Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 10.

The Sermon

Review and Herald

Aug 25, 1868

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 25, 1868

The Sermon.

By W. H. Littlejohn

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.
PREACH THE WORD. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

THE SEVENTH-PART-OF-TIME THEORY.

BY W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
In the interpretation of Scripture, we are generally safe in rejecting as unsound, any theory which would represent it as inculcating doctrines which are impracticable. The reason for this may be found in the fact that there must, from the very necessity of the case, be a harmony between the physical and moral laws which govern the universe. For as God is the author of both, he would be justly chargeable with tyranny, should he point out in one a line of duty, and enforce it by penalties, and, in the other, render it impossible for us to comply with its requirements. If, therefore, we entertain a view of the import of any portion of God's law which seems to make it conflict either with the highest interests of society, when properly organized, or with any of the other provisions of the same code, we shall do well to give it a most critical examination, with a view to ascertaining whether it may not be false.
It is well known that, among those who keep Sunday, there is a large class who assign as a reason for so doing, that it is their belief that all that the fourth commandment requires is that they keep holy one seventh part of time.
It is our purpose in the present discussion of this subject, to examine this proposition, in as brief a manner as possible, in the light of the principle enunciated above. In doing so it will first become necessary that we demonstrate the impracticability of this view.
Our labor in this direction will not be long. For, by placing these men upon the stand, we shall obtain the proof desired, not from what they say merely, but also from what they do. To illustrate: These persons, while claiming that by the true construction of the statute in question, they have a perfect right to select any day of the week as the one they are to keep holy, are, nevertheless, uniform in the observance of the first.
The query naturally arises, why is there no greater diversity in this matter? Of what value is a privilege which can never be enjoyed? Are there no individual interests which sometimes conflict with this Sunday observance? Would it not sometimes be profitable as well as agreeable to substitute some other day? Then why is this never done? It can only be accounted for on one of two hypotheses: Either these men lack the moral courage to carry out their own convictions, and are bowing and cringing to those of others, or they are, in this thing, actuated by principle. As the former supposition would involve the infamy of a whole class, we much prefer the latter. And while we are compelled to believe that some have adopted this view merely as a subterfuge, we incline to the opinion that many entertain it honestly. To these last then, we look for an explanation of their course. As far as we have observed, they, almost without an exception, reason on this wise: We (say they), seeing that great evils would result from a multiplicity of Sabbath days, have yielded up our individual opinions for the common good, and consented to conform to the usages of the community whereby Sunday has been set apart for this purpose. Now, while we are ready to admit that this is the language of wisdom, so far as it relates to the evils which would flow from the observance of a multiplicity of Sabbaths, we would impress its truthfulness upon the mind of the reader, and then draw what we consider the legitimate consequence therefrom. Let us examine it therefore, in the light of facts. In order that we may do this to the best advantage, we will, in imagination, organize a State upon the principle in question; i. e., that every citizen shall have the right to follow his own inclination in the choice of a day of rest. As a consequence of the above privilege, every day of the seven would be observed by one or more persons. Now, as in the present order of things, courts of justice are necessary to the enforcement of law, they will be indispensable in our commonwealth. Having instituted them, therefore they immediately enter upon their work.
The judge in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative, has set apart Sunday as his rest day. The bar, and officers of the court, numbering in all fifteen or twenty, have, in the enjoyment of an equally undisputed right, for one reason or another, so far differed from him and from each other, that every day of the week has been appropriated by some one of them to religious services.
With this state of things, on Monday morning the judge expresses a desire that the sheriff proclaim the opening of the court, but is informed that this is the rest-day of that official, and consequently his services cannot be had. Another officer is summoned and this difficulty is surmounted. The calendar is then taken up in order. To the mortification of all present, it is found that there is hardly a case in the long list in which some one of the parties or attorneys is not absent for the same reason as was the sheriff. At length an isolated cause is found, which is, to all appearance, ready for trial. Unfortunately, some of the witnesses whose services cannot be dispensed with, are second-day keepers. The trial is therefore necessarily postponed, and the court adjourns until the following morning. The calendar is again taken up. This time the results are a little more favorable. One case seems to be fully ready for adjudication. Night comes on before it is finally disposed of, and the next morning it is to be resumed. But some of the witnesses and clients who were ready to try it on the second and third days, cannot conscientiously do so on the fourth. And besides, a portion of the jurors who had been previously empaneled, are now at home, the fourth day being to them, also, holy time. The fifth, sixth, and seventh days, are passed with like results. Either parties, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, or the court, have, in the exercise of a legally-recognized right to determine for themselves the particular day which they are to regard as sacred to the Lord, effectually blocked up the wheels of justice. The whole judicial system is rendered inoperative, and powerless to punish crime or enforce the rights of the citizen. As an inevitable consequence, anarchy and ruin follow in quick succession.
How would the effect of the policy under consideration differ materially from the above, when applied to the other departments of social life. Take for example the commercial world. Who does not see at a glance that the system of exchange now carried on with so much profit between individuals and communities, would be seriously obstructed, if not wholly interrupted, by the system in question. The commonest transactions of every-day life frequently involve the action of several individuals. Take for instance the transfer of a piece of real estate; this seldom occurs without the co-operation of seven or eight persons, and, very frequently requires the services of two or three times that number. As matters are now, it is no small undertaking to bring about the harmonious and timely action of all the parties; but how much would the difficulty be enhanced by a variable Sabbath.
If, however, you would comprehend in its fullest extent the inconveniences which would spring from the practical operation of the view mentioned, you must not confine yourself to a single branch of business.Take a great metropolis with its converging railways, its acres of shipping, its prodigious wholesale and retail establishments, its banks, its offices, its markets, and its vast throng of human beings congregated from all parts of the country for the purposes of trade; now let any considerable number, say one-seventh, of the resident actors in this great financial drama, withdraw each day from active life, and what is the result? The cars are standing idle in the depots on account of the absence either of conductors, engineers, brakemen, or employees in some station, whose services cannot be dispensed with; hundreds of vessels are lying at the wharves unemployed, because one or more of the warehouses at which they wish to take on or discharge freight is closed; thousands of individuals from a distance are impatiently waiting at a great expense, the opening of the establishments with which either interest or necessity requires that they should deal; and every person from the merchant-prince whose yearly transactions can only be estimated by millions of dollars, to the humblest carrier on the street, finds himself annoyed and hindered at every turn by a state of things diametrically opposed to every principle of public policy.
Finally, without pausing to show that a want of uniformity in this thing would paralyze our whole educational system, or that with it, stated worship could not be maintained, let us descend from the public, to the private walks of life; from man in his political, to man in his domestic, relations. Before doing so, we shall be allowed to remind you that the proposition under examination is broad and unqualified; that by it is claimed the right of every person to choose for himself or herself the day of the seven which shall be set apart to the Lord.
Since it is not to be presumed that Jehovah was so unwise as to introduce with his law, provisions which would necessarily defeat its general purpose and plan, if we find that by a fair construction of its terms any one would be debarred from the enjoyment of this privilege, we must conclude that it was not the original design that they should have it, and that, as a consequence, those who claim that it was, are in error.
We come now to regard the Sabbath institution from the stand-point of the family. And as the commandment enforcing the Sabbath is addressed largely to householders, it is possible that its true import may be better learned here than elsewhere. That we may arrive at its real meaning, we will suppose that one of those with whom we take issue is a husband, a father, and a man who has in his employ a large number of persons, male and female; also that his children have matured into manhood and womanhood, or at least have attained an age when they are supposed to be competent to judge for themselves in affairs of this kind. As he would not willingly abridge their liberty to consult their own preference, since he is convinced that this is the purpose of the Lord, he is anxious to afford them an opportunity of acting according to his idea of the true interpretation of the commandment. Right here he discovers a serious difficulty. His eye rests on these words containing the Sabbath law: “In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter.” The language is unequivocal, and the conclusion unavoidable. The same day in which he is to rest, his children under his roof and control are to do likewise. So far therefore as the exercise of volition on their part is concerned, it is out the question, unless they choose to separate from their father's family, and start in life for themselves. A meager privilege indeed!
He turns now to consider the case of his hired help. Inasmuch as they are so far from sustaining to him the relationship of children, that they are not even of the same lineage, in them will undoubtedly be recognized the right of independent action. However, lest he should mistake in the second, as in the first instance, he concludes to examine the law once more. Beginning at the same point as formerly, he reads: “In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” and even the stranger that has chanced to lodge within his gate, are all placed in the same category, and upon him is imposed the solemn obligation of seeing to it, that while they remain upon his premises, they respect the Sabbath of the Lord his God on the same day on which he does. The cattle also which are in his field are to enter into this rest, and it would be unlawful for him even to let them to another. Now, as the right to command, implies the duty to obey, the persons above enumerated find themselves compelled to carry out the wishes of their respective father, employer and host. As a result, individual choice is out of the question, and conformity to the usage of the acknowledged head becomes the inflexible rule of the whole household without an exception. And the only alternative left to those who still insist upon selecting a day different from the one observed by the body, would be that of keeping two Sabbaths in the week. But who does not see that this would be wholly impracticable, both on account of the time it would consume, and the discord which would follow therefrom.
If you would feel the full force of the argument presented above, it will be necessary that you turn from the occident to the orient, from the present time to a remote period when pastoral life was more generally followed, and when families reached proportions seldom witnessed among us.
Take as a familiar illustration, that of Abraham, in which, according to the record found in Genesis xiv, 14, there were three hundred and eighteen trained servants born in the house. Since these were unquestionably all males, add to them their wives and children, and you have a community large enough to form a modern village, and every member of it subject to the rule alluded to above.
Without wearying the intelligent reader by prosecuting the line of argument further, which has been pursued to this point, we leave you to elaborate it at will, believing that enough has been said to establish two propositions; viz., First, A variable Sabbath would be disastrous to the State, both because of the confusion it would introduce into the business world, and because with it the administration of justice would be out of the question. Second, That it could not be carried out in the family without producing the worst results, and requiring, on the part of the head thereof an utter disregard of responsibilities imposed upon him by language as plain as could well be employed.
But if we are right in both or either of these positions, the controversy is at an end. For you will remember that the law in question is not the product of human wisdom, but emanated from the infinite God, was written with his own finger, and has been repeatedly pronounced by him perfect. See Ps. xix, 7; Rom. vii, 12.
But what is a perfect law? The answer is obvious. First, it is one which is exactly calculated to meet the necessities of those for whom it was made. Secondly, its phraseology must be such that it will harmonize perfectly with its general purpose and plan when rightly understood. But neither of these is true of the fourth commandment as interpreted by our opponents. For it is evident, both from the facts in the case, and from the admissions of those holding an opinion different from ourselves, that the Sabbath, in order to prove a blessing and not a curse, should be observed by all alike on a stated day.
It is equally clear that if it was the original design of Jehovah to recognize in each the right of separate action, he has unwittingly defeated the object which he had in view by requiring at the hands of one class that which would prevent another, much more numerous one, from enjoying the benefits which he designed to confer. One of two things is therefore manifestly true. Either these men are in fault respecting the construction which should be placed upon the statute, or else we are all wrong as respects its authorship. Reader, which horn of this dilemma will you take? Are the Scriptures true? Then make them consistent. Did Jehovah utter the ten precepts of the Decalogue? Then accept them in their obvious import, and spurn as unworthy of a moment's consideration, any view of their teachings which would impute to the Deity a folly, either in their conception or expression, hardly paralleled in the history of human legislation. Believe that he said what he meant, and meant what he said, in the use of the definite expression, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and the Bible, rescued from the charge of contradiction, will unite with reason in enforcing an institution which vindicates its claims to heavenly birth, both from the plain declarations of the written word, and the fact of its wonderful adaptation to the wants of a fallen race.
Do you say that inasmuch as the masses can never be induced to fall in with the change desired, any effort on the part of an insignificant number to do so will only serve to produce the very confusion which has been so much deprecated in this article? We reply, For this neither the Lord, nor you individually, can be held responsible. For if men, in their folly and madness, have presumed to set at naught the explicit declarations of Holy Writ, and substitute a secular day in the place of the one which it has pronounced holy, those, and those only, who have been participants in this sacrilegious act will be held responsible for the results of their temerity. It is true that by coming up on the common platform of Sunday keeping, unity of action might be preserved, but it would be at a cost which we can ill afford; for we shall find, perhaps too late, that the harmony which we have secured is not that sweet accord which exists where all are earnestly striving to do right, but that it is that other state of things of which it is said, “Though hand join in hand, the wicked shall not go unpunished.” No, there is no room for compromise in this matter; no half-way ground on which extremes can meet and unite. The creature must yield to the Creator, in this thing, or all moral government is out of the question, and the fiat of the Sovereign of the universe will cease to command respect from those who have learned that its claims should only be recognized when seconded by the majority, and agreeable to the usage of the age.
There is but one safe and honorable exit from the difficulties and dangers of the situation. This is found in the path of obedience. Do your neighbors and friends refuse to go with you? Then travel it alone. It may be that before you reach your journey's end, your heart will be cheered by the society of some of the very persons who, being honest in heart, though they misapprehended your motive in the outset, nevertheless, by your exemplary life, and by the strength of the arguments for the truth which you have adduced, have been persuaded that you have chosen the part of wisdom and have resolved to share it with you. In the meantime, if any, while you are pursuing the even tenor of a consistent and God-fearing life, should attempt to hold you accountable for the disorder which would necessarily spring from the singularity of your faith, you will be permitted to reply in the burning words and with the holy boldness of one anciently under like circumstances: “I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord.” 1 Kings xviii, 18.

WHY ART THOU CAST DOWN?

By REBEKAH SMITH

Why this dark depth of grief and gloom, this anguish and despair? The unpardonable sin you mourn, is not yet yours to bear. Why thus disquieted, cast down? Hope thou in God; he'll give The very blessing you most need; look up to him and live.
This crushing weight of heartfelt grief, this flow of sorrow's tide, Will ere long bring the sad report, Of broken heart he died. God knows what has befallen you, knows why the sore event; Wait until he shall show you why this bitter cup was sent.
Be at your post, where'er it be; the claims of life fulfill. Be no one act, or motive wrong; heed Heaven's own bidding still. Then let the hail sweep o'er your path, let storms in fury rise; God will in safety bring you through to mansions in the skies.
He's at the helm, he'll guide the ship through every dangerous strait, And make you welcome when within the holy city's gate. No bitter scenes of heartfelt grief, though now with anguish riven, Will meet you in that world of bliss, the holy calm of Heaven.
REBEKAH SMITH.
West Wilton, N. H., July, 1868.

TOO LATE TO SUFFER THEN.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

One thought has been impressed upon my mind of late, viz.: That after this life is closed and the saints are saved in Heaven, they can never suffer any further for the Lord. Now we are called to show our love for Jesus by suffering for him. But we often shrink from the cross and wish to avoid suffering for the Lord's sake. But after we are saved, we can never be mocked for Christ's sake, we can never be abused for his name, we can bear the cross no more, we can shed no more tears of grief for Jesus' cause, we can win no souls to God, no more can we show our love for God and his cause by sacrificing our means, our time, our good names, our ease, or our lives. Now the sacrifice must be made, or never. Who wants to share the kingdom with Jesus without suffering with him? Then let us remember that now is the only time we can ever have to show our love to the Lord by suffering for him. Idle, ease-loving Christian, think of this, and improve the present opportunity.
D. M. CANRIGHT.

FREEMASONRY.—VIII.

By O. G. FINNEY

Freemasonry a Fatal Delusion.

The third question proposed for discussion in my last number is, Are the claims of Masonry to being a true and saving institution valid? To this I answer, No. This will appear if we consider, first, that the morality which it inculcates is not the morality of the law and the gospel of God. The law and the gospel, as I have shown in a former number, lay down the same rule of life. And Christ, in commenting upon the true meaning and spirit of the law, says, “If ye love them that love you, what thank have ye? Do not even the publicans the same?” He requires us to love our enemies, and to pray for them, as truly as for our friends. In short, he requires universal benevolence; whereas Freemasonry requires no such thing. Its oaths, which are its laws, simply require its members to be just to each other. I say just, for their boasted benevolence is simply the payment of a debt.
They do, indeed, promise to assist each other in distress, and to help each other’s families, provided they fall into poverty. But on what condition do they promise this? Why, that a certain amount is to be paid into their treasury as a fund for this purpose. But this, surely, is not benevolence; but the simple payment of a debt, on the principle of mutual insurance.
This I have abundantly shown in a former number. Again, the motives presented in Freemasonry to secure the course of action to which they are pledged are by no means consistent with the law or the gospel of God. In religion, and in true morality, everything depends on the motive or reason for the performance of an action. God accepts nothing that does not proceed from supreme love to him, and equal love to our fellow-men. Not merely to our brother Masons; but to our neighbor—that is, to all mankind. Whatever does not proceed from love and faith is sin, according to the teachings of the Bible. And by love, I say again, is meant the supreme love of God and the equal love of our neighbor.
But Masonry teaches no such morality as this. The motive urged by Masons is, to honor Masonry, to honor the institution, to honor each other. While they are pledged to assist each other in distress; to keep each other’s secrets, even if they be crimes; and to aid each other, whether right or wrong, so far as to extricate them from any difficulty in which they are involved; yet they never present the pure motives of the gospel. They are pledged not to violate the chastity of a brother Mason’s wife, sister, daughter, or mother; but they are not pledged by Masonry, as the law and gospel of God require, to abstain from such conduct with any female whatever. But nothing short of universal benevolence, and universal morality, is acceptable to God.
But, again: It has been shown in a former number that Masonry claims to be a saving institution; that this is claimed for it by the highest Masonic authorities; and that this claim is one set up by itself as well. But an examination of Freemasonry shows that it promises salvation upon entirely other conditions than those revealed in the gospel of Christ. The gospel nowhere inculcates the idea that any one can be saved by obedience to the law of God. “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified,” is the uniform teaching of the Bible. Much less can any one be saved by conformity to Masonic law, which requires only a partial, and therefore a spurious, morality. The Bible teaches that all unconverted persons are in a state of sin, of total moral depravity, and consequent condemnation by the law of God; and that the conditions of salvation are repentance and a total renunciation of all sin, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and sanctification by the Holy Spirit. Now these are by no means the conditions upon which Freemasonry proposes to save its members. The teachings of Freemasonry upon this subject are summarily this: Obey Masonic law, and live; disobey Masonic law, and die.
Now, surely, whatever promises Heaven to men upon other conditions than those proposed in the gospel of Christ is a fatal delusion. And this Freemasons cannot deny, for they profess to accept the Bible as true. Freemasonry lays no stress at all upon conversion to Christ by the Holy Spirit. It presents no means or motives to secure that result. The idea of being turned from sin to holiness, from a self-pleasing spirit to the supreme love of God, by the preaching of the gospel, accompanied by the Holy Spirit, is not taught in Freemasonry.
It nowhere recognizes men as being justified by faith in Christ, as being sanctified by faith in Christ, and as being saved as the gospel recognizes men as being saved.
Indeed, it is salvation by Masonry, and not salvation by the gospel, that Masonry insists upon. It is another gospel, or presents entirely another method of salvation than that presented in the gospel. How can it be pretended by those who admit that the gospel is true, that men can be saved by Freemasonry at all? If Freemasons are good men, it is not Freemasonry that has made them so; but the gospel has made them so, in spite of Freemasonry. If they are anything more than self-righteous, it is because of the teachings of the gospel; for certainly Freemasonry teaches a very different way of salvation from that which the gospel reveals. But, again, the prayers recorded in Freemasonry, and used by them in their lodges, are not Christian prayers; that is, they are not prayers offered in the name of Christ.
But the gospel teaches us that it is fundamental to acceptable prayer that it be offered in the name of Christ. Again, as we shall see in another number, the teachings of Freemasonry are scandalously false; and their ceremonies are a mockery, and truly shocking to Christian feelings.
Again, Freemasonry is a system of gross hypocrisy. It professes to be a saving institution, and promises salvation to those who keep its oaths, and conform to its ancient usages. It also professes to be entirely consistent with the Christian religion. And this it does while it embraces, as good and acceptable Masons, hundreds and thousands who abhor Christianity, and scoff at the Bible and everything that the Bible regards as sacred. In a Christian nation it professes to receive Christianity as a true religion; in Mohammedan countries it receives the Koran as teaching true religion; in heathen countries it receives their sacred books as of as much authority as that which is claimed in Christian countries for the Bible. In short, Freemasonry in a pagan country is pagan, in a Mohammedan country it is Mohammedan, and in a Christian country it professes to be Christian; but in this profession it is not only grossly inconsistent, but intensely hypocritical.
Notwithstanding all the boasts that are made in its lower degrees of its being a true religion, if you will examine the matter through to the end you will find that, as you ascend in the scale of degrees, the mask is gradually thrown off, until we come to the “Philosophical Lodge,” in the degree of the “Knights Adepts of the Eagle or Sun;” in which, as will be seen, no concealment is longer attempted. I will make a short quotation from this degree, as any one may find it in “Light on Masonry.”
“Requisitions to make a good Mason.—If you ask me what are the requisite qualities that a Mason must be possessed of to come to the center of truth, I answer you that you must crush the head of the serpent ignorance. You must shake off the yoke of the infant prejudice concerning the mysteries of the reigning religion, which worship has been imaginary and only founded on the spirit of pride, which envies to command and be distinguished, and to be at the head of the vulgar in affecting an exterior purity, which characterizes a false piety joined to a desire of acquiring that which is not its own, and is always the subject of this exterior pride, and unalterable source of many disorders; which, being joined to gluttonness, is the daughter of hypocrisy, and employs every matter to satisfy carnal desires, and raises to these predominant passions altars upon which she maintains, without ceasing, the light of iniquity, and sacrifices continually offerings to luxury, voluptuousness, hatred, envy, and perjury.
“Behold, my dear brother, what you must fight against and destroy before you can come to the knowledge of the true good and sovereign happiness! Behold this monster which you must conquer—a serpent which we detest as an idol that is adored by the idiot and vulgar under the name of religion!”—See “Light on Masonry,” pp. 270, 271. Here, then, Masonry stands revealed, after all its previous pretensions to being a true religion, as the unalterable opponent of the reigning or Christian religion. That it claims to be a religion is indisputable; but that it is not the Christian religion is equally evident. Nay, it finally comes out flat-footed, and represents the reigning or Christian religion as a serpent which Masons detest, as an idol which is adored by the idiot and vulgar under the name of religion.
Now let professed Christians who are Freemasons examine this for themselves. Do not turn away from the examination of this subject.
And here, before I close this article, I beg to be understood that I have no quarrel with individual Masons. It is with the system that I have to deal. The great mass of the fraternity are utterly deceived, as I was myself. Very few, comparatively, of the fraternity are at all acquainted with what is really taught in the higher degrees as they ascend from one to the other. None of them know anything of these degrees any further than they have taken them, unless they have studied them in the books as they are revealed. I cannot believe that Christian men will remain connected with this institution, if they will only examine it for themselves, and look it through to the end. I know that young Masons, and those who have only taken the lower degrees, will be shocked at what I have just quoted from a higher degree. I was so myself when I first examined the higher degrees. But you will inquire how, and in what sense are we who have only taken the lower degrees responsible for the oaths and teachings of the higher degrees, which we have not taken. In a future number I shall briefly answer this question. Most Freemasons, and many who have been masters of lodges of the lower degrees, are really so ignorant of what Masonry as a whole is, that when they are told the simple truth respecting it, they really believe that you are telling them a lie. I am receiving letters from this class of Freemasons, accusing me of lying and misrepresentation, which accusations I charitably ascribe to ignorance. To such I say, Wait, gentlemen, until you are better informed upon the subject, and you will hold a different opinion.—O. G. FINNEY in N. Y. Independent.

POLYCARP'S DECISION.—

When he appeared before the proconsul, the latter said to him, “Swear, curse Christ, and I will set you free!” The old man answered—“Eighty and six years have I served him, and I have received only good at his hands! Can I, then, curse Him, my King, and my Saviour?” When the proconsul continued to press him, Polycarp said—“Well, then, if you desire to know who I am, I tell thee freely, I am a Christian! If you desire to know what Christianity is, appoint an hour and hear me.” The proconsul, who here showed that he did not act from any religious bigotry, and would gladly have saved the old man, if he could silence the people, said to Polycarp—“Only persuade the people.” He replied: “To you I feel myself bound to render an account, for our religion teaches us to treat the powers ordained by God with becoming reverence, as far as is consistent with our salvation. But as for those without, I consider them as undeserving of any defence from me. And justly too! for what would it have been but throwing pearls before swine, to attempt to speak of the Gospel to a wild, tumultuous, and fanatical mob?” After the governor had in vain threatened him with wild beasts and the funeral pile, he made the herald publicly announce in their circus, that Polycarp had confessed himself a Christian. These words contained the sentence of death against him. The people instantly cried out, “This is the teacher of Atheism, the father of the Christians, the enemy of our gods, who has taught so many not to pray to the gods, and not to sacrifice!” As soon as the proconsul had complied with the demand of the populace, that Polycarp should perish on the funeral pile, Jew and Gentile hastened with the utmost eagerness to collect wood from the market places and the baths. When they wished to fasten him with nails to the pile, the old man said, “Leave me thus, I pray, unfastened. He who has enabled me to abide the fire, will give me strength also to remain firm on the stake.” Before the fire was lighted he prayed thus: “O Lord! Almighty God! the Father of thy beloved Son, Jesus Christ; through whom we have received a knowledge of Thee! God of the angels and of the whole creation; of the whole human race, and of the saints who live before thy presence! I thank Thee that Thou hast thought me worthy, this day, and this hour, to share the cup of thy Christ among the number of thy witnesses.”—Neander.

The Palm Tree.

This tree is called in Hebrew tamar, from its straight, upright, branchless growth, for which it seems more remarkable than any other tree; it sometimes rises to the hight of a hundred feet.
The palm is one of the most beautiful trees of the vegetable kingdom. The stalks are generally full of rugged knots, which render it comparatively easy to climb to the top for the fruit, Song vii, 7, 8. These projections are the vestiges of the decayed leaves; for the trunk is not solid like other trees, but its center is filled with pith, round which is a tough bark, full of strong fibres when young, which, as the tree grows old, hardens and becomes ligneous. To this bark the leaves are closely joined, which in the center rise erect, but after they are advanced above the sheath that surrounds them, they expand very wide on every side the stem, and as the older leaves decay, the stalk advances in hight. With its ever verdant and graceful crown, continually aspiring towards heaven, it is an apt image of the soul's growing in grace, Ps. xcii, 12. The leaves, when the tree has grown to a size for bearing fruit, are six to eight feet long, are very broad when spread out, and are used for covering the tops of houses, and similar purposes.
The fruit, from which the palm is often called the date-tree, grows below the leaves in clusters sometimes weighing over fifteen pounds, and is of a sweet and agreeable taste. The diligent natives, says Mr. Gibbon, celebrate, either in verse or prose, the three hundred and sixty uses to which the trunk, the branches or long leaf-stalks, the leaves, fibers, and fruit, of the palm, are skillfully applied. A considerable part of the inhabitants of Egypt, of Arabia, and Persia, subsist almost entirely on its fruit. They boast also of its medicinal virtues. Their camels feed upon the date stone. From the leaves they make couches, baskets, bags, mats, and brushes; from the branches or stalks, cages for their poultry, and fences for their gardens; from the fibers of the trunk, thread, ropes, and rigging; from the sap is prepared a spirituous liquor; and the body of the tree furnishes fuel: it is even said that from one variety of the palm tree, the phoenix farinifera, meal has been extracted, which is found among the fibers of the trunk, and has been used for food.
Several parts of the Holy Land, no less than of Idumea, that lay contiguous to it, are described by the ancients to have abounded with date-trees. Judea, particularly, is typified in several coins of Vespasian by a disconsolate woman sitting under a palm-tree, with the inscription, JUDEA CAPTA. In Deut. xxxiv, 3, Jericho is called the “city of palm-trees;” and several of these trees are still found in that vicinity; but, in general, they are now rare in Palestine. Palm wreaths, and branches waved in the air or strown on the road, are associated, not only with the honors paid to ancient conquerors in the Grecian games and in war, but with the triumphant entry of the King of Zion into Jerusalem, John xii, 12, 13, and with his more glorious triumph with his people in Heaven, Rev. vii, 9.
Continue reading: Scripture Notes