Earlier text: Sinai and CalvaryGOD AND CÆSAR.
By Elder W. A. Colcord
TRUTH never becomes less such by repetition, and repetition is often necessary before a truth makes a due impression upon the minds of men. Referring to an experience in the life of Luther illustrating this fact, D'Aubigne observes that "it is frequently necessary that a truth should be repeatedly presented to our minds, in order to produce its due effect." It is for this reason that we present again and again thoughts upon the important subject of the province and limitations of civil government and man's relationship thereto, in connection with his responsibility and allegiance to God, his Maker. Much confusion, suffering, and sin have resulted from a lack of a proper understanding of this question. But he who spake as never man spake laid down a rule which is so simple and plain that none need err in determining where to draw the line between what is duty to God and what to earthly governments. A test question was once put to Christ by those who sought to entangle him in his talk and find whereof they might accuse him. The Jews were then unwillingly under tribute to Cæsar. Coming to Christ they asked, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?" Had he said yes, they would doubtless have seized upon this as an occasion for taking offense, for, as already stated, they were unwillingly paying taxes to Cæsar. Had he said no, they would likewise have had grounds upon which to prefer charges against him before the Roman Government. Whichever way he answered it, it would seem, would involve him in difficulty. To the Jews it no doubt appeared that they had propounded to him a question which he could not answer without putting an argument into their hands which they could use against him. But he answered them so wisely, and in a way that appealed so strongly to their reason and common sense, that they marveled, and left him, and went their way. Perceiving their wicked intent, he said: "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Thus did Christ silence the Jews, and answer what in their estimation would be to him a most puzzling question. And herein is couched a principle by which if applied no one need ever be at a loss to know what he ought to render to God and what to civil government. The first and only thing necessary to ascertain is that of ownership. The only question to be settled is, Whose is it, God's or Cæsar's? Let this once be determined, and the duty to obey or not to obey is at once apparent. To illustrate: Suppose a government should attempt to enforce upon its citizens the ordinance of baptism. While no one would deny that baptism is a Christian ordinance, commanded in the Scriptures, and that its practice is perfectly proper on the part of those who believe in Christ, the enforcement of it on the part of the government would be condemned as quite out of place. And why so?—Simply because baptism is an institution which does not belong to civil government. Baptism pertains to God. Men are baptized for the remission of sins; but sin is a violation of God's law, and can therefore be remitted only by God. Suppose again that the government should attempt to compel men to celebrate the ordinance known as the Lord's Supper, this would likewise be regarded as an unwarranted assumption of power, because, as the name of the sacrament itself shows, it belongs to the Lord and not to the government. Likewise with the enforcement of Sabbath observance. The Sabbath is the Lord's, and its observance is to be rendered to the Lord. "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it." Therefore, for the government to attempt to enforce the observance of the sabbath, or any other religious institution, or for any ecclesiastical power or organization, through the government, to attempt to do so, is for it to seek to compel men to render to themselves that which belongs to God. It is usurpation and robbery, and an attempt to compel men to commit idolatry. And any man who observes any such institutions because of such requirements has no more discharged his duties to God than the man who owes his neighbor a certain amount has canceled the debt by paying the specified sum to another. It is evident, therefore, that the question of ownership at once determines to whom obedience in any particular case is to be rendered, whether to God or to the government. And if there is a distinction to be made here, it must also be evident that the realms or jurisdictions of God and Cæsar are entirely separate and distinct. While the subjects are the same, the nature of the two governments are entirely distinct. One is civil, the other religious. One is temporal, the other eternal. One pertains solely to this present world, the other to the world to come. One takes cognizance of acts only as they affect the rights of others, the other scrutinizes the acts themselves and the prompting motives behind them. The only obligations resting upon men with which civil governments have anything to do are those which exist between man and man. With the duties which men owe to God Cæsar has nothing to do. The founders of the United States Government gave utterance to a fundamental truth when they said:— "Religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence, and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience." While we have seen that civil governments have no right to attempt to enforce upon mankind that even which God himself has commanded them to observe and do as religious obligations, another important fact remains to be stated, and that is that when governments not only enter the realm of religion, and assume to legislate upon men's duties to God, but enact laws directly contrary to the express will and commands of God, men are under no obligation to obey such laws. Why this is so is evident. We are God's first. He created us, and, therefore, he has first claims upon us. Madison, in his noble remonstrance against a roundabout attempt to establish religion in Virginia by law, thus well stated the case:— "It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of civil society. Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the universe; and if a member of civil society who enters any subordinate association must do it with a reservation of his duty to the general authority, much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular civil society do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain, therefore, that in matters of religion no man's right is abridged by the institution of civil society, and that religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance." Another writer has truly said:— "When the laws of men conflict with the word and law of God, we are to obey the latter, whatever the consequences may be." This is not anarchy. It is loyalty to God, loyalty of the highest type. "We ought to obey God rather than men," is the verdict of Scripture. President Fairchild, in his "Moral Philosophy," rightly observes that— "Obedience is to be rendered to all human governments in subordination to the will of God. . . . It is too obvious to need discussion that the law of God, the great principle of benevolence, is supreme, and that we 'ought to obey God rather than men' in any case of conflict between human law and the divine. There are cases so clear that no one can question the duty to refuse obedience. In all times and in all lands such cases have arisen." Yes, even in America, the boasted land of civil and religious liberty, and in this nineteenth century, such cases have arisen. The law of God says: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." But6 in nearly every State in the Union there are laws requiring men to observe, not the seventh, but the first day as the Sabbath; and in the year 1892 the ecclesiastical leaders of apostate Protestantism succeeded in securing from the general government a law to this effect, so that the government is now pledged to first-day observance. Here, then, is a conflict between human law and the divine, and, as Mr. Fairchild, in the language of inspiration, rightly says, "we ought to obey God rather than men." Here is a case "so clear that no one [after becoming intelligent upon the subject] can question the duty to refuse obedience." And right here, let it be observed, upon this very point, is coming the test of loyalty to God for this generation, as the world-wide agitation of the question of enforced Sunday observance plainly shows. But the question is sometimes asked, Ought we not to obey the powers that be? In the words of another, we answer: "Yes, when they are in harmony with the higher powers that be. God made his law for all the universe. He created man; he gives the bounteous provisions of nature, holds our breath and life in his hand. He is to be recognized, his law honored, before all the great men and the highest earthly powers." Let everyone, therefore, who desires to stand clear from idolatry, and to prove himself loyal to God, see to it that he renders to Cæsar only that which is Cæsar's, and to God that which is his. THE BRAVEST OF THE BRAVE.
By Joaquin Miller
Europe was never so entirely and terribly armed. Woe to him who sets fire to Europe now.—Moltke. AND who the bravest of the brave,
The bravest hero ever born?
'Twas One who dared a felon's grave,
Who dared to brave the scorn of scorn.
Nay, more than this, when sword was drawn,
And vengeance waited but His word,
He looked with pitying eyes upon
The scene, and said, "Put up thy sword."
Could but one king be found to-day
As brave to do, as brave to say? "Put up thy sword into the sheath."
"Put up thy sword," "put up thy sword."
By Cedron's brook thus spake beneath
The olive trees our valiant Lord,
Spake calm and kinglike. Sword and stave
And torch and stormy men of death
Made clamor. Yet he spoke not, save
With loving word and patient breath,
"Put up thy sword into the sheath,"
The peaceful olive boughs beneath. Ye Christian kings, in Christ's dear name
I charge you live no more this lie.
"Put up thy sword." The time they came
To bind and lead him forth to die,
Behold, this was his last command.
Yet ye dare cry to Christ in prayer
With red and reeking sword in hand;
Ye dare do this as devils dare.
Ye liars, liars, great and small,
Ye cowards, cowards, cowards all. O God, but for one gallant czar,
One valiant king, one fearless queen!
Yea, there would be an end of war
If one could be heard or seen
To follow Christ, to bravely cry
"Put up thy sword," "put up thy sword,"
And let us dare to live and die
As did command our valiant Lord,
With sword commanded to its sheath,
The blessed olive boughs beneath.
—The Independent. INSTITUTION AND USAGES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
By Elder I. E. Kimball
The church of the third century stood out distinctively Catholic as against schismatics. The Roman Church, according to Pope Fabian, and authors already quoted, now gave the example in things sacred, styling herself "the Mother." From the days of Justin, A.D. 150, to Cyprian, A.D. 250, we read of the supper as a continuation of Christ's sacrifice upon the cross, and it is made to "release from the burden of sin." A rule of faith was adopted for the detection of heresy. A line of bishops, link within link, marked the course of the true church. These bishops were understood to have the "gift of truth," for the Holy Ghost abode within the church, not outside of it. The sacrament of penance, of which Cyprian spake, seems to have originated from the custom of requiring all excommunicated persons to take a seat apart from the congregation, and to go through a certain routine of public humiliation before they were again received into the communion of the church. Thus sins were expiated by "due satisfactions." The early church of apostolic times was indeed "called into liberty," without temples, priests, altars, victims, or a ceremony. Consequently to the heathen eye they were "infidels." But in the second and third century, to lure to the fold the Jew and the heathen, who were accustomed to ritual of no little pomp, the church took up the idea. She conceived of her ministry as a priesthood. Under this sacerdotal idea came the separation into higher and lower orders,—clergy and laity. The chief priest (the bishop) in many places put on the dignity of a king, surpassing all the conceptions of Jewish or pagan priest, so that one of the Roman emperors swore he would annihilate the office. Bishop Coxe supposes the philosopher's robe, which Justin ever wore, and which was commonly worn by the philosophic church, teachers of these times, to be still doing service in the ritualistic churches of Christendom. In addition to a gaudy ceremonial, "mysteries," to comport with the heathen "mysteries," were introduced. Egyptians, Persians, Grecians, Indians,—all nations,—delighted themselves and groveled in what they termed the "mysteries." Nothing so sacred to them, nothing so much to be so abhorred by us! They were a species of "dark, recondite" worship, altogether repugnant to virtue and modesty. In their dark sittings, all sorts of libidinous excess were indulged, and foul orgies kept. The Christian saw fit to imitate this. So the baptism and the Lord's Supper were made to bear the aspect of mysteries. Two services were held, the one public, common to all, the other secret. The baptized were initiates, the unbaptized and catechumens, who had enrolled themselves as candidates, were held in the dark as to the mysteries, for silence was imposed upon the church with reference to it. The initiation of the catechumens by baptism was as follows: Exorcism, by which demons were expelled, then the anointing of the entire body with oil. While the priest was thus engaged, the bishop sanctified the water by invocation and thrice pouring in from the holy chrism, in a manner to represent the sign of the cross. Then the water was holy, and would make holy and cleanse the initiates. The priest attended to this after the anointing, if the bishop were not present. Tertullian mentions this as the practice of his times. Then came baptism; three times they were plunged into the holy font; then the kiss, then milk and honey were given; following this came the laying on of hands, and the sign of the cross marked upon the forehead. Such was baptism, and such was "holy water," and such the extravagances of those times. As soon as they came into the baptistry, men and women alike put off their garments, signifying the putting off of the old man, with his deeds. Such, probably, were the heathen mysteries, of which the Christian was but an image. Chrysostom makes it certain that women and infants alike were undressed. No wonder it became a dark, hidden procedure. The supper was the second mystery, and came to be called "mass" from missa, the Latin word signifying dismissed, for all were dismissed but the baptized. The cross, which seems to have been the very "power of God unto salvation" in their estimation, by no means originated with Christianity, for it was known in Egypt, Syria, India, Rome, and even by the American Indians—a world-old and almost universal sign. It was the sacred sign of the Hindu god, Agni, "the light of the world." It was everywhere seen in the Egyptian temples, and worn upon necklaces by the ladies. (Dr. Newton, in Forum for March, 1886.) Incense was at first a heathen abomination, unallowable, but finally came to be used at funerals, then allowed at the installment of a magistrate or bishop, and finally allowed to temper and sweeten the bad air in public worship. Crowded assemblages in hot countries may have been blessed thereby, but incense and noonday candles ought never to have been taken up and made a part of religion. I should in this connection say something on the growth of the episcopate. To the early church it seemed needful to submit to a single rule as the only means of continuing in harmony.—Clementinae, Homilies. In some places the bishop (the apostle's successor) was but a nominal superior; elsewhere he was a ruler, a king, to whom tribute should be brought. All agree that in the early church the words "bishop" and "elder" were used synonymously. Paul called the Ephesian elders overseers, or, as it is in the Greek, bishops. See also in Titus 1:5, where the original word is bishop. The presbytery was but the board of elders. Passing the threshold of the second century, we have a threefold ministry; but even now the bishop is sometimes called a presbyter. The Greek episcopus, or bishop, signifies an overseer, and is familiar to readers of the Septuagint. Jerome, even, acknowledged bishops and presbyters to have been originally one; but, that the thickets of heresy might be laid low, a superintendency was laid upon one. Thus the episcopal dignity arose. At first the bishop was taken from the presbyter without reordination. Presbyters, or elders, were sent out from the central cities into the various districts; churches were raised up by them, but the city church, with its head in the bishop, was looked to as parent. Thus the metropolitan bishop came to control many provinces, and dioceses were formed. Archbishop, the name first applied to metropolitans, was finally restricted to metropolitans of first-rank cities, who finally came to be called "primates," and "patriarchs," corresponding to the emperor's vicars governing imperial provinces. Such were the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. New orders were formed, subdeacons, lectors, doorkeepers, acolytes, exorcists, and bishop's attendants. The great Cyprian of Carthage—a bishop of bishops—advocated and agitated consecration to virginity. This was but following the example of the celestial virgins of Pagan Rome. The foul, pestilential notion spread, and later on it became customary to wear a dark-colored dress, and to be invested with a bridal veil by the bishop, signifying marriage to Christ. Festival days were numerous; services were held on the fourth and sixth days, commemorative of Christ's betrayal and crucifixion, and were uniformly held on the seventh day also, of which we shall hereafter speak. The first day, the resurrection day, became a festival very early, and in Tertullian's day business was largely deferred, as an infringement upon church services. Aside from this, all business transactions were lawful. The Roman Saturnalia, celebrated at the winter solstice, corresponding to the Yule feast of the Germans, and marked in the Julian calendar for the 25th of December, was transported bodily into the church. Also Easter, the most ancient festival of the spring, was remodeled into a Christian institution. Candlemas day, a joyous festival in honor of the goddess Neith, is now held upon the day marked for it in the Julian calendar; and Lady day is also the old-time day in honor of the mother of gods, celebrated on just the same day now as anciently. The festival of the conception of the Virgin Mary also holds to the identical day upon which the Roman festival of the conception of the "blessed Virgin Juno" was held. These may not have been altogether brought in so early471 as in the period I am describing. Some of them were, and Tertullian reveals the secret of the transference. He upbraids church members for celebrating with the heathen "the feasts of Saturn and of Janus, and of the winter solstice, and the feast of Matrons," in piquant tones declaring, "We are not afraid lest we be openly declared to be heathen." At the same time he remarks that the heathen would not celebrate with them the feasts of the church, lest they be accounted Christians. A SPECIAL REFORMATION WILL PRECEDE HIS COMING.
By Matthew Larsen
A WARNING message implies a work of reformation. If there was no need of a reformation, there could be no need of a warning message. Sin is that which has made the warning a necessity, and, hence, is that which calls for a reformation. And the very fact that God has declared that such a message shall go to the world in the last days, sufficiently demonstrates the need of such a work of reformation. "Go through, go through the gates; prepare ye the way of the people; cast up, cast up the highway; gather out the stones; lift up a standard for the people. Behold, the Lord hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him." Isa. 62: 10, 11. Here, then, we have a prediction of a proclamation to be given in the last days. This is evident from the fact that it relates to the time when Christ shall come to give the reward to his people, which will be at the time of his second advent. Rev. 22: 12. It cannot apply to his first advent, for at that time he did not bring his reward with him to anyone, but he came to suffer and die for our sins. Here, then, we must conclude, is brought to view a work of reformation, belonging to the last days. For the Lord says to his servants at this time to "prepare the way of the people," "cast up the highway," "gather out the stones," and "lift up a standard [a rule of life, the law of God, to measure their characters by] for the people." A reformation consists of a turning away from sin unto righteousness. It becomes, therefore, a matter of importance and interest to us to know what sin is. The Bible definition is short and to the point. John says, "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law; for sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3: 4. And Paul says: "Where no law is, there is no transgression" (Rom 4: 15); "Sin is not imputed when there is no law" (5: 13); "For by the law is the knowledge of sin" (3: 20). He then tells us of what sin is the transgression, namely, the ten-commandment law:— "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. [This was the law of the ten commandments that said this; hence, that is the law Paul was speaking of.] . . . For without the law sin was dead. [Without this law there would be no sin.]" Rom. 7: 7, 8. The prophet says, "Raise up a standard." But what is the "standard" of righteousness? —The law of God, of course. "The law of the Lord is perfect," said the Psalmist. Ps. 19: 7. "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments." Ps. 119: 35. "For all thy commandments are righteousness." Verse 172. He then explains to us what law, or commandment, namely, "The law of thy mouth [i. e., the law of the commandments, since that is the only law God ever spake to mankind with his own voice, or mouth—Deut. 5: 22; 4: 12, 13] is better unto me than thousands of gold and silver." Ps. 119: 72. It is the "way" (Ps. 119: 1, 32), the standard of "righteousness" (verses 138, 142, 144). Hence, the command to "prepare the way," "lift up the standard for the people," would be to hold up the law by calling attention to it. This message, then, must of necessity call our attention to the keeping and to the claims of the law of God, and develop a class of people who will obey them. And this is just exactly what prophecy plainly declares will be done. John, the revelator, in speaking of the class of people whom he saw called out by the last great warning message, says, "Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rev. 14: 12. God calls this people, whom he will call out by this message, the "remnant." "But in the last days it shall come to pass, . . . saith the Lord, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; and I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation; and the Lord shall reign over them in Mount Zion from henceforth, even forever." Micah 4: 1-7. A "remnant" is that which "remains after a part is removed."—Webster. It is the last part of a thing. Hence, the "remnant" of God's people would be the last part of the church, or that part which would be living on the earth in the last days, just before the Saviour comes. They are to be called out after the signs have been fulfilled,—the darkening of the sun and moon:— "And I will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. [This locates the time to which this prophecy applies, i. e., the darkening of the sun and moon.] And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem [i. e., the true church of God] shall be deliverance, as the Lord hath said [he then tells us in which, or what part of the church, namely, the remnant], and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Joel 2: 30-32. It thus becomes a matter of interest and importance to us to know what the characteristics of that "remnant" church will be, so that we may know just how to find, or locate, it, for, says the Lord, in it "shall be deliverance" and salvation,—in it will be the saving truth of God. And upon this point the Lord has not left us in darkness by any means:— "And the dragon was wroth with the woman [i. e., the church], and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. 12: 17; 14: 12. Here, then, we have discovered what their characteristics will be. They are to "keep the commandments of God," and "have the testimony of Jesus Christ," which is the "spirit of prophecy." Rev. 19: 10. But how many of God's commandments can we break and still be called commandment keepers?—Not one. James says:— "For whosoever shall keep [profess to keep] the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. [He then illustrates the point] For that law [margin] that said, Do not commit adultery [it is the Decalogue that says that, and thus he indicates that to be the law he was talking about], said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. [He then calls this law the law of liberty, and gives us to understand that it will be the rule in the judgment, and says:] So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." James 2: 10-12. Whosoever shall break this law in "one point," will stand in that day condemned as "guilty of all," says the apostle. It is the logic of sin to involve him who yields to transgress the law, in a violation of not merely a part, but the whole. He who will knowingly offend in one point, will do so in all, whenever it is expedient to so do, or whenever they do not meet his own mind; and, hence, he is justly charged with being guilty of breaking them all. I remember reading a little illustration a few years ago which so aptly illustrates this point that I cannot forbear giving it in this connection. A certain man, it was said, came out to one of the Western States, and bought a piece of land, and laid it out for improvement into just ten lots,—one for the house, and one for the barn, and one for the orchard, and another for the vineyard, etc. He returned, and sent one of his sons out to improve the farm according to the specifications which he had given him. In the course of time he came West again, to see how his son was getting along. He was then taken around over the place, and found everything performed just as he had commanded, until he came to the lot that had been laid off for the vineyard, when, lo! there was no vineyard there. He called to his son, and demanded an explanation:— "Why, my son, haven't you obeyed me?" "But," answered he, "I have obeyed you, father." "How, then, does it come that there is no vineyard here?" "Oh," said he, "I didn't like this place; it didn't suit my mind, and so I just set it over on the other side of the hill!" "Well, you have not obeyed me in a single thing," said his father, whereupon his son looked at him in perfect astonishment, as if he thought his father was beside himself, or going mad. "Why," said he, "father, didn't I build that house just where you told me to? and the barn? and the orchard?" etc. "Yes, but, my son, when you came and saw the place I had marked out for the house, the barn, and the orchard, etc., it met your mind, it suited your will exactly, didn't it? But when you came to the place for the vineyard, you didn't like it very well, it didn't suit your mind, did it? And, instead of obeying me, you just set it over on the other side of the hill. Now, sir, this was the only place where your will and my will came in conflict; and when they did come in conflict, which did you obey, your will, or mine?—You know that you obeyed your own. And what assurance, sir, have I beneath the sun that if the place for the house, or the barn, or the orchard, or any of the others, had not suited you, you would have put them where I told you?—Just none whatever. The fact is you have simply obeyed the dictates of your own will, your own mind, in this whole thing." Who can fail to see the correctness or justice of this charge? And just so he who violates one point in the law of God, simply because it does not meet his mind, or suit his convenience, is as certainly guilty of a violation of all, and is properly so accused. He is only obeying himself, or his own will. There is no escape from the justice of this472 conclusion. And in this connection I kindly suggest to all a careful consideration of the law, and especially of the fourth commandment (Ex. 20: 8-11), and see if our lives correspond to its claims; and then bear in mind the above illustration, and what the Lord has said in James 2: 10-12. May we then, with the Psalmist, pray: "O let me not wander from thy commandments." "Teach me thy way, O Lord, and lead me in a plain path." "Make me to go in the path of thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Ps. 119: 10; 27: 11; 119: 35. TWO HUMAN INSTITUTIONS.
By H. A. St. John
1. THE JEWISH SABBATH.—It is not contended nor pretended that the Jewish Sabbath is a Bible institution or even a Bible name. It was solely and simply the true seventh-day Sabbath of God's law perverted into a rigorous and tyrannical yoke of bondage. The Jewish nation were under this yoke of bondage when Jesus, the Son of God and Lord of the Sabbath, appeared among men. The Jews in the days of Christ enumerated about forty primary works which were forbidden upon the Sabbath, and under each of these primary works they named a long list of secondary works which they said were also forbidden. These forbidden works excluded the miracles and good works of Jesus, who taught and practiced that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath, of which he was Lord. The Jewish Sabbath was a superstitious, exacting, burdensome, tyrannical institution, to which man was made a menial slave. The Sabbath of the Lord is a merciful, beneficent, and blessed institution, "made for man." In the Lord's Sabbath there is only blessing, mercy, compassion, kind words, and kind deeds for the erring, the needy, the suffering, and the afflicted, as exemplified by the Son of God, who was a perfect pattern of the true Sabbath observance. In the Jewish Sabbath, at least in the days of Christ, there was hardship, accusation, indignation, madness, persecution, condemnation, and death. Yes, that Jewish Sabbath was all these wicked things to that holy One who was Lord of the true Sabbath, and the holiest and purest example of right Sabbath keeping that the world ever saw. 2. THE PAPAL SABBATH.—The papal sabbath is the pagan Sunday, or first day of the week. It was the "wild solar holiday of all pagan times," dedicated to sun worship, hence called Sun-day, or Sunday. It was selected early in the Christian era, by the papal or Catholic Church, and substituted for the seventh-day Sabbath of the Lord Jesus. Herein lies the guilt of making void a commandment of God by a tradition. The first Sunday law extant was made by Constantine in A.D. 321. This was followed by other decrees and papal edicts, enforcing Sunday observance more and more rigidly upon the people, until, at the council at Laodicea in A.D. 364, they anathematized those who still kept the true Sabbath day according to the commandment. There is wickedness and oppression in all Sunday laws from the first to the last. If this oppression and wickedness have not always been manifest, it was simply because said laws were from some reason inoperative,—a dead letter. All Sunday laws, in all places, have in them accusation, indignation, madness, persecution, condemnation, fines, imprisonment, and death, for all those who will obey God rather than man, by keeping the true Sabbath of the Lord, after the teaching and example of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of the holy Sabbath day. MRS. KING'S BIBLE STUDY.
By Jennie M. Drinkwater
"Take an olive," said somebody at the breakfast table. "When I was in India it was quite a joke that if anybody began the day feeling discouraged, an olive helped to see things clearer." "Seeing clearer might make one more discouraged still," replied Mrs. King, as she helped herself to an olive. It was seeing more clearly than she had seen five years ago that had given her the discouraged feeling that somebody saw in her face this morning. "Well, that's the way to more light, then," remarked the somebody who suggested the olive. "I wouldn't object to a full blaze, even if it blinded me, like St. Paul." Mrs. King munched her olive, struck with the thought, but not ready to reply. An hour after breakfast she found something better than an olive. In the quiet of her own chamber, with the door locked, she fell upon her knees, and asked the illumination of the Spirit to fall upon God's word for her this day. The word was more than her daily bread. And then she arose and opened the word at the third chapter of Judges. If you knew how comforted she became with the truth she found, and the light that gave her clearer vision, you would believe, as I do, that the Comforter chose for her this morning reading. Her Bible study was very simple and practical. After you have read the story she made473 out of it for herself, will you open your Bible and read the first eleven verses of the chapter, and make a story out of it for yourself? Unless your life is very different from hers, you have a story there. Mrs. King was troubled this morning because of the discipline the last five years had brought upon her (not that she did not need the discipline), because of the certain kind of discipline she had brought upon herself. She was in a very strait place. There was no way of escape. At times her life was burdened with folly as heavy a load as she could live and bear, she told herself often. And yet she was willing to live and bear. She was not glad to live and bear; her sorrow was that she could not be glad. "Was it God who led me into this hard place, or did I bring myself into it by disobedience and willfulness, and thinking I could see clearly when my eye was not single?" Had God had anything to do with her bringing herself into this place of discipline? Vexed, disquieted, with dimmed vision, she sat down to read. She read:— "Now these are the nations which the Lord left, to prove Israel by them." Israel was a nation, but a nation made of men and women. Each person stood out distinct to be proved. Israel, then, was herself, Mary King. The nations left might be any circumstance, or set of circumstances (for things around was a good definition of the word circumstances), that could prove or test a person. Therefore, she might truthfully read: Now these are the happenings which the Lord left to prove Mary King. He could have taken them away, but he left them. They were about her five years ago, left by the Lord to prove her. By a touch of his hand, or a breath of his mouth, everything could have been changed, and she would have been outside instead of inside those surrounding things from which then she had not known how to free herself. And how could she, indeed, when the Lord left them there? No touch of hers could drive them away or change them into anything but the things to prove her. She read on: "And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the Lord." Ah, that was just it! To know if she would listen or not listen to all she knew of the commandments of the Lord. With the light the discipline of the five years threw upon her own discussion, her own reasoning at that time, she saw that she had not hearkened to the commandments of the Lord. She had been too full of herself to hearken. Now, what next? "The children of Israel did evil." They were proved, and failed. They proved themselves disobedient. These "left" nations brought out their disobedience. Her "left" happenings brought out her disobedience. And then? "And when the children of Israel cried unto the Lord, the Lord raised up a deliverer to the children of Israel." She had cried unto the Lord, oh, how she had cried unto him! Had he raised up her deliverer? Turning the leaves to the story of the life of the Deliverer upon the earth, she found:— "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me; because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted." She had found her Deliverer. God had sent Him to heal her broken heart. After a few moments, when, through her tears of penitence and gladness, she could see the words, she went back to the old story and read, "And the land had rest forty years." Her rest would be forty and forty years—rest all through this life, and never-ending rest, ever-increasing blessedness of rest. "And Othniel the son of Kenaz died." Their deliverer died. Her Deliverer was alive forever more; alive this hour, and she might speak to Him and thank Him. "They did evil again in the sight of the Lord." Her Deliverer would keep her from the evil that was in the world. And now the happenings and circumstances which God still might leave to prove her, whether she would hearken to his commandments or not, might, through Christ, who strengthened her, prove a time of ready, constant, glad obedience. She unlocked her door, and went downstairs, not only willing but glad to be alive, and glad to be burdened, if so God's pleasure was.—Advance.