Earlier text: General ArticlesChrist's Resurrection.
By C. H. Spurgeon
THE fact of Christ's resurrection is exceedingly well attested. It was needful that it should be beyond dispute, since it lies at the very basis of our holy faith. It is consoling to think that it is so; for thus our foundation standeth most secure. Our Lord was careful to show himself after his resurrection to those who, having known him before his decease, would be able unflinchingly to answer for the identity of his person. Our Lord, to put the matter beyond controversy, took care to appear many times, and to numerous companies. One apostle gives a summary of those appearances which had most fully come under his own notice: "He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; after that, he was seen of about five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time." From the evangelists' reports we are led to believe that Christ appeared no less than twelve times to his disciples; for some of these instances which the apostle Paul mentions under one head, may include two or three appearances; as, for instance, "then of the twelve" may denote his first visits to the apostles; for you remember he first appeared to them when Thomas was absent, and afterward when Thomas was present. Isaac Ambrose gives a summary of these appearances to this effect. He showed himself to Mary Magdalene apart, then to all the Marys, next to Simon Peter alone, afterward to the two disciples journeying to Emmaus; to the ten apostles when the doors were shut; to all the disciples when Thomas was with them; to Peter, John, and others while fishing in the lake of Tiberias; to five hundred brethren at once; to James, the Lord's brother; to the eleven disciples in Galilee; to all the apostles and disciples at Olivet before his ascension; and, lastly, to the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus. There may even have been more than these, for we have no proof that all his appearances are on record. Enough, however, we have, and more would answer no useful end. So clear is the evidence of Christ's resurrection, that when Gilbert West—a celebrated infidel—selected this subject as the point of attack, sitting down to weigh the evidence and to digest the whole matter, although filled with prejudice, he was so startled with the abundant witness to the truth of this fact, that he expressed himself a convert, and has left as a heritage to the church a most valuable treatise, entitled "Observations on the Resurrection of Christ." He went to the subject as though he had been a lawyer examining the pros and cons of any matter in dispute; and this, which is the fundamental doctrine of our faith, seemed to him so exceedingly clear that he renounced his unbelief, and became a professor of Christianity. Does it not strike you that very many events of the greatest importance recorded in history, and commonly believed, could not in the nature of things have been witnessed by one-tenth as many as the resurrection of Christ? The signing of famous treaties affecting nations—the birth of princes—the remarks of cabinet ministers—the projects of conspirators—and the deeds of assassins—any and these have been made turning points in history, and are never questioned as facts, and yet few could have been present to witness them. The most recent political event I venture to assert had not nearly so many witnesses as the resurrection of Christ; and that if it came to a matter of dispute, it would be far easier to prove that Christ is risen, than to prove that the Earl of Beaconsfield is dead; if it came to the counting of witnesses who saw the Earl die, and could attest the identity of the body now resting in the vault with that which they saw fever-stricken in the bed-chamber, it strikes me they would turn out to be far fewer than those who saw the Lord after he had risen, and were persuaded that it was Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified, and had burst the bonds of death. If this fact is to be denied, there is an end to all witness, and we may say deliberately what David once said in haste: "All men are liars;" and from this day forth every man must become so skeptical of his neighbor, that he will never believe anything which he has not himself seen; the next step will be to doubt the evidence of his own senses; to what further follies men may then rush, I will not venture to predict. We believe that the very best attested fact in history is the resurrection of Christ. Historical doubts concerning the existence of Napoleon Bonaparte, or the stabbing of Julius Cæsar, or the Norman Conquest, would be quite as reasonable as doubts concerning the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. None of these matters have such witnesses as those who testify of him—witnesses who are manifestly truthful since they suffered for their testimony, and most of them died ignominious and painful deaths as the result of their belief. We have far more and better evidence for this fact than for anything else which is written in history, either sacred or profane. Oh! how should we rejoice, we who hang our salvation wholly upon Christ, that beyond a doubt it is established that, "Now is Christ risen from the dead."—C. H. Spurgeon. To the Law and to the Testimony.
THERE is one thing which is worthy of special notice, and that is, that in many of the arguments used in defense of the carnal divisions which so dishonor the Lord and disquiet his church, there is a marked absence of anything like an appeal to the word of God. Men who, when discussing other points, appeal to Scripture, and who claim for their position and their creeds the indorsement of holy writ; who demand and offer in every controversy the testimony of "the word of the Lord," when they come to these matters, leave that word entirely out of the question, and appeal to interest and prejudice rather than to the Scriptures of divine truth. We hear sometimes parables and illustrations comparing the different and warring sects that disgrace Christianity, to different regiments in the army of the Lord; but we have no reference to any scripture which so describes them. On the contrary, the Scripture compares the church to a flock with one shepherd; a body with one head; a building with one foundation; a temple with one headstone thereof; but all these representations are left one side, for none of them meet the circumstances of the case, or give countenance or warrant to the unscriptural separations that prevail among the people of God. Hence these different "regiments" have been invented by denominational leaders to cover their sectarian sins. Any person who will for himself examine the arguments by which members of different sects justify their dissensions and divisions will mark the utter absence of all reference "to the law and to the testimony." And yet the prophet said, "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20. The simple truth is, there is nothing in the Scripture which can justify the positions which they have assumed. There are no proof texts which warrant the divisions, and strifes, and bickerings which so disgrace the Lord, in whose name they are carried on. These things are simply of the earth, earthy; they are not born of that wisdom which is from above. Where dissension and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. Where one saith "I am of Paul, and I of Apollos" there is unmistakable evidence that they are carnal, and walk as men. We recollect a single reference to Scripture in this connection. A man who professed to take the Bible as his guide, referred to the fact that the Almighty is described as "the Lord of Hosts"; and the hosts there referred to were the sectarian hosts fighting under the banners of the different isms and schisms which prevailed. The Lord was "the Lord of Hosts" long before any of these isms and schisms were known, and will still be "the Lord of Hosts" when they are forgotten, and buried in eternal oblivion. The grand remedy for these unhappy and unchristian separations is to be found in personal acquaintance with God, and subjection to his will and to his word. When this lesson is learned, and when the spirit of Him who prayed for his people that they all might be one, pervades their hearts, and controls their lives, we shall have no more of these far-fetched arguments to justify a flagrant wrong, but shall instead of that, find Christ's true disciples drawing nearer and nearer to him who is their Lord and head, till they all come "in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love." (Ephesians 4:13-16.) —Armory. THE Independent, N. Y., June 15, 1882, says, “We recall the statement by an ecclesiastical dignitary of the Church of England that nobody of any account had ever questioned the Christian faith of this ‘holy man of God.’” The following extracts from Darwin’s great work on man, show what he believed and taught. I append references to the Scriptures which Mr. Darwin’s views utterly ignore and deny, but which, if we accept them, refute Darwinism. “We may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man.” Descent, Vol. 1, p. 189. (Gen. 1:20.) “The Simiadæ then branched off into two great streams, the New World and Old World monkeys, and from the latter, at a remote period, man, the wonder and glory of the universe, proceeded.” Vol. 1, p. 204. (Gen. 2:7.) “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals, in their mental faculties.” “It is only natural prejudice and that arrogance which made our forefathers declare that they were descended from demi-gods, which leads us to demur to this conclusion” (namely, “to admit the community of descent” of “man and all other vertebræ animals”). Vol. 1, pp. 31, 32. (Psa. 8:5.) Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed as in man.” Vol. 1, pp. 68, 69. (2 Pet. 2:12.) “By considering the embryological structure of man, the homologies which he presents with the lower animals, the rudiments which he retains,341 and the reversions to which he is liable, we can partly recall to imagination the former condition of our early progenitors.” Ibid. (1 Cor. 15:45.) “We thus learn that man is descended from a hairy quadruped furnished with a tail and pointed ears.” Vol. 2, p. 372. (Luke 3:38.) Thus teaches Darwin and all radical evolutionists. Christian or skeptic? Man of God, as the English prelate calls him; or atheist? Which was Charles Darwin? The Independent (committed to Darwin’s views) says, “The explanation he gave to the production of species (man?) was one that contradicted their notion of the interpretation of an obscure part of the Bible.” April 27, 1882. Let Christians read again Gen. 1:27 and 2:7, and then mark these words “their notion,” and “obscure.” “Their notion” means the generally accepted Christian and orthodox faith respecting the Mosaic record. But, Says the Christian Register, “The marvelous rapidity with which Mr. Darwin’s views have found acceptance among scientific men defies all comparison. It is without a parallel in the history of knowledge, wrote George Ripley.” And, The Observer says, “Darwin’s theory is essentially materialistic, maintaining that there is an inherent energy in matter—at least in living matter—by which it tends to higher ends. It does not acknowledge the superintending care and power by which creatures are preserved and developed, but it is adapted to a system which excludes all idea of God. It was received with great éclat, and regarded by many scientists as being a demonstration and victory over the Bible account of creation.” Says the Presbyterian Banner, “Philosophers who look with contempt upon the Mosaic account of man’s origin as supremely absurd and impracticable do not hesitate to accept implicitly and believe without any difficulty, the evolution theory,” of Darwin and Spencer. Says the Interior, “His system has no place for God in any present energy, and the universe, if not without a creator, is certainly without any providential guide.” The Illustrated Christian Weekly says that in Darwin’s theory, “God started the world; that was all. Practically, this is atheism. It leaves the soul without God.” The Advance says, “Evolution, as held by Spencer, makes no account of him—God—further than to deny that he (or it) can be known.” The Churchman calls Darwin’s system “A piece of hard, unyielding mechanism, which leaves no room for freedom, either divine or human; which puts everything at the mercy of its environments or surroundings, leaving no room for responsibility; which to that extent confounds mind and matter, good and evil—he and his followers have been chiefly instrumental in bringing about the spread of agnosticism.” Says the Messenger, “The ethical turn he gives to his doctrine conflicts so palpably with the inspired account of creation that he has been regarded as a direct opponent of Divine Revelation.” We conclude, the sacred record being true, that out of his own mouth Darwin is condemned, and his Christianity is indeed doubtful, while his theory is pernicious to faith in the Bible. And when we know that he read with avidity the Boston Index from its first issue till the last, and that but a short time previous to his death he donated that infidel and atheistic sheet the sum of $125 to aid in its support and circulation—we need add no more. But God will be Charles Darwin’s judge.—D. T. T., in Bible Banner. Faith Without Repentance.
"I do not care for what I have done in the past," says a letter before us; "I trust in the blood, and Jesus has paid it all." But the conduct of the past had been criminal and abominable, and the fact that the writer was indifferent to it because he supposed that Christ had borne the penalty, and that he was free and safe from the consequences of his conduct, is the best evidence possible that he would do the same thing again if he could do it with impunity. The man had been taught by some one who did not understand the nature of salvation. The vicarious sacrifice is stigmatized as the "commercial theory of the atonement," chiefly because it has thus been travestied by those who profess to understand and teach it. No soul is pardoned until from grief over and hatred of its sin it turns from it with a full purpose and endeavor to lead a pure and righteous life. The redeemed soul will never cease to be ashamed in the memory of a mean act that it has committed, whether that act be toward God or man. Those hymns and homilies which represent the saved as glorying in their lives before supposed conversion, are misleading and mischievous. It is setting vice up as virtue to extol depravity as a back-ground necessary to magnify God's mercy. Repentance is not a part of a bargain, or of a shrewd speculation by which a wicked man imposes on the generosity and good nature of God. The test of its genuineness is nothing else than hatred of sin because of its moral repulsiveness, and love of righteousness for its own sake. The theologians who instruct gallows saints how to preach when the rope is about their necks, and that pernicious clerical liberalist, and all liberalists like him, who apologized for the murder of Mr. Cram, and promised the homicide-suicide a new probation under better conditions—such preachers need indoctrination in that hard-headed little summary, the Shorter Catechism. The contempt and ridicule which are heaped upon such performances by the rationalistic press are fully deserved, but we protest against accrediting such immoral sentimentality to evangelical religion.—Interior. Personal Habits in Schools.
By Editor
If any man or woman needs to be circumspect on account of the effect of example, it is the Sabbath-school teacher. And there is no safety for him unless this watchfulness is observed everywhere and at all times. A casual word may lead to results of good or evil of which the speaker has not the remotest apprehension. One of the most important school-habits to be cultivated by the teacher is that of uniform, punctual, self-denying attendance in his place. We are persuaded that it is a very prevalent fault among teachers to feel at liberty to attend school or not, as their convenience or inclination may decide. The teller of a bank, the captain of a steamboat, a policeman, might be excused if illness or other providential cause should prevent their attendance at their respective posts. How often do these men go to their employments with headaches, and bearing up against weariness and incipient sickness, under the strong sense of responsibility, and with the consciousness that any failure may endanger their hold upon their offices! How constantly do we observe men who have no such consequences as these to apprehend, resisting the strongest inducements and persuasions to remain at home, on the plea that their business is too imperative to be neglected! They must be at the counting-house. If they cannot walk, they will ride. Or, if their vote is wanted at the polls or in the legislature, they will be carried thither on their beds rather than let the cause suffer in which their hearts are so deeply interested. This spirit is wanted in our Christian duties; and, though we would not encourage the risk of health or life to meet Sabbath-school engagements, we would have teachers feel as strongly bound to them as salary, gain, or ambition can bind the men of the world to their objects of pursuit. A deficiency in this point on the part of the teacher is seen at once in the state of his class. Late attendance, frequent absences, by-and-by vacancy upon vacancy, tell the reproachful tale. And not his class only, but the whole school, in all its order and discipline, feels the disastrous influence of a single example like this. Having established the habit of uniform attendance, it would be well to make it a rule to avoid every act which would have a tendency to diminish a sense of the seriousness of the day's occupation, either in our own mind or in the minds of our scholars. Let this be our maxim when we enter the school, whilst we remain in it, and when we leave it. Teachers, it is presumed, always go to their classes fresh from the place of private prayer. If when we enter the school-room we find we are some minutes before the time, or that the superintendent is some minutes behind it, let us be on our guard lest the manner in which we spend the interval shall dissipate our seriousness and distract our thoughts. We may find, for instance, a knot of teachers in pleasant discussion about the alterations of the place of worship, or the new tune which the choir has introduced, or some other topic of equal or greater importance. The scholars are also amusing themselves in their own way, and the inducement is very strong to join the circle. But, before we give way to the inclination, let us remember the object for which we came; let us remember that the scholars will receive their impression of the importance of the exercises of the school from the conduct of the teachers; that they will not distinguish the subject of our conversation, whether theological and scriptural, or secular and trifling. All they see is that their teachers like to have a pleasant talk together as long as they can, before they are obliged to take their seats with them. Think, also, how often such conversations are mingled with smiles and laughter, and how this appearance will contrast with the devotional employments and scriptural lessons that are to follow. Reflect how much such conversation, even for a few minutes, may disengage the thoughts of the teacher from the practical instructions he has to administer to the class. As soon, then, as we enter the school-room, let us go directly to our own seat. If none of our pupils have arrived, we will lose nothing by giving the lesson one more look. If there should be one, or two, or more, it is a precious opportunity to drop some kind inquiry, to direct the thoughts to the object of instruction, to prepare the mind for the occupations of the school, and to give a Sabbath complexion to the whole scene. This is the time for familiar, friendly intercourse with the class individually. Now we may learn much more of the character of each boy than when all are assembled and the lesson is in progress. The one addressed will see that we take a real interest in him, that we are willing to talk with him and teach him even out of the prescribed hours. We cannot want occupation for this extra time. If we have nothing special in the way of personal instruction or inquiry, we may take this interval to communicate some interesting fact which has come to our knowledge, or to converse on the library books that have been read, and discover what impressions have been made. Indeed, the man must be dull and unobservant who can find nothing useful to talk about for a few minutes with a child or youth, anywhere. We would add, let the same devotedness mark our conduct whilst in the school. Let us keep up the spirit of the lesson, and let not our manner indicate weariness or a loss of interest. If we get through the prescribed exercises before the school is dismissed, we can fill up the time with additional comments and practical improvement. We need not lose a moment. Let us stay by the class until the school is closed, and then let them not see in our behaviour or conversation anything inconsistent with the solemn instructions and admononitions that have been occupying their attention. —The Teacher Taught. No CHRISTIAN need be deprived of religious privileges. Alone, he may commune with God; and, if he serves the Lord in faithfulness, he shall be privileged to win souls, who shall be his companions in tribulation, and in the kingdom, and patience of Jesus Christ; and wherever two or three can be gathered together in the Saviour’s name, they need not wait, and plead, and pray that Christ may come and manifest himself to them; but they are to believe, on the authority of his word, that he is already in the midst; that he comes when they come, and abides while they abide; and that, if they fail to apprehend his presence, it is because their eyes are holden, and their ears are dull of hearing. A SOUND discretion is not so much indicated by never making a mistake as by never repeating it. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"WHAT is meant by the expression in Matt. 24:29, 'The powers of the heavens shall be shaken'?" By comparing other passages with this, we learn that it means a literal shaking of the heavens by the voice of God. This is mentioned in prophecy, as quoted by Paul, in Heb. 12:25, 26: "See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from Heaven; whose voice then shook the earth; but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven." That is, at Mt. Sinai the earth trembled at the voice of God, Ex. 19:18, but at the last day both heaven and earth shall shake. The same thing is brought to view in Rev. 6:14: "And the heavens departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places." In 2 Pet. 3:10 it is expressed thus: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also," etc. Finally, as positive proof of this, and that the voice of the Lord is the agent by which the shaking is done, see Joel 3:16, where, after speaking of the darkening of the sun and moon, he says, "The Lord also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake; but the Lord will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel." For extended comments on this passage see the pamphlet, "Refutation of the Age to Come," for sale at this Office. E. J. W. A CONTRAST OF TRUE AND FALSE THEORIES.
This is a pamphlet of only 84 pages, but its value is not to be judged by its size. It is just what its title indicates: a faithful presentation of Bible truth on this important subject, and an exposure of the false theories prevailing in regard to it. Every believer in Bible truth should read it. Buy it, read it, and lend it to your neighbor. Price 10 cts. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. Is True Piety Increasing?
By Editor
Is True Piety Increasing? VERY frequently the religious papers make mention of the rapid spread of Christianity, and the growth of religious sentiment in this nation. So confident are they of the correctness of their data and of the conclusions drawn therefrom that they predict the speedy evangelization of the world. Almost all that is now required to make this truly “a Christian nation” is an Amendment to our National Constitution which shall enable the religious element to control legislation, and so to enforce (what the majority believe to be) the institutions and laws of Christianity. With the large majority against us, we are still skeptical in regard to their predictions. We have the most unbounded confidence in the Bible and “the sure word of prophecy” which it contains. We read therein that “the age of gold” for this world was far, far in the past. The history of this world has brought us down from the gold, through the silver and brass, even through the iron, and into the mixture or mingling of iron and clay. See Dan. 2. And the setting up of God’s “everlasting kingdom” is not the conversion of the kingdoms or nations, either as cause or consequence, but their entire overthrow and utter destruction. And with this prediction in Dan. 2 agree many prophecies to which we might refer, even Ps. 2, which is so often and so inappropriately appealed to as proof of the world’s conversion. See Ps. 2:8, 9. Then the question may be asked, What mean these statistics of the large increase of believers, of the widespread acceptance of the Christian faith? Our answer is, They who produce them are deceived by appearances. The judgment which they form on the increase of religious sentiment is as superficial as the religious sentiment upon which it is based. The religious sentiment of the age is not deep; it is not a religion of self-denial, of cross-bearing. It is a religion that seeks popular applause; that goes hand in hand with the world and worldlings; a religion of sociables and festivals; of excursions and hilarity; of fairs and raffles; of immense church edifices and small prayer-meetings. In a late number of the American Christian Review is an interesting article which contains the following words from Prof. W. H. Green, LL. D. All who are acquainted with the present condition of the religious world will certify that he has drawn the picture faithfully, and that he has not magnified the difficulty and the danger:— “All the signs of the times indicate that the American churches, and, in fact, the whole of English-speaking Christendom, are upon the eve of an agitation upon the vital and fundamental question of the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible such as it has never known before. The divinity and authority of the Scriptures have heretofore been defended against the outside world of unbelievers—against pagans, infidels, and skeptics; but the question is now raised, and the supreme authority of the Scriptures contested within the church itself. In the controversies which have agitated the churches of Great Britain and of this country heretofore, the infallible authority of Scripture has been admitted as the ultimate test of doctrine, by all contending parties. All made their appeal to this standard. The settlement of every question depended upon its interpretation, or upon inferences fairly deducible from it. But now the standard is itself brought into question. Utterances which fill the air on every side, and are borne to us from every quarter—from professors’ chairs, from pulpits, from the religious press; not to speak of what is incidentally woven into general literature and promiscuous conversation, show abundantly that the burning question of the age is not, What does the Bible teach? It is one yet more radical and fundamental: What is the Bible? In what sense is it the word of God? Is it a revelation from God, and divinely authoritative? Or, is it to be left to the interpreter to say what in it is from God and worthy of our faith, and what is the fallible human element that may be rejected? This question is approached from all sides, and the most diverse and conflicting answers given.” If it be true that the question of the authenticity and reliability of the Bible is yet to be settled in the English-speaking churches, to what purpose is the increase of their numbers? To what purpose is this boast of increasing strength, this array of statistics, if there is a virus at the heart, a moral infection diffused through the body, which is, not destroying it, but turning it into a diseased and corrupted mass? So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd which grew up over him, but he did not mark the worm which was eating away its life. The English-speaking churches have greatly boasted of late years of the increase of light and knowledge in their midst, of the higher general education of their ministry. If their education were sanctified to the service of God, then their knowledge would be something over which they might well rejoice. But, unfortunately, this is not the case. It has come to be a mark of wisdom to doubt; a sign of “advanced thought” to look upon the disobedience of the first human pair as the means of great blessings to the race, if, indeed, the whole story be not an allegory. He who respects the testimony of Moses, who does not look upon him as a pitiable specimen of an arbitrary bigot of the dark ages, is considered but a sorry graduate in many “higher” Christian circles. While he who professes to be scientifically wiser than the Bible is most highly esteemed even in many of our theological schools. The theology of the German schools—“German Neology”—is flourishing throughout Christendom. According to it the Bible must submit to be placed in the crucible of science, and be content to emerge therefrom in whatever shape the scientific world may see fit to mold it; that everything in the Bible must be determined by scientific data, or explained according to the laws of science and philosophy. In such a school miracles can have no place, and thus we find professors of science and religion (professors truly) denying that a miracle was ever performed,—affirming that the Bible was written in terms just suited to the ignorance of the Jews to whom it was given; that it presented things as they appeared to the uneducated, and not as they really were. It may be replied that, while this is true to a large extent, it is not universally so; that very many still adhere to the “old paths” and to the old methods of thought. True; but they are coming to be looked upon as “fogies,” as relics of an age of blind adherence to “authority.” The statement of Prof. Green cannot be gainsaid. The most popular pulpits, the chairs of theology in the colleges, are fast molding the popular sentiment in this direction. “The whole head is sick, and the whole heart is faint.” And to this agree the words of inspiration. God, who sees the end from the beginning, has pointed out this very state of things in the religious world. Read the following:— “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away.” 2 Tim. 3:1–5. Is this description too bold to be applied to Christian churches within whose pale the question of the reliability of the Bible has yet to be settled? We will not assume that all these characteristics are prominently displayed in the churches of this day. But where love of self, covetousness, boastfulness, pride, and inordinate love of pleasure already exist, and some of the other traits are becoming painfully prominent, and the whole resting on a foundation composed of a mixture of Platonic philosophy, Catholic tradition, “science falsely so called,” with barely sufficient respect for the Bible to give the air of a Christian body—where these already exist, the coming of all the rest is only a question of time. And the end is hurried on by the churches making their dependence the civil power, by which to enforce their dogmas upon the world, which they despair of moving by arguments. The millennium for which they are now working is a millennium of Church-and-State authority, instead of one of a church of deep earnest piety, hungering and thirsting after righteousness, only “leaning on the arm of her beloved.” The way to eternal life is still narrow, and few there are who find it. The Bible is still God’s word of truth, and the words of the Saviour about the ways to life and destruction are still true. Well would it be for the cause of religion and the well-being of the world, which needs the sanctifying power of the truth, if the churches would be convinced that the narrow way cannot be widened by appeals to “Religious Amendments,” to National Constitutions, to “Civil” or “Penal Codes,” or to “Legislative Enactments.”