Earlier text: THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRISTWE have the impression that comparatively few believers ever have attained to a full and correct idea of this divine life, as revealed in the word of God. Cross-bearing is quite commonly understood as the taking up of those forms of duty which burden us and give us pain. On the other hand, the entire Christian life is represented in the New Testament as a cross-bearing life—a form of life in which the cross is never laid aside. “Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Yet this form of life is represented as one in which the bearer is “kept in perfect peace,” and as the only one in which he can be thus kept. Under the pressure of the cross we find not pain, but rest. “Come unto me,” says Christ, “all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke [that is cross] upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke [cross] is easy, and my burden [cross] light.” The cross, we must bear in mind, is really taken up when, and only when, self-denial is complete and perfect; and this is the only state in which “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding,” can by any possibility keep our hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. The individual who was to be crucified was required to take up his cross and bear it to the place of execution. In doing so he not only relinquished all the rights and privileges of citizenship, but consented to his own death, painful as it was to be. Hence, cross-bearing was taken by our Saviour, and the sacred writers of the New Testament, and also by all primitive believers, as emblematical of the true Christian life, the form of life of which there is an utter renunciation of all the rights and privileges of self-ownership, and an acceptance of the will of Christ as the absolute law of the entire being and activity, and his service as the form of life and activity which is to command supreme devotion. How impressively is this form of life represented by Paul, as exemplified in his own experience: “I am crucified with Christ; nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God; who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Hear him once more: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” The same state is beautifully expressed in the following stanza of one of our hymns:—
“Jesus, I my cross have taken,
All to leave and follow thee;
Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,
Thou from hence my all shall be.” Two questions arise for your heart and mine, reader: Are our lives, in the true and scriptural sense, cross-bearing lives? Do we, under the pressure of the cross, find not pain but rest to our souls? Unless we can answer both of these questions in the affirmative, do not let us entertain the thought that we are bearing the cross after Jesus.—Divine Life. A SIGN OF THE TIMES.
By W.
THE Christian Statesman of November 29 has an article copied from the Christian Intelligencer, about the amount of business done by photographers on Sunday. Following are a few paragraphs from it, which will serve to show the drift of sentiment in regard to such labor:— "It is hardly probable that the Christian people of this city are aware of the extent to which the Sabbath is violated by the photographers. Many of the principal galleries are filled with waiting patrons, and their largest business is done on the Sabbath." "The famous galleries, although not exactly open to the public, are ready to make appointments, and prefer that day to execute the pictures of the popular actors, singers, etc." "And most of the small places, after passing a dull week, expect to make up on the Sunday business enough to give them a profit over the week's expenses." "There is a wholesome law against this transacting business on the holy day, but it is not enforced." "A few years ago an attempt was made to close up the violators of the Sabbath, but it was not successful, and several of the prominent men in that effort, seeing no remedy, now keep open, and find their purses better filled, their bank account much larger, and their credit much better with the stock dealer. Now in view of this truthful statement, what is the duty of the Christian public in this matter?" The article carries with it its own answer to the last question, that is from the standpoint of the Statesman and the Intelligencer. The plainly implied demand is that such business should be stopped by law. And this indicates to what lengths the instigators of the Sunday-law movement will go, when they have secured the legislation which they want, and have the power in their hands. It shows that a system of espionage will be inaugurated, and that nobody's privacy will be sacred from the prying intrusion of the minions of such an iniquitous law. There is no business that is conducted with more quietness than the business of photography. Nothing is less calculated to disturb public worship or private devotion. Even a monk in his cloister could not be disturbed by the business of a photographer next door if he were not informed of its proximity. When the photographer may be arrested for quietly conducting his work in an upper room on Sunday, then no person will be exempt. Some zealous individual, anxious for political preferment, will find out that the merchant is in his private office on Sunday, looking over his ledger, and forthwith the merchant will be arrested. The lady who takes in sewing may be arrested for making button-holes, or fitting a garment in her back parlor on Sunday. The literary man who writes for hire may be arrested for quietly working at his desk on Sunday. In short, from such a wholesale stoppage of Sunday work as is desired by the Statesman, the Intelligencer, and all who may be classed as National Reformers, it will be but a step to the arresting of every citizen who is found away from church on Sunday, unless detained by sickness. That this is not an exaggerated conclusion is evident from the statement of Dr. Herrick Johnson, that he longed for the breath of the Puritan, for the Puritan Sabbath, and this is just what was done in the days of the Covenanters and Puritans. Robert Wodrow, a Scotch ecclesiastical historian, of whom it is said that his "veracity was above suspicion," and of his writings, that "no historical facts are better ascertained than the accounts . . . to be found in Wodrow," makes the following statement concerning the methods used to secure attendance at church:— "It is thocht expedient that ane baillie with tua of the session pas throw the towne everie Sabbath day, and nott sic as they find absent fra the sermones ather afoir or efter none; and for that effect that they pas and sersche sic houss as they think maist meit." —Selections from the Records of the Kirk Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen. In modern English this is as follows:— "It is thought expedient that any bailiff with two of the session pass through the town every Sabbath day, and note such as they find absent from the sermons either before or after noon; and for that effect that they pass and search such houses as they think most meet." In his "Collections" he says: "The session allows the searchers to go into houses, and apprehend absents from the kirk." Now when one of the great cries for a Sunday law is because people do not go to church, and when the only ground for stopping a photographer from working in the seclusion of his own room, could be that he was staying from church and at least inviting others to do so, the conclusion is inevitable that when the clamorers for a Sunday law get what they want, they will make no scruple of going into any house where they have reason to suspect that anybody is working on Sunday, and arresting the occupants. Are we not warranted in saying that the liberties of the American people are in danger? Is it not high time that people were awakening to the alarming growth of the religious legislation evil? Who will protest against the degeneracy of Protestantism? "HIM ONLY SHALT THOU SERVE."
By W.
A BROTHER writing from Nebraska wishes to know if, in case a law were made compelling everybody to keep Sunday, it would be wrong for one who has kept the Sabbath day according to the commandment, to rest upon Sunday also. He asks if the fourth commandment obliges us to work six days in the week, as well as to rest on the Sabbath. This is a question that is frequently asked, and may very easily be answered. In the first place, the fourth commandment does not oblige us to work six entire days of every week. The idea of the commandment is, that we shall do all of our work in the six days which are given for that purpose, and that the seventh must be kept sacred. In the six days we may work; in the seventh day we may not work. This is God's order; and no earthly power has any right to command us to rest on any of the six days which God has given us for labor, any more than it has to command us to work on the day which God has made sacred to himself. Yet while the statement that in the seventh day we shall not work, prohibits us from doing any secular work on that day, the statement that in the six days we shall do all our own work, does not compel us to work every minute of those six days. Must we then conclude that it would be all right for us to rest upon the first day if we were commanded by the Government to do so, provided we had previously rested upon the Sabbath? By no means. We could not in that way keep the Sabbath "according to the commandment;" for the commandment recognizes no authority to appoint rest days but Jehovah himself. The granting to us of six days in which to work, is sufficient proof that no earthly power has any right to appoint a rest day. Now if we, in compliance with the command of any earthly power, do rest upon any of the six working days, we recognize that power as of equal authority with God; and that would nullify our keeping of the seventh day, by showing that we did not do it as an act of worship to the only God. In short, our act would show a divided allegiance, fear, and not love, being at the bottom of it. It would show that we kept the seventh day for the same reason that we kept the first, namely, to escape the penalty pronounced upon the violators. Such service God cannot accept. Sunday as a religious institution is a child of the Papacy—the badge of authority of that power. Whoever having the fourth commandment before him, and understanding and acknowledging its claims, should keep the first day in deference to the command of any earthly power, would be, in the plainest manner possible, showing deference to the Papacy, and would be far more culpable than the one who should keep the day supposing it to be the true Sabbath. The fact that he had previously rested on the seventh day, would only make his culpability the greater, by showing that he was deliberately, on account of slavish fear, placing the decrees of men on a level with the commandment of God. Such a time-serving policy, while it might secure the person freedom from molestation for a time, would be found to be most disastrous in the end; for "he that findeth his life shall lose it." SUBJECTION TO THE POWERS THAT BE.
By W.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." Rom. 13:1, 2. THIS text of Scripture has been the cause of a great deal of controversy concerning the scope of civil governments, and the relations which Christians should sustain to them. There are a great many people who take the extreme view that whatever civil governments enact should be scrupulously obeyed, no matter how much it may conflict with the will of God, as revealed in the Bible. They seem to imagine that God has delegated all power to men, and that he waives to the claims of men his right to govern in matters of morals. They virtually say that the inspired command to be subject to the higher powers absolves people from direct allegiance to their Creator. The very statement of the case should be enough to show anybody the absurdity of such a view. The thirteenth chapter of Romans affords, in itself, ample proof that the powers that be are ordained of God only in matters that pertain to the outward peace of society. But we wish to bring a few other scriptures to bear, to show just how we are to be subject to earthly powers, and at the same time be subject to the highest power of all. The seventh verse of the same chapter says: "Render therefore to all their due: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor." Render "honor to whom honor" is due, is a part of this command. Now it is beyond question that honor is due to God, for the Lord himself says that he will honor only those who honor him. 1 Sam. 2:30. And that this tribute and honor which are due to God are entirely different from those which are due to earthly governments, is evident from the words of Christ to the Pharisees, which are exactly parallel with those of Paul to the Romans: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Matt. 22:21. Thus we see that while we are to be subject to the earthly powers, that subjection must in nowise conflict with our subjection to God. That inspiration does not teach that men are in duty bound to obey every edict of earthly powers, but that they are to disobey every enactment which conflicts with the law of God, is very plain. Take the case of the three Hebrew children at the court of Nebuchadnezzar. They were as truly bound to be subject to him as ever any men were to an earthly ruler, for Nebuchadnezzar was king by God's own appointment (Jer. 27:4-7), and they had by the same power been placed under him. Yet when the king commanded them to worship an image which he had set up, they absolutely refused to do anything of the kind. For their stubbornness, as the king doubtless thought it, they were cast into a fiery furnace; yet God, who commands us to be subject to the powers that be, showed his approval of their course in the most marked manner.775 Take the case of Daniel in the court of Darius. That king made a decree that for thirty days no man should make a request of any god or man except himself, under penalty of being cast into a den of lions. But Daniel paid no manner of attention to the decree. When he knew that the writing was signed, "he went into his house; and, his windows being open in his chamber toward Jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day, and prayed, and gave thanks before his God, as he did aforetime." Dan. 6:10. Like his three fellows, he made no secret of his disobedience to the king's order. Yet the same God who commands us to be subject to the powers that be, showed his approval of Daniel's course, by delivering him from the lions, and honoring him before the whole empire. The apostles afford another case in point. An express injunction was laid upon them by the Jewish Sanhedrim "not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus." Acts 4:17, 18. The apostles, however, refused to keep silence, saying, "We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard" (verse 20), and they went right on teaching as though the rulers had said nothing. When they were again brought before the council, and reminded of the injunction which had been laid upon them, they boldly replied, "We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29. All these cases, and especially this last, show that the command to be subject to the powers that be does not mean that we should obey them when obedience to them involves disobedience to God. Now the question arises, Were these men subject to the Governments under which they lived? Can men be subject to the powers that be, and yet not obey them in every particular, no matter what they command? We answer that men can be subject to the powers that be, and still disobey them when their decrees conflict with the laws of God; and the record shows most clearly that Daniel and his fellows, and the apostles, were subject to the powers that existed in their time. A passage from the writings of one of the men who refused to obey men when to do so involved disloyalty to God, will make this matter clear. We quote from 1 Peter 2:17-20:— "Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thank-worthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God." The command to "honor the king" shows this to be a parallel passage to Rom. 13:1, 2. Here, as there, we are exhorted to be subject to rulers, even though they be not good. But that this does not mean that we should in so doing disobey God, is evident from verse 19: "For this is thank-worthy if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully." The fact that he is called upon to suffer wrongfully, and that he is buffeted because he does well, shows that his doing right has been in direct opposition to the commands of his master. He suffers "for conscience toward God." That is, his conscience will not allow him to disobey God's commandment in obedience to the powers that be, and so he patiently suffers for it. And although he cannot obey the master's command, his patient acceptance of the threatened punishment shows his subjection to the power. So we see that being subject to the powers that be means simply that we are to obey them when their commands are right, and to disobey them when they conflict with those of God, and meekly to take the consequences. This is just what Daniel and his fellows and the apostles did. They did not resist, but they did not obey an unrighteous commandment. Now turn again to Romans 13, verses 2 and 5, and you will see that this is just what is taught. We quote:— "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake." The Bible everywhere teaches respect for authority. Anarchists can find no warrant in the Bible for any of their contempt for authority. Rebellion against authority is not countenanced under any circumstances. Every soul must be subject to the powers that be, and that subjection consists in willing, prompt obedience to all their laws when they do not require disregard of God's law, and as willing an acceptance of the penalty for disobeying laws that do contravene the laws of God. An example of this is found in the early Christians, who took joyfully the spoiling of their goods. Heb. 10:34. Where there cannot be obedience, there must not be resistance. David would not lift his hand against the king of Israel, even though that king was most unjustly seeking his life; Paul would not knowingly speak ill of the high priest, although that priest was a wicked hypocrite. He counseled the Christians to be subject to the powers that were, even while he was daily violating the laws of the most wicked ruler; and he showed his subjection to a power which was despicable because of its moral rottenness, by willingly yielding up his life as the price of his necessary disobedience. MAMMON OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
A CORRESPONDENT wishes an explanation of Luke 16:9, which reads, "And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon [margin, riches] of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." This text presents the lesson that our Saviour would have us learn from the preceding parable, that just as the unjust steward had used the riches of this world to provide for himself a home in old age among those he had helped, so the children of light should use the riches of this world to provide for themselves everlasting habitations. It is parallel to Matt. 6:20: "But lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal." Jesus does not mean that we can purchase Heaven by anything we can do; the only price acceptable is that paid by our Lord Jesus Christ. But the way we use the riches of this world is the evidence of the work wrought within. Often the Lord accepts an individual who has a covetous nature, but who does not know it until subsequent trials reveal it. The sure way for him to then overcome is to use in the cause of God the riches he has gathered, to lay up treasure in Heaven, to make friends of God, Christ, and the angels, and thus crucify and overcome his covetous nature, making sure his reception into everlasting habitations. Neither are we to say, as many thoughtlessly do, "The riches of the universe belong to God, he does not need any means," and so do nothing. It is true, God does not need our means, but he demands them in order to develop within us that unselfish love which will fit us to dwell in the everlasting habitations. We must all learn the lesson, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts 20:35. THOUGHTS ON FAITH.
By M. C. W.
FAITH concerning that which pertains to the Christian life, should not be based on anything which man may say, unless what he says is supported by the Bible. He may say that what he says is thus supported, but let him produce the evidence. Relying on man's word alone is presumption, not faith. God brings to us solemn and sweet messages through man; but the message should not be received as from man, but as from God. 1 Thess 2:13. We may honor the messenger as the Lord's servant, for Christ's sake. He has not spoken his own, if he has spoken good; he has spoken only what he has received from God. If we depend upon the word of man, the man upon whom we lean, in whom we trust, may fail. Then our support proves a broken reed, which pierces us in the breaking. But if the word of God be our foundation, it will stand. "For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof fadeth away; but the word of the Lord endureth forever." 1 Peter 1:24, 25. We should not judge of our condition or relation to God by feeling. Feeling may be one thing to-day, another to-morrow. It is at least modified by condition of health, surrounding circumstances, confirmed habits, and the conflicts through which we pass. Feeling is the result of faith, not faith of feeling. Feeling is inconstant, faith is abiding. Therefore what we feel should never be used as the evidence of our condition. It is not by feeling that we are to know that God has accepted us. Feeling alone may be a true criterion; it may not. It should never be depended upon. If it is, it will often leave us in discouragement, despondency, or despair. Because of faith, joyous feeling is often present. Sometimes we have joyous feelings with but little exercise of8 faith. God gives them to encourage trust and love, just as the eagle bears up her wearied and fearful young ones when teaching them to fly. The joy and peace and happiness are little morsels of the blessings of strong faith which lies before. It was thus that God dealt with discouraged Jacob, as he was leaving home because of his sins. In discouragement he lies down upon the cold ground and hard pillow, under what seemed to him the closed heavens. But God's mercy has not left the despondent "supplanter." In his dreams God's tender providence is revealed by the shining ladder and ministering spirits, and it forces from Jacob's grateful heart, "Surely the Lord is in this place; and I knew it not." Gen 28:16. It is even thus that God deals at times with us. We should not confound mere belief with faith. Belief is the assent of the understanding, and may be, and often is, exercised by the unregenerate. "The devils also believe." James 2:19. Mere belief rests in theory; but faith is operative. It makes application of the promises to ourselves. Belief may only affect the mind, but faith affects the life. There may be belief without faith, but there can be no faith, no trust, without belief. We trust God, or have faith in him, because we believe him. And this faith is based on God's promises. If we believe them, and have complied with the conditions on which they are fulfilled, the promise is ours. We know that it is; for God has said so. So Paul says, "For we know that, if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God," etc. 2 Cor. 5:1. He knew by faith in God's word. So our Saviour says that we may know when his coming is near, even at the doors. Matt. 24:33. True faith in, and understanding of, the word of God is absolute knowledge. We know by faith. We not only believe God's promises; we appropriate them to ourselves as individuals; and by the appropriation of those promises, we become partakers of the divine nature, sons and daughters of God, with power to overcome sin. 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Cor. 6:17, 18; 7:1; 1 John 5:4. But feeling will not do this for us. Faith generally operates without the feeling, that is, joyous or happy feeling. It is in this way that it becomes strong, and attains its most stalwart growth. Had we the feeling first, we would act because it pleased the sensuous nature, and not because of confidence in God. But God withholds the ecstasy and joy in order to develop the faith. The eaglet would ever remain weak were it always upborne by the parent wings, so it is left on the empty air to develop its powers. It may be fearful at the depth below, but the discipline is necessary. Even so would our faith exist in name only were we to walk by feeling. We would be "only strong for lack of test." God in his rich mercy casts us out where we cannot see or know what lies below or beyond; but— "The steps of faith
Fall on the seeming void, and find
The rock beneath." It is only in this way that faith can grow. So the apostle teaches concerning those who are "kept by the power of God through faith" in the last days. "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 1:6, 7. The sweetest songs, the greatest triumphs, the truest love, come from a tried faith. "We walk by faith, not by sight," or by sense of any kind. Then let the basis of all our relations to God, and our condition before him, be abiding trust in his holy word, and not the evidence given by our changeable, sensuous nature. The latter will fail. We will seek for it, and just when we long for it the most, it will be wanting. But faith in the word of God abides. Darkness may arise, clouds may hide the sun, trials may encompass us about, foes may assail us on every side; but God's word abides. Our faith can rest on the rock of truth, Christ Jesus our Lord, and on his precious promises. And such faith will bring the sweetest joy, the purest praise, the holiest peace we ever knew. The prison cell of our surroundings will become the reception-room of holy angels. And thus we will be kept by the power of God through faith, till faith is lost in sight. THE ESSENCE OF SPIRITUALISM.
QUITE a stir has been made over the publication of the fact that the poet Tennyson is a Spiritualist. In a letter which he recently wrote to a friend, in which he shows that he is his own medium, he said:— "I have never had any revelations through anesthetics, but a kind of waking trance (this for lack of a better name) I have frequently had, quite up from boyhood, when I have been all alone. This has often come upon me through repeating my own name to myself, till all at once, as it were, out of the intensity of the consciousness of individuality, the individuality itself seemed to dissolve, and fade away into boundless being, and this not a confused state, but the clearest of the clearest, the sweetest of the sweetest, utterly beyond words, where death was an almost laughable impossibility; the loss of personality (if so it were) seeming no extinction, but the only true life." This, which must surely be called the sublimity of egotism, is the very essence of Spiritualism. It is the beginning and end of the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul, for that doctrine begins and ends with self. It was by causing Eve to think of herself, and instilling into her mind an exaggerated sense of her own importance, that Satan secured her fall. The doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul grows out of the idea so natural to man, that he is of such transcendent importance that God could not get along without him; and the next step to that is the idea that man himself is a god. Is it not strange that professed Christians will cling to a doctrine which makes man everything, and ignores Christ as the Author of life? And who cannot see that a doctrine which makes it unnecessary to come to Christ for life, must necessarily tend to immorality, since it depreciates, and causes men to slight, the only source of purity? THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM.
By Editor
A READER of the SIGNS asks: "Why was it that two and a half tribes of the children of Israel remained on the east side of Jordan? I understand that Canaan was typical of our heavenly rest; why then did some remain outside of that land?" The questioner's supposition evidently is that the territory to the east of the Jordan was not a part of the promised land, but that this is a mistake is evident from Josh. 1:4: "From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast." But aside from this scripture we know that not only the land of Canaan proper, but also the whole earth, was promised to Abraham and to his seed. See Rom. 4:13. And had Abraham's descendants been faithful to God, they would long ere this have subdued all nations and filled the earth. The name Canaan no more limited the promise to the valley of the Jordan—from which the name was derived—than did the necessarily short range of human vision limit the promise to just what Abraham could see, when the Lord said unto him: "Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward, for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever." INIQUITY ABOUNDING.
By C. P. B.
At the recent meeting of the Evangelical Alliance Conference at Syracuse, N. Y., the spiritual needs of the rural districts were discussed by several ministers, who agreed that "the proportion of non-church-goers is as great in the country as in the city, and the number of those who can render efficient aid to the pastor is comparatively small." One speaker said that he could lay his hand on a dozen country pastors who had told him that they could not call on a single member to lead in prayer. Another referred to a town of 2,700 inhabitants, 2,000 of whom never go to church. The 700 who do attend, many of them somewhat irregularly, are divided among four churches. In the discussion of the needs of the cities Dr. George U. Wenner, of New York, said that in a twenty years' pastorate on the east side of that city, he had seen twelve churches in that district alone decline and disappear, and five more, he said, were ready to follow; and during that period only two had been organized. Dr. Parkhurst spoke on the "Cause of Estrangement from the Church," and said that the great cause of the failure of the church to reach the masses was lack of love. His conclusion differs somewhat from that arrived at by a number of California ministers, who ascribed a similar failure on the part of the churches in this State to the lack of a Sunday law. This reason could not of course be assigned in New York, for there they have a Sunday law; and, indeed, it is doubtful if the attendance at church in California was much if any better before the repeal of the Sunday statute than it is now. People who have a desire to attend church will do so whether the law requires them to rest on Sunday or not; and those who do not care to listen to preaching are not likely to attend such services simply because the law forbids their engaging in secular pursuits. But interest in the question of non-attendance on religious services is not confined to ministers, as is evidenced by the fact that one of the leading dailies in San Francisco recently undertook to solve the problem. On a Sunday morning an enterprising reporter of the paper referred to sallied forth, disguised as a poor man, in rather shabby attire, and visited several churches of various denominations. His conclusion was akin to that of Dr. Parkhurst, namely, that there was a lack of love in the churches, especially for the poor. In only two of the many houses of worship visited, did the disguised newspaper man777 receive anything like a welcome, while in several he was treated with positive rudeness. Hence, the conclusion that many of the poor stay away from church because they are not welcome in such garments as they must perforce wear. But the matter was not allowed to rest here; some five or six hundred non-church-goers were visited and asked why they did not attend church, and of course the replies were varied. Some simply said that they did not care to go, others said that the sermons were dull and uninteresting, while others said that they were just as good as those who did go, and that they did not see that going to church could do them any good; but we believe that none assigned as a reason the lack of a Sunday law. From all of which it appears that the real reason why people do not attend church is because of a lack of interest in spiritual things; indeed, it seems but just to conclude that we have reached the time foretold by our Saviour, when because of iniquity the love of many should wax cold. But let us remember, also, that "he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
C. P. B. THE GREAT MISTAKE OF PROTESTANTISM.
By Editor
REV. H. H. HINMAN has an article in a recent number of the Christian Cynosure, in which he writes thus concerning Christmas:— “If we may adopt religious institutions of mere human devising, and arbitrarily appoint days for their celebration, there is no limit to what man may do in creating religious institutions. There is quite as much reason for the adoration of her who was the most blessed among women, as for the unauthorized celebration of the birth of her Son. The great mistake of the Papacy has been the substitution of human inventions, of which Christmas is manifestly a sample. If we admit these interpolations in religion, we cannot stop short of entire conformity to all that is laid upon us. We must either cease our protest against the worship of the bread and wine in the mass, and to the confessional, or stop doing religious duties that have no higher authority than man. The road leads to Rome, and there is no stopping-place but at the end. We shall find enough to do in keeping divinely-appointed institutions in their true spirit, without turning aside to the commandments of men.” Whatever may be the merits or demerits of Christmas as a mere human holiday, it certainly has no just claims as a religious institution. Few comparatively are so ignorant as to suppose that it is indeed the anniversary of the birth of our Lord; and if it were, there is certainly no divine warrant for its observance. But in that respect it does not stand alone; Sunday keeping is equally without divine precept; and yet in the paragraph following the one quoted, Mr. Hinman calls that day "the Christian Sabbath." Certainly if the practice of celebrating Christmas is reprehensible (and we do not say that it is not), Sunday keeping is doubly so, for whereas Christmas antagonizes no divine institution, Sunday stands opposed to the Sabbath of the Lord, the day commanded in the fourth precept of the decalogue. True it is that the great mistake, yea, the great sin, "of the Papacy has been the substitution of human inventions" for the divinely-appointed institutions of the gospel; and it is no less true that the great mistake of Protestantism has been in adopting these substitutes, thus making void the commandments of God by Papal traditions. ONE of the Presbyterian synods of Scotland has recently been discussing the matter of Sunday observance. That which gave rise to the discussion was the fact that members of that church had been engaged in Sunday harvesting. Such work was condemned by the chairman of the Committee of Sabbath Observance, for the reason that "the circumstances of the present season did not warrant Sunday harvesting." This language seems to convey the idea that in a less favorable season than the one just passed, Sunday work would be justifiable; and according to the London Christian World, such seems to have been the view taken by the synod. This, to say the least, is a strange position for Scotch Presbyterians to take. Presbyterians universally profess to regard Sunday as the Sabbath, and to rest its observance upon the fourth commandment; how, then, can they make exceptions not made in that commandment, or, indeed, anywhere else in all the Scriptures? Of the Sabbath, the fourth commandment says: "In it thou shalt not do any work;" not even in harvest, for in Ex. 34:21 we read, "In earing [sowing] time and in harvest thou shalt rest." Of course these texts have not the slightest application to Sunday, but the Presbyterians, and notably the Scotch Presbyterians, teach that they have, though down in their inmost souls they know that Sunday is not the Sabbath; hence the admission that under some circumstances harvesting may be done upon that day.