will afford us little proof either that the Lord's day was then observed, or that the Spirit selected that day for so great a work, to dignify it for a Sabbath.' The apostles never so hint, and for us at this distant day so to interpret the descent—the institution of a perpetually binding sacred day—seems 'far-reached and ill supported.'" "The 'divine institution' of Sunday, Hessey claims, is taught by its being 'observed by the apostles.' But the fact is that outside of the two first days of the week immediately succeeding the resurrection—which Hessey himself throws out as having no weight—and Pentecost—which is otherwise amply accounted for—there is no record of 'apostles' ever having met with each other, nor with disciples nor others on the first day of the week. In only one instance is an apostle said to have met with any company of persons on the first day of the week, viz.: Acts 20:7: 'Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them'—generally interpreted as speaking of a customary gathering of the Troas Christians on this day, and Paul happening to be in the city, preached to 'them.' Criticism eliminates as an interpolation from the passage: 'The disciples'—the new version rightly translates: 'When we [Paul, Luke, and their companions in travel, verse 4] were gathered to break bread, Paul discoursed with them.' 'Them' refers to the people of the city, not necessarily Christians at all, who had gathered in at the time of eating, according to the free customs of those times—even into a Pharisee's house, when Jesus was eating, a notorious woman of the town came in unhindered (Luke 7:37; Mark 6:31). Among the stranger travelers gathered to eat (almost unanimously expositors hold verse 11th speaks of a social meal, so Hackett, Meyer, Spencer, Bloomfield, Piscator, Grotius, Kuinoel, Alford), was the wonderful man and miracle worker who had 'turned the world upside down'—a crowd of curious people press in and fill the room even to the sitting on the windows (verse 9), and Paul preached to 'them.' The passage does not enounce any religious practice whatever of the Troas Christians. This meeting together of the travelers to 'break bread' on the first day of the week once on their journey, is rather a slim pedestal of 'apostolic precedent' on which to base an ordinance perpetually and universally obligatory on the human race. Some see in Homer more than Homer saw." Were the above criticism written by an advocate of the seventh-day Sabbath, we should expect that the friends of "Our Sunday" would rise up in indignation. They generally do when we try to point out the fallacy of their pro-Sunday inferences. But remember that all this comes from one whose work Dr. Frost accepts and praises, and Prof. Le Conte thinks is clear, strong, and timely. It is "timely," for the time has fully come, in the providence of God, to expose the flimsiness of the current arguments for Sunday, and we have no manner of objection to Dr. Nisbet doing a share of the work. Truth will prevail. "The commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus" will stand unshaken when the traditions of men are swept away. The friends of Sunday are much in the condition of the witnesses against Christ: "Their witness agreed not together." Their house is divided—it cannot stand. The Sunday is a wall daubed with untempered mortar, and the coming storm shall rend it. Eze. 13. It is only a man-made institution, with no word from the Lord to uphold it. Salvation Army Riot in Sacramento
By Editor
THE "Salvation Army" was the object of a riot in Sacramento, Cal., May 19. After marching through the streets in the evening to Sixth-street church, where they intended to hold an all-night prayer meeting, they were greeted with yells, groans, stones, and rotten eggs, until for fear the church would be torn down, they retired to their barracks. We do not indorse the methods of the "Salvation Army," but we do believe that they have a right to meet in their respective places, and to conduct their services unmolested. Sanctification.
By A. T. J.
(d) To convince of sin. “And when he is come, he will convince the world of sin.” Verse 8. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3 : 4. And the Holy Spirit can convict no man of sin before God, except by the law of God, “for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. 3 : 20. And without conviction there can be no conversion. So the matter stands just thus: There can be no conversion without conviction; and there can be no conviction without the law; therefore, where the law of God is despised there can be no conversion; hence neither sanctification nor salvation, call it what they will. (e) To convince of righteousness. “He shall convince the world of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.” “All unrighteousness is sin.” 1 John 5 : 17. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” Righteousness is the opposite of unrighteousness. And as unrighteousness is transgression of the law, righteousness is obedience to the law. Therefore, in convincing of righteousness, the Holy Spirit convinces of obedience to the law of God. (f) To convince of judgment. “He shall convince the world of judgment.” “As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, . . . in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Rom. 2 : 12, 16. “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” James 2 : 12. As, therefore, in the Judgment men’s acts are to be compared with the law of God, the office of the Holy Spirit in convincing of judgment is to enable us to see the law of God as it is, that we may have our transgressions washed away by the blood of Christ, and that we may obey the law as we ought; thus to convince us of judgment now while there is hope, that when we shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ, our lives may be found in perfect harmony with the holy law of God, and that so we may stand in the Judgment. (g) To shed abroad the love of God. “The love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” Rom. 5 : 5. “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5 : 3. By all these evidences we see that the office of the Holy Spirit, in every instance in the life of the Christian, is to spread the law and word of God before him, and to impress upon him the duty and knowledge of obedience. Now we bring direct proof that this is exactly what sanctification of the Spirit is, and nothing else. “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the . . . elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience.” 1 Pet. 1 : 1, 2. There we have it. Our proof is positive that the Holy Spirit is given to us to teach us to obey the written word of God, and that true sanctification of the Spirit is unto obedience to that written word. And any sanctification that is not “unto obedience” to the law of God, is spurious sanctification; it is a deception and a snare. Now, and by this, we are brought fairly to 3. “Sanctify them through thy truth.” The last text was proof that sanctification of the Spirit is “unto obedience.” Here we have another text from Peter on the same subject: “Seeing ye have purified [sanctified] your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit.” 1 Pet. 1 : 22. Here we have then the truth that men are elect through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, but they are not sanctified until they have obeyed the truth, the word of God, through the Spirit. The truth of God cannot be obeyed except through the Holy Spirit. The law of God is spiritual (Rom. 7 : 14), the word of Christ is spirit (John 6 : 63), but man is carnal. Therefore “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” Rom. 8 : 7-9. The Holy Spirit is given to take away the carnal mind, and make us spiritually minded, that so we may discern the things of God (1 Cor. 2 : 9-16), and thus he takes the things of God and shows them unto us. Thus by the Spirit of God, we can see our duty in the truth of God, and then we can obey that truth through the Spirit, and so we are sanctified through the truth. True sanctification is through the truth. The other two steps are only preparatory to this final one. The sanctification of faith is unto receiving the Holy Spirit; sanctification of the Spirit is unto obedience to the truth; and having obeyed the truth through the Spirit, we are sanctified. He who rests upon faith, and claims to be sanctified, is deceived. He who rests upon the Spirit and claims to be sanctified, is deceived. Likewise he who rests upon both faith and the Spirit, and claims to be sanctified, is deceived. He who rests upon nothing short of faith, and the Holy Spirit, and obedience to the truth, he alone is truly sanctified. It is by obedience to the truth that we are to be sanctified. The man who is living in obedience to the whole truth is wholly sanctified. But if there be any part of the truth of God that a man is not obeying, he is not wholly sanctified. He may yell “Halleluiah,” “Bless God,” “Fully saved,” “Wholly sanctified,” etc., etc., to the end of the brassy catalogue, but as long as there is a single point of the law and truth of God which he is not obeying, we know by the word of God that he is not sanctified, and that he is deceived. We know that as long as we are in this world we must grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour. In order to a growth in grace, there must be new faults discerned in ourselves, and additional victories gained. In order to a growth in knowledge, there must be additional truths learned from the word of God, and as they are learned they must be obeyed, if we would be sanctified. So, in the very nature of the case, true sanctification is a work, and a work, too, the period of which is measured only by the length of our stay in this world. However, when the Lord comes in glory, he will find a company of sanctified ones waiting and looking for him; they will have been sanctified through the truth, for it is written of them, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14 : 9-12. And again: “In their mouth was found no guile; for they are without fault before the throne of God.” Rev. 14 : 5. We thank God for the grace of true sanctification, but we pray to be forever delivered from every kind of sanctification that is not through obedience to the truth of God through the Spirit. Revised Book of Common Prayer
THE Protestant Episcopal church of America has a revised “Book of Common Prayer,” and one of the very important questions decided in it is that “it is optional whether the celebrant shall use the entire morning service in the evening.” A new feast, the Transfiguration, is added to the calendar; and in the Apostles’ Creed, instead of the sentence “He descended into hell,” churches may use, “He went to the place of departed spirits.” Well, probably the way to spiritualism is opened wide enough by that, so that further revision will not be necessary. “THERE is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches.” Prov. 13 : 7. The Missionary.
By Stephen N. Haskell
The Council at Constance.
THE city of Constance at the time of the trial of John Huss was one of the most prosperous inland cities of Germany. It contained a population of fifty thousand, and as many more assembled there during the council. It is situated seventy-three miles northeast of Bâle, Switzerland, on a lake by the same name. It is said that at one time thirty thousand horses might have been counted within the city limits. Never had any similar event in the history of the church excited so deep and general an interest throughout the Christian world. A few feet from the landing stands a market—a wide, low room supported with heavy wooden pillars—and this is the room where the council met, and where John Huss was condemned. The Emperor Sigismund, who took a more active part than any other one man, was the emperor of Germany and the Romans. He was a man who had had many advantages and possessed a high appreciation of learning. But he was a person of worldly policy, devoid of that principle that makes men truly great. If his interest required it he could stoop to the darkest deeds of infamy and crime. Pope John, who was the only one of the contesting popes that came to the council, we have already described. No crime caused him to blush when he had an interest to serve. Twenty of the bitterest enemies of John Huss in Bohemia went to the council having but one object, namely, to see this man of God brought to the stake. Their expenses were paid by the priests of Bohemia for the purpose of condemning Huss. They were close on his track, as he went to the city, and watched every movement. For a few days after Huss entered the city, he was allowed the privileges of visitors. He had services in his room each day and the privilege of conversing with those that called upon him. Among his enemies was Paletz, once the warm friend and joint advocate of the reform with Huss and others. These enemies placarded him on the church doors and in the public places as the vilest of heretics. They circulated the report that Huss was a mind reader, a sort of magician who could divine the thoughts of those who came within a certain distance. Huss’s lodging at Constance was with a poor widow in a humble dwelling. This woman Huss compares to the woman of Zarephath, with whom Elijah stopped. Here he found a welcome refuge, if not a secure asylum. In a short time the bishop of Constance sent his vicar to inform Huss that he must discontinue his services as it was not proper for him to officiate as a priest inasmuch as he had been excommunicated; but he paid no heed to the excommunication. On the twenty-sixth day after his arrival, Huss was summoned to appear before the cardinals. This was not what he desired nor what the emperor had promised him. He had been promised an opportunity to publicly state his faith. This interview resulted in his being arrested in flagrant violation of his safe-conduct. For a week he remained under a strong guard in the house of the clerk of the cathedral of Constance. Thence he was conducted to the prison of the Dominicans on the banks of the Rhine. The sewerage of the monastery flowed close to the place where he was confined, and the damp and pestilential air of the prison brought on a raging fever which well-nigh terminated his life. His enemies feared that after all he would escape them, and the pope sent his own physician to care for his health. When the tidings of his imprisonment reached Bohemia, it kindled a flame that was not extinguished until nearly 100,000 lives were sacrificed on the battle-field. S. N. H.