THE apostle Paul took the ground of total abstinence from all that is injurious, where improperly used, or that would cause a brother to offend. He maintained this principle not simply because his conscience positively required it, but because his influence required it. With a good conscience he could eat meat offered to idols. But mark you, such eating could not lead to a bad habit of gluttony. It would not make him beastly and brutal. It could not dethrone his reason and ruin his soul. It was not a stimulus, provoking a tyrannical greed and disgusting excesses. If it had been, he would have had an acute conscience about eating it, even moderately. But being innocent in itself and in its effects upon himself, he could teach that eating such meats did not offend his own conscience.
There were others, however, who had a "weak conscience" in this respect. Toward them he must have a "conscience void of offense." They felt that by such eating they were acknowledging the idol to which those meats had been offered before they were sold in the shambles. Their tender convictions must be treated with sacredness. If they saw an apostle innocently indulge, they might plead his example, and not only eat the meat, but go so far as to worship the idol. With an eye upon the white spire of his example, they would strand their souls upon the sand-bars of impiety.
The apostle Paul would not remove to such disputed ground. It would cause contention. He had no good title to it, either from his conscience or his God. The foundations would give way. He would fall into the sin of offending his brethren. Rather would he abide on the sure ground of self-denial, which the Saviour had granted to his disciples. The charter ran: "Deny thyself." Not sin, simply, but self. Hence he said, "If meat make my brother to offend [stumble], I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend." His position was that of total abstinence from whatever would give him an injurious influence over his brethren.
He wished the churches at Rome and at Corinth to stand on this ground: "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died. . . . For meat destroy not the work of God. . . . It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth or is offended or is made weak." Romans 14. 14-21. See, also, 1 Cor. 8.—Rev. W. M. Blackburn.
Foreign Wine-Making.
A CORRESPONDENT of a London journal, who had indulged romantic ideas of the wine-press, writes from Hungary as follows, after visiting a winery:—
"I had had dim ideas of snowy garments dyed purple with the juice of the grapes, and the delicate feet of the girls treading the luscious fruit under the shade of vine-clad trellises in the open air. In my imagination there were fountains of pure water washing away all stains and impurities, and long processions of men and maidens bearing the fruits on their heads, all decked with flowers, and singing and dancing to the sound of harps and flutes. Had I not seen pictures to that effect, read political opinions of it, and had I not always been encouraged by my childhood's instructors in this delusion? And now, behold, there were not any snowy garments at all; the Hungarians had on coarse shirts and loose drawers tucked above the knee, and I came to the conclusion that they had never seen any fountains of pure water, and wouldn't have known the use of them if they had. For there was a kind of grimness about them, burned by the sun, which seemed to indicate that they never washed either themselves or their clothes. One black-eyed, purple-legged fellow, with the grape-juice just drying on his bare feet, seized a basket, and ran off down the steps and into the vineyard, and presently returning with a load of the fruit, shot it into the press, and, with all the dust and dirt of the road still clinging to his feet, mounted, and began to tread the grapes, and soon stood almost knee deep in the liquor which, having served him as a sort of foot-bath, was to be the drink, perhaps, of future generations of refined fastidious palates. Having seen this I became melancholy, and preferred to leave the rest of the manipulations of earth's choicest nectar in obscurity."
Tobacco Withdrawal in a Boy
THERE is a young lad in this city who has a good place and attends faithfully to his duties. He had one bad habit, and that was chewing tobacco, in which he indulged more freely than men who had chewed for fifty years. Last Saturday a gentleman offered the boy $5 if he would quit chewing for a year. Another followed suit, and a third, all signing their names to a paper agreeing to give the same sum. The boy said he would win the money, washed his mouth, and began right away. Sunday he felt badly, and Monday he was worse. Tuesday he shook and trembled like a man with the delirium tremens, and yesterday he was confined to his bed, from which he has not got up, and it will be some time before the effects of the poison in his system can be worked out.—Hartford, Conn., Times.
The Corrupting Influence of Saloons
LET a youth frequent a saloon for one year, though he may never taste liquor, the profane, obscene, and vulgar language there used, the disgusting and degrading allusions which comprise the entire stock of conversation therein and thereabouts, and his very thoughts and imaginations will become so corrupt that he will be utterly unfit for decent society. And yet, Christians declare that to move our saloons by political action is impracticable.—Prohibitionist.
The Lord Himself Shall Come.
By Editor
LAST week, at the request of a correspondent, we gave some proofs that faith in the second coming of Christ is not generally held in the churches. Most of them profess to believe the doctrine, but in some such sense as to dispense with the actual coming of the Lord in person. And we gave most explicit proofs that a substitute for the second advent, and for the blessings which are promised to the church at his coming, has been and is being accepted very generally. We will briefly give Scripture proofs to show that the mystical advent, and the substitute for the advent, are unscriptural and dangerous errors.
III. The quotation which we gave last week affirms that Christ came spiritually on the day of Pentecost, and is never to come in any other way. On this spiritual, or mystical, or figurative coming of Christ, Bishop Merrill, of the M. E. Church, says, in answer to the position of the Universalists, who are really the authors of this idea of a spiritual or mystical advent:—
"A figurative coming of Christ is no coming at all. Those who believe in such a coming at the destruction of Jerusalem [or at any other time] impose upon themselves by the sound of words without meaning. If the phrase, a ‘figurative coming,’ has any meaning, it fails to reach our perception. Certainly those who use it intend to say that Christ himself, did not come in person; and if he did not come in person as the Son of man he did not come at all. A figurative advent is a myth."
Now we will give a few passages which can never be harmonized with the idea of the spiritual advent. 1 Thess. 4:16, 17. "The Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord." If this language can be made to refer to anything but "the Lord himself;" if it does not refer to a resurrection of the dead and a translation of the living saints in that day, then we see no use for our Bibles. Certainly they cannot be considered very reliable in their statements. And of the facts here spoken of the apostle speaks in another place.
1 Cor. 15:51-53. "Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." "We shall not all sleep;" equivalent to, "we that are alive and remain," of the preceding text. "The trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised;" in the other text, "—and the trump of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise." The parallel can be traced further, but it is not necessary. Again we quote.
Heb. 9:28. "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." If his first coming was mythical, then his second may be; otherwise not. Reason, and every law of language, demand that if his first coming was real, personal, that it was actually himself (see Luke 24:39), the second should be real and personal also, and especially when inspiration says it will be "the Lord himself."
Now we call attention to one fact which is decisive on this point. It is claimed that the promise of his second coming was fulfilled by the descent of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost; whereas, these positive testimonies of his future coming were written from twenty-one to thirty-two years after that day of Pentecost. And others, equally definite, were written at even later dates. It will be in order for the members of the Congregational Association, or their preacher who gave such a clear "elucidation of the spiritual sense" of the Scriptures, to explain how a definite prophecy and assurance of a coming event, written in A. D. 66, could be fulfilled in A. D. 33! Such pretended expositions are but travesties of the sacred word, and serve only to bring the Bible into disrepute before the world.
We wish now to quote several more texts, which indeed will clearly prove the same point, namely, that the advent is a literal coming of Christ himself, but we quote them more especially to show the importance of the advent, and the utter absurdity of attempting to introduce a substitute for that glorious event.
1. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3:4. There is not a hint that we shall be glorified before that time.
2. We must refer again to 1 Thess. 4:13-18, as parallel to the text last quoted. The Lord himself shall come, the dead shall rise, those who are alive (of the brethren) will be caught up together in the clouds, and so—in this manner—shall we ever be with the Lord. No other manner, and no other time is given in the Scriptures for us to "appear with him in glory." We are told to "comfort one another with those words;" not some substitute for them.
3. "Thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." Luke 14:14. These are the words of Jesus himself. And with this agrees the testimony of 1 Thess. 4, and 1 Cor. 15, as quoted. The just will be raised—"the dead in Christ"—when the Lord comes; when the archangel's voice and the trump of God are heard. Then the saints shall shout their victory over death and the grave. They cannot triumph over the grave until the resurrection of the just; and the just will not be raised until the Lord himself comes. He "is our life." And if he never comes the second time, the graves will never deliver up their dead; the resurrection of the just will never take place, and the recompense will never be given. And thus the blessed Saviour speaks again:—
4. "The Son of man shall come in the glory of the Father with his angels; and then shall he reward every man according to his works." Matt. 16:27. Or if it be claimed that this promise was made too early, and might have been fulfilled at Pentecost! we will give another from the Son of God, put on record more than three-score years after the Pentecost.
5. "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22:12. Always the same; the reward, the recompense, when he comes, when the dead are raised.
6. "And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Peter 5:4. In Matt. 25:31-34, the Saviour says when he "shall come in his glory," sitting upon the throne of his glory, then the saints will "inherit the kingdom." Of course at that time, not before, they will receive their crowns, as Peter says in the text here quoted.
7. "We know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3:2. When we consider that Jesus rose triumphant from the grave, that he showed them the wounds in his hands, and feet, and side, and told them to handle him and see that it was he himself, we are sure that the saints cannot be like him while they are still in the grave; they will never be like him, and see him as he is, if he never appears and never raises them from their graves.
We might quote many more passages, but what is the need? The point stands fully proved, that the second advent is of infinite importance to the saints, and that no substitute is admissible, unless, indeed, we can find a substitute for the recompense, the reward of the righteous; for the crown of glory; for the immortality then to be given; for being like the Lord; for ever being with him. Strike every reference to the second coming of Christ out of the New Testament, and you would leave it in fragments, robbed of its glory. But who will point us to a single text which would be removed or marred if every reference to the immortality of the soul were stricken from the Scriptures?
Now we are well prepared to appreciate the statement of the N. Y. Independent. We repeat the extract:—
"For all practical purposes of comfort the doctrine of the blessed immortality of the righteous, the immortality of the soul, takes the place for us of any doubtful doctrine of the Lord's second coming. At our death the Lord comes for us. That is what we are to wait and watch for. The dead are already passed into glory. They do not wait for the trump for their judgment and blessedness."
We appeal to the candid, reverent reader: Is there anything "doubtful" in the "doctrine of the Lord's second coming," as set forth in the texts we have quoted? Is it not as plainly revealed as it is possible that language can reveal it? Is "the immortality of the soul" more plainly revealed in the word of God than is the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the dead? Is the immortality of the soul ever set forth in the Bible as the ground of hope and of comfort?
It is a significant fact, that they who claim the immortality of the soul rest the doctrine mainly on philosophy, many of the ablest expositors of Scripture confessing that it is not found in the Bible; and the standard philosophical argument, even to this day, is that of a pagan, who was ignorant of the Scriptures, or if not ignorant, disregarded them. Such is the paternity of that which is accepted as a substitute for the personal "Jesus and the resurrection."
Paul, in Titus 2:13, calls the coming of Christ "that blessed hope." But now a substitute, of which no mention is made in the Bible, is accepted in its stead. It is no praise to the Protestant world that it sends the Bible to the nations, while it robs it of its glory and its life, and sets such a shocking example of making the word of God void through traditions.
We cannot more appropriately close these remarks than by a quotation from 2 Tim. 4:1-8, on which a word of comment is not needed:—
"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. . . . For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. . . . I have fought a good fight. I have finished my course, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing."
Joseph Cook on Wendell Phillips
The Christian at Work says of Joseph Cook's announcement that Wendell Phillips had gone to meet some of the old pagans in Heaven, that it is a "case of emotional rhetoric or Universalism, and the reader may take his choice."
A Weighty Matter.
By Editor
A LETTER from Missouri, written by one who is a stranger to us, contains the following:—
“‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father.’ What is the will of the Father? J. A. C.”
The quotation is from Matt. 7:21. In John 6:39, 40, Jesus said it was the Father’s will that he should lose nothing of all that had been given him, and, that all that believe on him may have eternal life. But this cannot afford any answer to the question. The Scriptures do, however, afford a very definite answer. And,
1. We will notice the connection. The subject introduced in verse 21 is carried out in verses 22, 23. First, some who say, Lord, Lord, cannot enter the kingdom because they do not the will of the Father. Secondly, though they may cry, Lord, Lord, and profess very strong faith in Christ, they are rejected because they work iniquity. The obvious teaching of these declarations is that doing the will of the Father stands contrasted with working iniquity. We must, therefore, examine this word, iniquity.
The word from which iniquity is translated is anomian. The Diaglott gives its equivalent, “lawlessness.” Greenfield defines it, “violation of law.” Robinson, “lawlessness, violation of law.” Liddell & Scott, “(a, priv., nomos), without law, lawless, impious.” Which is to say, the prefix alpha signifies without, nomos, law. Barnes says: “It properly signifies lawlessness, in the sense that the requirements of the law are not conformed to or complied with.” Of the two words used in 1 John 3:4, he says: “He who doeth sin (hamartian) doeth also transgression” (anomos). Sin is the generic term embracing all that would be wrong. The word transgression (anomos) is a specific term, showing where the wrong lay, to wit, in violating the law.” There is no room for question that the Saviour taught in this passage that, however strongly people may profess faith in him, they will be rejected if they do not the will of the Father, that is, if they break his law.
2. In confirmation of this we identify the will of the Father as his law in many scriptures. God is a Governor; we are all his subjects. We rejoice to address him as our Father; but this is not the only character in which he appears to us. We must all appear in the Judgment. And where should we expect to find the will of a governor except in his law. And so it is said: “Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man; for God shall bring every work into judgment.” If we do not keep his commandments we cannot expect to stand in the Judgment. The text upon which our correspondent frames his question teaches that faith in Christ is of no avail without obedience to the Father. And again, the scripture says: “He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Prov. 28:9. “Faith without works is dead.”
But we have testimony even more direct than this. In a prophecy concerning the Saviour he is represented as saying to his Father: “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. And the apostle of Christ speaks to those to whom “were committed the oracles of God” (Rom. 3:2), thus: “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” Rom. 2:17, 18. Here is testimony most positive that they who are instructed out of the law thereby know the will of God. And the apostle proceeds to identify the law as that of the ten commandments, by referring to the eighth, seventh, and second commandments, and sums up, and gives his estimate of the whole, saying: “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonorest thou God?”
Jesus said he came into the world to do the will of his Father, and gave the Jews a test of his doctrines as follows: “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John 7:16, 17. Here we notice that, 1. The will of the Father is to be done. It is something to be obeyed. 2. It is distinct from the doctrine of Christ—of the cross. 3. It existed before Christ came. He came to do it, and to lead others to do it. The law of God was in his heart. He came to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Heb. 9:26. Not to put away his own sin, for he had none. It was our sin he came to put away. And sin is the transgression of the law. He came to put away our transgressions of his Father’s law; to overcome the rebellion against his Father’s authority, and to restore us to obedience to his Father. And strange to say, men with the Bible open before them, professing to honor God by acknowledging his Son, praying to him, calling him, Lord, Lord, yet continue in sin, trampling down the law of his Father. Not only that, but they claim exemption from obedience to the revealed will of the Father through the faith of the Son! They try to make void the law through faith; Rom. 3:31; they sin that grace may abound; chap. 6:1-3; they make void the commandment of God through their tradition; and turn from the words of Jesus, who pronounces their worship vain. Matt. 15:1-9.
3. There is yet one point to which we wish to call the attention of the reader. It is the chronology of the text upon which we are questioned. The Saviour told how they might, and why they should not, enter the kingdom. Now there is an appointed time when the saints shall inherit the kingdom. See Matt. 25:31-34; 13:40, 41, and others. It is at the coming of the Lord in glory. A prophecy of his coming is found in Rev. 14:6-14. And the last message given to the church and to the world contains “the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Here are brought together, as essentials of Christian character as a preparation to meet the Lord in peace at his appearing, the will of the Father, his holy commandments, and the gospel of the Son, the faith of Jesus. The Saviour said: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord,” &c., but, with all their loud profession, they work iniquity; they are breakers of the law. They are fully expecting to enter the kingdom on their faith in Jesus, while they persistently deny the commandments of the Father. They will meet with a terrible disappointment when it is too late to recover themselves from their error. And so will all who draw near to God with their mouth, and teach for doctrines the commandments of men.
Systematic Giving.
It will be readily seen that so far as tithes are concerned, the Bible plan of supporting the cause is very systematic. Each one gives in the same proportion. There is no fixed time at which persons should set apart their tithe, because it is to be the first-fruits of whatever they may receive, at whatever time it may come in. Whenever a man receives any part of his income, his first duty should be to take out the Lord’s tithe, putting it in a place by itself. If he should at once credit his cash account with the amount of tithe set aside, he would be doing more nearly right still, for since the tithe does not belong to him, his books would show just what money he really has on hand. There would then be less temptation to use the tithe while it remains in his hands, for the fact that it is not his own would appear more real. As to when the tithe should be paid into the treasury, will often depend on circumstances; many churches, however, have an arrangement for the treasurer to visit each member once a month, to collect whatever tithes they may have on hand. This plan has many advantages, but it does not hinder anybody from handing in his tithe during the interval, if he so desires.
The fact can be well established, I think, that the Bible plan is that men should also be systematic in their offerings. Why should we not think so? "God is not the author of confusion," and there is order and system in all his works. But we need not depend on our unassisted reason for the establishment of systematic offerings. A familiar Bible text settles the matter beyond controversy. We quote:—
"Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem." 1 Cor. 16:1-3.
It is evident from even a casual reading of this text that the apostle has reference to offerings, and not to tithes. For (1) that which the churches were to lay aside is called "liberality," a term that, as we have seen, cannot be applied to the tithe. (2) Paul said that this especial contribution was "for the poor saints which are in Jerusalem;" Rom. 15:26; but the tithe, we remember, was not used for the support of the poor. And (3) the tithe is the first-fruits of the increase, and could not therefore always be paid on a set day of the week; for while some might every day be receiving that which they could tithe, others might not receive anything as often as once a month.
The question will arise, Was this order designed to be followed by all Christians, or was it merely a local and temporary arrangement? We answer, that while the necessity for this special collection would soon cease to exist, the plan is one that should be pursued by all. The fact that the apostle made the arrangement, not for one church merely, but for many, and that it was of sufficient importance to be preserved in the inspired writings for all generations, is sufficient evidence of this. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable." We can see nothing more to our profit in this text, than that our offerings to the poor and to various worthy objects, should be according to a definite plan.
When God gave laws through Moses for the government of his people, he gave direction concerning the poor as follows: "If there be among you a poor man of one of thy brethren within any of thy gates in thy land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not harden thine heart, nor shut thine hand from thy poor brother; but thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him, and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need, in that which he wanteth." Deut. 15:7, 8. The word "lend" is used here, but the verses following plainly show that they were to expect no return; and immediately after follows the statement, "For the poor shall never cease out of the land."
The New Testament abounds in exhortations by Christ and the apostles, to care for the poor, and the quotation last made was re-affirmed by Christ shortly before his crucifixion, when he said, "For ye have the poor always with you." Matt. 26:11.
Now, query: If it is our duty to care for the poor, and they are to be ever present with us, would it not be negligence on our part, if we did not make constant provision for them? Is it not because people let their offerings depend so much upon impulse, that there is so much suffering among the poor? Much needless suffering would be avoided if all made systematic offerings as a matter of principle. The heart is often touched by scenes of woe, or by appeals for aid, but, because no previous preparation has been made, we have nothing to give, and our sympathy is useless. To say to a brother or sister, "Be ye warmed and filled," or to wish it,202and not give them those things which are needful to the body, profits no more at the present time than it did in the days of the apostle.
The text under consideration (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) plainly teaches that our offerings, for the poor at least, are to be made from a fund which is the result of sums of money regularly set apart for that purpose. These weekly deposits are to be made after a calculation of our income, of which they are to be a definite proportion. What that proportion shall be, each one must determine for himself. The amount once laid aside, it should be considered as sacred as the tithe. Although it is in our own power to say how much we will give, whether more or less, when the amount to be given is decided in our minds, we have placed the matter out of our own hands. Having once vowed, even though the vow were not uttered, a record of it is made in Heaven, and God will surely require it of us. "When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it; for the Lord thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee." Deut. 23:21. As was recommended in the case of the tithe, a good way to do is to not only set the sum apart in a place by itself, but place it to the credit of our cash account; then there will be less danger of temptation to use it for ourselves.
But some one will say, "I don't believe God wants us to give because we feel obliged to; I believe he would rather have us give cheerfully; and there is something repulsive in such a methodical way of making offerings." Well, excepting the last statement, we believe just so to. But is it so that God is more pleased with service that is performed fitfully, yea, almost by accident, than with that service which is the result of a settled purpose? Does he take greater delight in one who gives to his cause or to the poor on a certain occasion, because it happens to be convenient, than in one who makes it convenient to give whenever there is need? Most assuredly not. Joshua said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord;" and his pious determination stands as a continual rebuke to those who neglect to choose once for all the course they will pursue.
Let us hear the words of the apostle: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a cheerful giver." 2 Cor. 9:7. Our giving is to be the result of a cheerful determination. God loves a cheerful giver, yet he is pleased that we should have a previous "purpose" in our hearts. It is with giving as with any other service,—it should be done from principle, yet willingly. Take, for instance, the Sabbath. There is a specific command for its observance, and all our plans, in all time, are to be made with reference to it. The commandment is unconditional and unyielding; and yet God requires us to "call the Sabbath a delight." The fact is, if a duty is irksome, our only way is to do it faithfully, and make ourselves like it. And if we go about any duty from principle, resolved to like it because it is our duty, God will give us grace to find in it our highest pleasure. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and not subject to his law; but it is possible for us to be so changed as to love him, and to delight in his law.
One more thought in regard to systematic giving. Paul desired that the Corinthians should "abound in this grace also." 2 Cor. 9:7. The ability to give, then, is one of the graces, and like all others is bestowed by God. Verses 1, 2. But graces grow only by constant exercise; therefore there should be constant giving, else we shall be lacking in one of the graces, and thus fall of eternal life. The great object of giving is after all more for our own benefit than for the benefit of others. God could miraculously supply the wants of his cause and of the poor, but we would be the losers. We must be like Christ if we would inherit the kingdom of God; and of him we are told that "though he was rich," yet for our sake "he became poor." Perfect unselfishness characterized his whole life. Unlike him, selfishness is that which prompts every act of our natural heart. The only way to overcome it is by a determined performance of those things which selfishness would lead us to avoid. As Napoleon said, "Find out what the enemy wants, and then do exactly the opposite." This plan, persistently followed, will drive the enemy from the field, and give us a glorious victory.
The greatest favor God can bestow upon us in this life is to allow us to have a part in giving to his cause, and to the poor. If God should transform us into the divine image, by an act of his mighty power, we would not be the gainers thereby, for we would be liable to fall with the first temptation that presented itself; and if, having transformed us, he should keep us in that condition by the same power, we would be mere machines. God designs that we shall work out our own salvation, in order that we may have a moral character of our own; he will give us assistance, without which we can do nothing, yet we must do the work ourselves.
What has been said concerning systematic offerings is not designed to cut off special offerings. Thank offerings and sin offerings are as necessary now as in the days of Moses, and every Christian will feel called upon at times to make them. This we should do whenever the necessity arises, but should not even then neglect to "lay by in store" our regular contribution. We would again emphasize the fact that the benefit to be derived from offerings is gained only by continuous giving. If our whole contribution would amount to but five dollars, it would be far better to pay ten cents every week than to pay the entire sum at the end of the year. It would be as wise to think of doing all our praying on the first or last day of the year, as to do all our giving for the year at one time, and then think no more about it.
The Oneness of God's People.
By Stephen Nelson Haskell
In the last recorded prayer of our Saviour for his disciples we find these words: "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one. I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." Here is described close relationship. The language is unmistakable. But the wine of Babylon has been so freely drunk by professed Christians that the truth of this scripture is either entirely ignored, or so perverted that it is supposed to teach only a sort of theoretical faith in Christ, and consequently all denominations, however different their belief in the teachings of the Scriptures, can unite in the fullest fellowship. This scripture does not teach that men will have the same judgment in reference to things of this life, but it does teach something more than a mere theory which will encircle the tens of thousands who simply profess faith in a Saviour. The apostle expressly declares, "There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." There are not many different bodies, faiths, and baptisms, but one. He exhorts the church at Rome to be likeminded one toward another, that they might "with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
The same apostle in writing to the Corinthians uses language equally impressive. He says, "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." It appears that this church had become partial to particular ministers, for Paul wrote unto them, "Now this I say, that every one of you saith I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ." To manifest this partiality was to prove either that Christ was divided, or that they were carnal; for he farther says, "Ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?" The apostles worked in harmony, and when any variance in policy did occur it was immediately settled.
A remarkable feature of the work of God in the last days is that his people have a special message to proclaim to the world. Rev. 14:9-12. With those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, there is a oneness of faith, and a harmony in their plans of operation, notwithstanding they are a scattered people. They are found in every State and Territory of America, in every civilized nation of Europe, and in China, Japan, and the islands of the sea; and they are gathered from every people and nationality under heaven. Their regularly organized churches number only about seven hundred, while the numbers found in unorganized companies, and scattered where there is no company, far exceed those in the organized churches. Yet their confidence in the plans devised to spread the message found in the fourteenth chapter of Revelation leads to perfect harmony in their labors.
It is now about one year since a special move was made to establish missions in the principal cities of America, from the Atlantic to the Pacific; from Portland, Maine, to Portland, Oregon; and from New York City to San Francisco. This move has the moral and financial support of tens of thousands who believe in these truths. Many of these individuals would sell their last foot of land, and their only shelter to carry forward the work.
This oneness does not include every one who professes to keep the commandments of God; far from it. It is as true now as it was in the days of the apostles, that men will arise "speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." And it is as necessary now as it was then. The apostle says, "For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." In the end this does not hinder the work. The cause receives a new impetus, after the integrity of the faithful has been tried, and the ranks purified from the "chronic grumblers."
It is the Infinite One that is leading forward his people by his truth to a sure and certain victory; and that victory is but a little way in the future.
" 'Tis but a little while,
And he shall come again,
Who died that we might live, who lives
That we may with him reign.
Then, O my Lord, prepare
My soul for that glad day;
Oh, wash me in thy precious blood,
And take my sins away."
S. N. HASKELL.
The Perplexities of Church Union
By Editor
THOSE who make their boast of liberality in religion and cry out for union, have received a caution. Dr. Newman, a Methodist, was called as pastor over a Congregational Church. Now the church is divided in an effort to remove him. But how shall it be settled? The Methodists cannot control a Congregationalist Church, and the Congregationalists dare not discipline a Methodist minister! Over this the Monitor makes a great ado. True, the Catholics can never get in such a muddle as that, but that is a small matter compared to what may be found in "the Mother Church."