Review and Herald, Vol. 46, No. 17. (10/28/1875)

Review and Herald

Oct 28, 1875

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 28, 1875

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE GIFTS AND OFFICES OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.—NO. 6.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY.

According to Rev. 12:17, war will be made with the remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. This shows both the perfect agreement between keeping the law and having the power of the Spirit, and the opposition which will exist, and already exists to a great extent, against the law and the testimony. It is a well-known truth that the indignation of the world and a worldly church is quickly aroused against those who keep all the commandments of God, just as they were written and spoken by the Lord. But nothing seems so readily to arouse the prejudice, yes, the hatred and malice of the carnal mind, as the manifestation of the spirit of prophecy. The world bestows its incredulous smile as if it pitied the folly of those who could embrace the promise of God as a reality (that incredulous smile often proving more cutting than the severest language), while a proud and worldly church cannot restrain its feelings of scorn for, or abhorrence of, those who humbly and reverently claim “the promise of the Spirit” according to the words of both Christ and his apostles. Surely the fulfillment of the prophecy, Rev. 12:17, is no mystery to those who are intently watching the signs of the times, and have noted the feelings of popular religionists toward those who dare to reprove the lukewarmness of the present age, in which so many have “the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof.”

This connection between the law and the means and benefits of the gospel is logically deduced from the preaching of the apostle on the day of Pentecost. That the law was not abolished at the crucifixion is proved in this, that not a sermon was preached—not a duty made known—between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost; and the first duties enjoined on that day were repentance for sin and baptism for the remission of sin. Now it is plain to see that if the law was previously abolished, and if men were to look to the apostles for the proclamation of a new code, then the whole transaction was a failure, inasmuch as “where no law is there is no transgression,” and of course no call for repentance. Again, “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and therefore to preach baptism for remission of sin when no law existed would be a sheer absurdity. If the law which had existed was abolished at the cross, no one could be convicted under it; and as no law for the new dispensation had yet been given by the apostles, it would follow necessarily that no one was at that time bound by any law; sin could not be imputed to them at all. Therefore, according to this antinomian notion the preaching of repentance and baptism at that time was a nullity—mere sound without sense. Thus it is easily shown that the doctrine of the antinomians—the no-law theorists—more than perverts the gospel; it subverts it; it saps its very foundations, leaving it destitute of life and power. It is virtually a rejection of the gospel, both in its facts and its promises.

It has been remarked that baptism has not only its form, but also its order and relations. It is often urged that if its form be changed—if it be no longer immersion or a burial, as the word signifies and the illustrations of Scripture indicate—it ceases to be the baptism of the gospel; and when administered under such change it is not valid. But let us consider its necessary relations. We learn that baptism is for the remission of sin; also that sin is the transgression of the law, and that sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore, if no law existed from the cross to the day of Pentecost, as must have been the case if the law was abolished at the cross, then there could be no sin imputed at that time of which to repent or for which to be baptized. Now as baptism stands related to sin, and sin is related to an existing law, it follows that the law did exist; for sin was imputed to them.

Thus it is shown that Peter’s preaching would have been groundless and of no force if the law had been abolished. Even so now, all who preach the abolition of the law preach a gospel (so-called) without any basis; it is a nullity. As it is a nullity, and not the gospel in fact, not being a system of salvation from the transgression of the law, the baptism enjoined in such preaching is not truly gospel baptism; it is deprived of its relations and of its significance, and therefore of its efficacy. And all who administer baptism under such teachings are offenders against the gospel.

This conclusion is logical; it is unavoidable, and is not drawn from this text alone. In Rom. 6:1–6, baptism is called a burial, and, of course, should be subsequent to death; for all must admit that it is wrong to bury before death. But the death which precedes baptism is death to sin, to the transgression of the law. It is expressly said in verse 2 that we cannot be dead to sin and live in it; but we do live in it as long as we continue to transgress the law. We do not die to sin until we cease to transgress the law, and therefore baptism, or burial, cannot properly take place while we continue to transgress the law. We are to be buried in the order or likeness of Christ’s death which is thus stated:—

“For I delivered unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” 1 Cor. 15:3, 4.

Now, if ceasing to transgress the law is dying to sin, as all must admit, then no one can be planted in the likeness of Christ’s death who has not ceased to transgress the law, from the evident truth that Christ died before he was buried. There is no mistaking this point. He that transgresses the law lives in sin; if he lives in sin he has not died to it; if he has not died to it he is not prepared to be buried; and if he is so buried he is buried alive, that is, without a death to sin, and hence is not buried in the likeness of the Saviour’s death. Such baptism is not in the order of the gospel—it is only a perversion of gospel baptism.

And this is still further shown in Rom. 7:1–6. This scripture says the law holds a man as long as he lives, and the woman who marries a second husband before the death of the first is guilty of adultery. In the application of this fact Paul says to his brethren:—

“Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead.” Rom. 7:4.

The wages of sin is death. There would be no death if there were no sin. Thus we see that Paul is arguing concerning man in his sinful condition. The law would not thus hold man unto death if he had not sinned—if his life was not forfeited. The death here referred to is on account of sin; the same that is spoken of in chap. 6—there called a death to sin. But without this death they cannot “be married to another,” even to Christ. Marriage to another without such death would be spiritual adultery. This is the force and intent of this scripture. The old man must be crucified, the body of sin destroyed—chap. 6:6; and every effort to unite this body of sin to Christ must meet with his decided disapproval. On this subject it is said in another text:—

“For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” Gal. 3:27.

As union with Christ is represented by the figure of being married to him, so baptism is the ordinance by which that marriage is said to be consummated. The marriage ceremony does not unite the hearts of the parties; if there is no previously existing union of hearts the marriage ceremony is but mockery. So baptism does not in spirit unite us to Christ, but it is the legal rite by which that union is acknowledged and ratified. It is an established rule in all governments that he makes himself guilty who solemnizes the rite of marriage without legal authority, or where there are impediments and disabilities which forbid the marriage, while the parties suffer the shame of an illegal union. This is exactly the position of the parties where baptism is administered before the candidate has died to sin. While he is yet living in transgression of the law, the rite is illegally administered; the marriage is a nullity, and the administrator is liable to indictment.

The arguing of this point is not a digression from our subject. Its bearing on “the promise” of Acts 2:38, 39, is easily seen. “The gift of the Holy Ghost” is promised to those who repent of sin, and who are baptized for the remission of sin. But it is proved that antinomianism ignores genuine repentance and the burial of him who is dead to the transgression of the law, by ignoring the law itself, by which is the knowledge of sin. Therefore, it has no just claim to “the promise,” there being no legal fulfillment of the condition. Thus it is shown that antinomianism, or a denial of the perpetuity of the law of God, shuts out the Spirit of God and neutralizes the promise of the gospel.

“Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

Here we will state an interesting fact and notice an objection. In a work on the relation of different church doctrines to moral obligations, we recently read the following words:—

“The Methodist Conference under Wesley, in 1770, declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the widespread opinion that Christ had annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments.”

“Wesley’s notes” on this Conference drew forth upon him and upon the work of the Methodists severe criticisms from certain dignitaries of the established church. And these in turn brought out “Fletcher’s Checks to Antinomianism,” a work worthy of the careful reading of every searcher for Bible truth. This is an interesting item of ecclesiastical history, and it serves to prove the statement we have made that antinomianism has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. But an objection has been raised upon it which well deserves notice. It has been said that while the Methodists condemned the no-law theory, and advocated the ten commandments as God’s great rule of morality, they did not themselves keep the law; for the law says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,” but they called the first day the Sabbath, and kept it instead of the day indicated in the law; and that they therefore really occupied a ground similar to that of those whom they reproved.

Admitting the correctness of the statement concerning the teaching of the law, to argue which is not our present purpose, the reply is thus made: There is a very wide difference between the position of those who acknowledge the authority of the law, who make it the avowed and actual intention of their lives to keep the law, even though they are mistaken in some points of duty enjoined therein, and those who deny the authority of the law, who declare it to be the object of their lives to repudiate and to disregard its claims. The position of the former is that of loyal citizens laboring under certain mistakes in regard to duty; while the latter are disloyal, virtually denying the constitutional authority of the government. If the ideas of the latter could be carried out to their legitimate results, the government would be entirely overthrown.

On this consideration we readily vindicate the early Methodists, and all others who recognize the existence and the claims of the law of God, from the reproach which must fall upon those who repudiate the law and deny its authority. And the providence of God has justified our position in regard to this; for he has often blessed the former with his Spirit, while he has as generally withheld it from the latter.

But this vindication must not be abused, and made to favor selfishness in religion. When God in his providence calls our attention to any truth of his word, and gives us light thereon, there can be no excuse for rejecting or neglecting it, however sincere our former lives may have been, or however unpopular that truth may be, or to whatever extent it may cross our feelings or clash with our worldly interests.

Among those who have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof, in the last days, are said to be “false accusers.” One false accusation raised against those who plead for the power of godliness and for the divinely appointed means of Christian unity is, that to claim to be led by the Spirit, or to possess gifts of the Spirit, is to claim infallibility. If any should make such a claim, or try to avail themselves of the benefits of such a claim, they would abuse the promises, and forfeit the favor of God. The accusation might lie against such persons, but not against those who hold and rightly use the truth on the subject. God never inspired any one so as to make him infallible. To do this would be to take away his individuality, or his freedom of will, and consequently to remove him from probation. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, were all highly gifted of the Spirit, and yet they all erred. Of the gifts of the first two there will be no question. Of Barnabas the record says: “He was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith.” Yet he and Paul so differed in judgment that they had a sharp contention, and as a consequence separated in their labors. This was wrong; it was contrary to what Paul wrote by inspiration. Peter seriously erred and was rebuked by Paul. And thus is shown that they who were most highly

gifted were not always under the immediate influence of the Spirit so as to be preserved from erring. They were fallible, and dependent upon Heaven for help and strength which they received only through faith and prayer.

When the apostles were first sent forth with power over unclean spirits, they could not cast a demon out of a certain child; and the Saviour said it was because of their unbelief. Paul said they prophesied “according to the proportion of faith.” Rom. 12:6. God never endowed any one so that he could live at ease, or in carelessness, without constant zeal, and yet be in possession of supernatural power, which he could exercise according to his own will. It is God that doeth the work, and he will work to his own glory, and through such only as are humble enough to seek his glory. When “holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” their speaking was the speaking of the Holy Spirit, and it must be infallible, even as God is true. But the men themselves were not infallible.

It is so far from being true that the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit lead to a claim of infallibility that they who take the opposite ground are really the egotists. For that is egotism and self-esteem which leads any to profess the ability within themselves to do all that God requires, to perfect holiness and to glorify him without his aid, independent of the means which he has ordained and set forth in his gospel. Without Christ we can do nothing; and we are only strong when strong in the might of God. “Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord.” The accusation is as unreasonable as it is unjust.

May the Lord Jesus fulfill to us his promise, and be with us and lead us to his own glory.

THE LORD'S LEADING.

Thus far the Lord hath led us, in darkness and in day, Through all the varied stages of the narrow homeward way; Long since he took that journey—he trod that path alone; Its trials and its dangers full well himself hath known.

Thus far the Lord hath led us; the promise hath not failed, The enemy, encountered oft, has never quite prevailed; The shield of faith has turned aside, or quenched each fiery dart, The Spirit's sword in weakest hands has forced him to depart.

Thus far the Lord hath led us; the waters have been high, But yet in passing through them, we felt that he was nigh. A very present helper in trouble we have found, His comforts most abounded when our sorrows did abound.

Thus far the Lord hath led us; our need hath been supplied, And mercy hath encompassed us about on every side; Still falls the daily manna; the pure rock-fountains flow; And many flowers of love and hope along the wayside grow.

Thus far the Lord hath led us; and will he now forsake The feeble ones whom for his own it pleases him to take? Oh, never, never! earthly friends may cold and faithless prove, But his is changeless pity and everlasting love.

Calmly we look behind us, our joys and sorrows past, We know that all is mercy now, and shall be well at last; Calmly we look before us; we fear no future ill, Enough for safety and for peace, if Thou art with us still.

Yes; they that know thy name, Lord, shall put their trust in thee, While nothing in themselves but sin and helplessness they see. The race thou hast appointed us, with patience we can run, Thou wilt perform unto the end the work thou hast begun.

The Breezes of Olivet.

“What seek I? It is Olivet, Where His last footsteps trod; The fair, familiar Olivet, That speaks of ‘that same Jesus’ yet, Gone to the throne of God.”

There is no hill in Israel, none in all the earth, so full of blessed and wonderful associations as the Mount of Olives. Lebanon has its fragrance, and its riches of produce manifold and abundant, with scenery unrivaled in magnificence and majesty; but the Mount of Olives has its wealth of spiritual memories, which have in them a power to attract that is altogether peculiar, arresting and detaining the pensive visitor by the very calmness and gentleness of their spell.

It may be thought of as the hill of peaceful fellowship. For thither would the devout ones of Jerusalem resort from time to time to breathe freely and enjoy quiet converse with each other among its olive-trees. In old days there was a complete grove of olives covering the whole of the hill; and while every olive-branch spoke of peace, reminding Israel of what the dove brought to Noah (Gen. 8:11), by which he knew that the waters of the flood were dried up, every turtle-dove’s voice in the grove would deepen the feeling of profound repose. But, above all, we know it was here that the Prince of Peace used so often to walk with his disciples; morning and evening saw him there from day to day when his ministry led him to Jerusalem. What seasons of fellowship! What times of refreshing! To these evening walks over Olivet may we best appropriate the exclamation of the Roman poet:— “O noctes coenaeque Deum!”

It was the hill of prayer. “Jesus oft-times resorted thither”—generally, perhaps, to the garden at its western base, or on its western slope, the garden in the farm (chorion, Mark 14:32) of Gethsemane. He there met his disciples, it seems, as a sort of trysting-spot, when the day was closing, and they were about to retire to Bethany for the night. There he prayed; there he no doubt taught them to pray by word and by example; there the Father bent down over his beloved Son when he “offered up, in the days of his flesh, prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears” (Heb. 5:7), the antitype of Jacob, when he at length fell on the angel’s neck, and “wept and made supplication unto him.” Hosea 12:4. Christ’s busiest days were closed with such supplications. And let us learn, though it may seem a small matter to some, to take the Master for our example in this also, viz., the choosing of the right hour for prayer. It needs to be an hour when we are least distracted. He seems purposely to have prayed there before crossing the hill to Bethany, where they slept for the night, in order that they might secure that hour, ere weariness and languor had overtaken them.

It was the hill of prophecy. Not to speak of the fact that there Jesus wept over the doomed city, foretelling its inevitable ruin in words of deepest pity (Luke 19:41–44), “If thou hadst known,” etc.; not to mention also that on its eastern slope, he predicted the same ruin by what he did to the fig-tree (Matt. 21:23); it was there he sat with Peter, James, John and Andrew, the four disciples whom he first called, and uttered that memorable prophecy which three of the evangelists give so fully. Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21. Gazing on the temple and the city, the Man of sorrows, the true Son of man and Son of God, who loved Israel as no other ever did, and loved Jerusalem more than ever David did, uttered words of prediction, clear, thrilling, and awfully authoritative, reaching from the day of Jerusalem’s fall onward to the day of Jerusalem’s returning glory. For there he read to them a page from the book of the Father’s purposes, up to the time of his own coming in the clouds of heaven. Who can ever read that prophecy, especially in our day, without rising from the perusal to walk softly, and to look up steadfastly to these heavens whence the Lord is to come?

It was the scene of agony. For the garden of Gethsemane was on the lower slope of the hill, looking toward the city. The road that passes near that garden may have been that by which, in former days, David, fleeing from Absalom, went forth over the brook Cedron (2 Sam. 15:23), when “all the country wept with a loud voice.” The king himself, barefoot, and with head uncovered, came to the ascent of Olivet and “wept as he went up; and all the people, covering every man his head, went up, weeping as they went up.” But David’s greater Son in that garden knew an agony that no heart but his own ever can know. Bishop Hall says that “never was any man so afraid of hell as Jesus in the garden was of his Father’s wrath.” That was the hour which he asked, “if possible,” might pass from him. That was the hour when the angel strengthened him. That was the hour when “his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, falling down to the ground”—like the heavy drops of a thunder-shower before the shower itself discharges its torrents. All this he endured in paying down the price of our redemption. He saw the dregs of the cup of trembling that night, and next day wrung them out:— No tongue can tell the wrath He bore— The wrath so due to me. Sin’s just deserts He bore it all, To set the sinner free. Now not a single drop remains: “’Tis finished!” was His cry. By one effectual draught He drained The cup of wrath quite dry.

But this mount is also the mount of ascension—and that is greater even than transfiguration. As the man of sorrows has been “anointed with the oil of gladness above his fellows,” so has it been with this glorious hill. Who does not know that, not on its summit, but on its eastern slope, near Bethany (somewhere about the spot where he so often took farewell of his disciples for the night, as they separated each to his own lodging), Jesus went up to Heaven? All was still and calm, in keeping with the character of the Olive-hill; no fiery chariot came down; but the Master lifted up his hands (would they not see in them the prints of the nails?) as their High Priest, and while those pierced hands were dropping blessing, the ascension had begun. “He was parted from them” as the dew of blessing was falling; and the cloud of glory soon closed its curtains round him, hiding him from our view. How like the Master’s mindfulness that two attendant angels from his presence should be sent back to leave that promise, “This same Jesus shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into Heaven”!

And so we now wait; for it is written not only that “this same Jesus shall so come,” but also that “his feet shall stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east.” Zech. 14:4. In the days of Melchisedec and Abraham, was there not a type furnished of his glorious advent, when the “king of Salem,” who is also “king of righteousness,” met the wearied patriarch and his little band, refreshing him and them with bread and wine, in the valley of Shaveh, the valley down which the Cedron flows at the foot of Olivet? And when the Lord rode over this hill into Jerusalem, on the day when for once all united in the burst of welcome, “Hosanna! Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord! Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest!” was not that truly a foreshadowing of the day when “his feet shall stand on the Mount of Olives”? He shall reign “before his ancients gloriously,” when the “sun shall be confounded and the moon ashamed.” Isa. 24:23. But first he shall, by the breath of his mouth, and the brightness of his coming, destroy Antichrist and all His foes, making them his footstool. It shall be the day of earth’s deliverance. The peace of earth shall begin at Olivet, the mount of peace, which, with its olives, the resort of the peaceful turtle-dove, has so long cast its shadow over Salem, the city of peace.—Sel.

The Fall of Babylon.

By J. Lamont

“Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.”

The first question that naturally arises on reading this text is, What is Babylon? And perhaps we may be better able to answer it if we read the same proclamation in Rev. 18:2–4, where it is added: “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Babylon, then, contains the Lord’s people. We cannot for a moment think this some literal city; for no one city has ever contained all, or even the greater part, of them, and where are they but in the different churches? Why may not this term, which signifies confusion, be applied to the churches with their various and conflicting creeds?

Protestant commentators agree in applying the words, “Mystery, Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots,” Rev. 17:5, to the Romish church. This being true, who and where are the daughters? Let the mother tell.

“If the church of Rome was ever guilty of idolatry in relation to the saints, her daughter, the church of England, stands guilty of the same, which has ten churches dedicated to Mary for one dedicated to Christ.”—Catholic Christian Instructed, p. 18.

But the children shall speak for themselves. Eld. Wm. Kinkade says:—

“I also think Christ has a true church on earth, but its members are scattered among the various denominations, and are all more or less under the influence of Mystery, Babylon, and her daughters.”—Bible Doctrine, p. 294.

Campbell says:—

“The worshiping establishments now in operation throughout Christendom, increased and cemented by their respective voluminous confessions of faith and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that mother of harlots, the church of Rome.”

Lorenzo Dow, in speaking of the Romish church, says:—

“If she be a mother, who are the daughters? They must be the corrupt, national, established churches that came out of her.”—Dow’s Life, p. 542.

The Tennessee Baptist says:—

“This woman [popery] is called the mother of harlots and abominations. Who are the daughters? The Lutheran, the Presbyterian, and the Episcopalian churches are all branches of the (Roman) Catholic.”

The “Religious Encyclopedia,” which is highly recommended by a large number of D. D.’s and LL. D.’s, says:—

“The writer of the book of Revelation tells us he heard a voice from Heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, that ye partake not of her sins, and receive not of her plagues.’ If such persons are to be found in the mother of harlots, with much less hesitation may it be inferred that they are connected with her unchaste daughters, those national churches which are founded upon what are called Protestant principles.”—Art. Antichrist.

That the fall of Babylon, then, is a moral fall, and not her destruction, is plainly seen in Rev. 18:2–4, which says Babylon becomes the habitation of devils, &c., and calls God’s people to come out of her after she is fallen.

Is there evidence that the churches have so far departed from God that he has withdrawn himself from them, and that his people are called out of them? What say the Scriptures? “They will not frame their doings to turn unto their God; for the spirit of whoredoms is in the midst of them. . . . And the pride of Israel doth testify to his face; therefore shall Israel and Ephraim fall in their iniquity; Judah also shall fall with them. They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek the Lord; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them.” Hosea 5:4–6. “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof; from such turn away.” 2 Tim. 3:1–5.

This is a fearful list of sins, yet the above, with many other scriptures, assure us, that in the last days the professed followers of Christ will be guilty of them, and that those who would still enjoy God’s favor must turn away, or come out from among them.

“Like priest, like people.” “The time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Tim. 4:3, 4. Great and good men of past centuries, as well as some of the present century, have believed and taught in accordance with this scripture. Hear a few of them. Luther said: “About the consummation of these periods [the prophetic periods of Daniel] this gospel will be shut out of the churches, and confined to the private houses.”

Matthew Henry, speaking of Christ’s coming, says:—

“In general, he will find but few good people, few that are really good; many that have the form and fashion of godliness, but few that have faith.”

Dr. Cotton Mather says:—

“When the Lord shall come he will find the world almost void of true and living faith (especially of faith in his coming), and when he shall descend with his heavenly banners, what else will he find but almost the whole church, as it were a dead carcass, miserably putrified, with the spirit, and manners, and endearments, of this world?”

Dr. Cummings says:—

“I believe that one-half of the professors of the gospel are nothing better than practical infidels.”

In the Christian Statesman, of Feb. 15, 1872, we find the following: “The positive, aggressive character of irreligion is the peculiar feature of our age.”

Spurgeon, of London, says:—

“Through and through, I believe, the very heart of England is honey-combed with a damnable infidelity, which dares still go into the pulpit and call itself Christian. Look also at the pride and fashion exhibited now in nearly all the churches—at the buildings, the furniture, and the dress of the worshipers, which would not for a moment have been tolerated forty or fifty years ago.”

Again, the amusements and means of raising money that have come into vogue within the last few years are well illustrated by the following advertisement of a “benefit” for a church in New Orleans:—

“Benefit of Christ’s church Parochial School. Near the dancing platform is a splendid booth and a large canvas tent, with seats reserved for the accommodation of ladies and children. The patrons of this church, as well as the public, will here find a soda-water stand and confectionery, a restaurant filled with everything to satisfy the appetite of epicureans and also a splendid bar, stocked with the choicest kinds of liquors, cigars, &c.”

The N. Y. Observer, commenting on this, says:—

“The church for which this splendid bar is to be opened is called Christ’s church; but our private opinion is, if Christ attends the fair, he will come with a scourge of large cords and drive out every man and woman who dishonors his house and name with such things as these.”

Eating and drinking, intermingled with fun and frolic are the means almost universally resorted to when money is wanted for religious purposes.

Now hear a ten-thousand-dollar minister of Cincinnati defend himself when taken to task by a friend for preaching sensational sermons:—

“Churches now are nothing more than theological theaters, and preachers are the actors who are paid so much for performing cleverly and acceptably. When the priestly artists do not draw, their engagement is discontinued. We are forced to make our sermons attractive to those who come to hear them. In consulting our household expenses, we must make a liberal surrender of our tastes and convictions. I receive ten thousand dollars a year. If I preached simpler and better sermons, reflecting my real views, I could not get three thousand. So you see bread-earning outweighs both aspiration and inspiration.”—Cincinnati Times, July 28, 1870.

But if the churches are in this woeful, this fallen condition, when did they become so? They themselves shall tell. Prof. Finney, of Oberlin College, made the following statement in 1844:—

“We have also another corroborative fact—the almost universal absence of revival influence in the churches. The spiritual apathy is almost all-pervading, and is fearfully deep; so the religious press of the whole land testifies. It comes to our ears, and to our eyes also, through the religious prints, that very extensively church members are becoming devotees of fashion. They join hands with the ungodly in parties of pleasures, in dancing, in festivities &c.; but we need not expand this painful subject. Suffice it that evidence thickens and rolls heavily upon us to show that the churches generally are becoming sadly degenerate. They have gone very far from the Lord, and he has withdrawn himself from them.”

The Christian Palladium, of the same year, said:— “In every direction we hear the dolorous sound wafted on every breeze of heaven, chilling as the blasts from the icebergs of the

north, settling like an incubus on the hearts of the timid, and drinking up the energies of the weak, that lukewarmness and division, anarchy and desolation, are destroying the borders of Zion.”

The Congregational Journal, for the same year, contained the following:—

“At a recent meeting of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, Rev. Mr. Barnes, pastor of the first Presbyterian church in Philadelphia, whose notes are so extensively used in our families and Sabbath-schools, stated that he had been in the ministry for twenty years and never till last communion had he administered the ordinance without receiving more or less into the church. But now there are no awakenings, no conversions, not much apparent growth in grace in professors, and none come to his study to converse about the salvation of their souls. With the increase of business, and the brightening prospects of commerce and manufactures, there is an increase of worldly-mindedness. Thus it is with all denominations.”

The Religious Telescope, in an article on “Great Spiritual Dearth,” for the same year, 1844, said:—

“It is a lamentable fact, from which we cannot shut our eyes, that the churches of this country are now suffering severely on account of the great dearth almost universally complained of. We have never witnessed such a general declension of religion as at the present. Truly the church should awake and search into the cause of this affliction, for an affliction every one that loves Zion must view it. When we call to mind how few and far between cases of true conversion are, . . . we almost involuntarily exclaim, Has God forgotten to be gracious? or is the door of mercy closed?”

In the True Wesleyan, of Nov. 15, 1851, we find the following:—

“Sins that would shock the moral sensibilities of the heathen go unrebuked in all the great denominations of our land. These churches are like the Jewish when the Saviour exclaimed, ‘Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites.’”

These extracts prove, beyond all doubt, the time and fact of the fall of Babylon. Mark how strong is the language used; and they are from the representative men of the great denominations of the country.

What caused their fall? A glance at the ancient church may help us in answering this question; for, of their experience, Paul says: “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” 1 Cor. 10:11. They were rejected because they refused to believe in the first advent of Christ. As Jesus himself said, it was because they knew not the time of their visitation. Luke 19:44.

When the proclamation of the second advent of our Lord (Rev. 14:6, 7) was first sounded, in 1840–44, the churches received it, as the Jews did the work of John the Baptist, but when the disappointment came they drew back, as the Jews did when called upon to confess Jesus of Nazareth as their Messiah. God had plainly said: “Write the vision, and make it plain upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. For the vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry.” Hab. 2:2, 3. And again: “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” Heb. 10:35–37.

From the foregoing we see the necessity for raising the cry, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen;” “come out of her, my people.” Where shall they go? Let us briefly notice the imagery God has made use of in these messages. His people are in the ruins of a once noble city, which now, alas! has fallen. While lingering about the ruins, a mighty angel appears on the scene, and announces that their city is doomed to utter destruction, to be inhabited by every unclean and hateful bird, by foul spirits, yes, even by devils, and that the great storm of God’s wrath will break upon it, when it shall be utterly burned with fire. Rev. 18.

At this juncture, another angel appears upon the scene, and points out the place to which God would have his people go for protection. Hear him saying, as he flies slowly over the city, pointing to those who have chosen the place of safety, “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” This company are outside the fallen city. Their house will never fall. It is built upon solid rock of the Lord’s own selection, even all his commandments and the faith of Jesus—the whole law and the whole gospel.

J. LAMONT.

Continue reading: Womanly Ministries in the Church