Earlier text: THE INVITATION OF MERCYTHE RESURRECTION.
By Frank Hope
THE resurrection is a doctrine that one hears very little about among many denominations of to-day, and the little that is heard is generally of a disparaging nature. It is not uncommon to see in religious papers flat denials of this truth. But believing, as they do, in the immortality of the soul this is only a natural consequence. They experience the same difficulties that the Grecian philosophers did at Athens—the very birthplace of the immortal soul doctrine—who were thoroughly impregnated with the teachings of Plato and Socrates. The Stoics and Epicureans both believed in the continued conscious existence of the soul after death; so “when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked; and others said, ‘We will hear again of this matter.’” To them Paul’s teaching was foolishness; for the immortality of the soul and the resurrection taken together produce an absurdity. The Bible teaches that at the resurrection the righteous are raised to a higher state of existence than they enjoyed before. They are raised in power (1 Cor. 15:43). But if the soul is already enjoying the felicity of Paradise, it can hardly be seen how it is made more powerful by being placed in its original “house of clay.” Such an idea is just as absurd as trying to give a bird more freedom by placing it again in the shell, from which it was hatched, or to make a butterfly more beautiful by closing it up in its chrysalis. Thus, these two doctrines coming in conflict, one of them has to go, and when men accommodate doctrine to suit their own belief, the truth is generally sacrificed; and in this manner many who profess Christianity have rejected the doctrine of the resurrection. In taking this course men reject one of the greatest truths of the Bible. The resurrection is essentially a Christian doctrine. Unlike many ministers of to-day, Paul and the other apostles went everywhere preaching “Jesus and the resurrection.” Christ and the resurrection are inseparably connected. Says our Saviour, “I am the resurrection.” Therefore to deny the resurrection is to deny Christ. The Bible also teaches that the saints are to receive their reward only by a resurrection. “The dead in Christ shall rise first; then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so [in this manner] shall we ever be with the Lord.” And this is the only way in which the saints can ever be with the Lord. Then if we deny the resurrection we must also deny the reward of the righteous. See also Luke 14:14. The resurrection was not only preached and believed by the early Christians, but was perfectly familiar to the people of God in the earliest times. Thus Abraham believed so strongly in the resurrection that he was comforted when about to slay his son, “accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead.” Heb. 11:19. Paul also states with approval that “by faith Joseph . . . gave commandment concerning his bones;” and Job gives this positive testimony, “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth; and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God.” Job 19:25, 26. So we see that the hope of the resurrection has ever been cherished by the people of God, and we must therefore conclude that those who have not this hope are not the people of God. But say what men may, the resurrection still remains a startling, wonderful reality. This world as it rolls through space with its living freight carries in its bosom a treasure, the price of which was the life of the Son of God. And although by mortal eyes only a little brown dust may be seen, yet in reality there lie those who sleep in Jesus, an innumerable company that are yet to people Paradise restored. Some day the resurrection will really take place; then the grave-yards which are now so quiet and mournful will present the most wonderful scenes of life and happiness. Then will be fully realized that “blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection.” WHO DOES THE BEST?
By Congregationalist
WHETHER a given man attain eminence or not, his life is a success if he have made the most and the best of the opportunities which God has given him. He is blameless for not having used those afforded to others but not to him. He has no responsibility in reference to them. Upon his use of his own depends God’s verdict as to his success, and, although not “a great man,” so called, he may have accomplished far more in the sight of the all-knowing Lord, as in that of every impartial fellow-man who knows the facts about him, than many another has accomplished whom the world delights to honor. The man who makes the most progress is not he who reaches absolutely the loftiest place, but he who climbs highest above his starting-point. He who is born into exalted station, favoring opportunities, and stimulating associations, and also inherits the accumulated abilities of generations of talented ancestors, may die far more renowned, and after a seemingly much more useful life, than he who springs from humble stock in obscurity and poverty, and is forced to make his own way to creditable usefulness by stern struggles with the world. But the latter, quite as often as not, is the one of the two who has made the best use of his life, when he lays it down at last. He is fully as likely as the other to be a nobleman, in the truest sense, all the time. These truths should be well weighed by each of us. Theoretically we all accept them. Practically many of us are somewhat slow to act upon them. But it would do many somewhat pretentious persons good to be caused to realize that they are not regarded as superior beings merely because their blood is blue, their pockets deep and full, and their honors notable. It would do many patient, unassuming heroes far more good could they feel that their sacrifices and labors are recognized and appreciated in some degree. It would do us all, and the world at large, incalculable good, were we to correct our standards, so far as necessary, in order to “judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” The Christian Standard says: “According to Dr. Strong the wealth of the United States is phenomenal. In 1880 it was valued at $43,642,000,000, more than enough to buy the Russian and Turkish Empires, the kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, Denmark and Italy, together with Australia, South Africa, and all South America—lands, mines, cities, palaces, factories, ships, flocks, herds, jewels, moneys, thrones, scepters, diadems, and all—the entire possessions of 177,000,000 people. According to the same authority the Christians of America are the richest Christians on the globe. Their wealth, in 1880, amounted to $8,728,400,000. From 1870 to 1880 the average increase of wealth of the Christians in the United States was $391,740,000. And yet many churches and individuals plead poverty when urged to do something for missions! “Men who are adding farm to farm, and field to field, can do nothing for the world’s redemption. People who live in luxury and fare sumptuously every day cannot afford to give anything for this cause. They have money with which to indulge their appetites, but none for the furtherance of the gospel. There are churches that are poor and growing poorer, simply because they do not give according to their ability. There are rich men whose souls are being eaten up by the canker of covetousness. “If we were filled with the spirit of Christ, the plea of poverty would never be urged. The Christian people of America could easily give $100,000,000 a year for missions. The plea of poverty is a false plea. We are by all odds the richest nation on the globe, and are growing richer most perilously fast. The cause of missions is our only safety valve. There are 1,000,000,000 human souls waiting for the gospel; let us do our duty and we will be blessed and prospered far beyond anything we have asked or even thought.” MAJORITIES NOT INFALLIBLE.
UNDER the heading of “Moral Forces of Majorities,” the Oakland Tribune of January 26 has the following sensible words:— “Politicians talk of a majority as if its decisions were necessarily just and right because they are the conclusions of the greater number, and are apt to fall back upon the ancient fallacy that ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God.’ But was the voice of the people the voice of God when Galileo said that the earth moves around the sun, or when Jenner began to vaccinate, or when Luther nailed his theses upon the church door, or when the mob of Jerusalem cried, ‘Crucify Him!’ The sovereign people may be momentarily as tyrannical as a single despot. Government by a majority is found by experience to be the most reasonable and convenient device for securing peace and order, but it is not because of any virtue inherent in a multitude, or because one man may not be wiser, juster, and better than all the rest. It is a convenient device, because a majority in the long run is amenable to intelligent persuasion, and because a majority can enforce its will against opposition. But there is no divinity that doth hedge in a majority any more than there is a divine power to circumscribe a king; otherwise there could be no such thing as independence of thought, or political reform, which nearly always originates in the mind of a single individual of the minority.” Roman Catholic Influence in Montreal
IN Montreal the population is largely Romanist, but the property of the Protestants is believed to equal that of the Romanists. Under the government which recognizes Romanism as an established church, much of the real estate owned by Catholics is exempt from taxation. The city council voted a sum of money to pay for Cardinal Taschereau’s reception, some time since, and it is in the habit of voting money annually for a Roman Catholic festival. It is not necessary to travel very far to see how the public money is used when the priests have a controlling influence in politics.—N. Y. Observer. THINGS WE SHOULD KNOW.—NO. 2.
By w.
"Rejoice, O young man, in thy youth; and let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment." Eccl. 11:9. HERE is another thing we must know. The knowledge of this naturally follows from the knowledge of the existence of God. He is our Creator, and therefore has a right to claim that we shall do his will; but if this is so, it necessarily follows that judgment must be passed upon us, to see if we have done his will. The text is addressed to young men; but since God is no respecter of persons, we must conclude that all classes of people will alike be brought into judgment. That all the world will be brought into judgment, is positively stated in the Bible. In his sermon on Mars Hill, Paul said that God "now commandeth all men everywhere to repent; because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." Acts 17:30, 31. What shall be the standard of the final judgment? If we are to know that for certain things God will bring us into judgment, it must be that we can know what to do in order to secure a favorable decision. We have already learned that, being wholly dependent on God, we are bound to conform to his will in every particular; therefore we must conclude that God's will is to be the standard of judgment. This conclusion is supported by the words in the Lord's prayer, which indicate that when God's kingdom comes his will will be done by all. What then is the will of God, by which we are to be judged? Paul gives the answer in the following words: "Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law." Rom. 2:17, 18. How was it that those whom Paul addressed knew the will of God? Because they were instructed out of the law. Then it must be that the law of God contains the will of God. This is still further shown by the words which David uttered prophetically in behalf of Christ: "Then said I, Lo, I come; in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart." Ps. 40:7, 8. It was Christ's delight—more than his meat or drink—to do the will of God. He ever did the will of the Father. This was because the law of God was in his heart, so that all his actions were spontaneously in harmony with it. But acting in harmony with the law of God, was doing the will of God; therefore the law of God is identical with his will. Once more: When the young man came to Jesus and asked what he should do that he might inherit eternal life, Jesus answered: "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Matt. 19:17. In his sermon on the mount, he said: "Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven." Matt. 7:21. Therefore keeping the commandments of God is equivalent to doing the will of God. The law of God, then, is to be the standard by which all men shall be judged. This is incidentally shown in the passage already quoted from Romans: Thou "knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law." According to the marginal reading it is, Thou "triest the things that differ, being instructed out of the law." The law of God is that by which we try things that differ, by which we decide what things are honest and just and pure and lovely and of good report, and what are not. This, we say, is incidental proof that we are to be judged by the law of God, the ten commandments; for it is manifest that we must judge our actions by the same rule by which God will judge them. In the text quoted at the beginning of this article, Solomon tells the young man to have his own way if he will, to walk in the ways of his heart, and in the sight of his eyes, but to know that for "all these things" God will bring him into judgment. Then we are to know not only that there will be a judgment, but that the judgment will take into account our thoughts; for the ways of a person's heart are the ways which his heart devises or thinks upon. This is plainly stated in the next chapter: "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Eccl. 12:14. This agrees with the words of Paul, that when the Lord comes he will "bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." 1 Cor. 4:5. We have seen that the judgment is to be in accordance with the law of God; and since every secret thought is to be brought into judgment, it follows that the law of God takes account of even the thoughts of the heart. Read now Eccl. 12:13, 14: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Here we see that the fact that God will bring every secret thing into judgment, is given as a reason why we should keep the commandments of God. This shows again that the law is so spiritual as to detect the slightest deviation from it even in thought. With this agree the words of Paul: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Heb. 4:12. As showing how the law discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart, we refer to the words of Christ in Matt. 5:18-22, 27, 28, where we find that a single hateful thought or lustful look is accounted a violation of the sixth or the seventh commandment. There is an intimate connection between Eccl. 11:9 and Eccl. 12:13, 14. The latter text is an exhortation to keep the commandments of God, based on the truth that by those commandments God will bring "every work into judgment, with every secret thing." The former text is an emphatic command to those who seem bent on having their own way, to know that "for all these things" God will bring them into judgment. And since that judgment is to be based on the commandments of God, and is to take into account every secret thought, it follows that Eccl. 11:9 is virtually a command for us to know that the ten commandments cover every possible deed or thought, and demand perfect obedience. It is a command for us to study the law, and to meditate in it day and night. If we are ever at a loss to know how perfect the law requires us to be, we have only to consider the life and character of Jesus. He "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." This was simply because the law was in his heart. Any one who models his life in accordance with the law of God, will be just like Christ, and the law will be satisfied with nothing less. This righteousness cannot be attained by our own individual effort. Of ourselves we can do nothing; but Christ, who knew no sin, was made to be sin for us, in order "that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." And so the command to know that God will bring us into judgment for every secret thing, includes the command not only to know that the law of God is to be the standard of that judgment, but also that through Christ alone can we attain to that perfect righteousness which the law demands. If Christ dwells in our hearts by faith, then we can exhibit in our actions the righteousness of the law, for if we have Christ in the heart we must have the law there also. And having lived thus, when we are brought before the judgment seat, and God fixes upon us his piercing gaze, he will see, not us, but the image of Christ, and because he lives we shall live also. JUSTICE STANDETH AFAR OFF.
By Editor
LAST week we presented some scriptures showing that the prophets in contemplating the times of the last days saw a great prevalence of injustice and oppression through the slackness and the wrong course of the law. If this were to be the one leading characteristic that would specially distinguish the last days, and if there were no other means of telling when we had reached the times of the last days, we verily believe that we might safely fix upon the present times as the ones referred to by the prophets. For now of a surety the law is deplorably slacked, and justice standeth literally afar off. This subject of the defeat of justice is one that is now, and has been for some time, exciting the attention of the leading periodicals and journals in the land. Very lately the New York Independent has given the public a series of able and interesting articles on this subject, from some of our leading jurists and authorities on law. Some time ago the North American Review devoted considerable space to a discussion of the same subject; the principal daily journals of the country have more or less to say upon it all the time; and it is a subject that cannot well escape the serious attention of every thinking person. Law is liberty. The integrity of just laws is the strongest safeguard of the rights and liberties of men in the civil compact. When through systematic perversion, evasion, or delay, the law becomes slacked, there is lost to the citizen that sense of security which is his due under government, and which it is the duty and the province of government to provide. And such is fast becoming the normal condition in the field of jurisprudence throughout the whole country. Justice awarded, is almost the exception rather than the rule, and even then comes after so long delay that the element of justice is a matter of doubt. In the Scriptures there is a parable given, called the parable of the unjust judge. And it seems that the point in the parable where his injustice appears, is in the fact of his delay. He seemed disposed to put off the case just as long as possible, and when at last he was brought to a decision, it was not with the primary idea of doing justice in the case, but to get rid of the petitioner who persisted in pressing her case for a decision. Luke 18:2-5. Having this inspired statement of the injustice of delay it is perfectly clear that now injustice is the rule in all our courts of law. Says Judge Learned in an article in the North American Review, June, 1885: "One cannot begin a lawsuit that involves a considerable amount, with any hope of a reasonably speedy decision. A year's time would be short for its termination; and the plaintiff may not reach the end in three, four, or five years." At present in the Supreme Court of the United States, on any case that takes its regular order on the docket, a decision is not expected inside of three years. Some of the State Supreme Courts are in about the same condition. In California, for instance, a decision is not expected now in much less than three years. And instances are well known wherein cases have been appealed to these courts for the express purpose of delaying the final decision for that length of time. But even when the case is at last reached and passed upon, there are so many precedents to follow, and so many technicalities raised that the chances are greatly in the majority that the case will be remanded for a new trial, and then the whole course has to be gone over again, perhaps with the same result, and the process be again repeated, until, as we personally know, there are cases which have passed87 through the Supreme Court three times; and then, in one case of which we know, only to be remanded to the lower court for a fourth trial. In April, 1885, the United States Supreme Court rendered a third decision in a case, and remanded it for a fourth trial. It was the case of a murderer in Utah. He had been three times tried for the same murder, three times found guilty, and three times sentenced to death. And upon some mere informality in the judge's charge to the jury, the case was sent back for trial the fourth time. Since that we have not heard from it. It may be pending in the Supreme Court again, or the man may have died and put an end to the tedious process of law and failure of justice. This trick of repeated appeal and return is now almost always employed by the extremely wealthy—especially corporations, against a weaker contestant. Says a writer in the Independent, Jan. 6, 1887: "Rich suitors—especially powerful corporations—make use of their opportunities of appeal to tire out their weaker antagonists and force them to an unjust compromise of a just claim." And again says the same writer: "Few persons in this democratic country will wish to see the time come when the highest courts in the land are closed to all but the rich." That is certainly true, yet it is just as certainly true that the direct effect of such procedure is to virtually close the courts to all but the rich, and to place the poor at the mercy of the rich. And so the courts have almost ceased to be courts of justice, for justice standeth afar off, and equity cannot enter. Wealth is taking the place of justice, and trickery the place of equity. And when this is so, law ceases to be regarded, and violence takes its place. This is the way the matter is going now and it cannot continue long, they will break out, and blood touch blood, and violence fill the land. This is so in only civil affairs, and much more so is it in criminal; while the direct result of this lack in civil cases can only be to increase the criminal. And what shall the end be? "BARKIS IS WILLIN."
By Editor
THERE is a movement on foot in California to secure a law exempting from taxation private and denominational schools and churches of all faiths. Dr. Stratton, of the University of the Pacific (Methodist), is doing all in his power to secure influence in favor of such a law. In pursuance of that object, he called upon the Catholic Archbishop Riordan. To his evident surprise he found that the archbishop expressed not only a willingness but a desire to co-operate with him and others in securing such legislation. We could have told him without going to inquire, that the Catholics would be in favor of having church property exempted from taxation. There are more than four times as many Catholics in California, as there are of Protestants of all denominations; and it is certainly not far out of the way to say that the Catholic Church owns at least twice as much property as do all the Protestant denominations combined. President Stratton may rest assured that he can count on Catholic co-operation in any scheme tending toward the support of the church by the State. Such a law would be a good deal in the nature of special legislation in behalf of the Catholic Church. For our part, we have no hesitation in expressing our disapproval of such a law, leaving the Catholic Church out of the question. The church is not, or should not be, a pauper. Let Christians support the churches. It would certainly be an act of injustice to tax infidels and other non-professors, to support something in which they have no interest, or to which they are decidedly opposed. When Christianity has not enough strength to stand alone, but must lean on the State, it has not enough vitality to carry on aggressive evangelical work, and is not worth supporting. But Dr. Stratton found out something else when he called on the archbishop. He says in a letter to the Advocate:— "Among other subjects of conversation were the questions of temperance, and Sabbath [Sunday] observance, and he expressed a desire to co-operate with all Christian people, or others, in promoting these causes." Will not a mother care for her own child? Here again we could have told Mr. Stratton that he would find the Catholic Church more than ready to co-operate with Christians, "or others." Sunday is a child of the Papacy, and professed Protestants may depend upon it that she will not disown her offspring. The Doctor's interview with the archbishop convinced him that the Catholics have been misrepresented. "The Church" is a pretty good thing after all, and will aid greatly in matters of "reform." Strange that intelligent Protestants can be so blind! But this only serves to show how professed Protestants are preparing the way for the triumph of Roman Catholic principles in this country. Meanwhile the wily prelates of the Catholic Church are chuckling over the situation. They well know that if they were to take the initiative in attempting to secure State patronage and Sunday legislation, there would be an outcry which would work disaster to their projects; but they are perfectly willing to "co-operate" with Protestants. True Protestantism, however, will never lend itself to become a cat's-paw for Catholicism.