Earlier text: General ArticlesON THE TRACK.
By Christian Standard
As we approach a corner of the street, if there is a wagon near by, we do not feel safe to take our eyes off of it, until we see whether it is going straight on, or whether it is likely to cut across our path. Not so, however, with the street-car. One glance is enough. We are sure it will keep the track unless something unusual throws it off. Just so with members of the church. Some are on the track, and we hardly glance at them; we expect them to keep right on unless something very unusual happens; we would be greatly surprised if they collided with us or crossed our path. But others are rarely on the track. They are like the wagons, on and off, dodging up one street or down another, and nobody but the driver knows which way they are likely to go. We do not feel safe unless we keep a bright lookout on their movements, to see whether they are likely to run into us and damage us. How much smoother, easier, safer, more rapid, and more satisfactory every way, is our traveling when we keep the track. We can draw much heavier loads. We don't subject everybody and everything on the team to such jolting and grumbling. Whoever else gets off, shall you and I keep on? If we would do so we must watch the switches, and stones, and the obstructions of every kind. The opening at the switch may be almost imperceptible, but who can tell where it will send us if it is too far open, and what disastrous results may follow our switching off. Our carelessness may ruin someone physically, mentally, morally, and eternally.—Christian Standard. A GRAVE FAULT.
By Independent
ONE of our gravest faults in these days is, that we have digged a great gulf between the religious life and the secular life (so called), and we find it difficult to throw a bridge across the chasm when we have need to pass from one side to the other. The true method is not to have a bridge at all, either permanent or in the nature of a draw, which is let down and taken up at call; but to fill up the ditch and make the life one, as God meant it to be and as it is the province of Christianity to make it.—Independent. FROM a Spiritualist we have received a series of questions, which he evidently thinks cannot be answered without scattering to the four winds our recent articles on Spiritualism. First, he wants to know how it is that in forty years Spiritualism has made so many converts, while comparatively few accept the doctrine of our Lord's soon coming. This is easily answered. It is because the human heart naturally loves error. Ever since our first parents listened to Satan's great lie, "Thou shalt not surely die," error has been courted, while truth has had to fight its way to recognition. Says Bacon: "In general let every student of nature take this as a rule, that whatever his mind seizes and dwells upon with particular satisfaction is to be held in suspicion." The heart of man is naturally the spring of evil thoughts, and of vice, and so he is predisposed to error; if he learns to love truth, it is because some influence or power outside of himself has been brought to bear upon him. The argument that we ought to do or believe a certain thing because others do, is well adapted to sheep, which go in flocks, the hindmost following blindly whichever way the current sets; but men should "not follow a multitude to do evil." He asks, "Did you ever investigate Spiritualism? or are you too timid?" etc. Yes, we have fully investigated Spiritualism. We claim that we know more of its nature and tendency than any Spiritualist who lives. But we are too timid to venture into it. We submit that the man who stands at the mouth of a dark cave and views its interior by the aid of an electric light, whose bright rays he causes to be reflected into it, is in a position to know more of it than the one who stumbles into it without any light. Having examined Spiritualism by the light of God's word, we are too timid to venture near it. The wolf may twit the lamb with cowardice for not coming to examine his teeth and nails; but all will agree that timidity in such a case is wisdom. We know the nature and effects of arsenic; we know that it is a deadly poison, although we were never poisoned with it. Again, "If your Jesus is a delusion, where do you stand?" We reply, Nowhere. We are free to confess that without Jesus we are nothing. That is why we pity Spiritualists, who reject Christ. He will not fail us, and we have no fear. The implied idea that we should cast off our faith in Christ, simply because if he were not a reality our faith would be vain, and we should be lost, is most absurd. There is a man walking across the Brooklyn bridge. If that bridge should fall, what would become of him? Why, he would be killed. Suppose the bridge upon which he is walking were not a bridge at all, but were only a streak of fog, what then? Why, then of course he could not walk upon it. But because he couldn't walk there if the bridge were not there, shall he refuse to walk on the solid bridge which is there? Shall he refuse to stand upon its firm structure, because he couldn't stand upon it if it were not in existence? What nonsense! So we shall not be frightened from "the everlasting arms," because someone cries that we should fall into perdition if they were not there. That is just why we stay in that secure place; it is the only place of safety. Finally, we are told that if we would lay aside our opposition to Spiritualism, we "would not run any risk to become the laughing stock for over two millions of converts to Spiritualism." No doubt. But we are perfectly content to be laughed at by Spiritualists, whether they be two million or two hundred million. "It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools. For as the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of the fool; this also is vanity." Eccl. 7:5, 6. We would rather have their laughter than their commendation. w. THE REST THAT REMAINS.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WE return once more to Abraham, and the promise to him and his seed. We have learned that the promise was confirmed to him in Christ; and certainly this was the case when a son was promised to him, for the record says, "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." Gen. 15: 6. This counting his faith for righteousness was nothing else but the forgiveness of his sins, through Christ. This is plainly declared to be the case, in Rom. 4: 3-9. Now at the very time when the promise was thus confirmed to him, the Lord said to him: "Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterwards shall they come out with great substance." Gen. 15: 13, 14. In this text we have the sojourn in Egypt foretold; but we have more than that, for the children of Israel were not in Egypt four hundred years. It was only four hundred and thirty years from the time that the promise was made to Abraham until the giving of the law, immediately after the departure from Egypt. Gal. 3: 17. We can easily make up this time thus: From the time that the promise was made, till the birth of Isaac, was twenty-five years. Compare Gen. 12: 1-4 and Gen. 21: 5. From the birth of Isaac till the birth of Jacob was sixty years. Gen. 25: 26. From the birth of Jacob till the going down into Egypt was one hundred and thirty years. Gen. 47: 8, 9. Therefore from the promise to Abraham, until the going down into Egypt was (25+60+130) 215 years. And Josephus says ("Antiquities," chap. 15, par. 2) that the length of the sojourn in Egypt was two hundred and fifteen years, thus making the four hundred and thirty years of Galatians 3: 17. But how about the four hundred years of affliction, which the Lord said that the posterity of Abraham should suffer? It is evident from the text, and also from Acts 7: 6, 7, that the four hundred years ended at the exode, the same time when the four hundred and thirty years ended. Thus they must have begun thirty years after the promise was first made to Abraham, or when Isaac was about five years old. Now in Gal. 4: 29 Paul says that "he that was born after the flesh," namely, Ishmael, persecuted Isaac, who was "born after the Spirit;" and this cannot refer to any other time than that when Ishmael "mocked" Isaac, which resulted in the expulsion of Ishmael and his mother. Gen. 21: 9, 10. This is the only recorded instance of the persecution of Isaac by Ishmael, and was, as nearly as can be calculated, about thirty years after the promise, and four hundred years before the deliverance from Egypt. So there were one hundred and eighty-five of the four hundred years' affliction, that were endured in the land of Canaan, and in adjoining countries. Yet all this time they were sojourning in a country that was not theirs. Compare Gen. 15: 13 and Heb. 11: 9. We pass over the bondage in Egypt, and come to the time of the exode. When Moses was sent down into Egypt to deliver the people, the Lord gave him the following message:— "Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched-out arm, and with great judgment; and I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know that I am the Lord your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for a heritage; I am the Lord." Ex. 6: 6-8.
Here the promise to Abraham, which was renewed to Isaac and to Jacob, was renewed again to their descendants. And in pursuance of that same promise, the Lord said to them when they had gone out of Egypt:— "Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Ex. 19: 4-6.
Now that this was the same promise that was made to Abraham, we have an explicit statement, in the following words, found in Deut. 7: 6-8:— "Thou art a holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people; but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt."
When we read the promise recorded in Gen. 22: 17 we noted that in the words, "Thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies," it included rest from oppression. So likewise the promise to the Israelites included not only possession of land, but rest. Thus when Moses allowed two tribes and a half to settle in the country across the Jordan, he said to them:— "The Lord your God hath given you this land to possess it; ye shall pass over armed before your brethren the children of Israel, all that are meet for the war . . . until the Lord have given rest unto your brethren, as well as unto you, and until they also possess the land which the Lord your God hath given them beyond Jordan." Deut. 3: 18-20.
Again, just a little while before they reached the land of Canaan, Moses said to them:— "For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth you. But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause his name to dwell there," etc. Deut. 12: 9-11.
Thus we find that rest from their enemies was as much a part of the promise as was the inheritance of the land. Joshua was the one to lead the people over Jordan into the land of promise; and the record expressly states that before he died the land was divided among the people, "and the Lord gave them rest round about, according to all that he swore unto their fathers; and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand." Josh. 21: 44. Yet in the face of this record, the apostle declares that Joshua did not give them rest. For some reason, we know not what, the translators of King James' Version sometimes gave an incorrect translation in the body of the text, and placed the correct rendering in the margin. So it is in Heb. 4: 8. We quote with the correct marginal reading: "For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day." The "another day" of this text is the "to-day" of Ps. 95: 7-11, where the Lord said through his servant:— "To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, as in the provocation, and as in the day of temptation in the wilderness; when your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my work. Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways; unto whom I swore in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest."
Now, although a very few of those who came out from Egypt did enter into the land of Canaan, and247the Lord gave them rest, it is certain that that was not the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham because (1) Abraham had no part in it (Acts 7:5); neither did Isaac and Jacob, to whom the promise was made, as well as to Abraham; and (2) the apostle speaks of "Gideon, and of Barak, and of Sampson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets" (Heb. 11:32), all of whom lived after the days of Joshua; and of them he says:— "And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." Heb. 11: 39, 40.
Here we learn that the promise will not be fulfilled to them until we share it with them; and so the apostle says: "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." Heb. 4:9. At the same time, however, he utters a word of caution, saying: "Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Heb. 4: 1, 2. From this we learn that the promise of rest was made known to the ancient Jews through the preaching of the gospel. We have already read the statement of Paul, that the gospel was preached to Abraham. Gal. 3: 7, 8. But the Jews, as a nation, did not have faith and so they were debarred from the real rest which the Lord promised to Abraham. The same promise is left to us, but we, like them, shall come short of it, unless we have the faith of Abraham. That the rest here referred to is the rest in the earth when it shall be freed from the curse, is manifest from verses 3-5 of Hebrews 4. The apostle says:— "For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, as I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter [that is, they shall not enter] into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest."
The apostle is not making any argument here concerning the Sabbath. He simply refers to the record in Gen. 2:3, in proof of his statement that "the works were finished from the foundation of the world." The earth was designed to be inhabited by man. Isa. 45: 18. The dominion of the earth, as it came pure and undefiled from the hand of the Creator, was given to man. Gen. 1: 28. And so, on the seventh day, when God rested from all his works, the rest was prepared for his people. That rest, which was simply the possession of the whole earth as a kingdom, was lost through transgression; yet it is certain that some must enter in (Heb. 4:6) and so a "day of salvation" (2 Cor. 6:2) is granted. This is the day that is spoken of in Ps. 95: 7, the day secured to us through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, as spoken of in Ps. 118: 19-24; the day which Abraham saw, and which caused him to rejoice. John 8: 56. In this day of grace all who will may become enrolled as children of Abraham, through faith, becoming "heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ;" and to them the Lord will say when he comes, sitting upon the throne of his glory: "Come, ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." Matt. 25: 34. Compare Heb. 4:3, and the comments upon it. Thus we learn that "the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance;" and that "the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation." 2 Peter 3: 9, 15. w. THE ELGIN SUNDAY-LAW CONVENTION.
THE Elgin Sunday-law Convention held last November in Elgin, Illinois, was "called by the members of the Elgin Association of Congregational Ministers and Churches, to consider the prevalent desecration of the Sabbath, and its remedy," and passed the following resolutions:— "Resolved, That we recognize the Sabbath as an institution of God, revealed in nature and the Bible, and of perpetual obligation on all men; and also as a civil and American institution, bound up in vital and historical connection with the origin and foundation of our Government, the growth of our polity, and necessary to be maintained in order for the preservation and integrity of our national system, and therefore as having a sacred claim on all patriotic American citizens. "Resolved, That we look with shame and sorrow on the non-observance of the Sabbath by many Christian people, in that the custom prevails with them of purchasing Sabbath newspapers, engaging in and patronizing Sabbath business and travel, and in many instances giving themselves to pleasure and self-indulgence, setting aside by neglect and indifference the great duties and privileges which God's day brings them. "2. That we give our votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath. "3. That we give our patronage to such business men, manufacturers, and laborers as observe the Sabbath. "4. That we favor a permanent Sabbath organization for the State of Illinois; the object of which shall be the creation of public sentiment and to secure the enactment and enforcement of necessary laws for the protection of the Sabbath. "5. That we favor the organization of auxiliary societies to accomplish the above object. "6. That four committees be appointed by this convention, consisting of two persons each, a minister and layman; one committee to carefully and accurately investigate and report to the next convention all the facts obtainable concerning Sunday business; one to investigate and report similarly concerning Sunday newspapers; one concerning Sunday pleasurizing; one concerning Sunday transportation and travel. "Resolved, That this association authorizes the Executive Committee to request railway corporations and newspapers to discontinue the running of Sunday trains and the publication of Sunday editions of their papers." Notice, the Sabbath is here set forth as an institution of God, and also as a "civil institution." It is for "candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath," that they will vote. Now we shall present some of the arguments upon which they base this demand for laws in favor of the "civil Sabbath," and also showing what they want these laws enforced for. Rev. Henry Wilson, a prominent member of the convention, said:— "The industries of the world should be silent one day in seven, that the toiler may hear the invitation of the Master, 'Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest,' and that the spiritual temple of God may be built without the noise of the hammer." Exactly. The State must compel everybody to keep Sunday "that the toiler may hear the invitation of the Master" and "that the spiritual temple of God may be built." And then they will call that a civil statute! If such a statute as that would be a civil one, then what would be required to make a religious statute? But suppose the toiler should then refuse to go to hear that invitation; what then? Will the State compel him to go? If not, why not? The State compels him to keep Sunday that he may hear the invitation; now is the State to allow its good offices to be set at naught, and its purposes frustrated by the toiler's refusing to hear the invitation? And the church having gained the recognition of the State to that extent, is she going to stop short of her object? Other quotations will answer these questions. Dr. W. W. Everts, of Chicago, said:— "This day is set apart for divine worship and preparation for another life. It is the test of all religion. The people who do not keep the Sabbath have no religion." Is it then the province of the State to pass and enforce statutes in the interests of divine worship? Is it in the nature of a civil statute to prepare men for another life? "It is the test of all religion," says the Doctor. Then what is the enforcement of the Sabbath but the enforcement of a religious test? And what is the application of it to "candidates and political officers" but the application of a religious test? And what is that but an open violation of the Constitution of the United States, which says, "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"? It is true that, under the decisions of the United States Supreme Court, this provision of the Constitution does not prohibit the application of any religious test as a qualification to any officer under any State. And if there be no such provision as this in the State Constitution, these preachers of Illinois, and of all the other States, can go ahead unrestrained in the application of their religious test to all the candidates for State offices. But there is one thing certain, and that is, Sunday being "the test of all religion," no Sunday-law test can ever be applied to any candidate for the House of Representatives, for the Senate, or for any other office or public trust under the United States, without a direct violation of the Constitution of the United States as it is. Further, says the Doctor, "The people who do not keep the Sabbath have no religion." The antithesis of this is likewise true. The people who do keep the Sabbath have religion. Therefore this demand for laws to compel people to keep the Sabbath, is a demand for laws to compel people to be religious. And yet they have the face to call it "the civil Sabbath." Again Doctor Everts says:— "He who does not keep the Sabbath does not worship God, and he who does not worship God is lost." Perfectly true, Doctor. The antithesis of this also is true, He who does keep the Sabbath, does worship God. Therefore your demand for laws to compel men to keep the Sabbath, is a demand for laws to compel them to worship God. And that is only to introduce the system of the Papacy and of the Inquisition. There is no use for you to deny that you want laws to compel the observance of the Sabbath, and that, too, with the idea of worship, because in the very next sentence you say,— "The laboring class are apt to rise late on Sunday mornings, read the Sunday papers, and allow the hour of worship to go by unheeded." Here are the steps plainly to be taken, as surely as these ambitious clerics ever get the slightest recognition of their Sunday-law demands. First, a law compelling all labor to cease on Sunday. Then the laboring class will read the Sunday papers, and so allow the hour of worship to go unheeded; consequently there must be, secondly, a law abolishing all Sunday papers. But suppose then these people take to reading books, and let the hour of worship go by unheeded, then, logically, there must be, thirdly, a law abolishing all reading of books on Sunday. But suppose they let the hour of worship go by unheeded anyhow, then, logically, there must be, fourthly, a law compelling them not to let the hour of worship go by unheeded. Having secured themselves in the first two of these steps, what is to hinder these divines from taking the other two, which just as logically follow, as the second follows the first? There is just nothing at all to hinder them. Well, then, having taken the first two, will they not take the other two? Anybody who thinks they will not, has studied human nature, and read history, to very little purpose. And anybody who thinks that they do not intend to take the other steps has read the Sunday-law propositions to very little purpose. Prof. Samuel Ives Curtis said in this convention: "We are not commanded to remember the Sabbath as a day of rest and recreation, but to 'keep it holy.'" And last spring in the Boston Monday Lectureship, Joseph Cook said:—248 "The experience of centuries shows that you will in vain endeavor to preserve Sunday as a day of rest, unless you preserve it as a DAY OF WORSHIP." There, that ought to be plain enough to make anybody understand what is the purpose of the demand for "civil" Sunday laws. The only safety is in never allowing them to secure themselves in the first step—that is, in never allowing them to secure any sort of a Sunday law. For just as soon as the so-called Protestant churches in this land become possessed of power to wield the civil power in the interests of religion, we shall have the Papacy over again. But Doctor Everts continues; it is not enough that Sunday papers must be stopped in behalf of the churches, but Sunday trains must also be stopped, and for the same reason. He says:— "The Sunday train is another great evil. They cannot afford to run a train unless they get a great many passengers, and so break up a great many congregations. The Sunday railroad trains are hurrying their passengers fast on to perdition. What an outrage that the railroad, that great civilizer, should destroy the Christian Sabbath!" Oh, yes! The church-members, and the church-goers, will go on Sunday trains and Sunday excursions, etc. Therefore the trains are responsible and are hurrying their passengers on to perdition. Therefore by all means stop the Sunday trains, so as to keep the excellent church-members out of perdition, for if they have any chance they will go. Start up the way to perdition, and then they will go to Heaven. They haven't enough religion, nor love of right, to do right, therefore they must have the State to take away all opportunity to do wrong. And these people will boast themselves of their religion, and their being Christians! It is difficult to see how a Sunday train can hurry anybody to perdition who does not ride on it. And if these church-members are hurried to perdition by Sunday trains, who is to blame? Right here lies the secret of the whole evil—they blame everybody and everything else, even to inanimate things, for the irreligion, the infidelity, and the sin that lies in their own hearts. The following statements made by Dr. Mandeville, in the convention, are literally true, in a good deal deeper sense than he intended:— 1. "There has been an alliance formed between the church and the world." That is a fact, and it is going to ruin both. Amen. We earnestly hope you will not. There is no use in trying to deny it. But instead of going about in the right way to remedy the evil, you set on foot a scheme to compel the world to act as though it were religious, and so to bind closer the alliance, and increase the evil. 3. "Influential men fasten themselves upon the church: a sort of political Christians." Most decidedly true. And the most "influential" of these "political Christians," and the most of them are found in the pulpit; and they organize conventions and pass resolutions to give their "votes and support to those candidates or political officers who will pledge themselves to vote for the enactment and enforcing of statutes in favor of the civil Sabbath," "as a day of worship." 4. "Too many men are in the church for self-profit." Indeed there are, a vast number too many. 5. "We pastors are to blame for allowing them to rule." Yes; you are. You are especially to blame for those influential political Christians fastening themselves upon the church and ruling it, and trading off its votes through Sunday-law conventions. The churches themselves, however, are not clear of blame in this. They ought to rise up and turn out the whole company of these political Christians, and fill their pulpits with such Christians as care more for the love of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit than they do for votes and the power of civil government. But the following statements by the same gentleman, we do not suppose have any deeper meaning than he intends:— 1. "The subject has two sides. We must not look alone at the religious side. The interests of the Church and State are united." And yet you are all opposed to a union of Church and State, aren't you? 2. "The merchants of Tyre insisted upon selling goods near the temple on the Sabbath, and Nehemiah compelled the officers of the law to do their duty and stop it. So we can compel the officers of the law to do their duty. . . . When the church of God awakes and does its duty on one side, and the State on the other, we shall have no further trouble in this matter." Yes, we remember how it was before. The gentle Albigenses in the south of France greatly disturbed the church. They refused to obey its commands. But the church was wide awake, for Innocent III. was Pope; and he awoke the State with the call, "Up, most Christian king, up, and aid us in our work of vengeance!" And thus with the church awake to its duty (?) on one side, and the State on the other, the Albigenses were swept from the earth, and there was no further trouble in that matter. Woe, worth the day, and thrice woe to the people, when the religious power can compel the civil. And that is precisely what this Elgin Sunday-law Convention proposes to do. It would seem from Dr. Mandeville's citation of the example of Nehemiah that they intend to set up a theocracy here. If not, there is no force in his argument, from that instance. But from the following it is quite certain that that is what they have in view. Prof. C. A. Blanchard said:— "In this work we are undertaking for the Sabbath, we are representatives of the Lord God." Therefore it follows that when they vote to support those candidates and political officers who will pledge themselves, etc., they will vote as the representatives of God. And if any of themselves should secure votes enough to send them to the Legislature or to Congress, they would go there and legislate as representatives of God. And when they get into their hands the power to enforce the law, and to compel the civil power to do their bidding, they will do it all as the representatives of God. And thus again it is demonstrated that if these influential "political Christians" once get the Sunday laws for which they are so diligently working, we shall have in this nation a living image of the Papacy. And again we say the only safety is in not letting them secure the enactment of any sort of a Sunday law, nor anything else through which they may dominate the civil power. NOTE.—We have not selected all these quotations about the religious Sabbath, and left out what was said about the civil Sabbath. We have carefully read the whole report, and we state it as the literal truth that outside of the resolutions, there is not in all the report a single sentence about a civil Sabbath. It is all religious and that only. And yet, just like the California Sunday-law Convention, when it came to getting the thing in form to get votes and legislation they deftly inserted the word "civil." All this goes to show what we have often stated, that there is no such thing as a civil Sabbath; and it shows that these men do not really intend to secure, nor to enforce, a "civil" Sunday law, but a religious one wholly. J. American Society of Church History
A society called the American Society of Church History was organized in New York, March 22, with Dr. Philip Schaff as president. The object of the society is the encouragement of the line of study indicated by the name. THE VICTIMS OF STRIKES.
By Editor
A RECENT number of a Philadelphia paper says that “the saddest results of the late strike on the Reading Road are now coming to light, and its victims are beginning to realize their own folly in obeying the orders of their malignant leaders. . . . They left their work willfully and without just cause; others have taken their places; and now they have no work and no means of support. Their situation is pitiable indeed.” These misguided men have asked to be taken back into the employ of the Railroad Company, but President Corban has firmly but kindly told them that “he cannot break the promises made to the new men, and discharge them to make room for the old ones, who voluntarily left the service of the company when ordered to do so by the leaders of the Knights of Labor.” He has offered, however, to recommend for places elsewhere all old employees against whom there is no complaint except that they went on strike. This is all, and more than these unfortunate men could reasonably expect of the Railway Company, whose business was damaged by the strike to the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The employees of that company had no just cause for the strike; they went out, not because they had grievances, but because they were ordered to do so by irresponsible leaders of the Knights of Labor, who had nothing at stake but their reputation, and very little of that. Though a strike always entails heavy loss upon the corporation against which it is directed, the most serious loss is that sustained by the strikers themselves; their violent dealings generally come down upon their own pates; or, as is too often the case, upon the heads of their helpless families—they are its real victims. The Lutheran Observer pertinently says:— “Such folly and presumption have been so often repeated in the labor organizations of this country in recent years, that their sad and disastrous consequences should be held up as a warning to deter others from pursuing a similar course.”