Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 11, 1872
LOST TIME.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.
(Concluded.)
But has not time been lost since the year A. D. 96, perhaps during the Dark Ages? Let us see. At the time of Christ, and ever since, the Jews were and have been great sticklers for the Sabbath—very careful in observing it. In A. D. 70, about forty years after the resurrection of Christ, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans, and the Jews were led away captive into all nations, thus fulfilling Luke 21: 20–24; Deut. 28: 25, 37, 64. Though eighteen hundred years have passed, the Jews are still a scattered nation, and yet a distinct people. In every country, in every clime, in every nation, and in almost every city, to-day may be found the Jew. During these eighteen long centuries, under every vicissitude, they have still tenaciously clung to the Sabbath. Every person of intelligence knows that the Jews all keep the Sabbath on Saturday. Thus Webster, under the word Sabbath, says: “The Sabbath of the Jews is on Saturday.” M. A. Berk, in his “History of the Jews,” page 335, says: “According to the Jewish computation of time, the day commences at sunset. On Friday evening, and about an hour before sunset on this evening, all business transactions and secular occupations cease, and the twenty-four hours following are devoted to the celebration of the holy Sabbath.”
Now that they have not lost the Sabbath day, but have kept the days of the week correctly, is easily demonstrated. Scattered as widely apart as they have been all this time, had they lost the correct numbering of the days of the week, they would now be found to disagree among themselves as to which was the true Sabbath day. Some would claim that it was Saturday; others, that it was Monday; still others, that it was Thursday, &c., &c. But there is no such disagreement among them, as every one knows. In Asia and in Europe, in Africa and in America, all agree on the same day, namely, Saturday. Now, any one can readily see that the Jews, being for eighteen hundred years so widely scattered, even on opposite sides of the globe, could not lose the correct Sabbath and yet all continue to keep the same day. It would be the very height of absurdity to suppose that all the millions of the Jews so far separated should lose just the same number of days, and at the same time, and in the same direction, that is, by adding to, or dropping out, a day or more.
Take a simple illustration: Seven men go out into the wilderness hunting. At a certain point, they all separate, each going a different direction. After several weeks, it may be months, they all meet again. Now the question arises, Have they kept the days of the week correctly, or have they lost the Sunday, so that they cannot positively tell when it does come. They begin to compare reckonings. A says, To-day is Monday. No, says B, to-day is Thursday. Both wrong, replies C, to-day is Sunday. And you are mistaken, too, exclaims D, for to-day is Friday. And thus to the end they all differ. This would prove that they certainly had lost the day. No one would question that. But on the contrary, suppose all unanimously agreed on the day—that it was Monday, for instance. It would be as sure as a mathematical demonstration that none had lost the day.
So of the Jews. Their unanimous agreement on the day shows that they have kept it correctly. None who are not willingly blind can fail to see this. We shall, then, put down the five millions of Jews now in the world as so many living witnesses that Saturday is the true seventh-day Sabbath. Indeed, I believe, and it is evident, that the leading object of the Lord in scattering the Jews among all nations and yet preserving them a distinct people was to make them witnesses of the truth of his word, and to preserve the knowledge of his holy Sabbath among all nations. Their strict and continued observance of the Sabbath in all ages and among all nations, forms an insurmountable argument which can never be set aside by those who assert that the Sabbath has been lost. God has preserved a whole nation of witnesses, and sent them into all parts of the world to bear testimony to the existence and correct preservation of the knowledge of his holy Sabbath day.
In response to an inquiry on this point, addressed to Isaac M. Wise, probably the most learned Jewish Rabbi in this country, he returned me the following communication:—
REV. D. M. CANRIGHT, Dear Sir: Facts admit of no logical demonstration. They are matters of perception or tradition. The Jewish Sabbath is, in point of the particular time, a matter of tradition, to which the whole people of Israel from Moses to us testify, without any demonstration to the contrary.
There is no century in authentic history not covered by Jewish tradition. Hence, one might just as well argue Sunday is not the first day of the week or the third after the resurrection, or the Hebrew Bible is not the literature of the ancient Jews, or any other fact or facts, as to maintain that the Jews forgot the order of days, when the Sabbath was so holy to them. Anybody arguing against a fact of perception, or tradition (this is the rule), has to prove it, viz., That the said perception, or tradition, is false. In this case, he who maintains it must prove when and where the Jews forgot the order of the days or computation of time.
The Jews, having no names of days, called them 1st, 2d, &c., to Sabbath. If they had forgotten to count in any one locality where they were dispersed since 800 B. C., some would have done it in any other locality, and a dispute among themselves about the right Sabbath must have occurred. But history chronicles no such dissension. From Ezra to 70 A. C., the body, called first, “The Great Synagogue,” and afterwards “The Sanhedrim,” existed in Jerusalem; and then to 300 A. C., at Jamnia, Ushah, or Tiberias. This body announced annually in regular succession, the calendar to all Jews in the world. Then followed in authority the Babylonian academy, from 200 to 1000 A. C. again in regular succession. When could they have forgotten the Sabbath? Those persons maintain an absurdity.
Yours, ISAAC M. WISE.
With these facts well considered, the reader will agree with the learned Rabbi that it is an absurdity to claim that the Sabbath has ever been lost.
Some two or three centuries after Christ, Christians began to regard the first day of the week as a sacred day. In a short time, this practice became almost universal among Christians. Christendom is now divided into three great branches, viz., The Greek Church, numbering 66,000,000, the Catholic Church, numbering 160,000,000, and the Protestant Churches, numbering 88,000,000, making a total number of 314,000,000.
All these have always been, and are now, unanimous in teaching that Sunday is the first day of the week, the resurrection day, and that Saturday is the old, original seventh-day Sabbath. No one ever thought of disputing this fact till of late, when it is found that there is no proof for first-day sacredness. But here are three hundred and fourteen million witnesses who, by their hymns, their prayers, their sermons, their books, their customs, and all their traditions, teach that Sunday is the first, and Saturday the seventh, day of the week.
The Mohammedans, and long before them the Saracens, adopted the sixth day for their Sabbath. Numbering 160,000,000, they all still keep Friday. Gilfillan, in “The Sabbath,” p. 359, says: “Before Mohammed’s time, the Saracens kept their Sabbath on Friday, and from them he and his followers adopted the custom.” Rev. Robt. Morris, who has traveled in Palestine, and written so extensively concerning the Holy Land, also confirms the same fact. See The Holy Land for Jan., 1871. Here, again, we have one hundred and sixty millions more witnesses that the days of the week have been correctly kept.
All the laws of Christendom recognize the fact that Sunday is the first day of the week and Saturday the seventh. Thus the Sunday law of Iowa reads: “If any person be found on the first day of the week, commonly called Sabbath, engaged in any riot, fighting,” &c.—Statute Law of Iowa, Revision of 1860, Chap. 175, Art. 2, Sec. 1, p. 751.
The venerable old family Bible in its time table teaches the same thing. Here is the way it reads:
DAYS OF THE WEEK.
1st day of the week, Sunday.
2d “ “ “ Monday.
3d “ “ “ Tuesday.
4th “ “ “ Wednesday.
5th “ “ “ Thursday.
6th “ “ “ Friday.
7th “ “ “ or Sabbath, Saturday.
Turn to your large family Bible and see if it does not so read. So far, then, as we can rely upon this, it corroborates the fact that Saturday is the old Sabbath, the original seventh day. Could we ask a better witness?
Webster’s great dictionary bears its testimony to the same undoubted fact. Thus: “Sunday, n. First day of the week.” “Monday, n. The second day of the week.” “Saturday, n. The last day of the week. . . . the Jewish Sabbath.” Do all these great authors have no authority for what they say? Have they all conspired to tell a lie?
Take up a family almanac and it will teach us the same undoubted and universally acknowledged truth, that Saturday is the original Sabbath day. Look at your almanac and see Sunday marked first day of the week, and Saturday the seventh or last day.
But now the science of astronomy comes in and settles this whole matter beyond the shadow of a doubt. Every one is familiar with the fact that eclipses of the sun or moon can be so exactly calculated as to tell to a minute just when they will occur, long beforehand. Indeed, they can be calculated a thousand years ahead as well as one year. So they can be calculated backward just as easily. Before the Christian era, and all along at different times since, eclipses have occurred and have been recorded. By calculating back it would soon appear if even one day had been lost, as the recorded eclipse would not come when it ought to. Such calculations have been made, and no such loss of time appears.
Indeed, when we come to the real matter of fact, it is simply impossible to lose the days of the week, even though we had no almanacs, no records, no histories. Look at the facts in the case. Take our own nation, for example. How could we lose the days of the week? Suppose one family in town should forget and lose the days of the week. Sunday comes and they go to work, plowing, washing, &c. How long would it be before their neighbors would come along and tell them their mistake. Such instances do occur; but never does a person get through the day without discovering his error. Again; suppose a whole village should make the same mistake at the same time, which of course is impossible, and all lose the day of the week. Sunday they all go to work as usual; stores are opened, shops run, &c. Soon people from the country come in to meeting and find them all at work. The result would be that they would compare reckonings and count back and see what they had done on each of the last six days. In this way the error would be immediately discovered. And so we might go on with the illustration. If one family loses the day, the whole town is against them, and will correct them; if a whole town makes the mistake, the rest of the country is against them, and would soon correct them. In short, the established rest day in each week coming so often and being kept by all the people, it is absolutely impossible to lose it. No candid person who will look at the facts can believe that the Sabbath day has ever been lost.
We are not arguing that no time has ever been lost or miscalculated so far as the exact years and months are concerned. We do not think any one can tell the precise number of years since the creation. But while the years, and months and days of the year may be lost, this does not affect the Sabbath in the least. Why not? Because the Sabbath being kept by a whole nation and recurring every seven days, it becomes easy to keep track of it, and even impossible to forget when it does come, while the year being so much longer a period and having nothing important to mark its coming could be much more readily lost.
Further, we do not claim to know the exact number of Sabbaths from creation any more than we do the exact number of years. Nor is it at all necessary that we should. All that we need to show is that the correct reckoning of the days of the week and the regular recurrence of the Sabbath day has not been lost. Just how many years or Sabbaths there have been since creation does not concern us. It is important to remember this fact; for our opponents try to throw much dust just here, asserting that if we cannot tell just how many years and days there have been since the creation, then we cannot tell when the seventh day does come. This is a false issue. For instance; I can remember some important event which occurred on Sunday, years ago; and though I could not tell the exact number of days, or even of years, which has elapsed since that event, yet I am certain and could take my oath that I have regularly and correctly kept every seventh day from that day to this. The reader cannot fail to see the point.
Was not the Sabbath day thrown out of its order, was not a day lost, when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still? No. The record says: “The sun stood still in the midst of the heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.” Josh. 10: 12–14. That day was about as long as two ordinary days, but yet it was only one day, the sun set only once. The Lord only requires us to keep the seventh day, not the seventh part of time. The day is to be reckoned from sunset to sunset. Gen. 1: 5; Lev. 23: 32; Deut. 16: 6; Mark 1: 32. Hence this was to be counted only one day,202and in no manner affects the reckoning of the week. The same principle holds good in the case where the sun returned back ten degrees in the time of Hezekiah. Isa. 38: 8. It appears that this day also was longer than usual. Yet it was only one day, as in the case of Joshua.
Was not the Sabbath lost in changing from the Old Style to the New Style of reckoning time? No. It did not affect the Sabbath in the least one way or the other. But what is Old Style and New Style? Let us see.
The Julian Calendar, so called, or that which was established by Julius Cæsar, by which every fourth year was made to consist of 366 days, and the other years of 365 days, is called Old Style. By this mode of computation, the years were made to average something over eleven minutes too much; so that in the course of a few centuries there would be a perceptible disarrangement of the equinoxes; i. e., the sun would actually arrive at an equinoctial point several days, perhaps, before the time indicated by the day of the month on which it should annually recur. It will be seen that if such a mode of computation were to be continued, a complete displacement of the seasons of the year would eventually be wrought.
Pope Gregory XIII, A. D. 1582, in order to correct the equinoxes at that time, or to bring back the vernal equinox to the same day as at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, found it necessary to retrench ten days. He accordingly retrenched that number of days in October, A. D. 1582, which was done by simply calling the fifth day of the month the fifteenth.
This reformation of the Julian Calendar by Pope Gregory was adopted in Great Britain by act of parliament, A. D. 1751, at which time it was necessary to retrench eleven days. Accordingly eleven days were retrenched in the month of September in the following year, simply by reckoning the third day as the fourteenth. This method (by which every year divisible by 4, unless it be divisible by 100, without being divisible by 400, has 366 days, and all other years 365 days) is what is called New Style. By reckoning according to this ingenious mode, there can never occur any perceptible disarrangement of the equinoxes, as would continually occur under the former Calendar, or Old Style. See Thompson’s Higher Arithmetic, p. 157.
It may be readily seen that this did not in the least affect the reckoning of the days of the week. October 5 was simply called October 15. Suppose that before the change that day was Friday; what day of the week would it be after the change? Would it not be Friday still? Most certainly. The regular succession of the days of the week and of the Sabbath continues to come just the same whatever change may be made in the reckoning of the year or month.
But why talk about lost time on that occasion. How was it lost? Do we not know just when it occurred? Yes. Do we not know just how it happened? Yes. Do we not know just how many days were dropped? Yes. Is there not an authentic record of the whole thing? Yes. In the name of common sense then how was any time lost?
Suppose I have just one hundred dollars in my pocket. I go into my bedroom, carefully count out ten dollars and put it into the drawer. Then I come out and tell my family that I have lost some money. They ask when? I say, To-day. Where? In the bureau drawer in the bedroom. How much? Just ten dollars. Would they not say I was jesting or insane? Just so about lost time at the change from Old Style to New Style. When was it lost? October 5, 1582. How much was lost? Ten days. Strange loss this!
But further; Russia has never adopted the New Style, but still reckons by the Old Style. Does her reckoning of the days of the week, or her Saturday, correspond to ours? Yes, exactly. Her Saturday is our Saturday and her Sunday our Sunday. The Jews in Russia keep the same Saturday that the Jews in England and America keep. If men would not offer their ignorance for argument we should never hear any more about the groundless objection of lost time.
To sum up the evidence: The Sabbath was given to the head of the human family at creation; evidence of its observance by the patriarchs, three of whose lives cover the period from Eden to Abraham’s old age; and hence the knowledge of the Sabbath was easily handed from father to son; the Sabbath again miraculously pointed out by God, in the falling of the manna at the exode; strictly guarded by law and kept by the whole Jewish nation for eight hundred years; best of evidence that it was not lost in Babylon; again strictly kept for five hundred years till Christ; he gave no intimation of any loss up to his time; taught that it was the correct Sabbath; positive statement of inspiration that the Jews had the days of the week and the old Sabbath day correct at the death of Jesus; often mentioned in the New Testament till A. D. 96; five millions of Jews to-day bear witness that it has not been lost; sixty millions of Greek Christians; one hundred and sixty millions of Catholics; and eighty-eight millions of Protestants, all agree that Saturday is the old seventh day; one hundred and sixty millions of Mohammedans agree to the same fact; the laws of the land, the old family Bible, Webster, the almanac, and astronomy, all unanimously agree that no time has been lost, but that Saturday is the old Sabbath day.
What proof do they bring against all this mass of evidence? None whatever. They want it so, they hope it is so, and hence assert that it is so. Time is lost. Why? Because. How do you know? Because it has been lost. This is the evidence, and the only evidence, I ever heard. A man’s mere assertion against the evidence of the world!!
In conclusion, reader, are you weekly violating God’s holy Sabbath under the vain plea that you cannot tell when it does come? Is not this a mere excuse adopted to evade the cross? Are you willing to risk your soul upon such a sandy foundation? Are not the preceding evidences overwhelming that Saturday is the original seventh day? Even granting, which, however, we do not believe in the case, that it is not positive proof beyond any doubt, yet you must admit that so far as there is any evidence, it all goes to show that Saturday is the original Sabbath day. Shall we reject all this mass of testimony and retain a day for which there is not a particle of evidence? Will such a course stand the test of the Judgment? In all worldly matters where there is any doubt, we decide in favor of the strongest evidence. Do so in this case and you will certainly have to decide that Saturday is the old original Sabbath day.
WHY WEEPEST THOU ?
“I am poor and needy: yet the Lord thinketh upon me. Ps. 40:17.
God careth for thee, weeping one,
His hand is round thee now;
For thee his best is always done;
Oh! then, why weepest thou?
God loves thee well, thou troubled one,
Heaven wonders at such love:
He loves thee as he loveth none
In angel ranks above.
Throughout the earth His earnest eye
Hath careful searched, to see
What spot it was beneath the sky
That best befitted thee.
Yet thou that chosen holy place
Profanest now with tears:
And when thy soul should sing its praise
It weeps its idle fears.
Oh! wherefore, wherefore dost thou wrong
His heart who loves thee so,
And rob Him of thy tribute song,
To nurse thy thankless woe:
If thou must weep, then weep for joy,
That God thy Father is:
Whose grace does all its powers employ
To load thy soul with bliss.
Yes; weep o’er that forgotten love
That guards thee every day;
Not only crowns thy head above,
But blesses all the way.
—Sel.
A Plea for Conversation.
Our type of civilization, according to Mr. Mill, tends to the suppression of individuality; and nowhere is it more evident than in conversation. What Defoe said of the English—“Generally, whate’er they know they speak”—is true neither of them nor of us. Men jostle one another in the cars, and make no sign. They elbow each other in hotels and halls, and look their dissatisfaction. With ears and eyes perpetually on the alert, and minds intensely wide-awake, a few monosyllables suffice for expression.
This habit of reticence follows men to their homes, and becomes contagious there.—Family conversation is apt to confine itself to the narrow circuit of domestic incident and the barest prose of daily life, with only an occasional flash of genial wit or hearty fun.
In promiscuous society it is not much better. Count Smalltork figures prominently in the drawing-rooms of the beau monde; and fashionable society displays its rows of pollards, instead of Nature’s “grand democracy of forest-trees.” A narrow etiquette excludes the more robust themes and withers the originality of intercourse. We miss the glorious talk that wakes the soul and inspires the face when minds scintillate on the earnest themes of life and work. And so we pacify ourselves with unceasing newspapers. We rush to the artificial stimulus of vivacious writing to supply the lack of sparkling talk.
The result is a threefold loss. Men fall below themselves in personal influence. Men that are giants in enterprise are pigmies at home. They “write like angels, and talk like poor Poll.” Good conversationists are as rare as poets. But talk is the ground form of all good speech. Webster said the secret of oratory was talk. The reciprocity helps to clear thought, and makes the first element of a good style, perspicuity—and so an increase of power.
We lose by our habit of reticence a vast amount of rational enjoyment. We are a nation of omnivorous readers, and pay our millions freely for the gratification; but it is as true here as elsewhere that it is more blessed to give than to receive. Genial conversation is the characteristic enjoyment of the species. It is the happy play of the varied powers of the mind and heart without conscious effort.
But, worst of all, the habit of repressing thought is demoralizing. Every idea is a soul that wants to make itself perfect in a body. The effect of suppression is to dwarf the heart as well as the brain, for the spring is in the heart. There follows not only poverty of ideas, but heartlessness and sham, as the natural fruitage; just as the stiff neckties of the clergyman, constraining the tones, result in sore-throat and European travel. There must be expiration as well as inspiration. It will not do to hold one’s breath too long.
We plead, then, for freedom in conversation. We want simple, untrammeled nature. Our instinct furnishes material for the most foodful intercourse. They are the Urim and Thummim of our humanity. They constitute the oracle within us. Through them we get our best, our divinest ideas. There is no reason why we should wait for a vote of the majority before giving utterance to our own fresh impressions. With an oracle within, why ask the crowd what to say? “Is it because there is not a God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Beelzebub, the god of Ekron?”
There should be the habit of open, unaffected expression, without bias from received standards. Let children be encouraged to tell frankly their own opinions. Accord to their thoughts their full value, and draw them out by frequent courteous intercourse. The abandon of the family is the best arena for cultivating true eloquence. The sympathy, charity, and freedom of home atmosphere are adapted to elicit the best powers of expression. Let them have full glory.
It is ruinous to friendly conversation to demand large ground for reserve. Individual views must be set side by side, allowing honest dissent. There will be no invention, no advance, without it. Sincere conviction must not fear brow-beating, nor heretical doubts dread ostracism from good-fellowship. It is sometimes necessary to talk about persons as well as things, for justice to one is often kindness to others. “Go and tell that fox,” said our Saviour, in speaking of the crafty Herod; and it was no uncommon thing to hear him address his auditors as hypocrites and fools. Plainness of characterization is not necessarily calumny. It is rather a sign of untruthfulness, and not necessarily an advance in culture, when the sly innuendo takes the place of open condemnation! Popularity and truth-telling can hardly be expected to go together till the millennium; but geniality is the daysman that lays his hand upon them both.
Our Saviour promulgated his gospel in conversations. He talked with truth and sympathy on all subjects. He taught us the sublime art of reaching souls through the common-places of life. A request for drink of a woman at Jacob’s well became a text to preach salvation to her soul. The evening conversation with Nicodemus revealed the unutterable love of God to that timid spirit. So, everywhere and always, domestic histories, questions of government, national customs or ecclesiastical traditions, men’s employments and festivals, sins and sorrows, hopes and fears, were the emblems of eternal truth. By conversation, Jesus chose to preach his gospel to the world.
Let our conversation be as becometh the gospel of Christ.—Independent.
Quiet Workers.
ALL the great agencies are silent. With noiseless footstep, Sleep and his twin brother Death walk the earth folding in their soft but strong embrace the children of men, some to wake with the returning light of morning, and others to wake only on the morning of the resurrection. No blare or clamor heralds the advent of the day-spring; silently the morning star hangs out his blazoned banner in the darkness, and Aurora on soundless pinion opens the gates of day. The wondrous agencies that emanate from the sun, giving life to plant and animal, work in utter silence. We see the results of their action in the wealth of foliage flung lavishly out to the breeze, in the verdant carpet that covers the ground, so short a time since brown and bare, and in the rich promise of harvest; but they speak not. In solemn silence all the stars move round this dark terrestrial ball, raining down upon us celestial influences, yet no voice nor sound among the radiant orbs is found.
Great workers are silent. While little men fume and fret, and make a mighty fuss with their petty doings, the man of giant powers works quietly. Steadily, with deliberation and foresight, he lays his plans; without haste and without rest he moves along down his programme, gradually conquering the area he has marked around, carrying his points, overcoming difficulties, flanking oppositions, until at last he stands master of his fate. We seldom hear of these men until their work is well-nigh done—until they have climbed high up—and then we exclaim with Sidney Smith, “He is a miracle of genius! Yes, he is a miracle of genius because he is a miracle of labor; because his life has been one of incessant and intense work!”
How many of these quiet workers do we find in patient, steadfast, low-voiced women. In the serene air of intellectual calmness they plan out the day’s doings, anticipate and provide for the demands likely to be made upon them, and set themselves to work to wear away the mountain of toil that looms up before them. In their calmness is their strength. They waste no nerve tissue in unavailing regret, in needless fear, in idle fretting against the bars that hem them in. They oppose to disaster a brave spirit, meet losses with a smile, bear disappointments with equanimity, and preserve sweetness of temper in every emergency.
This quietness of spirit aids one as much in the minor affairs of life as in great undertakings. Severe sickness, death, overwhelming calamity, force upon us an unnatural calmness by the very magnitude of the affliction they bring. But in common life “the little foxes spoil the grapes.” Petty accidents move to impatience, slight annoyances destroy equanimity of temper, trifling opposition excites anger. The sewing-machine “cuts up,” and instead of seeking out the cause and removing it, the operator determines to make it work anyhow, and gets herself into a perfect fret, while the machine remains cool and obstinate as before. A knot gets in a garment as it passes through the wringer, and is jerked through, bending the cylinders, wrenching the cogs, and throwing it quite out of order. The children fret, and are rudely hushed. No cure for these little ills is so potent as patience—“not mandragora nor all the drowsy sirups of the East will medicine” the fretting soul to peace. “Therein the patient must minister to himself.” It is very hard to rein in the restive temper, to repress the stinging epithet, to work steadily in the harness of daily toil without “kicking,” or “balking,” or lying down in the furrow; but to the learning of these hard lessons does all the discipline of life point, and happiest they who soonest accept the situation and bend their necks to the yoke.—N. Y. Tribune.
“A Chained Tiger, a Tiger Still.”
THE tolerant spirit manifested by the Roman Catholics in this country, until lately, has been supposed by many to show a change of principle; and when it has been suggested by those who knew more of the intolerant spirit of the system that “a chained tiger was a tiger still,” the reply has been made that the spirit of our institutions and our system of government were such that even Roman Catholicism could not help but be molded by it. This is possibly true, so far as the more intelligent classes are concerned. Their well-known treatment, however, of the Orangemen in New York City demonstrated that the system is unchanged, and that the lower classes of Catholics, which the hierarchy educates and governs, are ready, whenever it can safely be done, for the darkest deeds of the Spanish Inquisition. In proof of this, we need only refer to the scenes which were enacted a few weeks ago in Centralia, Columbia County, Pa., and fully described in Harper's Weekly, April 13, and in other Eastern papers. The following account we clip from the Christian Instructor, of Philadelphia, April 27. On reading it, we could not refrain asking ourselves the question, Is it possible that such scenes can be enacted in this nineteenth century, in the United States of America? Are we not nursing a system that will yet rob us of our liberties?
The unchanged spirit of the Romish system has manifested itself in a most startling form by positive acts of persecution in our own State. In Centralia, a pleasant town in Columbia County, in the midst of a coal mining district, the mass of the population are Roman Catholics, many of whom are of the lowest class. For some time past they have shown a spirit of increasing hostility to all who were not within the pale of their Church; but no serious outbreak or violence was attempted until within the last few months. Near the first of last month, a band of them came to the school-house where the public school was being held, seized the teacher, who was a Protestant, that had in some way offended them, cut off his ears, and nailed them to his desk, and then, though he was removed to his house,203they surrounded it with the avowed determination to burn it, and declared they would take his life even should he escape them at that time. In this case they were dispersed at the time by two of their priests coming on the ground with whips, and literally driving them away.
A few nights afterward they came at three o'clock in the morning to the house of a widow, who had formerly been a Roman Catholic, but, having abjured that faith some months ago, was confirmed in the Protestant Episcopal Church, and had her children attend its Sabbath-School. She was waited on by various Roman Catholic parties, and urged to return to the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman priest sent for her to come to his chapel, and word was taken her that if she did not immediately leave Protestantism, and renew her connection with the Church of Rome, she would go to perdition, where her husband and all who died out of the Roman Catholic Church are in torment. She refused to return, or to take her children from the Protestant school. On the above night, the night of 26th ult., some of the men came to her house, where she and her four children were. Her brother-in-law, an aged man with only one leg, was boarding with her, as he had long been. These men attacked this defenceless household, beat both the woman and the crippled man, until their lives were despaired of, and did as much damage as possible to the furniture and household goods. The next day the beaten and suffering family were removed with difficulty to the railway trains, and were forced, under the severest threats, to depart from the place, leaving all their effects behind them.
During the time of this terrible persecution, no less than fourteen Protestant families have been compelled, as is reported to us, to remove from the town, and threats are thickly abroad that no Protestant shall have an abiding in the place. When we asked of some of the sufferers who have been with us, Why was not the protection of law invoked? the reply was, The police and other officers of the place are all Roman Catholics or are dependent upon Roman Catholic votes, and would do nothing. Cries of suffering and murder in the fearful time of danger were unheard. Six dwelling houses and the school-house were burned down, and not a public hand was lifted, we are told, either to put out the fire or save the property. The bloody and devastating cries of St. Bartholomew's day, “Down with the Protestants!” were practically heard in this town; and boasted as is our chartered right to toleration, protection, and personal security, not a hand was raised by the officers of law to see that the innocent and defenceless were helped in their hour of terrible need.
Is this state of things to be allowed? If it may be in Centralia, why may it not be in any other place where the Romish Church has the power, as in this case she shows she still has the will, to persecute and destroy?
In the statements which we have here made, we have simply drawn on the facts that were declared to us by some of the immediate sufferers who were residents in Centralia, but having been forced to flee, are now with friends, or in places of employment in this city and vicinity. Is there not a call in it all for the people of this country to realize how truly the church of Rome is unchanged, and that if it is ever in her power she will curse with her intolerance and hate the very land that, by its free institutions and its open arms for all, fostered and warmed her into new life and growth? Never should the warning cry of the devoted Lafayette be forgotten in this land, “That if these United States ever lose their civil liberty and their free institutions, it will be by the hands of the Jesuits.”—Christian Press.
Not Forsaking the Assembling of Ourselves Together.
By MARY STRATTON
Some of the Lord's servants go into a new place, give a course of lectures, bring out a few on the truth, organize a church, and pass on to other places, leaving the precious cause of God in the hands of the church to carry it forward or let it go down just as they choose. A portion of the responsibility ought to rest on every member. And how pleasant and easy the burden would be if every one would bear his or her part.
But is it so? That is the question. Every lover of the truth can promptly answer, No. Our Sabbath and prayer-meetings are appointed every week. When it is fair weather, a majority of the church will be there. But what if it is cloudy, or cold, or the wind blows? Why, a few will be there unless the weather is positively forbidding, and sit and wait and look for others that ought to be there till the time for meeting passes, and then have a little prayer-meeting and go home feeling not very much encouraged surely.
I am glad to know that there are some who can be depended upon. They are like pillars in the temple on which you may lean for support, and are worth their weight in gold in the cause of God. It is good to know when the Sabbath morning comes that somebody will be at meeting. And it is not difficult to tell who, beforehand. If there are signs of rain, or the traveling is bad, the very ones who would go twice that distance on business under the same circumstances, will remain at home, and try to think they have a reasonable excuse.
I do not like to hear any one pray for the Lord to bless such ones at home. It is asking an impossibility. They ought indeed to be prayed for, that the Lord would make them feel so keenly that they are out of the path of duty that there will never be a repetition of the same fault.
Men engaged in a worldly enterprise put forth all the energy the case requires. They expend time and means, and, if need be, burn the midnight oil, sacrificing health and happiness, all to gain some worldly object.
We need men who will act as energetically in the cause of present truth, steady to the one purpose, and that, the advancement of the cause of God.
Is it true that the last message of mercy is now going forth to bring out a people and fit them up for translation? Is it also true that a dark cloud, like a heavy pall hangs over the destiny of the wicked? The Bible teaches these great truths, and we cannot avoid the conclusion that every one who sincerely believes the third angel’s message will be alive and interested.
If we have trials and discouragements, let us go to the house of prayer, and share them with our brethren and sisters. A brother who has not a heart in him to help another up instead of down, even if he has erred, is not worthy of the name we bear. It is safe trusting ourselves in the hands of God’s dear people. MARY STRATTON.