Australiasian Signs of the Times, Vol. 35, No. 26. (6/28/1920)

Australiasian Signs of the Times

Jun 28, 1920

Signs Publishing Co. · Melbourne, Victoria · Jun 28, 1920

A Blessed Assurance

ONE of the most blessed promises to the Christian, sorrowing over the wreck of human hopes and the desolations and miseries of war, is this:—

“For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former things shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice forever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in My people; and there shall be heard in her no more the voice of weeping and the voice of crying.” Isa. 65:17-19, A.R.V.

The Almighty purposes to put the sorrowful experiences of His people as completely out of their minds as He will have put their transgressions out of His mind. We do not understand it now; but we look with the eye of faith for the soul-satisfying experience of that recreated and rebeautified home of the redeemed concerning which Inspiration has declared:—

“Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him.” I Cor 2:9.

MR. H. ASQUITH, A FORMER BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, IS BY NO MEANS CERTAIN AS TO THE ABILITY OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS TO ABOLISH WAR

What a contrast there will be for the redeemed between the restfulness of that world and the turmoil of this; between the beauties and glories of the saints’ eternal

home and the ugly and terrifying desolations of this present world; between the blessed assurance of eternal life in such a land and the dread of dissolution in this valley of the shadow of death. Out of these woes and into that blessedness; out of this strife and into that peace; out of this uncertainty and into that blessed reality;—such is the comforting assurance of the Christian’s hope; and never does it seem so precious as when the conflicts and distresses of this present world take on their most fearsome aspect. “What time I am afraid, I will trust in Thee.” Ps. 56:3. “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and will not be afraid; for Jehovah, even Jehovah, is my strength and song; and He is become my salvation.” Isa. 12:2, A.R.V.

A Delusive Hope

WHAT strange contrasts this earth of ours presents! The gospel of love is finishing its mission in the world in the face of a storm of ruin and death such as has never raged on earth before. The ministrations of mercy and the agencies of death and destruction are seen on the same field at the same time. The warring nations have scattered terror, starvation, and death among the unarmed, the infants, and the aged; and amid this work of desolation and terror is seen the kind hand of charity giving bread to the hungry and alleviating distress. One wounds, and the other binds up; one smites, and the other mollifies it with ointment; one causes hunger, and the other feeds the hungry.

And this is the age of peace congresses, of peace parleys, of peace treaties, of The Hague peace tribunal, of militarism to prevent war, of big navies to protect all nations from the horrors of conquest. This is the age in which the nations would not dare to go to war because of the fearful machinery dedicated to the business of slaughter; the age which had made war impossible because soldiers would not dare to face the modern weapons of death; the age in which considerations of humanity were too strong to permit such slaughter as modern war would entail; the age when so many of the rulers and statesmen were Christians that a declaration of war by any of them would shock the conscience of united Christendom.

But the bubble has burst; and humanity has come to realise that its trust in the elimination of war through the dissemination of culture, enlightenment, and international business and economic relations was a broken reed. Humanity leaned upon that reed and was wounded for trusting.

Framing Another Groundwork

However, the proponents of the universal peace idea are already recasting their creed and framing another groundwork for trust in the reality of their dream of peace. It is now seriously declared that the horrors and miseries and expense of the recent great war will cause the world to be so sick of militarism that the nations, in self-defence against another deluge of blood, will form some kind of parliament of the nations that will settle all differences for the future, and ensure amity and peace throughout the world.

This hope rests upon the same foundation as those rested upon that have come clattering to the ground during the recent great war. It is a foundation of sand. There is nothing in that foundation to stand the strain of the superstructure. The heart of man will never be so purged of greed, distrust, and selfishness that every man will look first to others' interests and secondly to his own. The truly converted heart has a basis of peace; but it is an individual peace, and can be had even amid war's alarms or the flames of the auto da fé.

The recent war has stirred up more hatred between nations than any that has ever been carried on in this world. Each of the embattled nations finds in the conduct of its foes a course against which it protests with bitter vehemence, and this feeling is extending to many of the neutrals also, because of interference with what the neutrals considered their rights. The issues raised by this war require an Armageddon, and the world is sweeping toward that event with marvellous velocity. The cry of peace will ring through the world again; but that cry will be hushed in the fearful tumult of earth's last great war.

BUT we need not trust in that delusive hope. The business of the gospel is reaching its consummation, and with that consummation every controversy and every trouble will be settled forever. When Jesus Christ speaks from the opening heavens,

and His voice rings around the world, nations, organisations, and individuals will realise that the time for controversy and quarrelling is gone by; that the day of eternal destiny has come; and that, if not ready to stand in His presence, they are lost for all eternity! The day when that will take place draws swiftly on; and Jesus Christ has made every provision so that we need not be found wanting in that day. If our house is not set in order already, it is high time we should set it in order. “Behold, the Judge standeth before the door.”

The Pope and the King

Ever since the Pope was deprived of his temporal rule in Italy, each succeeding Pope has considered himself a prisoner within the Vatican, and each succeeding Pope has also made it plain to the nations and peoples that the Papacy had been illegally deprived of its authority over temporalities. It has also been a standing rule that no Catholic prince could visit the King of Italy. There has been a decided lack of neighbourliness and amity between the actual sovereign of Italy and the one who considers himself the sovereign of at least a portion of Italy. But now, for some reason which does not appear on the surface, a disposition is being manifest on the part of the Vatican to cease its unfriendly attitude toward the Italian King. A press report from London reads:—

It is reported from Rome that the Pope has issued an encyclical in which he recommends reconciliation between the spiritual and temporal powers in Italy.

Catholic princes are now permitted to visit the King of Italy without incurring the opprobrium of the Church.

According to a despatch from Rome received by the New York Times, the Catholic monarchs, King Alfonso of Spain and King Albert of Belgium, suggested to the Pope the lifting of the ban on visits by Catholic sovereigns to the Italian King. The despatch also indicates that Italian senators are urging parliamentary action toward reconciliation between the Holy See and the Italian State.

A further cable in the press of June 15 reads thus:—

The issue of a Papal encyclical, permitting Catholic Sovereigns to visit Rome, is the outcome of the Vatican's new policy of participating in Italian politics, which will enable Italy to enter into closer relations with other Catholic countries. The Vatican's pro-Italian policy has angered the Jugo-Slavs. It is believed that the King of Spain will shortly visit Rome.

If this reconciliation takes place, and Rome recedes from a position which she has held steadfastly to since 1871, we wonder what becomes of the boast that “Rome never changes.” We may rest assured also that if Rome alters her attitude in this matter, she does it in the belief that she can more easily and surely accomplish her purpose by that means than by holding to her former policy. It is written in her purpose to rule over the kings of the earth. When she abandons that purpose, she will cease to be Rome.

A Spiritistic Tidal Wave

THE progress of Spiritism has been likened by some to a tidal wave sweeping over the world. Séances and ouija board parties are now in evidence in practically every locality. So great has been the demand for ouija boards (planchettes) in America, that one great firm in America that does nothing but manufacture them has recently been compelled to add greatly to its factory and equipment in order to supply its customers. Many religious journals have come to understand something of the menace of this revival of ancient occultism. Now and then we find that some secular papers also are sensing the danger and issuing warnings. The following, clipped from the Thrice-a-Week World (New York), of April 19, 1920, is one of these:—

“Education is the vaccination that confers immunity, but it does not always take,” says the Journal of the American Medical Association in expressing its amazement that a mind like that of Sir Oliver Lodge—“of superior training, especially in scientific discipline”—should believe in spirits “on evidence that it is difficult to conceive as convincing to any but a prejudiced will to believe.”

That authoritative journal feels it its duty to submit the present-day leaders of the spiritist cult to a clinical diagnosis. It is not astonished that an imaginative mind like that of Maeterlinck should “find in the occult an additional outlet for his fancies”; that he accepts “square-rooting horses” as genuine may indicate a lamentable lack of logic, but nothing more serious clinically. It is somewhat surprised that Conan Doyle, who was formerly a physician, should be caught in the same web, but when it comes to Sir Oliver Lodge it is so staggered that only by applying Freudian principles is it able to explain the mystery.

The stresses and strains to which the minds of men have been put in recent years, the real satisfactions that have been denied to their desires, the longings they

have had to repress, find some compensation, some perverted outlet, some mode of relief, in Spiritism, and Lodge’s public addresses are “that explicit act of confession which Freudians recognise as helpful to ingrowing ailments.”

Even great thinkers, deeply learned in the lore of materialistic science, are evidently subject to psychoses, and no disciple of Freud will deem it strange that mere education has failed to confer immunity. If, then, the inhibited longings of a mind like Lodge’s need an outlet in confession of faith in spirits, need we wonder if a vast number of less disciplined minds seize with avidity upon ouija boards and table-rappings and trance mediums as media through which to obtain satisfaction for the desires they have been obliged to repress?

A great alienist asserts that these things are signs of an abnormal mind, but we should not forget that abnormality does not necessarily mean weakness; it often means extraordinary strength. And, as every specialist in mental diseases can testify, it takes a strong mind to flirt with spirits and not become obsessed.

We might also remark that even the strongest minds will become obsessed once they have opened the door to the inroads of Spiritism, as instance the names given in the above extract. The warnings given in the Bible against attempts to communicate with the dead; the plain declarations of the Bible in reference to the unconsciousness of man in death; and the unequivocal declaration of that Book of truth to the effect that God alone possesses immortality—these ought to be sufficient to protect us from this overwhelming delusion. It is sufficient for those who believe the Bible; but for those who do not believe it, there is no sure protection. It was Satan’s master stroke to fill the world with infidelity, evolution, and higher criticism, and then send forth this deluge of Spiritism. It is capturing millions, but it need not capture you. Let the Bible speak to your soul and lead you in the way of life.

Ruin Is Possible

By F.

WHEN the Bible doctrine of the second coming of Christ and the destruction of earth is mentioned to some people, they laugh the idea to scorn and dismiss it with a sneering “impossible.” That our mighty “civilisation” could be disposed of in a day; that with all our knowledge and our inventions, this earth and its inhabitants should be rolling to disaster—this is a picture which many people refuse to see, declaring that such a notion is absurd, improbable, and impossible. To those who read current history thus we reply in the words of Nicholas Murray Butler:—

Do not forget that it is perfectly possible to destroy civilisation. Civilisation has been destroyed before, and it has taken a two thousand years to repair the damage done in a generation or two. Civilisation might conceivably be destroyed again. It would be destroyed again if enough men were to become so filled with this selfish notion of their own interests and their own importance, and of a class struggle and a class consciousness, that they started to make war on all their fellows in order to advance that notion. It would be perfectly possible to wreck civilisation, and none would suffer more when the pillars of the great temple should fall and its roof should cave in, none would suffer more than the very men who would have brought about that destruction.—Forum Magazine, January, 1920.

Moreover, not only is this destruction “conceivable,” but it is unpreventable. Says Sisley Huddlestone, writing under the heading, “The Menace of the World,” in the May issue of the Atlantic Monthly:—

Resort to violence is not the final thought, but the first. Attacks which are in some sense provoked are easily paralleled by completely unprovoked crimes. Robbery is not the comparatively “gentle” business it was. Human life has become of no consequence. Who has not read of the motor-car bandits who, like condottieri, ravage a district of France? The German papers are full of horrors. The British journals record revolting incidents daily. This is no mere coincidence. It is a phenomenon which has its roots in the war.

I find the following main reasons set out by an English writer to explain this crime wave, and I do not disagree:—

That many men who had criminal instincts, but also a horror of killing, before the war, are now more or less devoid of that horror.
That many men who had embarked on a career of crime before the war were liberated from prison during hostilities, and entered the army, and that these are now free again to resume their depredations against society.
That unemployment and the high cost of living have forced many men who would otherwise have been law-abiding citizens into criminality.
That the general feeling of unrest which is permeating all classes is responsible for much crime.

Students of these world conditions may differ as to the actual causes of the rampant lawlessness; but the Bible student, through a study of prophecy, is able to point out the results, which is of far greater importance. He who knows and believes his Bible can look beyond the picture of a troubled world and see the great Prince of Peace returning to earth to fulfil His promise and to complete the salvation of the righteous. He left us word that He would come again; He gave us a description of the conditions that would herald His approach; those conditions are universally present; therefore He is at the doors! F.

Describing Mars

By F.

SCIENTIFIC circles are much interested at the present time in the discussion of the possibility of communicating with the planet Mars. As we might expect, Spiritualism is claiming to be a great factor in the linking up of the planets, and spiritualistic journals are publishing extraordinary stories about the dwellers in other worlds. Shortly after the death of Professor Lowell, the celebrated astronomer, says Lieut.-Col. E. S. West in the Progressive Thinker, a “personality” spoke to him (through a medium) as follows:—

“Good evening. Lowell is my name. I told the world that I believed Mars was inhabited; now I know it is true. The man who was just trying to speak to you was a Martian. I am told that a number of spirits from Mars have visited the Earth.”

I then asked if he was able to understand what the spirit was saying, and he replied: “Yes; thought is the universal medium of communication in spirit life. This man has told me a great deal about the planet Mars.”

“Can you describe this spirit?” I asked, and he replied: “He is a very short, heavy-set man, a large head, and has been very muscular. He has dark, thick hair.”

I asked him to tell me what he had learned about the planet Mars. He said: “I am informed that it is more highly developed in every way than the Earth. Its people are very strong and healthy; most of them live to old age. They have little sickness, and few deaths from accident. There is a communal form of government. Everybody works. They are very industrious and happy. Electricity is used for lighting and some other purposes, but most of their power is derived from atomic and magnetic forces.”

“Have you visited Mars?” I asked.

“No, I have not. I am told that some have, but that it takes a long time for spirits of this world to understand the laws, and develop to the point where this would be possible.”

To the Bible student the above incident savours of the counterfeit and the deceptive, for not only would we expect the sinless inhabitants of other worlds to be free from all cares, sicknesses, and death, but we know for a surety that, whoever else was the speaker, it was not Professor Lowell. The eminent astronomer is dead, and if he knows not anything, if he has no part in anything that is done under the sun, if he has no memory (which is the Bible description of the dead),—then the message which purports to come from the professor comes from an impersonator.

By this very count, Spiritualism proves itself a mighty deception, one of the instrumentalities of the great deceiver, Satan.

He who would be faithful to Jehovah must abandon the idea that this great “ism” which is sweeping across the world is part of the great plan of salvation. F.

Unsupported by Facts

By F.

DR. ETHERIDGE, the eminent fossilologist of the British Museum, has said: “Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded upon observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views.” Verily he was right about the lack of observation, if we take Professor Hegner as a type of the “scientific” evolutionist. The April issue of the quarterly magazine, Science Progress, contains an interesting, though somewhat technical, article on “Heredity and Evolution in Protozoa,” by Professor R. W. Hegner, Ph. D., a leading American zoologist. His opening sentence is a most arresting one, as it contains a very striking admission. Says he:—

Ever since the general acceptance of the theory of evolution, biologists have been attempting to discover the method by which evolution has taken place.

A “general acceptance” without proof is scarcely a very firm foundation on which to base a theory contradictory to God’s Word. It therefore is no wonder that the writer, in his conclusion, is compelled to say:—

These researches, however, leave many interesting problems for future investigation, but “to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour.”

These “many interesting problems” will never be solved, however, because there is no solution of them. This opinion is arrived at through belief in God’s Word, and when it is supported by leading scientists, our position is still further strengthened,—if that be possible. Even Professor Ernst Haeckel, the apostle of Darwinism, was constrained to confess in his old age that “most modern investigators have come to the conclusion that the doctrine of evolution is an error and cannot be maintained.” The Word of God accounts for the origin of all things by creation and not by evolution; and as “the Scriptures cannot be broken” (John 10:35), we believe the Bible story, which is, moreover, more feasible and more scientific than the guesses of evolution. F.

Can Law and Liberty Be Wedded?

By Lyman Abbott

What Law Means

DR. LYMAN ABBOTT

The notion that a complex and extended government is inconsistent with freedom grows out of the notion that freedom is exemption from law; that liberty and independence are synonymous. But freedom and independence are not synonymous, and freedom is not exemption from law. Leonard Bacon, in his “Pilgrim Hymn,” thus describes the cargo the Pilgrims brought with them:—

Laws, freedom, truth and faith in God, Came with these exiles o’er the waves.

Laws! Freedom! Can these live in the same ship? Can these flourish in the same community? What do we mean by law?

What Is Law?

Austin, the famous writer on English law, has defined law as the edict of a superior who has the power to enforce his will by penalty, a power which confers on him his authority, and creates in the subject a duty or obligation of obedience.

It is true that power to enforce law is necessary to law; but more is necessary; the possession of power does not of itself confer authority or create duty. Authority is rightful or just power, and something more than the mere possession of power is necessary to give the possessor a right to command or create in the subject a duty of obedience. If the law is an unjust law, disobedience may become duty. [For instance, a law enforced by the State to observe Sunday. That would, to those who would subscribe to it, cause disobedience to the divine law, which cannot fail, even to a tittle.—Ed.] King Darius had power to enforce by decree his command, but the plain duty of Daniel was to disobey. The Italian bandit has power to command his prisoners, but he has no just authority over them. If law is simply an edict issued by one who has power to enforce obedience by penalty, then law and liberty are inconsistent. The Puritans in their revolt against the Stuarts no less than the French in their revolt against the Bourbons refused such submission. But the Puritans were not a lawless folk; they put an unaccustomed emphasis on the sacredness of law.

I venture to offer my own definition of law, without, however, claiming for it any originality. It is Hebraic in its origin, although it is not formally stated, as far as I can recall, in Hebrew literature. But it underlies the conception of law embodied in the Old Testament Scriptures. A striking illustration of it is afforded by the Nineteenth Psalm, which many Biblical scholars regard as two different psalms put together by some editor; but in my judgment the psalm is by one poet, who saw what modern thinkers have often failed to see, that law is essentially the same in the physical and in the spiritual world. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork.” That is the operation of law in the physical universe. Not less is it true that “the law of the Lord is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple.” That is the operation of law in the spiritual realm.

Law is the nature of the thing of which it is predicated.

By “the law of gravitation” we mean that it is the nature of material objects to attract each other in a certain definite ratio. By “the laws of health” we mean that the nature of the body is such that if one takes certain food, drink, air, baths, exercise, he will enjoy good health; if he does not, he will have disease. By “the moral law” we mean that the social organism is such that if we respect each other’s right to person, property, the family, reputation, the community will be prosperous; if we do not, it will be unprosperous. The scientist does not make the law of gravitation; he finds it. The physician does not make the laws of health; he discovers them. Moses did not make the ten commandments; he communicated them.

Can We Escape Law?

If this be true, if law is the nature of things, the nature of man, the nature of society, the nature of the universe, the nature of God, there is no such thing as freedom

from law. To escape from law it would be necessary to escape from the universe; to escape from God, to escape from ourselves. Liberty and lawlessness are not synonymous. Liberty is not escape from law. Liberty is voluntary obedience to self-enforced law.

It is the understanding of law, obedience to law, the use of law. A man is not free to jump off the roof of a house and fly like a bird. If he attempts it, he will find himself on the ground with a broken leg and not free to walk on the earth. He is free to fly when he understands the laws of aerial navigation and flies in obedience to them. Man is not free to eat and drink as much as his gluttonous desires prompt. If he attempts to do so, he presently finds that he is not free to digest what he has eaten, and must make up for the one day’s feast by several days of fasting. Liberty does not mean that the chauffeur may drive his automobile at thirty miles an hour through the crowded streets of a city, for then the pedestrian has not liberty to cross the street. Liberty does not mean that the labour union may determine the conditions of work for non-union men, for then the independent labourer is denied liberty to work. Liberty does not mean that life insurance directors may invest their funds as they please, for then the bereaved widow has no liberty to get her money when her husband leaves her in poverty. Only that community is free which recognises the sanctity of law—law written in the very nature of human society because in the nature of the men and women who constitute society—and honestly and intelligently endeavours to conform its life to that inherent, immutable, eternal law.

Law is written in the very constitution of the universe. Nothing is just law which is not so written. The power of a lawgiver does not make law just, whether that lawgiver be one or many—an aristocracy or a democracy. The consent of the governed does not make it just. Conformity to the nature of life—material and psychical, individual and social—alone makes law just.

To discard law, put it aside, live as though it were not, accept it only as far as it accords with our own whims or inclinations, is anarchism. To submit to it only because there is lodged in the lawgiver power to inflict a penalty on the disobedient is submission to despotism. To recognise its sanctity, to see its value, to understand its purpose, to use it for the common welfare, is liberty. For law is the nature of the thing concerning which it is predicated; and liberty is voluntary obedience to self-recognised and self-enforced law.

Three Relations to Law

A man’s relation to law may be either one of three relations: he may disregard law; he may submit to law; he may use law.

A boy grows up at home where his health is not cared for; where he eats what he likes, exercises as he likes, sleeps when he likes; in short, is physically lawless. He is taken seriously ill. The doctor finds that he has undermined his constitution, and tells him that if he does not reform his life—eat, sleep, and exercise according to law—he has not long to live. The boy reluctantly abandons his imagined freedom and submits to the laws of health. He comes into the second relation to the law, the relation of submission. His health improves and becomes measurably normal. He goes to college and desires to join the boating crew. The trainer says to him, If you wish to join the crew, you must accept the conditions of the crew. He tells the boy what he must eat and what he must not eat; what he may drink and what he must not drink; when he must go to bed and what exercise he must take. The boy, ambitious to get on the crew, accepts these directions loyally and even gladly. He is now not merely submitting to the laws of health, he is using the laws of health in order to equip himself for the position to which his ambition calls him. Disregard of law is suicide, obedience to law is health, use of law is power.

A community which disregards the four fundamental rights of man—the rights of person, of property, of the family, and of reputation—lives in anarchy and perpetual turmoil; the end thereof is social death. A community of individuals who yield obedience to these laws just in so far as they must and no farther, may have a certain measure of social health, may at least be preserved from social death. But no community is strong, no community is on the highway to a great and common prosperity, which does not recognise in these laws the conditions of well-being, which does not by its united action promote the health and life of its members, the social purity of its members, the material prosperity of its members, and the reputation and honour of its members. Only such a community is a strong, self-governing community; only such a community is truly free.—The Outlook.

Prayer and the Life of Piety

By Pierson

THE decline of prayer is the decay of piety. When prayer ceases altogether, there is spiritual death; for prayer is the breath of life to every child of God.—Pierson.

A. L. KING

By A. L. King

How Sunday Supplanted the Sabbath—No. 2

Sunday a Day of Work and Recreation

A. L. KING

As intimated in last week’s article, for centuries after Sunday began to creep into the Church, it was only a working day, such Christians as observed it merely attending a meeting in the early morning, and then going about their ordinary work and recreations. Justin Martyr, in his Apology (A.D. 150), refers to certain Christians at Rome holding a meeting on Sunday. Incidentally Justin shows that unscriptural practices had begun to creep into the Church, as he speaks of bread, wine, “and water” being offered in the Communion, and the consecrated elements “sent to the absent.”

But what shows conclusively that with Justin and his friends Sunday was not a day of rest, is the fact that in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew (A.D. 155), Justin reproves Trypho for not working on the Sabbath (Saturday), declaring that God took no pleasure in rest-days. He says: “You, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious. . . . The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances.” (Chapter 12.) Inasmuch as Justin reproves Trypho for idleness on the Sabbath, he himself could not have observed Sunday as a day of rest. God, he declared, took no “pleasure in such observances.”

Justin never calls Sunday the Sabbath, nor does he ever call it the Lord’s day. He terms it “the first day of the week”; “the day after that of Saturn (Saturday)”; twice he terms it “the first day after the Sabbath”; and three times he gives it the heathen title, “the day of the sun.” But any sacred title he never once bestows upon it.

Christianity Darkened by Apostasy

Moreover, Justin does not give any scriptural reason for his practice of holding an assembly on Sunday. On the contrary, his reasons are really heathen—the worship of light—in a new setting. For at this very time various Oriental forms of sun-worship, such as the worship of Mithra, were mingling with that of the Roman Jupiter. We learn from later records in that second century, that in common with the practice of the heathen, some Christians assembled at sunrise on Sunday, the “day of the sun,” and directed their prayers towards the rising sun, which savours very much of a practice declared to be an “abomination” in Eze. 8:16. The assembly over, the remainder of Sunday was devoted to the usual duties and pleasures.

The well-known Church historian, Dr. Philip Schaff, speaking of a few centuries later, says: “Leo the Great speaks of Christians in Rome, who first worshipped the rising sun, doing homage to the pagan Apollo, before repairing to the basilica of St. Peter.”—“Church History,” Third Period, par. 74. The dark spirit of apostasy, already discernible in the second century, and by which the pure streams of Christianity became fouled and blackened with the dingy and muddy waters of paganism, had advanced enormously by the fourth and later centuries, and with it the spirit of Sunday exaltation went hand in hand.

Third and Fourth Centuries

Coming down fifty years from Justin Martyr’s time (A.D. 150) to the days of Tertullian (A.D. 200), we are given the following interesting information by the Church historian Heylyn (who is credited by the “Encyclopædia Britannica” with being “a diligent writer and investigator”): “Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether.”—Heylyn’s “History of the Sabbath,” part 2, chapter 8.

In harmony with Heylyn is Dr. Kitto, the famous scholar, who, in his “Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature” (original edition), article “Lord’s Day,” says:—

Though in later times we find considerable reference to a sort of consecration of the day, it does not seem at any period of the ancient Church to have assumed the form of such an observance as some modern religious communities have contended for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege any Divine command, or even apostolic practice, in support of it. . . . Chrysostom (A.D. 360) concludes one of his homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations.

In complete accord with the statement of Kitto that Sunday observance was never in the early centuries based on Divine command or apostolic practice, is the following quotation from “Chamber’s Encyclopædia,” article “Sabbath”: “None of the Fathers before the fourth century ground the duty of observing Sunday on the fourth commandment, or on the precept or example of Jesus or the apostles.” The great and encyclopædic “New English Dictionary on Historic Principles” (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1914), furnishes the information that the notion of Sunday being a Christian Sabbath did not become “popularly current before the Reformation.” And this authority further declares, “In English, Sabbath as a synonym for Sunday did not become common till the seventeenth century.” See under word “Sabbath.”

Referring to Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed orator of the fourth century (mentioned in the quotation from Dr. Kitto given above), the historian Heylyn informs us that Chrysostom “confessed it to be lawful for a man to look unto his worldly business on the Lord’s day, after the congregation was dismissed.” And Heylyn also declares that the learned Jerome, who gave his times the famous Latin Vulgate Version of the Scriptures, commended a lady disciple, Paula, in the following significant manner:

Paula, with the women, as soon as they returned home on the Lord’s day, they sat down severally to their work, and made clothes for themselves and others.—Heylyn’s “History of the Sabbath,” part 2, chapter 3.

It is therefore perfectly plain that were one at the present time to attend a religious service early on Sunday morning, and then devote the remainder of the day to his ordinary duties and recreations, he would be keeping Sunday in an identical manner with that in which it was kept by such Christians as observed it for over two centuries after New Testament times. This of course would not have been the case had there been a Divine command or apostolic example for Sunday observance.

Continue reading: The True Test