[This is article 7 in the series on the Early Apostasy. It is of interest studied by itself.]
Conversion of Constantine.
THE church, weakened, almost subdued, by apostasy, was also beset by the Roman sword, with the avowed design of her enemies to wholly break her allegiance to God and sweep her out of existence, as though Satan with dire malignity would cast down to the ground and stamp out the hated followers of Christ.
The first onslaught, under Nero, A.D. 64, is described by Tacitus, a heathen historian: "Vast multitudes were convicted, not so much on the charge of making the conflagration [the burning of Rome] as of hating the human race." Persecutions followed under Domitian, A.D. 95, Trajan, 98-117, Hadrian, 117-138, Marcus Aurelius, 161-180. In this emperor's reign wars, earthquakes, and inundations, famine and pestilence, so swept the empire that it never recovered, well fulfilling Christ's word in Matt. 24: 6-8. The hated Christians, for impiety in not rendering allegiance to the gods, were held to be the cause of the great disasters.
Under Septimius Severus there was persecution, A.D. 193-211, also in the reigns of Caracalla and Decius. In the reign of Maximinus, 235-238, earthquakes and calamities were rife, and, as usual, set down to the Christians' account. Then followed Decius, 249-251, when all Christians were required to appear before the magistrate in a given time and abjure Christ and sacrifice. He would, if it were possible, have extirpated Christianity. Again, under Gallus, 251-253, pestilence, drought, and famine were experienced. As usual, the cry was raised, "The Christians to the lions." Persecution continued under Valerian, 253-260, Aurelian, 274, and Diocletian. Maximian was after a time associated in the government, and became a fiery persecutor, when thousands upon thousands were put to death.
We have in the times of Diocletian and his associates in the government, Maximian and Galerius, the period known as the Era of the Martyrs. In his time a learned French writer, Monsieur Godeau, computes the number put to death in one month as seventeen thousand, and that during the continuance of it, in the one province of Egypt, not less than one hundred and fifty thousand died by the violence of their persecutors, and five times that number through the fatigues of banishment and working the public mines, to which they were condemned. How many the lives sacrificed over the entire empire we cannot conceive.
But Christianity would not down in this way; it rather revived the church than otherwise. Satan now offers the kingdom of this world, upon the same condition as once before, to Christ in the wilderness. Soon the church, which asserted her liberty before the drawn sword, became a servile taskmaster to her vices and lordly paramours.
The conversion of Constantine marks a decided era in Catholicism. An edict, signed by Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius, A.D. 311, proclaimed toleration in matters of religion. Again, the edict of Milan, 312, gave unrestricted liberty. The sacred rights of conscience are herein asserted as the reason for such liberty.
Constantine marched down from France to Italy against Maxentius. The expedition involved all his future destiny. In extreme anxiety he earnestly meditated the aid of deity, and sought by the patronage of the gods to make his expedition successful. He had ever claimed the sun for his invincible deity. Now, above the blazing sun of noon, while standing before his army, as he told Eusebius, he sees a luminous cross, and over it written, "In hoc signo vinces," "In this sign thou shalt conquer." Policy, conquest, and universal dominion filled his thoughts. He was by turn boor, robber, murderer, and madman during his whole life. We cannot for a moment allow that God thus visited him to stimulate for conquest and glut his reeking sword. He bowed the knee for aid to the Christian's God. It is asserted that his conflict with Licinius assumed a religious phase as a struggle between the rival religions, Paganism and Catholicism. Fifty men eminent for piety carried the Labarum, or Standard of the Cross, and a multitude of priests thronged his train. Out of the blood and dust of battle Constantine came forth victorious, A.D. 323. And this is generally specified as the final step in his conversion. The great sword of Constantine achieved the final conquest of the Roman Empire to the church Catholic.
The briefest possible summary of the times shows Constantine "bishop in externals;" the clergy now the principal disturbers of the empire; orthodoxy and heterodoxy now settled by fathers and councils; bishops exalted as "ruler and governor, . . . your king and potentate, and . . . earthly god;" "Chorepiscopi," or country bishops, subjected to the metropolitans.
The laity were unwarrantably divided into the Faithful, the Catechumens, Kneelers, and Hearers. Sermons, if acceptable to the Hearers, were applauded vociferously. Bishops were empowered by the government to hear and decide all ecclesiastical, and, according to Eusebius and Sozomen, civil cases of adjudicature. If before the civil magistrate either party deferred to the bishop, or desired him instead, thus it must be, and this must be final, without the appeal that otherwise would bring it before the emperor.
At the first Constantine forbade the heathen to interfere with the Christians. Soon his edicts began to interfere with the heathen. Private sacrifices were forbidden. Some of the heathen temples were demolished. All his decrees favoring Christianity were restricted to the Catholic Church. According to Eusebius, he prohibited the worshiping of idols in cities and towns, commanded that no statues of the gods be erected, or sacrifices offered. Thus he prohibited religious opinions and punished the abettors. None can conceive how Constantine's edicts were in any sense more equitable than the heathen emperors before him had been, for if he had the right to erect a standard and make heathen, Christian, and Jew bow thereto, the former emperors had the same privilege, and were justified in erecting their standard and interfering with the Christians. In his views the religious opinions of heathen, Jew, and certain Christians were erroneous; but Diocletian believed, on the other hand, the Christian to be in the wrong. Each had a right to his opinion, but neither had the right to enforce his religious dictum upon anybody else. Thus Constantine no more sanctioned religious liberty than did his predecessors.
In a letter to Mithridates, bishop of Rome, he said he had so great reverence for the Catholic Church that he would not have him suffer in any place any schism or difference to exist. "The privileges granted on religious grounds [said he] are to be conferred only on followers of the Catholic law. It is our pleasure that heretics and schismatics be not merely debarred from the aforesaid privileges, but, furthermore, bound and subject to diverse charges."
The Jew even more than the heathen suffered the full blunt of imperial censure. A council, about the time of his accession, solemnly prohibited clergy and laity from eating with the Jews.
Lastly, the imperious sovereign opened his quiver against heretical Christians. Thus begins an edict:—
Hear ye now, O ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, and Montanists! Hear ye all who have embraced heresies of your own, . . . O ye enemies of truth! Ye adversaries of life! Ye counselors of destruction! Inasmuch as it is no longer possible to endure the pest of your destructiveness, we make proclamation by this edict that no one of you venture to take part in your wonted assemblies. To this end we command all your edifices wherein ye hold your meetings to be confiscated. And this determination of ours proceeds to such a length that we forbid not only your public assemblages, but your private gatherings, whether they be in houses or in any other place in your possession. As many of you as seek a true and spiritual worship, do ye come to the Catholic Church and obtain communion with its holiness, and to the Catholic Church we have directed your chapels, if chapels they can be called, to be delivered without delay. And all other places to you belonging we have commanded to be appropriated to the public treasury.
Thus Constantine, still Pontifex Maximus to the heathen, became lord also of the Church catholic, a fitting prototype of the pontiffs of after times.
Suffering’s Weight and Pearls
By Richter
The burden of suffering seems a tombstone hung about our necks, while in reality it is only the weight which is necessary to keep down the diver while he is hunting for pearls.
HAS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND PERSECUTED?
By Percy T. Magan
(Concluded.)
Now JAMES II. was followed by William of Orange and Queen Mary. This William proved himself no great admirer of ecclesiastical establishments. He belonged to the school of William the Silent—Holland's great champion of religious freedom and equality of all sects before the law. William of Orange abolished episcopacy in Scotland.
When the clergy of the Church of England saw how William viewed these things they reverted to James II., who had stolen away from his kingdom as a thief in the night. They refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new government, although this course was clearly inconsistent with their doctrine of "Divine Right and Passive Obedience." But William held them to their own doctrine; and because they refused to take the oath of allegiance to the crown, he proceeded to eject them from their sees. Since these sees had always been subject to the crown, and in a certain sense were crown property, his action cannot be criticised. Then the bishops denied the right of the Legislature to pass a law against their order, and they boldly declared that the sovereign had no authority to put such a measure into execution. All of this by advocates of the "Divine Right of Kings and Passive Obedience"! They next proceeded to elect bishops themselves. "In several instances, the unseemly spectacle was exhibited of two bishops for the same place, one nominated by the spiritual power, the other nominated by the temporal power.
There was another piece of chicanery of which these gentle shepherds were guilty. Many of them still retained their affection for James, but they had not enough of the true martyr spirit to face the anger of the government, or to risk the loss of their benefices. So they availed themselves of a "supposed distinction between a king by right and a king in possession." This was the old absurdity of de facto and de jure; as if any man could retain a right to a throne which his subjects prohibited him from occupying. The consequence was that while with their lips they took an oath of allegiance to William, they in their hearts paid homage to James. This was a wretched subterfuge. By it "a large body of the clergy were at once turned into concealed rebels." Writing in 1715, Leslie, by far one of the ablest of them, thus states their position:—
You are now driven to this dilemma,—swear, or swear not; if you swear, you kill the soul; and if you swear not, you kill the body, in the loss of your bread.
Nevertheless these disgraceful proceedings were productive of good—they caused both government and people to lose confidence in the established system. In century sixteen the tide began to turn against it. Since the next century no ecclesiastic has held the office of Lord Chancellor. Says Buckle:—
Since the beginning of the eighteenth century, there has been no instance [in England] of [an ecclesiastic] receiving any important diplomatic appointment, or, indeed, holding any important office in the State. Nor has this increasing ascendancy of laymen been confined to the executive government. On the contrary, we find in both Houses of Parliament the same principle at work. In the early and barbarous periods of our history one-half of the House of Lords consisted of temporal peers; the other half of spiritual ones. By the beginning of the eighteenth century, the spiritual peers, instead of forming one-half of the Upper House, had dwindled away to one-eighth; and in the middle of the nineteenth century they have further shrunk to one-fourteenth. . . . Precisely in the same way, more than fifty years have elapsed since any clergyman has been able to take his seat as a representative of the people, the House of Commons having, in 1801, formerly closed their doors against a profession which, in the olden time, would have been gladly admitted, even by the proudest and most exclusive assembly.
Even in later days has the Church of England persecuted. The great King William III. was followed upon the throne by a "foolish and ignorant woman, whose love for the clergy would, in a more superstitious age, have led to dangerous results." I refer, of course, to Anne, who became queen in 1702. New edicts of persecution were issued against dissenters. Hallam says:—
It is impossible to doubt for an instant that if the queen's life had preserved the Tory government for a few years, every vestige of the toleration would have been effaced.
Moreover, soon after the accession of Anne there was a proposal to "debar dissenters of their votes in elections." And in "Ivimey's History of the Baptists," it is said that the death of Anne was an "answer to the dissenters' prayers."
George III. was one of the most despotic monarchs ever occupying the British throne. This is a fact that no American at least can gainsay. There was not a liberal sentiment in his whole make-up. Everything in the line of reform was an abomination to that narrow and ignorant prince. Says Fiske:—
It was the third George's ambition to become a real king, like the king of France or the king of Spain. From earliest boyhood his mother had forever been impressing upon him the precept, "George, be king!" and this simple lesson had constituted pretty much the whole of his education. Popular tradition regards him as the most ignorant king that ever sat upon the English throne. . . . He used to wonder what people could find to admire in such a wretched driveler as Shakespeare, and he never was capable of understanding any problem which required the slightest trace of imagination or of generalizing power.
Nevertheless he was the darling of the clergy of the Church of England. His praises were sounded from every pulpit. The doctrine of "Divine Right" was exhumed and heralded on every side. All of this by the bishops of the Church of England, in behalf of the oppressor of the American people. It was indeed the king, and not the English people, who was anxious to enslave the colonists. Indeed, the American Revolution was known as the "king's war." Said Lord Rockingham in the House of Lords:—
Instead of calling the war, the war of Parliament, or of the people, it was called the king's war, his majesty's favorite war.
And yet in all this great wickedness the clergy upheld him.
Nor in the elder day, did the Church of England behave very well in America. I take for example its doings in Virginia.
This church had taken deep root in Virginia. The early settlers of that colony were cavaliers, and the cavaliers were Church of England communicants to a man.
About the time of the Revolution, however, the Episcopal clergy were falling into discredit.
Many of them were appointed by the British Government, and ordained by the bishop of London, and they were affected by the irreligious listlessness and low moral tone of the English Church in the eighteenth century. The Virginia Legislature thought it necessary to pass special laws prohibiting these clergymen from drunkenness and riotous living. It was said that they spent more time in hunting foxes and betting on race horses than in conducting religious services or visiting the sick. . . . On the whole the system was such as to illustrate all the worst vices of a church supported by the temporal power. The Revolution achieved the discomfiture of a clergy already thus deservedly discredited. The parsons mostly embraced the cause of the crown, but failed to carry their congregations with them, and thus they found themselves arrayed in hopeless antagonism to popular sentiment in a State which contained perhaps fewer Tories in proportion to the population than any other of the thirteen.
At the same time the Episcopal Church itself had gradually come to be a minority in the commonwealth. For more than half a century Scotch and Welsh Presbyterians, German Lutherans, English Quakers, and Baptists had been working their way southward from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and had settled in the fertile country west of the Blue Ridge. Daniel Morgan, who had won the most brilliant battles of the Revolution, was one of those men, and sturdiness was a chief characteristic of most of them. So long as these frontier settlers served as a much needed bulwark against the Indians, the [English] church saw fit to ignore them and let them build meetinghouses and carry on religious services as they pleased. But when the peril of Indian attacks had been thrust westward into the Ohio Valley, and these dissenting communities had waxed strong and prosperous, the ecclesiastical [Church of England] party in the State undertook to lay taxes on them for the support of the Church of England, and to compel them to receive Episcopal clergymen to preach for them, to bless them in marriage, and to bury their dead. The immediate consequence was a revolt which not only overthrew the established church [the Church of England] in Virginia, but nearly effected its ruin. The troubles began in 1768, when the Baptists had made their way into the center of the State, and three of their preachers were arrested by the sheriff of Spottsylvania. As the indictment was read against these men for "preaching the gospel contrary to law," a deep and solemn voice interrupted the proceedings. Patrick Henry had come on horseback many a mile over roughest roads to listen to the trial, and this phrase, which savored of the religious despotism of old, was quite too much for him. "May it please your worships," he exclaimed, "what did I hear? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom your worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?" The shamefaced silence and confusion which ensued was of ill omen for the success of an undertaking so unwelcome to the growing liberalism of the time.
But perhaps I have said enough. At any rate I have said all that I care to say in regard to the wrongs perpetrated upon humanity by the Church of England. We possess not the slightest affinity to a desire to blackmail the name and record of this institution, hoary with the frosts of time. But we are writing history now, and historians must deal with facts—hard, cold, pitiless facts, but facts none the less because they fall with a grating sound upon the ear of the Church of England votary. And a historian who will garble facts in order to palliate the guilt attachable to crimes perpetrated in the name of religion, is himself unworthy of his office, and is deserving of the bitterest execration which his injured fellow-beings and the unborn generations can heap upon him.503
In conclusion we can only say that if Justice Brewer, in his famous decision which we are reviewing, intended to prove that "this is a Christian nation" by virtue of the historic place which the Church of England has occupied in it, we must again aver that should she be clothed again with governmental power, persecution would again be rife in the land. If not, then history itself is a meaningless fable. The Church of England has persecuted in the past. Clothe her with political power in America, with all its "dissenting" sects, and we can only sum up the result in the words of the ancients, vae victis—woe to the vanquished.
THE LORD'S DAY.
By Matthew Larson
BY ELDER MATTHEW LARSON.
"I WAS in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Rev. 1:10.
If there is to be a reformation in the last days, in respect to the observance of the Sabbath, as we have already shown that there will be, it becomes at once a matter of no little interest and importance to us to know, not only how we should observe it, but, also, which day should be observed. That there is, and should be, such an observance in the present dispensation is quite generally and freely admitted; but, unfortunately, there seems to be considerable difference and controversy as to the particular day. That the Lord has such a day in this dispensation, however, is clearly proven by our text, Rev. 1:10.
Now, here is a day plainly recognized, as late as A. D. 96, as the Lord's day. "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," says John. But our text does not inform us which particular day of the week is here referred to, the first or the last, the second, third, fourth, or fifth. The day is simply referred to and mentioned as a well-known institution, in need of no further explanation. Hence, we must go elsewhere in order to determine which particular day is intended. But where shall we go?—To the Bible, of course, for it is the only source to which we may go, and from which we may expect to obtain any reliable or authoritative information upon any question of this nature. If it does not furnish this information, then everyone must be left to decide the matter for himself as he may see fit.
Since "the Lord's day" is a new term, it is sometimes urged that it must, therefore, be used to designate a new institution, the first day of the week. But where does the Bible tell us that it is the first day of the week? Certainly our text contains no such information; and we challenge anyone to find any other text, either in the Old or in the New Testaments, that affirms or teaches any such thing. The first day of the week is never once mentioned in any of the inspired writings as a sacred day, or by any sacred title whatsoever. Whenever and wherever they speak of it, it is invariably spoken of as a common day, by its common title. Nowhere is it ever said to have been blessed or sanctified. Not even once is anyone ever said to have been blessed for keeping it, or condemned for its non-observance. Nowhere do we find any law or command, either by Christ or any of his apostles, for its sacred observance, nor where it is said that anyone ever did so observe it. And Paul says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15. Hence, in the very nature of things, its observance is not, and cannot be, a Christian obligation. Sunday, therefore, is not, and cannot be, the "Lord's day."
On one occasion, and only one, do we find mention of any religious meeting being held on the first day of the week, and that was only a night meeting, when it is said the disciples had come together to break bread. Acts 20:7-14. But here it is not even once hinted, or intimated, that they had ever met on that day before, or that they ever would afterward. It was a farewell meeting. Paul was on his way up to Jerusalem, where he expected to be taken and put to death (verse 38), and did not know that he should ever see their faces again; and hence this meeting. He had remained with them over the Sabbath, and just as soon as the Sabbath was past and the first day of the week had come, he sent his fellow-laborers,—Luke, Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus,—who were accompanying him on their way into Asia (Acts 20:5), down to the seashore, to sail on around to Assos, a distance of about forty-five miles by water, to meet him the next day, while he himself would remain overnight, hold this farewell meeting with the brethren at Troas, and attend to the breaking of bread. Thus, while Paul and the brethren were holding this meeting, his companions in the ministry were, by Paul's express appointment (verse 13), toiling all night on their way to Assos. And early Sunday morning, just as soon as "break of day" came, Paul resumed his journey, going on foot a distance of nearly twenty miles. A strange proceeding on his part, to say the least, if he had considered that day to be the "Lord's day," or the "Christian Sabbath"! That we are correct in this conclusion as to the traveling of Paul and his companions having taken place on Sunday, there can be no doubt, since it is a well-known fact that the Bible reckoning invariably begins the day with sunset. Thus, this being a night meeting, held on the first day of the week, would put it on what we now call Saturday night, and the "break of day" would be Sunday morning. See Lev. 23:32; Deut. 16:6; Josh. 8:29. Professor McGarvey, of the Disciple Church, says:—
"I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, . . . and, considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning Paul and his companions resumed their journey."—Com. on Acts. See also Prof. H. B. Hackett, "Life of Paul," by Conybeare and Howson, et al.
"But," it is argued, "Christ, after his resurrection, invariably met with his disciples on the first day of the week, and thus by his example he designed to teach us that we shall observe it." This, however, we deny. Christ never, so far as the record goes, met with his disciples on but one first day,—the day of his resurrection (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1-14; Luke 23:54-56; 24:1; John 20:1-19),—and in nearly every instance where mention is made of this day we notice that inspiration has taken the precaution of plainly informing us that the day preceding it, the seventh day, was the Sabbath, and that, too, by expressly calling it so.
We are now prepared to consider which day is meant by our text in Rev. 1:10. It is generally admitted that John wrote his gospel after he wrote the book of Revelation. Now if the apostle had intended the first day of the week by the term "Lord's day" in Rev. 1:10, is it not strange that, when he came to writing his gospel a little later, he should so ignore the day as to again call it simply by its secular name, the "first day of the week," thus indicating it to be just a common work day?
Which day, then, is the Lord's day? Which day does the Lord claim as his day? What saith the Scriptures? Of which day does John speak when he calls it the "Lord's day"? As already remarked, the text, Rev. 1:10, does not tell us which particular day of the week is referred to, but simply mentions it as a well-known institution, needing no further explanation. Had he meant to designate a new institution, such as the first-day sabbath would have been, the very nature of the case would have been such as to have called for and demanded an explanation. No such explanation being given, however, we are forced to the conclusion that he had in mind an old institution. And the only institution that had existed of the kind was the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, and, hence, that must be the institution referred to.
The Greek term kuriakē, here rendered "Lord's," is defined by Donegan in his Greek lexicon as follows: "Adj., pertaining to or relating to a master,—in ecclesiastical authors relating to God or to Christ." Hence, "hē kuriakē hēmera," "the Lord's day," a day relating to or belonging to God or to Christ. It may belong to either or to both. The Greek term "kurios" (Lord), from which the adjective kuriakē (Lord's) is derived, is applied in the New Testament both to God and to Christ. In proof of which see Luke 2:22, 26; Acts 2:34; 3:19, 20; Rev. 11:15.
The Bible expressly tells us which day Jehovah claims, which day belongs to him, namely, the seventh day of the week. He says of it, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. God says it is "my holy day" (Isa. 58:13), i.e., it is the "Lord's day."
This settles the question so far as Jehovah is concerned. But does it belong to Christ also? Is he Lord also of the same day?—"The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Luke 6:5. See also Matt. 12:8; Mark 2:28. Then it is his day also,—the "Lord Jesus Christ's day." We have Christ's own words for it. Will anyone dare deny him by saying it is not, or that it must be some other day? Christ says, "All things that the Father hath are mine." John 16:15. "And all mine are thine, and thine are mine." John 17:10. Hence, the Sabbath belonging to Jehovah, it belongs to Christ also.
But how does it come to belong to Christ? What right has he to claim it? Answer—Because it was he who made it. "For by him [Christ]," says Paul, "were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him."
Who, then, was the active agent in creation?—Christ. Who was it that worked during the six days of creation?—Christ, the Son of God. And who was it, then, that rested on the seventh day and "blessed" and "sanctified" it?—The same being who labored during the six days of creation, of course, Christ. "All things were created by him, and for him." Hence, it was he who blessed and sanctified504the day, i.e., he made it, and, hence, it is his day—the Lord Jesus Christ's day.
"But," says the objector, "the record says it was God who blessed and sanctified the day." True, and is not Christ declared to be God?
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isa. 9:6.
"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:10, 1-3.
And was the Sabbath made? Christ says it was. "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man." Mark 2:27. Who made it, then?—Christ, for "all things were made by him." This settles the question beyond dispute. We learn, then, that the Sabbath belongs to Christ in a most specific sense, for not only has he declared himself to be Lord of that day, thus claiming the day as his, but that he was its author, having made it the Sabbath by resting, or Sabbatizing, on that day, and then blessing and sanctifying it. How very proper, then, that it should be called the "Lord's day." "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," says John. He has a day, and that day is the seventh day of the week, as we have abundantly proven. And its observance is obligatory upon every follower of Christ, for he has said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." John 14:15.
Ruthven, Iowa.
THE LORD IS HIS HELPER.
A MERCHANT in New York pledged to the Lord a certain portion of his business receipts as fast as they were collected. He called this the Lord's insurance money, for, said he: "So long as I give, so long will the Lord help and bless me, and in some way he will give me the means to give. It is a blessing to my heart to keep it open in gratitude, a blessing to dispose it to gladden other hearts, and the surest way to keep the Lord's favor with me."
The results of his experience were blessed indeed, as he said: "I never realized before how he helps me in all my business plans. Things happen daily which show me that someone who knows more than I is protecting me. Bad debts have been paid which I did not expect. Errand boys just getting into sly and bad habits have been discovered ere their thefts had proceeded far. As I needed competent help in my business, it has come just as it was wanted.
"When customers were about to fail, somehow their debts to me were paid, although they failed to pay others.
"A severe fire came to my office and seemed to have swept all my valuables away. But it was stopped at just the right moment, and not one thing valuable was lost. The insurance companies paid me enough to replace every damage, and the office was renewed better than before. The Lord sends me business enough to pay my debts, while others are dull.
"I cannot tell why it is, except that I always pray for my business, and ask the Lord to bless it, for the good of others, and that the means which come from it may be used for his cause.
"When I stop giving, business stops coming. When I stop praying for it, perplexities arise. As long as I pray for it, all moves easily, and I have no care or trouble.
"The Lord is my banker, my insurer, my deliverer, my patron, and my blessed guardian of temporal things as well as spiritual."—The Wonders of Prayer.
PITCAIRN.
By Editor
[The following poem was written by a lady, a relative of Elder E. H. Gates. The little girl whose presence on these shores was the inspiration of the pretty lines, is a granddaughter of Brother J. R. McCoy, but adopted by Elder Gates as his own. We know that our readers will be pleased to read the poem.]
Innocent and tender eyed
Darling, all the world beside
Hath not sweeter face than thine.
Tropic tree and tropic vine
Lent their winning grace to thee,
And their beauty strange and free.
Where the breakers' fleecy foam
Breaks about thine island home,
And the cliffs above them rise
'Neath the sunny tropic skies,
Thou hast grown in grace and truth
And the beauty of thy youth,
Far from evil, taught and blest
By the lessons which are best.
Dainty-featured, darling girl,
How thy dusky lashes curl
Over dark blue, English eyes,
Mirror of thy native skies,
And thine olive-tinted cheek
Seems deliciously to speak
Of the sunny, Southern days,
Clearly bright, without a haze.
Thine is not like coral isles,
Ringed about the lovely miles
Of the smooth and wide lagoon,
Burning in the summer noon,
Never length of shelly strand,
Never breadth of shining sand,
But the waves with heavy shocks
Break against the beetling rocks,
For thine island, grand and free,
Is a mountain in the sea.
Half way up the mountain spreads
Level space, and o'er the heads
Of the dwellers there we see
Tropic palm and banyan tree,
Hill and vale diversified,
Far above the rushing tide.
Never taint of salty sea
In the sparkling purity
Of the precious upland spring;
Never fear of famishing
In the days when all the South
Faints beneath the touch of drought;
Still the water springeth pure,
Never-failing fountain, sure,
Through the days when leaves of palm
Droop in stirless, sultry calm.
We repeat and emphasize
All this scene, while sunny skies
Bend above protectingly,
And the shining of the sea
Sends no glare to this calm height,
And the flowers blossom bright;
Garden fair and fruitful field
All their varied produce yield.
When the breezes seek the height,
How refreshing the delight
Of the pure, health-giving air,
For the salty vapors sink
Ere they reach the lofty brink
Of the lifted island fair.
Pausing for a pleasant space,
Then the mountain's lofty grace
Lifts above the plateau wide;
On the rugged mountain side
Creeping green each path enshrands
To the summit in the clouds,
Far above the ceaseless flow
Of the tide, that sweeps below,
So far lifted as to hush
All the din of thund'rous rush
Rising from the frantic swirl
Of the breakers when they hurl505All their strength in useless war;
For the strong foundations are
Built of rock, which shall not stir
Till the sea shall pass away.
Oh, the lifted island height
That may teach example bright,
For the world is like a sea,
And the lifted Cross the height
That can reach above the care
And the sorrow everywhere,
Lift our hopes, and bless each life,
Triumph over sin and strife!
Love the truth, my darling child;
Grasp its treasures undefiled;
And its saving strength shall be
Best of all God giveth thee.
LOWELL ON CHRISTIANITY.
JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL, some years ago, in an after-dinner speech in London, referring to a sneerer at religion, said: "When the microscopic search of skepticism which has hunted the heavens and sounded the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has turned its attention to human society, and found a place on this planet where a man can live in decency, comfort, and security, supporting and educating his children, unspoiled and unpolluted; a place where age is revered, infancy respected, womanhood honored, and human life held in due regard; when skeptics can find such a place ten miles square on this globe, where the gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way and laid the foundation and made decency and security possible, it will then be in order for the skeptical literati to move thither and ventilate their views. But so long as these very men are dependent upon the religion they discard for every privilege they enjoy, they may as well hesitate a little longer before they seek to rob the Christian of his hope, and humanity of its faith in the Saviour, who alone has given men that hope of life eternal which makes life tolerable and society possible, and robs death of its terrors and the grave of its gloom."—Selected.
Zacharias’s Forty Weeks’ Silence
By Fuller
FIVE words cost Zacharias forty weeks' silence.—Fuller.
THE STANDARD.
By Earnest Christian
Is the Bible our standard of faith and practice? Are we to judge of our religious state from the correspondence of our experience and practice with its teachings? So says the whole Protestant church. Whatever they divide upon, they are united in this, that the word of God is the supreme law of human action. Here they meet upon common ground. And this is the true view of the case. If the Bible is of any authority, it is of the highest authority. By this word we must be judged at the last day, and by this word we should prove ourselves. The great tendency is to ignore the teaching of the Bible. And it requires watchfulness and energy to resist the common tendency. In a rapid stream he who would not be borne down by the current must row hard and constantly. Preaching by explaining and enforcing the word of God has well nigh gone out of fashion. The text is generally taken from the Bible, though some modern pulpit orators base their Sunday-evening discourses upon popular proverbs, slang phrases, or quotations from Shakespeare. But from whatever source the text is taken, the body of the sermon is made from the sayings of men, or from the periodical literature of the day. We have a great deal of preaching for the times; we need preaching for eternity. Preachers are demanded who can "speak with authority, and not as the scribes," who read smooth essays that lull their hearers into a feeling of false security.—Earnest Christian.