Earlier text: The Spirit and Its AgentsTHE TESTIMONY OF SKEPTICS.
By skeptics we mean those who deny the divinity of our Lord. They reject his claim to be the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. Any admissions that such persons make are of course reluctant and therefore specially significant. If an attorney in a suit can extort a confession favorable to his cause from the opposite party, or from one of his witnesses, he regards it as of great value. It is worth far more than similar testimony from one of his own witnesses. Prominent among those who have written against the doctrines of evangelic Christianity are, Rousseau, Theodore Parker, Strauss, and Renan. And yet here are some of the statements that they have been compelled to make concerning Jesus of Nazareth. Jean Jacques Rousseau eloquently declains: "What prepossession, what blindness, to compare the son of Sophroniscus to the Son of Mary! What an infinite disproportion between them! If the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of the Son of God. The features of his life are so striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero." Theodore Parker declares: "It would have taken a Jesus to forge a Jesus." So impressed with the unsurpassed glory and greatness, the sweetness and beauty, of Christ's character, was the celebrated Mill, that he declared, It is something absolutely unique in the world's history, beyond the power of the evangelists to have imagined, perfect in its truthfulness and devotion, and self-sacrificing love. Among other acknowledgments, Renan affirms: "Before such a demi-god as this, we, in our feebleness, may well fall down and worship; and whatever may be the unlooked for phenomena of the future, Jesus will not be surpassed." And even Strauss, after sweeping away every element of credibility from the records of his life, speaks of the Jesus of history as he in whom the deeper consciousness of humanity, the divine wisdom, first developed itself as a power determining his whole life and being, in whose character were found a charity, a sweetness, and an all-embracing love, which have been as the germ out of which all that we now call humanity has been developed. He remains the highest model of religion within the reach of our thought; and no perfect piety is possible without his presence in the heart. And he adds: "It is more inconceivable that a number of persons should agree to write such a history, than that one should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the Gospel." Now, accepting the admission of these eloquent writers, what is the logical conclusion?—Why, either that the greatest and best man that ever lived was an impostor, or that he was, just what he claimed to be, the Son of God and the Saviour of the world. That the one perfect character and life in all the ages of human history should have been found in the person of a Galilean peasant, and be recorded by unlearned fishermen, is a greater marvel than any of the alleged miracles of our Lord. It requires far more credulity to believe that a mere man taught as Jesus taught, lived as Jesus lived, than that he was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. The character of Jesus, so unique and superhuman, the influence of Jesus upon more than sixty generations, the molding power of what he uttered during a ministry of only three years upon the hearts of millions and upon the institutions of the world is utterly inexplicable upon any theory that denies his divinity; and the very vagueness and inconsistency with each other of the creeds of skeptics show that they are all hiding from the light. Errors are multiform like shadows. Truth is clear and luminous like sunshine.—The Occident. MISCONSTRUED SCRIPTURE.
By Jewish Exponent
WHY people will, at times, misconstrue the character or description of events recorded in Holy Writ, it is difficult for us to say. Take, for example, the case of Jonah. We hear people repeatedly speak of his having been swallowed by a "whale," while nowhere throughout the whole book which bears his name do we find any evidence which points to that creature. The term used is daggadol (a great fish); and the text expressly states, "And the Lord prepared a great fish." This statement, without giving any warrant for the assertion that the animal was a "whale," at the same time contributes all the more to the exact truth of the entire narrative, since the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. Now, as we are not able even to speculate as to the species of "fish" to which this animal actually belonged, and have no proofs that a whale is meant, upon what sound basis can we found arguments which would lead us to deny the truth of the miracle as recorded in the Book of Jonah? —Jewish Exponent. Transformity, Not Conformity
By Alford Norris
The mere word "conformity" has in itself, when spoken, a dull and cumbrous sound. For us to pledge ourselves unreservedly to conform to any ecclesiastical institution is as if we lay down in a coffin and drew the lid over our face. There may be a blind rest, but there can be no far-seeing growth. It is transformity that we want. The church is ever more than the world; Christ is ever more than the church; the Spirit of God is ever more than the systems of man. As the apostle sayeth: "Be not conformed to this world; but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."—Rev. Alford Norris. UNIMPEACHABLE TESTIMONY TO THE MISSION OF JESUS.
By M. C. W.
"It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." John 8:17, 18. THESE are the words of our Saviour with reference to his divine mission. It is an unimpeachable testimony not of one, but of two. And this witness of two is not like the false witnesses who were suborned to condemn our Lord; "for neither so did their witness agree together." The witnesses which God gives witness with each other. This twofold witness has ever been a divine law. In the Levitical dispensation, no one was condemned except at the mouth of two or three witnesses. After the manner of the East, these witnesses were examined sometimes, if not always, separately to see if there was collusion between them (See History of Susanna, in the Apocrypha); and their testimony must further be confirmed by the witnesses against the criminal being foremost in putting him to death. See Deut. 19:15; and 17:6, 7. If any accusing witness was proved to be false, he was dealt with as he thought to deal with his brother, or he would receive the same punishment due to the crime that he thought to fix upon the one he accused. Deut. 19:16-20. Thus the lives of men were guarded. It was a righteous law, and the same principle holds good in the New Testament. Willingness to adjust difficulties must be established under two or three witnesses. Matt. 18:16. The sinners in the Corinthian church must expect this just law to decide their cases. 2 Cor. 13:1. No accusation is to be received against an elder of the Christian church except at the mouth of two or three witnesses, so sacred was their reputation in the sight of the Lord. It is too often the case now, however, that mere rumor is sufficient to blast the reputation of member or officer in the church of Christ. Those who originate it, or who circulate it, would not dare to bring it as a charge, would not talk it over with the individual; but slanderer like, they strike in the dark, give surmises for facts, and insinuate more than they say. Selfishness and envy lie at the root of all such work. Nothing should be held against the character of an individual unless it is established by evidence. The same law holds good with reference to the mission of Christ. When God sent his Son into the world, he sent him with unimpeachable testimony to his divine mission. In fact, he gave a twofold witness, besides John the Baptist. The latter's testimony might be doubted, as it could be argued that there was a possibility of collusion between him and Jesus. It alone was worthless. John himself even wavered as to whether Jesus was the Christ, and was only assured by the twofold testimony of the mission of Christ, "the greater witness than that of John." This witness, or more properly, these two witnesses are brought before us in the words of Christ at the head of this article. These are the witnesses, the Father and the Son. How did they bear witness? We quote from John 5:37, 39:— "And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me." "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me." It is in the Scriptures of truth that God hath testified, or borne witness, of his Son, by patriarch and by prophet, from Enoch, the seventh from Adam, to Malachi, the messenger of the Lord of hosts. How Christ bears witness is shown in the following:— "But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." Verse 36. Now notice the positive assurance which we have in this twofold witness, or these two agreeing witnesses. First, we have the Father's testimony in the Scriptures, which had been written from fourteen hundred years to four hundred years before Christ was born. Those scriptures had predicted of what tribe Christ would come, where he would be born, when he would be given his mission, what his work would be, and what its character, even to the death upon the cross, and the victory over the grave. All this testimony was ultimate authority with the Jews. They could not say that Jesus the son of Joseph had by artifice deceived them by writing or tampering with the sacred writings. They had existed among the Jews for hundreds of years; there was no doubt concerning this; and Jesus was "not yet fifty years old." Here was one infallible witness. But secondly, Jesus was in harmony with all these prophecies, not in words alone, but in deeds, in character, in the whole history of his life. Here was absolute agreement between the unchangeable witness of the recorded truth of God and the testimony of the work and life of Christ. And when the Spirit of God had predicted these things of the Messiah, and then when Jesus had met them all in his own life, the conclusion would be unavoidable that God had given him these works to do, and that his mission was divine. This absolute agreement with the infallible Scriptures made another infallible witness to the Messiahship of Jesus, the two together being absolutely unimpeachable. The Scriptures of truth that testify of Christ before he came compose now the Old Testament. The writings which record his works compose the New Testament. These two are the living and unshaken testimony to the divinity of our Lord. They are the two witnesses to the truth of Christianity which stand before the Lord of the whole earth, and ever will stand. Rev. 11:3-12. Praise God for the sure evidence. No other system can furnish the same; no other prophet or teacher could or can present such credentials. Seemingly humble in origin of person and mission, both came from the highest heaven. Dying an ignominious death as a criminal, condemned by the Jews as a blasphemer and by Pilate as a traitor, he seemed to lay a poor foundation for his few followers to build upon, but it was the eternal and undying rock of all truth. Faith can there fold her wings and rest. "GOOD BUT DEFECTIVE."
By Editor
OUR friend, N. R. Johnston, in the California Prohibitionist of the 29th ultimo, calls the Allegheny County (Pennsylvania) prohibition platform "good but defective." The second plank in that platform is as follows:— "Second—We are in favor of a more conscientious and scriptural observance of the Sabbath, as absolutely essential to the welfare of society, and the preservation of the State." Upon this, friend Johnston remarks:— The second is defective. It should have declared in favor of better legislation, as well as of better Sabbath observance. Yes, it is defective. Pennsylvania is one of the States which has been cursed with a stringent Sunday law, which came down from the relics of the Dark Ages. And it has been largely a dead letter, except in the case of seventh-day keepers. We have traveled miles in Northern Pennsylvania on Sunday, and have found people at work everywhere in the country, and doing much worse in the towns. We do not believe California to be worse. But it is only a few years since, that Seventh-day Baptists, a Mr. Waldo and hired man, were arrested, convicted, and fined, for doing work on Sunday which could disturb no one. The resolution per se is good. "Conscientious and scriptural observance" would be the keeping of the seventh day—the only scriptural Sabbath. And we do not know but we could say Amen to friend Johnston's comments on this Sabbath plank, but perhaps not in the direction designed by the writer. But the legislation, concerning Sabbath observance, that is needed in the old Keystone State, to be truly "better," and not "defective," should sweep forever from the statute books all Sunday or Sabbath laws. There is no other way. There is another defect in the platform; the Sabbath observance plank has no business there whatever, or in any other political party platform. It would do for the church conference or presbytery resolution, but it is out of place in politics. "WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?"
By C. P. B.
This question has been already answered; for it has been shown that the displacement of the ancient Sabbath, and the introduction of the Sunday in its stead, was the work of the great apostasy now known as the Papacy. But it is objected by some that, as the Sabbath was changed at least as early as the fourth century, whereas the earliest date assigned by Protestants for the establishment of the Papacy is A. D. 538, it is not possible that the Papacy changed the Sabbath a century before it (the Papacy) had an existence. But let those who make this objection remember that the Papacy was the result of growth. It did not spring into being in a day, nor did it attain full stature in a century. As early as A. D. 54, the apostle Paul wrote:— "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." 2 Thess. 2:7, 8. This, as all Protestants agree, is a reference to the Papacy, or at least to the apostasy which culminated in the Papacy. The fact is, that instead of being established in A. D. 538, the papal power attained its majority at that time. Its infancy and youth were far back of that date, and not a little of its work was done before that time. In his history of the "Early Church," p. 591, Killen says of the bishop of Rome:— "In the third century the chief pastor of the Western metropolis must have been known to the great officers of government, and perhaps to the emperor himself. Decius must have regarded the Roman bishop as a somewhat formidable personage when he declared that he would sooner tolerate a rival candidate for the throne, and when he proclaimed his determination to annihilate the very office." At this time the bishop, or pope, of Rome exercised power over only a part of the church, but his power was the same in kind, if not in extent, that was exercised by his successors two centuries later. Those who deny that the Papacy changed the Sabbath, on the ground that the change was effected before that power had an existence, only show how limited is their knowledge of the history of the first great apostasy, and the development of the papal power. Protestants all agree that the papal system has in it many features borrowed from paganism; and just so surely as it has, Sunday-keeping is one of583them. Every Bible student knows that the Scriptures contain no hint of a change of the Sabbath by divine authority; scores of first-day writers have acknowledged the fact; ecclesiastical historians of note have repeatedly said that "the festival of Sunday was always a human ordinance." Do we not justly accuse "the mystery of iniquity," which even in Paul's day was working for the corruption of the church, with the crime of thinking to change the law of God, especially the fourth commandment, as foretold by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:25)? The Signs of the Times.
By Editor
THE EVIDENCE OF SONSHIP.
By M. C. W.
"Now the Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God," is the language of Paul in Rom. 8:16. It is the same divine law which we have considered in an article in another column. God would not have his people depend on a guess or a wish or a faint hope that they might be his children; he desires them to have sure evidence, evidence absolutely unimpeachable. The Christian need not grope in blindness or doubt. God will give him such plain evidence that it will not be presumptuous to make the claim that he is a child of God. What is the witness of the Spirit of God? Says an apostle, in 1 Cor. 2:10, 11:— "But God hath revealed them [the things of God] unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." God has revealed these things in his holy word; and that word was inspired by the Holy Ghost. 1 Peter 1:10, 11; 2 Peter 1:21; Acts 1:16; 2 Tim. 3:16. The apostles taught also "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual." 1 Cor. 2:13. The witness, or testimony of the Spirit of God, then, is in the word of God, the Bible. That word reveals in the holy law of God man's duty, and also sinfulness by that same law, because man has transgressed the law. That word reveals that Christ died to redeem mankind; and that every soul can be saved on conditions which are explicitly and clearly set forth, and which man through God's free favor can meet. That word reveals the promises and power of God, and how obtained. It reveals how the acceptance of God's plan with the whole heart will affect the sinner's mind, affections, and life. God's word, or the Spirit of God through this word, reveals all of the necessary things for man's acceptance and salvation. The text will not reveal all, man's opinions of a text will not, but the Bible will by study, comparing text with text, passage with passage, prophet with prophet and apostle, apostle with apostle and prophet, in short, comparing spiritual with spiritual, reveal man's duty. "Our spirit," or "the spirit of man," refers to man's mind, intellect, and spiritual nature. Its use in this text probably comprehends all of these. It is that by which we obtain knowledge. It does not of itself know the things of God, because of the limitations of its narrow powers, and the greatness of the things of God. But in it is the only knowledge man has of himself outside of divine revelation. "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him?" This spirit knows man's loves and hates. In the unregenerate it is against good; it is at enmity to the truth of God; it is in harmony with evil. But when regenerate, the old passes away, a new is created within. "A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." Eze. 36:26. And this new spirit is the creation of the Spirit of God. Verse 27. This being the case, the Spirit of God dwells in the heart of the regenerate, or child of God. And this Paul expressly states: "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Rom. 8:9. The spirit of man, then, which has been created within him by the Spirit of God, must be in harmony with the Spirit of God. The testimony of the Spirit of God—the word of God—and the testimony of the renewed spirit of man must agree. The spirit of man is manifest in his thoughts, his words, his deeds; not in one alone, but in all. It matters not what emotions he may have or may have had, of joy or of ecstasy, these are not the witness of Rom. 8:16. The thoughts of man, the words of man, the deeds of man, must be in harmony with the words of God, which is the testimony of the Spirit of God. Has he the Spirit of Christ? Then through that Spirit he must put to death the deeds of the body and the tendencies of the flesh. Rom. 8:13. The Spirit gives through the word what its fruits are. Gal. 5:22-24. Does the spirit of man witness that his thoughts, words, and deeds, are in harmony with this? If they are he has the twofold witness. If his heart is not in harmony, if he hates instead of loves, it matters not what his joy or emotions, he is not a child of God. If he fails, does he sorrow for sin, even though known only to himself? Heartfelt contrition and repentance is evidence of sonship, because it is in harmony with the testimony of the Spirit. If the justified and regenerate man loves the commandments of God, his spirit knows it. It will not be a love of words alone, but deeds. 1 John 3:18. "For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. The power to overcome sin, the willing obedience, the submission to God's will, are evidences absolutely unimpeachable, as the following texts show: "And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments." "But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him." 1 John 2:3, 5. See also 1 John 5:2-5. Many other texts teach the same thing. It will be readily seen from this what an infallible, clear, and precious evidence of his acceptance with God the Christian has. It is infallible and unimpeachable. The testimony of the Spirit of God—the Bible—is the same forever. It teaches the same things to-day as it did when John on lonely, rock-bound Patmos wrote the Revelation or penned his gospel. Its teaching, as regards practical duty, is plain and can easily be understood. The Christian knows it, and knows whether he is in harmony with it or not, in heart and through life. The Bible being infallible, and the testimony within himself being in harmony with the Bible, it also is an infallible evidence. The two agreeing testimonies are unimpeachable evidence. The above being the case, it is also clear. For if the Spirit through the word revealed all provisions and conditions of man's salvation, if it plainly declared what the character of the man would be who accepted the truth, and if the man meets all these conditions and is in harmony with all these provisions, certainly the evidence is clear that it is God's Spirit which has wrought this change. It is a precious evidence because of its intrinsic worth. We often hear in revival meetings, in these days of superficiality, such expressions as, "I am saved," "I feel that I am saved." The expression is one of emotion and ecstasy, poor evidence at best. Not that the Christian does not have joy at times, but joy is not the evidence, feeling is not the evidence. Emotion is but incidental, and Satan may cause emotion. Of itself alone, it is of no worth as assurance of acceptance with God. Faith in God's word and the promises through Christ, coupled with a life changed and a character being moulded after the living Word, is evidence upon which we can rest as the rock. Emotion may pass away, physical infirmities may lessen joy, feeling may depart, but God's word is unchangeable, and the heart renewed is just as much in harmony with it all as when joy and feeling were dominant. And even if the child of God has failed, the Word invites him to come back with true contrition. The promise cannot fail, and the submissive, faithful heart that trusts therein cannot fail. "He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." Ps. 91:1. "For if ye do these things ye shall never fail." 2 Peter 1:10. And the humble-hearted will ever know whether he is doing the will of God or not, will know whether he has a working faith, a "faith which worketh by love." Gal. 5:6. It is only the Spirit of God which can work in us that harmony with the testimony of the Spirit—the word of God. If we have not this Spirit we are none of his. If we have this Spirit, that Spirit will work in us that which is in harmony with the word. In other words, the Spirit in the word of God and the Spirit in our hearts will be in perfect accord. "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things which are freely given to us of God." 1 Cor. 2:12. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God?" 1 John 3:1. It is our privilege to be the sons of God; it is our privilege to know that we are. We have, if we are sons, an unimpeachable, infallible witness to the fact. Let us hold it fast. BEARING FALSE WITNESS.
By C. P. B.
REV. M. A. GAULT, one of the district secretaries of the National Reform Association, and a zealous advocate of a National Sunday law, has an article in the Christian Statesman of August 22, in which he either ignorantly or maliciously bears false witness against some whom he is pleased to denominate "Saturdarians." He says:— "In every town I have visited I find these people have canvassed the ground thoroughly for signatures against the Sabbath Rest petition, representing that there is a movement on foot to amend the Constitution of the United States, so as to persecute Saturdarians, and compel them to keep the first day. The Valley Falls Lucifer, an infidel anarchistic organ is joining with them in publishing and circulation such petitions. These petitions read as follows: 'We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, do most earnestly PROTEST against all legislation intended, or having the effect, to unite Church and State. We consider the Blair Sunday-Rest Bill and the Blair Educational Bill especially offensive, and dangerous, and should these or other measures embodying the same pernicious principle be presented in this Congress, we sincerely hope your body will promptly and decisively reject them.' At the upper right-hand corner of the petition are these words from the treaty with Tripoli: 'In no sense is the government of the United States founded upon the Christian religion.' On these petitions are sometimes found the names of United Presbyterians and members of other churches whom these people have deceived by false representations." This paragraph contains two flagrant misstatements; first, in the implied denial that there is a movement on foot to amend the Constitution in the interests of religious legislation, and that it is the purpose of the promoters of that movement to compel all without distinction to keep Sunday. And second, in the matter of the petition itself; conveying as it does the idea that the petition circulated by the seventh-day people is the same as that circulated by the paper to which it refers. 1. Mr. Gault is himself one of the secretaries of an association which has for its object the securing of "such an amendment to the Constitution of8the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." This may appear innocent enough to those who have given the subject no thought, and some will no doubt wonder why any Christian should oppose it; but reasons and good ones too are not far to seek. Of course if the Lord Jesus Christ is to be recognized as the ruler of this nation his will must be law; and what National Reformers understand that will to be is thus set forth by Rev. J. M. Foster, another district secretary of the National Reform Association, in the Christian Statesman of February 21, 1884. He thus enumerates the "duties which the reigning Mediator [Christ] requires of nations":— "(1) A constitutional recognition of himself as king of nations. . . . (2) A constitutional recognition of their duty as a divinely appointed keeper of the moral law. . . . (3) A constitutional provision of moral and religious qualifications for their officers. . . . (4) An acknowledgement and exemplification of the duty of national covenanting with him. . . . (5) An acknowledgment and performance of the nation's duty to guard and protect the church—by suppressing all public violation of the moral law; by maintaining a system of public schools, indoctrinating their youth in morality and virtue; by exempting church property from taxation; and by providing her funds out of the public treasury for carrying on her aggressive work at home and in the foreign field." If this would not be a union of church and State, we are free to confess that we do not know what would constitute such a union. But, as before remarked, to those who have not considered the subject all these things may appear harmless or even desirable, but a moment's careful thought will satisfy anyone that what the National Reformers demand is nothing less than a union of Church and State, a union which would make it necessary for Congress or for the courts, or for both, to decide what the moral law is, and what constitutes violations of it, as well as a host of other questions of a like nature. The moral law is the ten commandments, and Mr. Foster and his co-laborers insist that the fourth precept of that law forbids Sunday work. They will not, we opine, deny that they wish to enforce upon all outward obedience to the law of God, as they understand it. Is there not then a movement on foot to compel all, "Saturdarians" as well as others, to keep Sunday? There certainly is, and Mr. Gault is one of the prime movers in that movement. But it is not alone in the matter of Sunday keeping that these National Reformers propose to interfere between the individual and his God. A vice-president of their association has said:— "We want State and religion—and we are going to have it. It shall be that so far as the affairs of State require religion, it shall be revealed religion, the religion of Jesus Christ. The Christian oath and Christian morality shall have in this land 'an undeniable legal basis.' We use the word religion in its proper sense, as meaning a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God."—Dr. Edwards, Minutes N. Y. Convention, 1873, p. 60. If this means anything it means that they demand laws that shall regulate "a man's personal relation of faith and obedience to God." And that not as the State might decide but as the National Reformers themselves shall decide. The Christian Statesman of February 21, 1884, says:— "The State and its sphere exist for the sake of and to serve the interests of the church;" and "we will not allow the civil government to decide between the churches and to ordain church doctrines, ordinances, and laws." Certainly not; the churches would do as they did in the days of Constantine, decide all questions of morality and religion, and then the government would enforce the law according to their decision. Those who circulate petitions against Sunday legislation and all kindred measures do well to say that the logical outcome of the National Reform movement—of which the Sunday-law movement is part and parcel—can be nothing short of laws which will oppress not only "Saturdarians," as Mr. Gault contemptuously terms them, but also all who will not bow in matters of conscience to the dictates of those who happen to be in power. 2. The petition circulated by Lucifer is not the same as that circulated by those whom Mr. Gault calls "Saturdarians." The latter petition is as follows:— "THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION MUST BE PRESERVED." "Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience."—George Washington. "Religion is not the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from government and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious to both."—James Madison. "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private schools, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the State and the Church forever separate."—U. S. Grant. "Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."—U. S. Constitution. "My kingdom is not of this world." "Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's."—Jesus Christ. To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States: We, the undersigned, adult residents of the United States, 21 years of age or more, hereby respectfully, but earnestly, petition your Honorable Body not to pass any bill in regard to the observance of the Sabbath, or Lord's day, or any other religious or ecclesiastical institution or rite; nor to favor in any way the adoption of any resolution for the amendment of the National Constitution that would in any way tend, either directly or indirectly, to give preference to the principles of any religion or of any religious body above another, or that will in any way sanction legislation upon the subject of religion; but that the total separation between Religion and State, assured by the National Constitution as it now is, may forever remain as our fathers established it. It will be observed that this petition makes no mention of any particular bill, but deals wholly with principles. In this respect it differs from the one quoted by Mr. Gault, as it does also in several other points, notably in the quotations by which it is prefaced. Mr. Gault should become better informed relative to the opposition to his work before he attempts to instruct others in regard to it. C. P. B. A LAST DAY BOASTER.
By Editor
WE have received from time to time copies of a would-be author's “Catechism for Seventh-day-ites.” The writer has sent us another sheet which claims to be a corrected copy; we have not time to revise and will take it for granted that the last is the writer's ideal, though we pity the writer. The last copy has the heading, “The Colchester Sun Extra,” printed on one side and full of typographical errors, to say nothing of its theology. It consists of somewhere about seventy-five questions, more or less, which could be reduced to twenty-five and exhibit much more sense. Upon these the changes are rung till one thinks of the change of diet enjoyed by the poor man who had “bread and tea and stuff” for breakfast, “tea and, bread and stuff” for dinner, and “stuff and bread and tea” for supper. Well, this sheet 12x16 inches consists mostly of stuff. There is but little food, but little stimulant, and much stuff; enough we presume, if further attenuation is possible, to make another sheet. It probably is possible on the same principle of the song which had four hundred and ninety-nine verses, the first verse being repeated for the chorus, and duplicated for each of the four hundred and ninety-eight succeeding ones. But aside from all this, this “Catechism” misrepresents seventh-day people. For instance, two questions are as follows:— “Did not God merely promise (in Ex. 19) to make a covenant with Israel if they would elect him their civil ruler?” “Did not he fulfill this promise in making with them a covenant—the “first covenant”—(in Ex. 24)?” No seventh-day keeper that we ever heard of ever held that Exodus 19 was any more than preliminary to the making of the first covenant. The covenant was completed by its ratification as recorded in chapter 24. The repetition of ideas is shown by the two following questions:— “Did not the people stay at home, in their tents or houses, and do nothing on the seventh day, unless an annual rest fell on that day?” “On all other occasions was not the seventh day observed by the people in staying at home and doing nothing?” And these are a sample of most of these questions concerning which this would-be notorious author asks, “Have you the courage to print this in your paper, and attempt to answer it?” To this we simply say: 1. That there is not a year's volume of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, we presume, since it was first published, but what has answered every sensible question in this Catechism; 2. Our space is taken up with matters of much more importance; and 3. While we are not at all dismayed at this voluminous list of queries, we have no time nor space to give to such folly. We have the physical courage to do many foolish things, but we have no time to undertake such silly and degrading warfare as this. We hope this will suffice. This is too much notice already. The “Catechism” will soon die of itself.