Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jul 2, 1894
The Purpose of Christ's Priesthood.
Priests are ordained for men. Heb. 5: 1. God sets value upon human souls, not as they are in the natural carnal condition, but what they are capable of becoming through grace, when upon them God stamps his own image. It is for these possibilities that Heaven has done all that has been done; Christ gave himself for this. The typical priesthood pointed forward to that of our Lord. It was all "for man."
But the priesthood of Christ is not for man temporally or politically. It was not ordained to give man temporal wealth or position. The priests anciently were ordained "in the things pertaining to God," to "offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins," or, as stated in Heb. 2: 17, of our High Priest, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." That temporal blessings came because of this is true; but they came incidentally not objectively. "The things pertaining to God" were the object, the "all things that pertain unto life and godliness." 2 Peter 1: 3.
Those who profess to be the children of God and are clamoring for earthly power or position, or seeking to accomplish great reforms by civil law, may learn a lesson from this. God's ministers in this dispensation even as in the Levitical are "ordained for man in things pertaining to God to make reconciliation for the sins of the people." Not that this is done in the same way as of old, not that the ministers make reconciliation, but they are ordained to preach the reconciliation which Christ has made, to beseech man to become reconciled to God through Christ, and then to build up by the word of God those who accept Christ. 2 Cor. 5: 11, 20; 6: 1-10.
Would that the professed church of God realized this. There would not be the bickerings, janglings, and debatings over creeds. Ministers would not be found buttonholing politicians, and lobbying in our Legislatures for civil enactment to enforce church dogmas or ecclesiastical institutions. There would be no demand for Sunday laws, and no petitions to Congress to "promote" or "protect" Sunday observance. An honest searching of "the word of truth" would disclose the fact that Sunday as a sacred day is not known in Holy Scripture; that the only Sabbath is the Sabbath of the great Creator, a memorial of his creative power and a sign of redeeming love. Finding this, men could no more ask for civil enactment to compel observance of the Lord's day than they could for laws to change the heart; for only the changed heart can observe the day. To sum it all up, the evangelists, pastors, and preachers would be doing the work for which God ordained them—not clamoring for civil law, but preaching the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as "the power of God unto salvation," the only means of regenerating the world. The light and power of the gospel shining out from every pulpit and from the flock of God would have a restraining influence upon immorality which no civil law can have. It would be the power of God working through men.
Is It Consistent.
The Congregationalist complains, and it is not alone either, that professed Christians are by their influence destroying the sacredness of Sunday. Apart from the fact that Sunday never had any sacredness to lose, and that it is not in any sense the "Lord's day" more than Monday, even though called so by the Congregationalist, would it not be well to discipline and convert these professed Sunday keepers before compelling by civil law its observance by the world? Even if Sunday laws were right (which they are not), would it not be more consistent for the church to begin with itself, to let its charity in this respect begin at home, instead of prosecuting honest workingmen who are disturbing no one by Sunday labor, and who have kept the Sabbath according to the commandment? Think of this.
Sin.
"Sin is the transgression of the law." The root meaning of the original words in both the Old and New Testaments is "missing the mark." To sin is to miss the mark, to go astray. The character of God is the great standard. This character is expressed in God's holy law and is revealed in our Lord Jesus Christ. God's law is perfect. It embraces all righteousness; it condemns all sin; it marks out the perfect way. Any deviation from this way is sin. Whether known or unknown, it is still sin; it is missing the mark. But sins of ignorance are justified through Christ if the heart is right with God; and the heart right with God—the new heart—walks in all the light which God reveals from his word. He who knowingly transgresses God's law, "wickedly departs." He who is truly converted, who has Christ formed within, like Christ counts the keeping of God's law a delight. His language will be, "O how love I Thy law! it is my meditation all the day." Ps. 119: 97. "Make me to go in the path of Thy commandments; for therein do I delight." Ps. 119: 35.
SUNDAY "DESECRATION" AND CALAMITY.
By Editor
A RECENT Sunday convention in Pennsylvania has the following to say:—
In forty-two States of the Union we have good and wholesome laws pertaining to the sabbath [Sunday], under which said States have prospered in times past by the blessings of Almighty God.
A writer in the same paper from which the above is quoted (Christian Statesman, June 16), after speaking of the present troubles in our nation
from destructive fires, from wasting storms, from financial failures, from the stagnation of trade, the stoppage of industrial pursuits, and the consequent demoralization or frenzy of the great army of the unemployed,
declares that
calamities are thickening upon us because this is a nation that obeyeth not the Lord, nor receiveth correction. God has not been honored. His moral law has not been supreme in the land. His sabbath [Sunday] has not been sanctified.
Certainly the second item quoted above is true; but if these calamities have come upon us as a nation because we have disregarded Sunday, if these troubles are all judgments because of so-called Sunday "desecration," would they not naturally fall heaviest and be felt the most keenly in those States which have no Sunday law? Would this not be the logical conclusion?—It certainly would. But how has it been? Pennsylvania has one of the strongest of Sunday laws, which she has persistently refused to repeal or modify. But no State has suffered more from internal disorder in the way of strikes and bloodshed than has the "Old Keystone State." Illinois and Colorado and other States have also suffered greatly from labor and financial troubles, and the last named from floods. Washington and Oregon have also been heavy sufferers from floods and in a financial way. And all these States have Sunday laws.
Two States have no Sunday laws—California and Idaho—the former has been under the perpetual anathema of the Sunday-law popes,530and a grief of mind to those who have not the disposition to anathematize. She has in her State government persistently refused to enact or reënact a Sunday law, and the Sunday ministers still confess to a shame which ought to be the glory of every true citizen. But in spite of California's position in this respect, in spite of unfavorable land conditions, in spite of serious difficulties and hardships in transportation facilities of which her Northern sisters know nothing, California has had no labor troubles of any account, no serious floods, fires, or disasters, and she withstood the financial crash better than any State in the Union. And we believe that Idaho weathered the blast staunchly.
"But," says an objector, "California and Idaho are wicked;" yes, the States all are. "Sabbath breakers?"—Every State in the Union; the great majority of the people in every one of them are trampling the Sabbath of Jehovah underfoot. But that is a matter with which the government of the States has nothing to do; it is a matter between the soul and God. What we wish to point out is this: That while all are desecrating God's Sabbath, California and Idaho have refused to assume God's prerogative to enforce his commands, or what men call his commands. They have refused to set up a counterfeit and declare it sacred. They have, wicked as they are, believed that God could manage his own business, and that men could be just as moral and religious apart from human law. And if it be true that the calamities in the land are God's judgments for its wickedness, it behooves California to keep straight on, and have nothing whatever to do with Sunday or sabbath laws in any way, shape, or manner. This does not mean that she has license to do more wickedly in other directions. God grants no indulgences to sin.
CHARACTERISTIC OF SUNDAY ARGUMENT.
By Editor
WE take the following from the Occident (Presbyterian) of June 14:—
"If it is right to close a dry goods store by law, it is right to close the churches. Many so-called churches are doing far more harm each Sunday, from the standpoint of Bible Christianity, than are open dry goods stores. This will be admitted by Sunday-law people. Sunday laws are only evil.—Signs of the Times."
Our dear, verdant friend, editor of the above paper, would not take it kindly if we should question his Christianity simply because he desires the public worship of God to be held in all churches on Saturday. If it is a pleasure for our brother to observe the public worship of God with his friends and neighbors on Saturday, no one will complain. No one will scold him or call his church unchristian for worshiping God according to the dictates of their conscience. But we suggest that a little brotherly love be exercised on Sunday as well as on Saturday. We belong to a so-called church, but we are honest in our belief, and we know that many millions are honest in their belief, that Sunday is the Christian sabbath. The constant reiteration of old, whipped-out arguments for Christians to adopt the Jewish Sabbath will be of no avail. Our Lord rose from the dead on Sunday. That afternoon and evening he preached to the apostles at Emmaus and in Jerusalem. From that day until the present time the apostles and a large majority of Christians of all denominations have been content to observe the public worship of God and our Saviour on the first day of the week.
The above is noticed for two reasons: First, our contemporary, like the majority of Sunday and Sunday-law defenders, entirely misses the point in the note it quotes from a recent issue of the Signs; and, secondly, we wish to notice what our Presbyterian brother does say.
1. We do not desire all churches to worship on Saturday unless the churches so desire. If they were willing to submit to God in this respect, and observe his day, made holy by his own infinite, creative power, we should rejoice. But if it is the choice of one or all of these churches to hold public worship on Friday or Sunday, we have no desire to dictate otherwise. God gives them the privilege of their own choice. He will not compel, neither do we desire so to do.
2. We repeat that we are perfectly willing that our friends should worship publicly on Sunday if they so desire, but what we are not willing that they should do is to compel others to do as they do. There is this difference, and it seems to us that our contemporary ought to see it in his obtusest day and mood. The Sunday people observe the first day as the Sabbath, and work on the seventh day. The Sabbath people observe the seventh day, and work on the first day. Thus far we have no fault to find. Each class must give an account to God. But our Sunday friends (or most of them) are not willing to stop here. They not only demand the right to keep Sunday and work the seventh day, but they demand that those who observe the seventh day shall refrain from their work on Sunday. They are demanding that the State shall compel one class of citizens to pay homage to another class to the extent of one-sixth of their time or sixteen and two-thirds per cent of their income.
Now the Occident would not think it to be righteousness or justice for the Seventh-day Adventist, were he in a large majority, to compel the Presbyterian to refrain from work on the seventh day, after that Presbyterian had kept the first day. And the Occident would think truly. If the seventh-day observers numbered one million and the first-day observers numbered one, the million would have no right to compel the one to refrain from any work on the seventh day which he could legitimately do on any other day. And the principle is just as true with the number reversed. In fact, numbers have nothing to do with it. It is a matter of right, not of numbers.
3. We did not include among "so-called churches" the Presbyterian Church, nor, in fact, any of the so-called Protestant or evangelical churches, because they stand on the side of those who are demanding the closing of all places of business on Sunday. But here are all the Roman Catholic pulpits of our land, whose influence is against public schools, against true Protestantism, against religious liberty; here are the Unitarian Churches, whose influence is against the gospel of Jesus Christ; there are other communities better or worse, the influence of whose teachings on Sunday is against Bible Christianity,—and all to a much greater extent than an open dry goods store could be. And, therefore, if the store be closed on account of its baleful and immoral influence, consistency demands that the churches of worse influence also be closed. Our Occident editor would doubtless rather have his son meet the dark, insidious, immoral influence of an honest dry goods store open on Sunday, than to sit under the preaching of Unitarians, or Roman Catholics, or attend Spiritualistic seances. And the final logical sequence of Sunday laws is the establishment of one church and the closing of all others. The present indications in the government of this nation are that the Roman Catholic Church will be the one, and our Presbyterian and Baptist Churches, who hold to the principles of the presbytery of Hanover (Va.) in 1776, and of Roger Williams, will be closed. Those who submit to the dictum of the old "mother" may remain open.
4. With reference to the "old whipped-out arguments" for the seventh-day Sabbath of Jehovah, it is evident that there is too much of the corn of Scripture in them still to please our friends of the first-day sabbath. They once honestly thought that there were Biblical arguments and evidence sufficient to disprove the seventh-day Sabbath. They called it and still call it "the Jewish Sabbath," albeit Inspiration calls it "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" and "My holy day." Having exhausted all of the arguments invented by the theologians of the dimmer ages, and having proved the utter worthlessness of those invented in these days, they have grasped, and are endeavoring to wield with as much vigor as the State will put into it, Rome's favorite weapon, whenever expedient and possible,—the civil law, the secular word, prosecution and persecution. And, Mr. Editor of the Occident, your "dear verdant friend" asks you if this is not all true?
For the next to the last sentence in the above quotation from the Occident we ask our readers and its readers to study Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20 and 21. These chapters will show the character of the "Sabbath-keeping" of that first "first day." For the last sentence read the history of the church since the days of Christ, in the light of God's word.
In conclusion we ask for all our first-day friends and for all our no-day friends just what we ask for ourselves, namely, that the matter of working and resting, of spending the Sunday or the Sabbath in sport, or work, or worship, be left between the soul and God. No man nor set of men has any right to compel or seek to compel the observance, or the seeming observance, or homage of any religious institution whatever; and that man or set of men who does, is assuming the authority which belongs to God alone. Nay, but he is going farther than our Lord has presumed to go. He says, "If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not." The language of the servant of Christ is, "We persuade men."
Endure and Dare
ENDURE and dare, true heart; through patience, joined with boldness, come we at a crown encircled with a thousand blessings.—Spanish Proverb.
DUTY OF THE RICH MAN TO HIS NEIGHBOR.
By Ellen G. White
BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.
THE following clipping will show the way in which some of those who have great possessions recklessly squander means for the gratification of pride and ambition, and forget that they must also give an account to God for the intrusted talents he has given them:—
One of the most significant economic events in some time was the Astor-Willing wedding in Philadelphia last week. To use one of Dr. Holmes' expressions, the impression which its descriptions left upon the mind was not that it was brilliant with gold, but heavy with bullion. Here are a few sentences from the account of it in one of our New York papers: "The Willing mansion was changed to a palace of roses. . . . No bride or bridesmaids ever wore more expensive dresses. . . . The day's ceremonies may be estimated to have cost between $25,000 and $30,000. . . . Probably never before have bridal gifts been so numerous and costly. . . . The tiara of diamonds which was the groom's gift to the bride is probably unsurpassed by any in America. . . . The elder Mr. Astor's gift to his daughter-in-law was a double bowknot of diamonds, from which is hanging a huge brilliant, and a diamond necklace and crescent of diamonds and sapphires four inches long. The present of the groom's mother was five diamond stars, each as large as a silver half dollar, inclosed in a massive box of solid silver, and eight silver dishes, each about three feet long, modeled after her own service. . . ."
"The wedding presents represented $2,000,000. So much then for the day. Now as to the young people's start in life! Preceding their trip to Europe, Mr. Astor and his bride will spend about three weeks cruising in Mr. William Astor's yacht Nourmahal, in Florida waters. Despite the fact that her furnishings were scarcely worn and almost new, the boat was refurnished out and out with the most costly and magnificent furniture that money could secure. The complement of officers is fifty-two men, not including servants and personal attendants. It takes from $8,000 to $10,000 per month to keep her in service, besides the cost of food and wines."
Twenty-five thousand dollars for the day's ceremony, two million dollars worth of presents, a cruise in a half-idle yacht costing ten thousand dollars per month to maintain. When we read this we are reminded of Thackeray's description of the extravagance of the prince regent during the Napoleonic wars. If he had been a manufacturing town, or populous rural district, or an army of five thousand men, he would not have cost more. The nation gave him more money, and more and more. The sum is past counting.
Looked at soberly, the sums lavished upon our American commoners are as disgraceful to our institutions as were the squanderings of the prince regent to those of England. If the scandal is less, it is because the disastrous concentration of hereditary wealth has as yet awakened less serious thought among us than the disastrous concentration of hereditary power had awakened in England. In the case of the Astors, quite as much as of the prince regent, the enormous sums expended are the gift of the nation, obtained without compensating services on the part of the recipients. The burden upon the labor of the country is as great, the benefit of the comfort or culture, or character of the recipients is as small.
The Lord Jehovah is the Benefactor of the universe. He is of tender compassion, full of goodness, and his love is toward suffering humanity. The Psalmist says: "The eyes of all wait upon Thee; and Thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou openest thine hand, and satisfiest the desire of every living thing." The only-begotten Son of God, who was the exalted Commander of heaven, who received the adoration of the angels, though he was rich, yet for our sakes he left the royal throne, departed from the heavenly courts, laid aside his royal robes, and for our sakes became poor, that we through his poverty might be rich. He announced his mission in Nazareth, saying: "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." Did Christ make a mistake in not seeking for worldly popularity, in not making a great display?
In the clipping presented in this article the question of why there is so much suffering in the world is in a great part answered. Why is there so much hunger, nakedness, ignorance, and degradation?—It is because the word of God is disregarded, the law of God is transgressed. The Lord Jesus, who knew the value of man, gave his life to redeem him from the slavery of sin and Satan. He has lifted his voice in warning to the sons of men. He says: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal; for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Men are not careful to be the doers of the words of Christ; and this is why so much sin, misery, and want prevail in the world. He says again: "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body more than raiment?
Behold the fowls of the air; for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; and yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?"
"And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And he said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right; this do, and thou shalt live. But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor? And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. And by chance there came down a certain priest that way; and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And on the morrow when he departed, he took out twopence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbor unto him that fell among thieves? And he said, He that showed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise."
Jesus marked out in a plain way the line of conduct that we all should pursue. We are to love God supremely, and our neighbors as ourselves. The question asked by the lawyer is of importance to each one of us, and the answer is plain and decided, so that no man need walk in darkness, because he has the light. The whole duty of man is comprised in keeping the first four and the last six commandments. The Spirit that prompts men to reveal in life the love of God will also make a man an obedient member of the heavenly family. If men love worldly things, name, position, wealth, or any object that leads them to forget God, they love that which makes them idolaters. Nothing should be permitted to so hold the affections that God is thrust out of the mind. The second commandment will be easily disobeyed if the first is not kept. Supreme love of God will sanctify the affections, and the fruit of love to God will be love to mankind. Those who have been tested and proved on this matter of loving others as themselves, will be pronounced meet for an inheritance with the saints in light. They will not become exalted, as did Lucifer in the courts of light. They will not create rebellion in heaven, because another has a brighter crown than they have. Heaven will be the home of the pure and undefiled, and those who reach that home of joy will feel rich, receiving a reward that they do not in the least feel that they deserve.
OUR FREEDOM.
By C. M. Snow
BY C. M. SNOW.
Long years ago, when this fair land was young,
Her birth-notes of freedom we tremblingly sung;
But she grew with the years as they hastened along,
And the wide world applauded her fetterless song.
The dove-brood of peace fluttered forth from their nest
In the rusty old cannon's now passionless breast;
And the sycamore tree closed her rough, ragged wound,
That the death-scars of war might no longer be found.
The peace of the nation, the freedom of men,
Was the rare golden fleece they were seeking for then.
But alas the sad day when in pastures of peace
They poison the shepherd who bought their release!
What means this harsh clanking that startles my pen?
'Tis the shackling of souls in the mandates of men.
'Tis the padlock and bolt on the door of the mind,
While the word and the thought writhe in irons behind.
But let the tomb close o'er our vision of right;
Let the night guards be doubled, the stone be rolled tight.
As wide as the birth-notes of Freedom were sung
Let the funeral bells of her burial be rung.
We know there is dawning that long-looked-for day
When the night guards will tremble, the stone roll away.
Then the King in his glory transcendent appears;
Ah, this is the freedom that pays for the tears!
Keep Home Near Heaven
By James Hamilton
KEEP the home near heaven. Let it face toward the Father's house.—James Hamilton.
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH OF THE NICENE ERA.
By Elder I. E. Kimball
[This is article 9 of the series on the apostasy of the early church. Each is independent, but all are connected.]
A PECULIAR interest attaches to the church of the fourth century. Some who see along the lines of Catholicity have thought they beheld at this period a preëminently holy church. No grosser conception can be imagined.
There was a remarkable cluster of notable divines at this time, who compounded church principles, and formulated the discipline which should prove an earthly anchor to the church in all after time. Nicene church principles manacle the Catholic Church of to-day, and the leaders of that day have since then been regarded as sovereign interpreters of the word, so that now all interpretations of Scripture must be rendered according to the patriotic construction. Here, then, according to the Catholic notion, the eternal, life-giving Fountain flowed freely for the world; and, sorry I am to say, this delusion has been received by many Protestants.
The principal lights of the Nicene era were Athanasius, Cyril, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Ephraëm, Syrus, Chrysostom, Hilary, bishop of Poitiers in Gaul, Ambrose, archbishop of Milan, Jerome, the great scholar, Rufinus, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, and Cassianus. The historians were Eusebius, Theodoret, Socrates, and Sozomen.
Monkery is the distinguishing feature of this time, to which we must direct attention. All the luminaries above named gave it their hearty suffrage, and spoke of it in terms of unmixed praise. No one who is acquainted with the facts will deny this. The monks became the depositaries of religion for the church, and their conception of God and righteousness has been given through the Catholic Church to the world ever since. The church of that period is bound in the sheaf with monkery. So universal was the conception that religion and righteousness were the exclusive inheritance of the monks, that, "to become converted," or "to become religious," meant merely to turn monk. They were the religiosae.
The words "monk," "solitary," "hermit," "a dweller in the desert," or "anchorite," are interchangeably used to signify persons who, disengaging themselves from family relations and the world, retired to the wilderness or desert, to lone tombs and sepulchral caverns, there to sing and fast and pray.
The great divines, as Augustine, Athanasius, Jerome, Chrysostom, Basil, and the Gregories, extolled monasticism as the "divine philosophy," the "angelic virtue." And Augustine said of the monks, "To those who, like the solitaries, have reached the highest possible stage of Christian perfection, and in whom faith, hope, and charity are complete, the Scriptures are not necessary, except for the purpose of instructing others."—De doctrina Christiana, lib. 1, c. 36.
So here we have Augustine, the greatest divine of the age, pointing to the monk as the pattern of "Christian perfection," to whom the Scriptures were no longer necessary.
We will study the portrait of divine excellence with care. Many of the most noted eremites commenced their ascetic discipline about the time of the martyrdom of Cyprian, A.D. 258. At the beginning of the fourth century it became the rage. Anthony, the Egyptian, who died about A.D. 356, is the first notable example handed down to us. He was an ascetic for nearly seventy years. Pachomius originated the system under which monasteries have since been built. Prodigious multitudes soon took the monastic vows. Thousands upon thousands found for themselves a lodgment in the wilderness. Armies were drafted from thence. Palladius speaks in several places of two, three, five, and seventeen thousand monks under the superintendence of some celebrated anchorite, or abbot.
Ten thousand nuns are mentioned as belonging to one religious establishment. Its effect was to drain off from the social body almost all religious feeling. The masses who were left, although the accredited recipients of the sacrament, were wholly unrestrained by religious feeling.
The religion of the Nicene era (if, indeed, we may so speak of it) was exclusively with the monks. Gallant cavaliers would feign be as prodigal as possible, lest they seem to be "religious," that is, inclined toward monkery. And, although Augustine, Ambrose, Basil, were not monks, they were third or fourth-rate Christians, according to the opinions of those times.
Monks and nuns took vows of celibacy and virginity, abstinence, poverty, and obedience, withdrew from the world, and spent their time in continued fasting, from two to twenty days together, doling out prayers by the hundred, eating raw herbs, gashing themselves, and searing their bodies with hot irons, loading themselves with iron fetters, etc. But it is time for us to inquire from whence this conception of duty and righteousness arises. Did Christ enjoin this? Whence, then, can it come? Ah, to one acquainted with Gentile practices all is plain!
The old Egyptian religion had its monks; so had the Greeks. The Buddhistic religion has a priesthood, consisting wholly of monks, or cenobites. We have the idea of the monk set forth in the Brahman "Laws of Manu":—
In hot weather sit between four fires with sun above; in rain, uncovered; in cold weather, wet clothes. Sleep on the bare ground. Having shuffled off the body by these modes, which great sages have practiced, and, becoming void of sorrow or fear, he rises into the divine essence.
The Vedanta of the Brahmans teaches that there is only one being in the universe—God—all else illusion (so think modern Christian Scientists, so thought the Nicene monks), and that the true end of life is to escape from the illusion, and be absorbed into Brahma, the created and creator. Sankhara, a Vedanta philosopher, said: "I am Brahm; I am eternal, pure, free, one consistent. Whosoever annihilates all his desires, and ceases from himself, then becomes one with the universal spirit." So the Catholic monks of the fourth century went into it with all requisite assiduity.
To annihilate every desire or emotion of the flesh was their sole aim. Lecky says, "The idea of a saint was a half-starved, dirty madman, who spent his life in useless self-torture."
Athanasius relates with hearty approval that St. Anthony, who ate but once in five days, and then in an impoverished way, was never guilty of washing his feet. And St. Abraham for fifty years washed neither face nor feet. They made a business of fasting the year through, eating once in two, five, or seven days, as they were able to endure.
Cyprian, sometime before the year A.D. 250, had advocated celibacy and virginity as the "angel virtue." Augustine and all the doctors urged on the pestiferous delusion, until it was thought no one could be pure without taking the vows upon them. "Constantine almost adored" the company of perpetual virgins, and changed the ancient Roman law which degraded the men who after twenty-five remained unmarried. He accounted it folly for man to go about so to increase his kind, and ordained that those who lived in chastity and virginity should be privileged above the common people.—Sozomen, Hist. Eccl., lib. 1, c. 9.
The early Council of Alcyra forbade deacons to marry without their bishop's consent. The Neo-Cæsarean Council absolutely prohibited the marriage of presbyters. The thirty-third canon of the Council at Elvira ordered all clergy, if already married, to abstain from their wives. The prohibition extended to monks and nuns. So the Council of Chalcedon decreed that "no monk or nun should marry," that is, forsake their profession.