A BETHLEHEM CELEBRATION PROPOSED.
"The Missionary Review for January, 1896, opens with a vigorous article, entitled 'The Outlook; Some Signs of the Times,' from the editor-in-chief, Dr. Arthur T. Pierson, which is like a stirring bugle call to more earnest missionary effort everywhere. Dr. Pierson finds the special occasion for this appeal in the circumstance, as he regards it, that this new year is not 1896, but 1900, of the Christian era, and thus 'marks the closing year of the century.' He observes that the familiar letters 'A.D.' do not originally stand for Anno Domini, but for Æra Dionysii, the Roman abbot, to whom is to be traced the method of reckoning the Christian era, which has been generally in vogue since the eighth century. Later and more careful computations, however, lead many scholars to the conclusion that an error of four years has occurred in the Dionysian era, and that the Incarnation must date back at least as early as the year 749 from the founding of Rome, or 4 B.C. "And Dr. Pierson goes so far as to ask why a correction of the calendar of Christian nations could not be made even at this late day—if Pope Gregory XIII. could reform the calendar in 1582, taking out 10 days in October, and if Britain could, after 170 years' delay, adopt the new style and count September 3 'September 14.' In the event of such a correction, Dr. Pierson suggests that a magnificent celebration of the birth of Christ should be kept by all followers of our Lord, as the passing of the year 1896 completes full nineteen centuries since the angels sang the nativity chorus. "Nativity week he would have observed at Jerusalem, and Christmas day itself at Bethlehem—the whole festival season being marked by the erection in Bethlehem of some permanent memorial, such as a home for common worship for all true believers, a halting place for pilgrims to and from mission fields, and a center for missionary operations. On successive days of the celebration there might be gathered together devout assemblies of believers of many names, presided over by representatives of the different branches of the church of Christ. 'What a fit way,' continues Dr. Pierson, 'to usher in the twentieth century, with prayers and praises in Him who was born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the king! What an incentive to a united and earnest effort to push the lines of holy occupation to the very outermost ends of the earth!' Whatever may be thought of Dr. Pierson's chronology, which is not his more than it is that of many scholars, his zeal for evangelism is undoubted; and there is certainly great force in his appeal for increased activity this new year along the already multitudinous lines of missionary work carried on by the church of Christ, as well as in the inception of new evangelistic enterprises. The argument is that, if we are on the verge of the twentieth century of the Christian era, the outlook for missions is commensurately extensive and important, and that it accordingly becomes believers in Christ to look about them and study anew their conditions, to look back and review their course, and to look ahead and 'be ready for new risks and new duties.' History, as Dr. Pierson truly says, is big with great possibilities when hours and even moments witness stupendous changes and miracles of transformation. The chance is now, in a larger sense than it has ever been before. Is the church of Christ awake to its opportunity?"