A REVIEW OF SUNDAY LEGISLATION IN CENTURY NINETEEN.
By Prof. P. T. Magan
BY PROF. P. T. MAGAN.
All tyranny is bad; but the worst is that which works with the machinery of freedom.—Macauley.
Introductory.
I PURPOSE in this paper to sketch the history of Sunday legislation from the dawn of the present century to the autumn of the third year of its closing decade, at which time this treatise will go before the public. I shall endeavor faithfully to recount the principles to which this government was committed by the founders, whose names have been immortalized by grateful posterity, because they gave birth to a Constitution which has been justly styled by the greatest statesmen of the age as "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man; and among its greatest features none is more interesting than its full provision for complete separation of Church and State." I shall trace the course of innovation upon the inalienable rights of a free people,—rights with which they have been endowed by their Creator, and which in the fundamental law of their land—the Declaration of Independence and the national Constitution, those sacred charters of liberty and historic renown—they have expressly stipulated shall be held inviolate. I shall prove that these innovations have been conceived in the minds of, and persistently advocated by, the ministry of the altar,—a class of men from whom, were it not for the lessons of history, one would least expect them to emanate,—"those subtle prelates, seldom superstitious, but skillful in practicing on the superstitions of others, false, as it is natural that men should be whose desire it is to impose upon all who are not saints the necessity of being hypocrites, more attached to their own creeds than to the welfare of humanity, and ever seeking, though perhaps unwittingly, to guide the politics of the United States with a constant side glance at Rome."
Finally I shall show that Sunday legislation is the chrysalis, from the womb of which is to emerge the death warrant of the grandeur and greatness of the only nation in the history of the world which ever established "a constitution in time of profound peace by the voluntary consent of a whole people."
By Sunday legislation I understand, not merely the enactments of Congress and the different State Assemblies, but also the decisions of judges in courts, both State and national, in reference to Sunday observance. For in these days judicial precedent appears to carry as much weight as written statute; and the aphorism of Dr. Howland that a lawyer is nothing but a bundle of precedents, with red tape in every button-hole, and a green bag, has become nearly, if not quite, true.
I am well aware that the subject is a stupendous one, and that the task of unknotting the tangled labyrinth of its meshes is complicated rather than simplified by the necessary brevity of this paper. The words of Shakespeare can best describe the sentiment of the author as he entered upon his work:—
"Pardon, gentles all,
The flat unraised spirit that hath dared
On this unworthy scaffold to bring forth
So great an object."
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
"The United States exhibits to the world" not only "the first instance of a nation unattacked by force, unconvulsed by domestic insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding calmly concerning that system of government under which they and their posterity should live," but it also may justly lay claim to, if can be a far greater and more sacred honor, namely, that of establishing "the first national government on the earth that accords with the principles announced by Jesus Christ for mankind and for civil government;" for it is a fact that no nation till the United States "ever thought of vindicating religion for the conscience of the individual in accordance with that Voice from Judea which had enjoined to render to Caesar only that which is Caesar's."
The American Revolution consisted of, not merely a separation from the yoke of Great Britain, but the birth and establishment of two principles, unknown to and unadvocated by all the great statesmen who had gone before. With the first of these principles this paper has nothing to do, while the second,—"that government is of right entirely separate from religion,"—is its anatomy.
That such was the sentiment of the framers of the Federal Constitution is clearly evidenced by Article VI of that document: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
And in terms more emphatic, standing out in bold relief, gloriously contrasting with all the constitutions that had ever preceded it, are the words of its first amendment,—"CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF."
This principle is as old as the world, but it had ever been a "sleeping beauty." The human mind may have dreamed of it, but it had never been put into operation. How grandly has it worked, how large and ingenuous a factor has it been in winning for the United States the fulfillment of the prophecy of James Otis: "The world is at the eve of the highest scene of earthly power and grandeur that has ever yet been displayed to the view of mankind. Who will win the prize is with God." Yes, it was with God, and to the United States he awarded it.
These simple statements of the Constitution are sufficient to show the principles to which this government was committed by the founders. Other public documents drafted by these same men, and private letters written by them, might be cited as further allegation on this point; but such would be superfluous.
THE SENTIMENT OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY AT THE TIME OF THE BIRTH OF THE NATION.
The principles governing the American Revolution were conceived in the Declaration of Independence and given birth to in the Federal Constitution. During the period which is adorned by these two remarkable productions of the genius of diplomacy and statecraft, the ministers of the Christian religion as a rule seemed to have been uncompromisingly opposed to any interference on the part of the civil power in religious matters. They were strenuous advocates of that immortal doctrine that the government of the United States IS AND OF RIGHT OUGHT TO BE FREE AND INDEPENDENT OF ALL ECCLESIASTICAL OR RELIGIOUS CONNECTION, INTERFERENCE, OR CONTROL.
The Declaration of Independence had no sooner been heralded abroad than the Presbyterians of Virginia memorialized the government to "remove every species of religious bondage." Some of the sentiments of that memorable document were expressed as follows:—
We would also represent that dissenters from the Church of England in this country have ever been desirous to conduct themselves as peaceable members of the government, for which reason they have hitherto submitted to various ecclesiastical burdens and restrictions that are inconsistent with equal liberty. . . . In this enlightened age, and in a land where all of every denomination are united in the most strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect that our representatives will cheerfully concur in removing every species of religious as well as civil bondage. Certain it is that every argument for civil liberty gains additional strength when applied to liberty in the concerns of religion; and there is no argument in favor of establishing the tenets of Mohammed by those who believe the Alcoran; or, if this be not true, it is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference among the various sects that profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome. . . .
We beg leave farther to represent that religious establishments are highly injurious to the temporal interests of any community. Without insisting upon the ambition and the arbitrary practices of those who are favored by government, or the intriguing, seditious spirit which is commonly excited by this, as well as by every other kind of oppression, such establishments greatly retard population, and, consequently, the progress of arts, sciences, and manufactures.
Neither can it be made to appear that the gospel needs any such civil aid. We rather conceive that, when our blessed Saviour declares that his kingdom is not of this world, he renounces all dependence upon State power; and as his weapons are spiritual, and were only designed to have influence on the judgment and heart of men, we are persuaded that if mankind were left in quiet possession of their inalienable religious privileges, Christianity, as in the days of the apostles, would continue to prevail and flourish in the greatest purity by its own native excellence, and under the all-disposing providence of God.4Therefore we ask no ecclesiastical establishments for ourselves; neither can we approve of them when granted to others.
The result of these pleadings was that State aid was discontinued to the Episcopalian Church. Soon after an attempt was made to have a law enacted to provide for the maintenance of ministers of all denominations. This was also strenuously opposed by the Presbyterians, Baptists, and the Quakers, whose memorial contained the following statements, worthy of preservation:—
The only proper objects of civil government are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and to encourage the virtuous by wholesome laws, extended to every individual; but that the duty we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the universal Judge. . . . To judge for ourselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeably to the dictates of our own consciences, is an inalienable right.
The synod of the Presbyterians of New York and Philadelphia, a denomination inflexibly devoted to its own creed, in their pastoral letter of May, 1873, published their joy that 'the rights of conscience are inalienably secured and interwoven with the very constitutions of the several States.'
In 1788, when the proposed Constitution was at bar before the Massachusetts Convention, 'a farmer of Worcester County complained: 'There is no provision that men in power should have any religion; a Papist or an infidel is as eligible as Christians.' John Brooks and Parsons spoke on the other side; and Daniel Shute, the minister of Hingham, said: 'No conceivable advantage to the whole will result from a test.' William Jones, of Maine, rejoined: 'It would be happy for the United States if our public men were to be of those who have a good standing in the church.' Philip Payson, the minister of Chelsea, retorted: 'Human tribunals for the consciences of men are impious encroachments upon the prerogatives of God. A religious test, as a qualification for office, would have been a great blemish.'
On February 1, in the same convention, Rev. Isaac Backus, the minister for Middleborough, and one of the finest of New England historians, arose and said: 'Mr. President, I have said very little to this honorable convention; but I now beg leave to offer a few thoughts upon some points in the Constitution proposed to us, and shall begin with the exclusion of any religious test. Many appear to be much concerned about it; but nothing is more evident, both in reason and the holy Scriptures, than that religion is ever a matter between God and individuals, and, therefore, no man or men can impose any religious test without invading the essential prerogatives of our Lord Jesus Christ.'
It will be seen from the above statements that it was the Christian ministry which steadfastly opposed the entrance to the domain of morals by the civil power. This fact is rendered the more remarkable on account of the great deflection from that immortal platform that there has since been among Christian ministers of the same denominations.
AGITATION FOR RELIGIOUS LAWS COMMENCED.
During the period between 1810-15 petitions and protests came pouring into Congress with reference to the handling of the U. S. mails on Sunday. On account of the disturbed state of the country, the war with England, and the generally dangerous political aspect, comparatively little notice was taken of these petitions. The government however refusing to alter the existing law, which provided for the opening of post offices and the transfer of mails on Sunday.
In the year 1829 a vigorous warfare was inaugurated by the clerical fraternity to induce Congress to prohibit the handling of the U. S. mails on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday. Their memorials to Congress were referred to the Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, and when the report of this committee was brought before the Senate, Richard M. Johnson, the chairman of the committee, stated that he believed that these petitions and memorials in regard to Sunday mails were but the entering wedge of a scheme to make this government religious, instead of a social and political institution, and that nothing was more improper than the interference of Congress in this matter. Some denominations, said he, considered one day most sacred, and some looked to another, and these petitions did in fact call upon Congress to settle what was the law of God. It was but the first step toward legislating upon religious grounds, and it made no sort of difference which was the day asked to be set apart, which day was to be considered sacred, whether it was the first day or the seventh, the principle was wrong.
From the report I quote the following paragraphs:—
It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what false.
Our government is a civil and not a religious institution. Our Constitution recognizes in every person the right to choose his own religion and to enjoy it freely without molestation. Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the government, so long as they do not invade the rights of others. The transportation of the mail on the first day of the week, it is believed, does not interfere with the rights of conscience. The petitioners for its discontinuance appear to be actuated by a religious zeal, which may be commendable if confined to its proper sphere; but they assume a position better suited to an ecclesiastical than to a civil institution. They appear in many instances to lay down as an axiom that the practice is a violation of the law of God. Should Congress in legislative capacity adopt the sentiment, it would establish the principle that the Legislature is a proper tribunal to determine what are the laws of God. It would involve a legislative decision on a religious controversy, and on a point in which good citizens may honestly differ in opinion, without disturbing the peace of society or endangering its liberties. If this principle is once introduced, it will be impossible to define its bounds.
Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered that for the violation of what government denominated the law of God. To prevent a similar train of evils in this country, the Constitution has wisely withheld from our government the power of defining the divine law. It is a right reserved to each citizen; and while he respects the rights of others, he cannot be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions. Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object, are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. This first effort of the kind calls for the establishment of a principle, which, in the opinion of the committee, would lay the foundation for dangerous innovations upon the spirit of the Constitution, and upon the religious rights of the citizens. If admitted, it may be justly apprehended that the future measures of the government will be strongly marked if not eventually controlled by the same influence. All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of the country, the civil power soon bends under it; and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence. What other nations call religious toleration, we call religious rights. They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government cannot deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them.
Resolved, That the committee be discharged from any further consideration of the subject.
The report and resolution were concurred in by the Senate.
This took place during the second session of the twentieth Congress.
In 1830, during the first session of the twenty-first Congress, the agitation concerning Sunday mails was renewed, and again Congress proved faithful to its trust and refused to legislate in the matter. Hon. R. M. Johnson, who was at this time chairman on the Committee on Post-offices and Post-roads, in the House, in his report stated that the committee might pass the argument of the petitioners, on the ground that the question referred to them 'does not come within the cognizance of Congress; but the perseverance and zeal with which the memorialists pursued their object seem to require a further elucidation of the subject.' And this Congress also concurred in the report of the committee. The sentiments of that patriotic body are well set forth in the following extracts from the report:—
If Congress shall, by the authority of law, sanction the measure recommended, it would constitute a legislative decision of a religious controversy, in which even Christians themselves are at issue. . . .
If the measure recommended should be adopted, it would be difficult for human sagacity to foresee how rapid would be the succession, or how numerous the train of measures which follow, involving the dearest rights of all,—the rights of conscience. . . .
If a solemn act of legislation shall, in one point, define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety proceed to define every part of divine revelation, and enforce every religious observation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy. . . .
Do the petitioners allege that they cannot conscientiously participate in the profits on the mail contracts and post offices, because the mail is carried on Sunday? If this be their motive, then it is worldly gain that stimulates to action, and not virtue or religion. Do they complain that men less conscientious in relation to the Sabbath obtain advantages over them by receiving their letters and attending to their contents? Still their motive is worldly and selfish. But if their motive be to induce Congress to sanction, by law, their religious opinions and observances, then their efforts ought to be resisted, as in their tendency fatal both to religious and political freedom. . . .
Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.
Such was the action of Congress; but the spirit of the clergy was aroused to a point of irascibility which illy became followers of the meek and lowly Jesus. In Philadelphia they went so far as to stretch chains, secured by padlocks, across the roads on Sunday to prevent the passage of the mail coaches. And we have seen in print this very summer that the iron posts to which these chains were fastened are still to be seen by the side of some of the main roads entering Philadelphia.
The action of Congress in refusing to enter the domain of conscience was highly commended everywhere throughout the land, and the idea contained in the memorials of the so-called Christian people—ideas more befitting the twilight of despotism than the noonday of liberty—suffered the defeat which they deserved.
Such was the spirit of the times in 1829-30, and guided by faithful hands the ship of State sailed safely and proudly on.5The theory of the agitators at that time seemed to be that the promulgation of religious truth is one of the duties of government, as such. In the opinion of such, to say that the ends of the government are temporal and not spiritual, is equal to saying that the temporal welfare of the human race is of greater importance than the spiritual welfare. But this is a palpable error. 'The question,' says Macaulay, 'is not whether spiritual interests be or be not superior in importance to temporal interests, but whether the machinery that happens at any moment to be employed for the purpose of protecting certain temporal interests of a society be necessarily such a machinery as is fitted to promote the spiritual interests of that society. Without a division of labor the world could not go on. It is of very much more importance that men should have food than that they should have pianofortes. Yet it by no means follows that every pianoforte maker ought to add the business of a baker to his own; for if he did so, we should have both much worse music and much worse bread. It is of much more importance that the knowledge of religious truth should be wisely diffused than that the art of sculpture should flourish among us. Yet it by no means follows that the Royal Academy ought to unite with its present functions those of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. . . . For the effect of such folly would be that we should have the worst possible Academy of Arts and the worst possible Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge. The community, it is plain, would be thrown into universal confusion if it were supposed to be the duty of every association which is formed for one good object to promote every other good object.'
A PRAYER.
By Oliver Wendell Holmes
Our Father, while our hearts unlearn
The creeds that wrong thy name,
Still let our hallowed altars burn
With faith's undying flame.
Not by the lightning gleams of wrath
Our souls thy face shall see;
The star of love must light the path
That leads to heaven and thee.
Help us to read our Master's will
Through every darkening stain
That clouds his sacred image still,
And see him once again—
The Brother Man, the pitying Friend,
Who weeps for human woes,
Whose pleading words of pardon blend
With cries of raging foes.
If, 'mid the gathering storms of doubt,
Our hearts grow faint and cold,
The strength we cannot live without
Thy love will not withhold.
Our prayers accept; our sins forgive;
Our youthful zeal renew;
Shape for us holier lives to live
And nobler work to do.
—O. W. Holmes.
DANGER OF SPIRITUAL BLINDNESS.
By Ellen G. White
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
"And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees that were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin; but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth."
The Pharisees were spiritually blind, and were leaders of the blind. The physical blindness that Jesus had healed in the man born blind, was not as dangerous as the moral blindness of those who had evidence piled upon evidence in regard to the divine character of the world's Redeemer, and yet who closed the eyes of their understanding, and refused to see, because they were too self-exalted to be instructed by Christ. They claimed to be learned in the Scriptures, to have spiritual eyesight, yet they made the plainest specifications concerning Christ a different matter from that which the records testified. "The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the gentiles; the people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up." The light of the world was shining amid the moral darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not. The darkness that blinded the minds of the Pharisees was much more deplorable than was the darkness that blinded the eyes of the man who had been born blind.
The Pharisees had said to the believing man who had had his sight restored, "Thou wast altogether born in sins, and dost thou teach us?" Their foolish hearts had been darkened. He who is blind in a physical way is incapable of distinguishing the tints of the flowers, and things of beauty are nothing to him. The beautiful canvas of the heavens, the stars marshaled in order, the solemn beauty of the sun and moon, are not seen, their forms not discerned. Thus it is with the man who closes his eyes to light and knowledge. Spiritual things are spiritually discerned. The man who refuses to have his understanding quickened by the Spirit of God is in a state of blindness. He cannot appreciate the beauties of holiness, neither can he discern the deformity of sin. What a dreadful thing is willful spiritual blindness. Those who are spiritually blind, claim to be able to lead the blind; but they have closed their eyes to the light which has been graciously given them of God to show them the way to heaven, and in place of traveling the royal path cast up for the ransomed of the Lord to walk in, they follow another leader, even Satan.
How precious to the Jewish nation would have been the light of the Sun of Righteousness! What Christ would have been to the people was all shadowed forth in the types, offerings, and prophecies. They would have been justified through his blood, sanctified through his Spirit. They would have known what it was to have the combined work of the Son and the Spirit in the soul. But the scribes and the Pharisees became blind by failing to acknowledge the spiritual light that God sent to them. "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Blinded by unbelief, they refused to accept the evidences God had graciously given them, and clung to the traditions and maxims of men, that God had not given them. They walked in a way of their own choosing, because it agreed better with their sinful practices than the way of the Lord, and they did not discern the fruit of holiness; for they had chosen darkness rather than light.
He whose heart is not open to receive the bright beams of light from the Sun of Righteousness, will meet with terrible loss; for the light that is in him will become darkness,6because of the rejection of additional light, and he will walk in darkness, and lead others out of the path of peace and joy and righteousness in the Holy Ghost. He who is thus blinded will cease to grow in grace. The Lord Jesus is waiting to give the light of life to those who are in darkness, in order that they may show forth the praises of Him that hath called them out of darkness into His marvelous light. If the rejectors of the Lord Jesus Christ could have seen what would be the result of turning away from the world's Redeemer, of cherishing their own ideas and exalting themselves in their own wisdom, what a picture would they have beheld!
The miracles that Jesus worked, the spirit and power that attended his ministry, were a live, conclusive testimony to every unprejudiced mind. It was not evidence that was wanting, but an honest heart of faith. With what power Christ worked to save the Jewish nation! He foresaw the result, yet he did not waver in his purpose to bring every evidence to convince them, notwithstanding the fact that Jerusalem would despise the day of her visitation, and the people would fasten themselves in prejudice and unbelief. Christ left no means untried in order that he might win them. The guilt, the responsibility of their rejection of his mercy, lay with themselves.
(Concluded next number.)
"HEREAFTER THOU SHALT KNOW."
By Fannie Bolton
BY FANNIE BOLTON.
"What I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt know hereafter."
Nor always shall the way be dark.
Sometime we shall look back,
And see our Great Heart strike his spark,
Lift torch upon the track,
And all the unfathomed mystery,
And every grief and woe,
Made bright by love. What wist not ye
"Hereafter thou shalt know."
"For what I do thou knowest not now."
Oh, no, it all seems pain!
The lines of care trace deep the brow,
And tears drop, drop in vain,
And yet we now may take His hand,
And look up as we go,
And trust Him in this weary land.
Hereafter we shall know.
"For what I do thou knowest not now."
And, lo, a loved one lies
With folded hands and brow of snow,
And death-sealed lips and eyes!
Oh, in our lonely home we weep
In utter desolate woe,
And yet the heavenly harp strings sweep
With music, "Thou shalt know"!
Loves unrequited, pleasures missed,
Ambitions perished, oh,
The castles fallen, lips unkissed
We've kissed in dreams, although
There not for us! O rebel heart,
Thine arms must be laid low!
To-day to suffer is thy part;
Hereafter thou shalt know.
Some day the books shall opened be—
O record of the years!
And all the mystery we shall see,
And understand our tears,
And where we've wept, we'll sing, I trow
And praise God for the woe;
For what he does we know not now,
Hereafter we shall know.
And there we'll see that pain was gain,
For, though it pierced us so,
It made us fly to Christ, and then
His love made sweet our woe.
Chastened, rebuked, and humbled low,
Refined through grace, e'en so;
We comprehend but little now;
Hereafter we shall know.
And yet it shines, as though we saw
Through glass but darkly now.
We stand aside sometimes in awe
And to God's great will bow,
For seems a Presence draweth near,
Walking with us in woe;
A flash of something great doth cheer.
Hereafter we shall know.
Is pain the chisel in his hand,
Making the statue fine?
Is pain the wheel on which we wind,
Shaping to mould divine?
Is pain the furnace fire to eat
The dross from out the whole?
Is't Love craves on to shape most sweet
Its image in thy soul?
Submit to God and he'll complete
The image of the Holy,
Mould thee a face, oh, heavenly sweet,
And spirit meek and lowly,
Give thee a robe and starry crown
With gems of light aglow!
Oh, meekly to the cross bow down!
"Hereafter thou shalt know."
THAT “DYING THIEF.”
A MAN was once asked, “Are you a believer in the Christian religion?” “Oh, certainly!” “You are a member of some church, then, I suppose?” “Member of a church? No, indeed. Why should I be a member of a church? It is quite unnecessary; the dying thief wasn't a member of a church, and he went to heaven.”
“But of course you have been baptized; you know the command—” “Been baptized? Oh, no; that is another needless ceremony! I am as safe as the dying thief was, and he never was baptized.”
“But surely, since you will not join a church or be baptized, you will do something in acknowledgment of your faith. You will give of your means—you will help the cause in some way?” “No, sir; I do nothing of the kind. The dying thief—”
“Let me remark, my friend, before you go any further, that you seem to be on pretty intimate terms with the dying thief. You seem to derive a great deal of consolation from his career. But, mind you, there is one important difference between you and him. He was a dying thief—and you are a living one.”—Selected.
The Rewards of Character
By St. Chrysostom
CONTEMN riches, and thou shalt be rich; glory, and thou shalt be glorious; injuries, and thou shalt be conqueror; rest, and thou shalt gain rest; earth, and thou shalt gain heaven.
Character Beyond the Grave
"THE only thing that walks back from the tomb with the mourners and refuses to be buried is character."
PRAYER.
By William Covert
BY ELDER WILLIAM COVERT.
ALTHOUGH man was by sin shut away from Paradise, yet the way to heaven is open through prayer, and none are denied the privilege of petitioning the throne of the universe.
Man is weak and his wants are many, yet the bounties of heaven are sufficient for all his needs, and the needy are encouraged to ask for large things, because the Lord is a liberal giver.
The invitation is, "Ask, and it shall be given you." Then, that those in want might be induced to make their requests known, a promise is subjoined to the invitation, saying, "Everyone that asketh receiveth." Matt. 7: 7, 8.
Not only does the suppliant receive the blessings of heaven for the asking, but the supplication itself is made to be a blessing as great as the thing that is asked for; thus the petitioner receives double as much as he requests.
Prayer leads the mind to meditate upon things that are lovely and pure; and it associates the intellect with themes that are heavenly. It is the channel of communication opened for man directly from earth to heaven. It gives poor, erring man direct access through Jesus Christ to the Father, who has in store riches of infinite value to bestow upon the poor and the afflicted who will in humble faith ask for them.
None can say, I have no need of these blessings, for all are helpless and undone, only as they are relieved from their distresses by the help bestowed from heaven. Walking in the light and joy of heaven is possible for the one who prays much and by faith accepts the gracious offers which are held out by the hand of God. It is the prayer of faith that keeps the heart drawn out toward God and open to the reception of the Spirit's influences.
Satan cannot darken the mind and discourage the heart of him who through meditation and prayer dwells in the presence of God.
It is John who writes, "God is love," but Jude waits to tell those who accept this love how they may keep themselves in it. His words are: "But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God." Verses 20, 21.
It is here seen that praying is done in the Holy Spirit, and that prayer is designed to keep God's children constantly in the stream of his love. It is through unceasing prayer and unbroken faith that the Christian building is continued. The neglect of prayer will then most certainly result in doubt and weakness, and let the love of God leak out of the heart.
Paul says: "In everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus." Phil. 4: 6, 7.
What a wonderful promise is joined to the instruction that is given regarding prayer! What greater inducement could possibly be offered for the encouragement of prayer than is contained in the above?—heart and mind kept through a peace that passeth understanding, by prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving.
The summing up of what the apostle states is this: Pray, receive, thank the Lord for what he gives, enjoy a peace so full and sweet that it excels all understanding; and this peace keeps the mind and the heart still reaching out to God in holy communion.
Prayer and supplication, as set forth in the admonition above noted, lift the soul up to heaven, thus enabling the praying one to live in the society of angels and with God. It is only such a life as this that can escape the corruptions that are in the world, and enable its possessor to enjoy purity of heart.
Is it not in this manner that Jesus is with his children alway? His promise is that his presence is with his followers constantly to the end of the world. He does not come down to earth bodily and follow each one of his children, but by the Holy Spirit he commingles their minds and hearts with himself. He puts his mind in them through his Spirit and word, and their mind is in turn drawn to him in their meditations, watchings, and prayers, making a complete union between the Saviour and the saved even in the present life. This union was most beautifully expressed as Jesus prayed just before he suffered in the garden. His union with the Father as he prayed was to him an illustration of what his union is with his sons and daughters. To his Father he says, "Thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee." With himself forming the union between his Father and his children, he said it is "I in them and thou in me." This connection makes one perfect union, in which the child of God is severed from the power of sin and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son.
Although the connection is made, yet the Christian attitude is constantly that of sobriety and watching unto prayer. His joy and his safety depend upon his watching and praying. He will break away from the light and joy without this communication through prayer.