Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 83, No. 15.

He Is Risen

Review and Herald

Apr 12, 1906

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · Apr 12, 1906

He Is Risen

The Women at the Sepulcher
The Women at the Sepulcher
“And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun. . . . And entering into the sepulcher, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.”

Our Publishing Work

The Lord gave the word: great was the company of those that published it. Psalm 68:11.
See last paragraph on this page for instructions where to order.
READ the April number of Life and Health, and see if it is not worth your while to put forth some effort to give others the benefit of its practical teachings.
PARENTS will find very instructive and helpful reading for their children in “My Garden Neighbors,” which contains some stories of birds and animals. Many practical lessons can be taught children from these stories. In fact, birds and animals can teach man in many ways, and it has been the purpose of the author of “My Garden Neighbors” to apply the lessons taught by these animals in a way that will be especially helpful to children. We recommend this book to all our readers. Price, $1 a copy, post-paid.
IN the True Education series published by the Healdsburg College Press is a little book entitled “Principles of True Science.” This is a compilation of the writings of Mrs. E. G. White, and, as its name indicates, deals with the principles rather than the facts of science. The topics are arranged alphabetically, and therefore very convenient for reference. A most excellent book for students to use in connection with their scientific studies. Pocket size, 332 pages, bound in flexible leather, round corners. Price, $1.
THE present year is the most favorable time to interest Bible students in the “Desire of Ages.” The International Sunday-school Lessons are now devoted to the study of the life of Christ, and a little booklet has been prepared which gives references from each lesson to the pages in “Desire of Ages” where the same subject is treated in that book. This booklet is furnished free to those who will use it in interesting Sunday-school workers in “Desire of Ages.” Almost any one can, with the help of this little book, show a Bible student the advantages of “Desire of Ages” in connection with these International Sunday-school Lessons. Order the booklet from the Review and Herald Publishing Association, of Washington, D. C., or Battle Creek, Mich.
THE first edition of Liberty as a quarterly magazine was exhausted by the time it was off the press, and the second edition of 10,000, which is now being run, is more than half ordered. On the first of April sufficient orders had been received to make a list of 1,640 single subscriptions, 3,303 in yearly clubs, and 6,550 copies of the one issue ordered by local agents. By the time this issue of the REVIEW is out, the orders for Liberty will no doubt call for the entire second edition. The people appreciate Liberty, and are giving it a hearty practical support. Subscription price of the magazine is only 25 cents a year. Five or more copies per annum, to different addresses, one order, 15 cents a copy; 10 or more copies per annum, to one address, one order, 15 cents a copy; 25 or more copies, of any one issue, one order, to one address, 2½ cents a copy, or $2.50 a hundred, post-paid.
How many workers were sent to the new mission fields opened by this denomination in 1905? The Year-book, page 154, tells. Have you a copy? Price, 25 cents.
“WHAT have you that throws the most light on the book of Daniel, especially the seventh and twelfth chapters?” Thus writes a gentleman from Kentucky. Maybe some of your neighbors are interested in the study of these same prophecies, or would be if their attention was called to their importance. You can get a verse-by-verse study of both Daniel and Revelation for only $1, or two volumes in paper covers for 50 cents.
THE International Publishing Company can supply Spanish tracts at ¼ cents each, on the following topics: Agony of Christ in the Garden, Coming of the Lord, Gift of God to Man, Commandment, Is the End Near? Price of Our Salvation, and The Temptation. At ½ cent each the following can be supplied: Christ Our Righteousness, and What Must I Do to Be Saved? Besides the above, there is a pamphlet published under the title of “Captain of Our Salvation,” for 15 cents, and a series of The Family Bible Teacher upon a number of important topics, at 10 cents a set.
EVERY person ought to have a “Vest Pocket Webster’s Dictionary.” It will be found to be a most convenient book for ready reference. It is so small in size that it can be carried in the vest pocket, yet it is sufficiently complete to answer many questions that daily come to the majority of people. This little dictionary contains over 45,000 words, besides definitions. It is conveniently indexed, and will be found especially helpful in many ways not possible to mention in a short notice. Bound in plain cloth, with red edges, 25 cents; leather binding, gold stamped, gilt edges, 50 cents.
THE great majority of the people are sick. Some are really physically affected, while a great many are simply mind-sick. To such “Ministry of Healing” would be a great blessing, for it reveals the fact that many die from disease, the cause of which is wholly imaginary. This book clearly reveals the purpose of the Creator in placing the mind in control of the body. It reveals the true relation between the mind and the body, and contains suggestions for those who are mentally sick that will greatly assist them in overcoming their imaginary difficulties, and will thereby be a great blessing to them. No better service can be rendered the general public than placing “Ministry of Healing” in the possession of the people. Price, $1.50 a copy in freight shipments, $1.65 when sent by mail.
Orders for any publication mentioned on this page may be sent to any conference tract society or to Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D. C., or Battle Creek, Mich.
Also Pacific Press Publishing Company, Mountain View, Cal.; Portland, Ore.; Kansas City, Mo.; Southern Publishing Association, Nashville, Tenn., and Fort Worth, Tex.

Editorial

By Editor

A SHIP without compass, rudder, or anchor is a good illustration of the man who has rejected the guiding and keeping power of God's Holy Spirit. Both in storm and in calm he is the sport of circumstances, and there is little hope that he will ever reach the desired haven. “Blessed is the man that trusteth in the Lord, and whose hope the Lord is.”
THE only true liberty is found in submission to the Lord's will. “I will walk at liberty: for I seek thy precepts.” Liberty is not license, and liberty is not lawlessness. S-i-n spells slavery. The truth makes free. Obedience to the commandments of God is the way of freedom. It is the very essence of anarchy to declare that God's law is abolished in order to escape submission to its precepts. The loyal subjects of Christ's kingdom who walk in the law of the Lord are the free citizens of the heavenly commonwealth.
ONE of the modern interpreters of Christianity declares that “the principles and practises of Jesus are inconsistent with accredited modern ethical principles,” and that “the imitation of Jesus ends in unveraciousness.” There is a ludicrous side to such an impeachment of the work of Jesus by one of these self-constituted judges of revelation and of divine perfection. It does not seem appropriate for a tallow candle to talk about spots on the sun. “He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.”

At the Sepulcher

THEY came to anoint the body of him whom they loved, but they “found not the body of the Lord Jesus.” The shadows of the tomb were dispelled by the light of the presence of heavenly beings, and those thrilling words were spoken, “Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” The disappointment of the women at the sepulcher has been turned into the hope and joy of all believing hearts since that time, and the comfort of those who have wept at the tombs of their dead. “For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.” He whose greatest triumph was just at the time when hope had died in the hearts of his followers has proclaimed, “I am the first and the last, and the Living One; and I became dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” And because of his triumph “the hour cometh, in which all that are in the tombs shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” O glorious morning of the resurrection!
“With what grief and anguish riven Should we see the loved depart, If there were no promise given Which could soothe the wounded heart! If the chains with which death binds them Ne'er again should broken be, And his prison which confines them Ne'er be burst to set them free! “But a glorious day is coming, Earth's long-wished-for jubilee, When creation's King appearing, Shall proclaim his people free; When upborne on Love's bright pinion, They shall shout from land and sea, ‘Death, where is thy dark dominion! Grave, where is thy victory!’”

The First Day Sabbath

By Editor

We are again reminded that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” This time it is a correspondent of a local paper in Ohio who displays his lack of knowledge of the Greek language in a manner which would simply be ludicrous and unworthy of any attention if it were not for the fact that many who do not read Greek, and know that they are not Greek scholars (differing only in this latter respect from this correspondent), will be too ready to accept the absurd assertions of this tyro in Greek as if they were the utterances of sound scholarship.
We are unable, for lack of time and space, to quote all of this writer’s article, which occupies over three columns, and to answer each one of his incorrect statements, but this is not necessary, as they are all based upon the same pitiful ignorance of the structure of the Greek language, and are all answered by answering a typical instance. The purpose of the whole article is to establish the claim that there is Scriptural authority for the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath, and the whole attempt is one of the most flagrant examples of wresting the Scriptures which we have ever noted. We can hardly regard it, however, as a case of deliberate perversion of the facts, and are compelled to account for it on the ground of simple ignorance, as any Greek scholar would know that such a remarkable linguistic performance would only excite sympathetic contempt on the part of those who have even a moderate knowledge of the language.
This writer introduces his astounding arguments by impugning the scholarship of all translators of our English Bible from the earliest to the latest. He says:—
If the Scriptures had been properly translated, there need never have been any confusion concerning the proper Christian sabbath, and it seems perfectly inexcusable that the translators should have put the word “week” as a translation for the Greek word “Sabbath” in so many places.
We might suggest in passing that the only possible ground for such a “perfectly inexcusable” course is that according to the unanimous authority of Greek scholars and lexicographers the Greek word means “week” when used as it is “in so many places.” But this explanation is offered as a mere suggestion.
We now come to the serious arguments of the article, and quote the following as a sample:—
In all the places in the New Testament where our common version reads, “the first day of the week,” the Greek has it, “the first day Sabbath,” and there is no more reason why the word “week” should be used as a translation of the word “Sabbath” than why the word “January” should be used for it. In Matt. 28: 1, where the translation reads, “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” the Greek reads, “In the end of the Sabbath,as it was getting dusk, toward the first day Sabbath, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher,” the Greek word being “mian Sabbath.” [We pause to note the scholarship of the writer who can thus combine Greek and English, and call it all Greek. We suppose “there’s a reason for it.”]
From this we see most positively that the Holy Spirit himself settled the first day sabbath as over against the last day Sabbath of the Jewish age. People often ask, Is there no real Scriptural proof for changing the Sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day of the week? I answer, We have abundant and positive proof, for the Holy Spirit in this passage refers to the last day Sabbath of the Jews, and then the first day sabbath, the day of Christ’s resurrection, and he calls the first day Sabbath just as positively as the last day Sabbath.
If we should simply make the assertion, which is abundantly justified by the facts, that this writer has been misled and is likely to mislead others through his lamentable ignorance of the language which he attempts to handle so critically, it would very likely be claimed that we were trying to make out a case for the continued obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath by rejecting the light which this advocate of the first-day sabbath has shed upon the text, and we therefore prefer to quote the candid statements of one who is both a Greek scholar and an observer of the first day of the week. He can not be rightly charged either with ignorance or with prejudice in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath. His discussion of the proper translation of this disputed text was called out by the publication of the following question:—
Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28: 1, “At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn towards the first of the sabbaths”? It seems to me as if we might, and it would be quite an argument in favor of a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, because the resurrection morning stood between the two sabbaths.
In reply to this question, Dr. Walter Quincy Scott, one of the instructors in the Bible Teachers’ Training-school of New York City, addressed the following letter to Dr. W. W. White, the editor of the Bible Record, in whose columns the question appeared:—
NEW YORK, Sept. 8, 1904. MY DEAR DR. WHITE: Your correspondent asks, “Is it allowable to translate the Greek of Matt. 28: 1 [the Greek text is here inserted], ‘At the end of the sabbaths, as it began to dawn towards the first of the sabbaths’?” Such a rendering is impossible. 1. Mian is feminine, and sabbaton is neuter. Mian agrees with hameran understood. Your inquirer remarks on this point (as made by writer in Sunday School Times), “Neither do they [mian and sabbaton] agree in number.” Of course not; a substantive followed by a partitive genitive can not agree with it numerically. 2. It seems idle to add anything to the foregoing grammatical prohibition of the rendering proposed. But I may add that mian sabbaton is a Hebraism corresponding to the rabbinical designation of the days of the week. They called each day of the festal week a “sabbath,” and indicated each day by its proper ordinal prefixed to “sabbath.”
And in Greek eis is commonly used (as here) instead of protos. LXX and N. T. alike use ta sabbata in sense of singular—“the sabbath day,” and also in the meaning “week.” Mian sabbaton in Matt. 28: 1 can not mean anything else than “first day of the week.” The Revised Version correctly translates the verse. Your correspondent will find ample scholarly notes in Lange’s Matthew, by Schaff. WALTER QUINCY SCOTT. This letter from a genuine Greek scholar appeared in the issue of the Bible Record for January, 1905. It is the deliberate utterance of one whose ability and fairness prevent him from perverting the meaning of the passage as it is in the Greek language. In the May issue of the same publication there appeared another letter upon this subject, from which we make the following quotation:—
Editor of the Bible Record. DEAR SIR: The query in the issue of January, 1905, as to “Sabbath or Sabbaths” seems to call for a further warning. The querist asks if Matt. 28: 1, Opse de sabbaton, te epiphoskouse eis mian sabbaton, may not be rendered, At the end of the [Jewish seventh-day] sabbaths, as it began to dawn towards the first of the [Christian first-day] sabbaths. The superb negative answer given should be heralded far and wide. People of excellent intention and deep piety, but with little knowledge, are making such an interpretation in fortifying themselves against “Saturday keepers.” I own two books, and have read two others, in which each writer claims to have made the great discovery of said translation, and has based his book thereon. These good men had only a rusted smattering of classical Greek, and in their zeal without knowledge they stumbled upon this rendering, with a carelessness that few students of a month would make. “A little learning is a dangerous thing.” And more than that, acquaintance with classical Greek is not enough for the reading of the New Testament Greek. One must have large acquaintance with the grammar and the lexicon of the Greek Old Testament, and behind that, as the key to many of its peculiarities and mysteries, of the Hebrew Old Testament also. The writer of this second letter is stated to be a professor in a theological seminary, but his name is not given. It very fittingly accompanies the previous letter from Dr. Scott. Several things should be noted concerning these two letters. They are both written by Greek scholars who observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath and defend the practise. They both appear in a publication whose editor and publishers do the same. Both writers affirm that any such translation as is proposed by the writer of the article under consideration is impossible.
Dr. Scott gives the reason for his statement, based upon the grammatical construction of the Greek text of the passage, and further explains the peculiar construction as following the Hebrew idiom. The other writer calls attention to the “rusted smattering of classical Greek” and the “zeal without knowledge” of those who exhibit, in their efforts to sustain their improper translation, “a carelessness that few students of a month would make.” Taken together, these two letters are, to fair-minded persons, a complete answer to the foolish display of ignorance by the writer of the article in question. They make his claim for the testimony of the Holy Spirit in favor of the first-day sabbath a baseless assertion on the border line of blasphemy. We can safely submit the case after citing these witnesses.
The larger part of the remainder of this article consists of an examination of the other texts in the New Testament in which the expression “the first day of the week” occurs, and a further exhibition of what the writer does not know about the Greek language. We have neither time, space, nor inclination to follow him through his erratic wanderings in the mazes of linguistic blundering. We can only call attention to his closing argument. After establishing to his own satisfaction and by his unique translation of several passages the fact that “the first day of the week is the Christian sabbath,” this versatile defender of the faith calmly demolishes the whole foundation for Sabbath observance on any particular day, in these words:—
Those who contend for the keeping of the last day of the week for Sabbath should remember that in the very nature of things it would be impossible for the inhabitants of the whole world to be keeping the same day for Sabbath at the same time.
In order to prove this assertion the writer introduces the time-worn and threadbare illustration about the traveler who goes around the world from the west and gets out of joint with the calendar. The curious thing about this matter is that many men who observe the seventh-day Sabbath, including the editor of the REVIEW, have been around the world in this way, and have had no disagreement with the calendar, and still observe the true Sabbath. But after all this building up and tearing down, the writer of the article concludes with the claim of divine authority for a particular day, the first day of the week. These are his words:—
We must remember that the same in-finite God who instituted the Jewish Sabbath at the last day of the week, with the same infinite authority put the Christian sabbath at the first day of the week, and by the Holy Spirit speaks of it over and over again as the first Sabbath, in contradistinction from the last day Sabbath.
It thus appears that it is utterly impossible to observe a particular day of the week when that day is the last day of the week, but that it is both possible and obligatory to observe a particular day of the week when that day is the first day of the week. Such is the logic of one who understands the Greek, and who can correct all previous translations of the Bible. We are thankful that the seventh-day Sabbath rests upon no such foundation of sand and stubble. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.”

Satan’s Tactics

By William Ambrose Spicer

THERE was a time when opposition to the Bible came from avowed skeptics or infidels of the Voltaire, Ingersoll, or Bradlaugh types. The authority and divine origin of the Bible were directly assailed.
That kind of opposition is little in evidence in these days. The higher critics have taken away the business of the old-fashioned opposer.
Now it is freely allowed that the Bible is the word of God, but theories as to human influences entering into it have undermined its authority. It is inspired, say its professed friends, but then, every man’s best work is inspired. So, with all the theories of inspiration, the true faith in the Scriptures as the living word of the living God is well-nigh banished from the earth. Indirect attack has been far more destructive than the direct and open method.
There was a time in the history of our work when the enemy’s opposition to it was prominent in direct and open attack upon this truth and movement. We must be watchful of the indirect attack in these days when we see the evil one changing his tactics. He is sure to seek to undermine and spoil, where he fails to overthrow. It will be here a perversion, there a false notion, some side-issue to take attention from the main line of the advent truth—anything to persuade the unwary to forget that the very message that made this advent movement, and made us a people of prophecy with a mission in the world, is the message that will finish the work.
And in personal experience, where once the temptations, perhaps, came in direct assaults upon the spiritual life, we may well watch for the indirect method. The devil will seek to spoil the experience which he can not altogether crush. Where he can not overturn the coach, according to the old saying, he will endeavor to drive it.
Where the enemy can not lead us into the world, out and out, he will try to put a little of the world into us. Satan has come down in great wrath to deceive, if possible, the very elect. His fiercest wrath is not always manifested in direct attack. Paul said, “We are not ignorant of his devices.” Vigilance now and stedfast dependence upon God are the essentials to progress in religious experience.
W. A. S.

Canada’s Proposed Sunday Law

By L. A. S.

THE enactment of a general Sunday law for Canada seems now to be among the probabilities of the immediate future. The decision having been rendered that the enactment of such legislation was beyond the authority of the provincial legislatures, the Lord’s Day Alliance has succeeded in bringing a Sunday bill before the Dominion Parliament, which the Ottawa Journal describes as “a pretty whole-souled measure of Sunday observance.” “It proposes,” says the Journal, “to prevent all work and play on Sunday. Railway trains, not specifically running for a necessary purpose, are to be stopped; shops are to be closed; no man is to be permitted to carry on his ordinary avocation except by way of ministration to soul or body; there are to be no Sunday ‘excursions’ of any sort, nor any ‘performance’ for which admission fee is charged; there is to be no target practise. Work, except for the pure benefit of humanity, and play in any public place, are to be practically forbidden.”
Two statements, among others made by the Journal regarding this bill, are especially worthy of note. One is the statement that Rome has joined hands with the Lord’s Day Alliance over this measure:—
The Alliance, which is headquartered in Toronto, has been accorded not an unexpected, but an entirely gratifying support by Archbishop Bruchesi and other members of the Catholic clergy in Canada.
Do Protestant clergymen feel no misgivings in joining hands with Rome on a point of religious doctrine, and one which Rome sets forth as being vitally related to the question of her spiritual supremacy? A measure which leads Protestants to unite with Rome ought for that reason alone to be viewed by them with suspicion. Ah! Rome is entirely willing that misguided Protestants shall exalt her institutions and fight her battles.
The other statement shows the religious purpose of the proposed law, as follows:—
To the embargo on Sunday target practise, the Lord’s Day Alliance proposes to add an amendment to the effect that there shall be no hunting or fishing on Sunday. We can not assume that the value of the general measure would be impaired if this and certain other of the proposed amendments were not approved by Parliament, since the real object of Sunday legislation, in a land having men of many shades of thought, is to preserve to the toiler the chance for rest and recreation rather than to dictate the form which that recreation shall assume.
“The real object of Sunday legislation,” as this proposed amendment plainly shows, is not at all to secure “rest and recreation,” but the religious observance of the day and the exaltation of the Sunday sabbath. Hunting, fishing, and many sports and pastimes constitute recreation. The Lord’s Day Alliance wants none of these things allowed on Sunday. It proposes to stop both work and play. The point with the Alliance is the desecration of the day; that is what it wants prohibited.
That the law may create a horde of mere loafers on that day, and many an idle brain for the devil’s workshop, it cares not a whit. There must be no work, no play, no recreation; nothing but churchgoing or utter demoralizing idleness. The logic of such a situation will of course suggest a further step designed to secure the attendance of the people at the church services.
L. A. S.

The State as a Teacher of Religion

THERE is no doubt that the enforcement of what is known as the Education act of 1902 in England contributed largely to the overwhelming victory of the Liberal party in the recent general election in Great Britain. It is, of course, expected that there will be some new legislation upon this subject during the present session of Parliament, and the whole question is now under discussion.
One method of dealing with this vexed subject is as follows: “It has been proposed by the Liberal leaders, with the support of some Laborites, that the government should, first, abolish all religious tests for teachers, and, second, provide a common form for Christian teaching to be taught in all the schools. The Laborites, who support this plan, are also insistent that the government shall not sanction the compromise urged upon it—namely, to provide facilities for dogmatic instruction for half an hour before the opening of the school proper.”
This plan is opposed by the Bishop of Birmingham, who doubtless represents in a general way the attitude of the Church of England. He thus states his view:—
Undenominationalism means either that each schoolmaster shall teach whatreligious belief he pleases in giving Bible classes, or that the state authority in education shall formulate some sort of standard representing what is believed to be our common Christianity, and cause it to be taught. Neither of these alternatives appears to us as tolerable. I use the word strictly. We believe that there is, in the present condition of religious opinion among us, only one tolerable principle; that is, that the parents shall be invited to determine what kind of religious teaching they wish to be given to their children, and by what teachers they wish it to be given, and that the state should impartially facilitate the teaching of religion chosen by the parents.
These different plans are in themselves an emphatic comment upon the folly of attempting to teach religion in the public schools. In the one case it is proposed that the state should “provide a common form for Christian teaching to be taught in all the schools.” This is the natural and logical thing to do, if the state is to teach religion at all. It is within the province of the state to determine the course of study to be pursued in the public schools, and if it is decided that religious instruction is to be a part of that course of study, then the same authority which decides when and to what extent and by the use of what books language, mathematics, or science shall be taught may rightfully decide when and to what extent and by the use of what books religious instruction shall be imparted. To give to parents the privilege of deciding just what should be taught and what should not be taught to their children of the ordinary branches of study would, as every one can readily see, overthrow the whole plan for anything like a common course of study, and make the teacher subject to the caprice of every parent. If it be objected that the kind of religious instruction to be given to children is a matter of conscience with the parents, while the teaching of the common branches does not involve conscientious scruples, the reply may very properly be made that this objection demonstrates the soundness of our contention that the teaching of religion is not a legitimate function of the state.
On the other hand, as a solution of the problem, it is proposed that “the state should impartially facilitate the teaching of religion chosen by the parents.” In the actual working of this plan there would inevitably be two distinct governing bodies in the management of the schools: the state would decide upon the secular studies and the manner of teaching them, while in theory the parents, but more likely in practise the ecclesiastical leaders, would decide upon the religious instruction and the manner of imparting it. And those parents who do not wish their children to be taught religion under such a regime would still be compelled to support the system.
There can be no satisfactory plan proposed for teaching religion in the public schools, for the simple reason that it is not within the province of the state to give such instruction. This is the only right solution of this troublesome question. The acceptance of this sound principle would settle the matter once and for all; and until this is done, it will be a constant source of friction. Leave religion to the home and to the church. This is the only “tolerable principle.”

The Catholic View of Church Federation

By L. A. S.

A ROMAN CATHOLIC view of the movement for federation which has sprung up in the Protestant churches, is given in a recent issue of the Catholic Mirror. The writer speaks in a sympathetic way of the desire for union which gave rise to the movement, and quotes a number of Scripture texts showing the fundamental importance of unity in the Christian church, but passes from this to the unscriptural and papal idea that Christian unity is to be secured by submission to human authority. He notes clearly, however, the difference between real unity and the federation which has been inaugurated. He says:—
The different Protestant sects are trying to unite by suppressing or ignoring differences of doctrine, and by making prominent their common professions of conduct and charity. For a long time they have been preparing for such a union by either giving up definite beliefs or ceasing to ascribe any importance to them. Union on such lines will hardly result in much more than we already have. It will be a little more comprehensive Y. M. C. A., taking in old men and boys and all women. It will be a benevolent association, such as the United Charities. It will be a union whose creed will affirm the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, and perhaps the divinity of Christ, but no member will dare to tell us what these terms mean. Such a union, too, will not produce the good effects that are so prominent in the proposals.
Any Protestant who may have thought that Rome would at this day consent to any other basis of union than that which she has put forward in the past—that of full submission to the papal see—would have his impressions corrected by noting the statements of this spokesman of the Roman Church. “The road that leads to union,” he says, “is one that goes back to where disunion began, back to authority and obedience to authority.” “Christ’s way of union is the way of obedience to the voice of authority. Schismatics and heretics, all who bear the name of Christian, once heard that voice. They fell away from unity by disobedience. They will come back to unity by obedience.” “Private judgment is strongly entrenched in the Protestant mind. It must be given up if there is a real desire for union. . . . Submission to authority is the opposite of private judgment.” “Let us, then, have a union of Christian churches through . . . complete submission to the living voice of Christ speaking in the one true church.”
All Protestants, so called, who desire to include the Catholic Church in their scheme of church union, may know from recent utterances of representative Catholics upon just what ground Rome will be willing to unite with Protestant “schismatics and heretics.” It is not the Scriptural ground of the “unity of the faith,” in which the Word of God is supreme and the human mind submits to that Word as interpreted by the Holy Spirit, but the old pre-Reformation ground of the submission of men to the will and authority of their fellow mortals who have set themselves in the place of God in the church,—a submission in which union is secured by the surrender of soul liberty, and spiritual and mental death produce a quiescence which is heralded as Christian unity. The issue is between the Word of God and the word of man, and true Protestantism upholds the Word of God as the supreme and only spiritual authority, and the Holy Spirit as the divinely appointed interpreter of the Christian faith. It declares that the authority of the church is not independent of the Word of God, but is only the authority of that Word as proclaimed to men by the church.
L. A. S.

Sunday Law Vagaries

By L. A. S.

THE editor of the Hamilton, Ontario, Herald gives, in a recent issue of his paper, a striking though unintentional exposition of the inconsistencies of Sunday legislation. Discussing the Dominion Parliament, he mentions a petition by Canadian Jews to be exempt from the operation of the proposed law, and says that if this class and Seventh-day Adventists were granted an exemption, there would be a great many people who would profess belief in the seventh-day sabbath to escape the penalty of doing Sunday work, and that “a general conscience clause would go far to make the Lord’s Day act unworkable.”
But he thinks there might be a way out of this difficulty, by a requirement affecting this class, which in his view would be only fair and just. He says:—
But would it be fair to compel the great majority of the people to abstain from labor one day in the week, and not to compel the small privileged minority to do the same?—Assuredly not. There must be equal obligations as well as equal rights. If Jews and Seventh-day Adventists are to be permitted to work on Sunday, they must be obliged by law to abstain from work on Saturday, the sabbath of their choice. The same penalties attached to violation of the Lord’s Day act by ordinary Christians should attach to the violation of the Saturday sabbath by Jews and Seventh-day Adventists.
Think of a law requiring the observance of a certain day of the week, under which a man would be punished for not observing some other day of the week! Think of a law requiring the observance of the Sunday sabbath, which would also at the same time require a class of the people to give allegiance to the institution to which it is the rival! Such a statute would deserve to be set apart by itself as a piece of freak legislation; yet the editor of the Hamilton Herald has only traced out in full the logic of an exemption clause in Sunday legislation. Sunday laws must either be inconsistent by compelling one class of people to observe a different day than the one whose observance the law aims to perpetuate, or they must perpetrate the plain injustice of robbing this class of one day's time in every week. On either hand, the law is self-condemned. It hardly need be added that those who aim by such laws to perpetuate and extend Sunday observance do not desire an arrangement which would promote the observance of any other sabbath through the force of the law.
L. A. S.
Continue reading: Note and Comment