THERE are many persons who are conscious of having wronged their fellow-men. They may dispute it, question it, or deny it; but they know that it is true, nevertheless. The question then arises, What should be done? There are many who know the wrong, but will not admit it; there are others still who both know and admit the wrong-doing, but who take no steps toward repairing the mischief they have wrought, or undoing the wrong they have done.
Strictly speaking, the wrong act done can never be undone; the wrong word said cannot be unsaid; but no man who has been guilty of wrong should rest satisfied until he has done his utmost to make suitable reparation.
If he has wronged his neighbor pecuniarily, let him make restitution, not in scrimped and scanty measure, but liberally, heartily, and ungrudgingly. Let him restore fourfold. If he has said wrong things, let him promptly and openly recall them. Let his apologies be as distinct and hearty as his accusations have been. Let him, in a manly and Christian way, so far as in him lies, remove all occasion of grief or grievance. Let him see to it that the false impressions he has given be corrected, that the slanders which he has uttered be recalled. Thus, and thus only, can he win back the love he has forfeited, and hope to receive the blessing of the Lord whom he has offended.
Thousands of Christians and churches are suffering through neglecting to take such stumbling-blocks out of the way. Men will do wrong, will injure or misrepresent a brother, and then, while he is grieved and stricken at heart, will endeavor to go right along as servants of God, without correcting their misstatements, or confessing their wrongs. Such circumstances are frequently sufficient to account for the deadness and paralysis that often overhang the church. People are grieved and driven away from the communion of the saints and the fellowship of those they love, in consequence of the wrong-doing of leaders and managers who do not confess their faults and rectify the wrongs which they have done. Often such persons seem to think it easier to send for a minister and "have a revival," than to confess their own faults and right the wrongs of which they are guilty. But a revival of religion which comes in on top of old grudges, misrepresentations, dishonesties, and wrongs, will never be effectual. The high tide may float their craft for a little while; but when the flood recedes, every rock, and snag, and shoal that studs the channel will reappear, and the sailing will be no better than before.
A religion that is not founded upon righteousness is of very little use in this world, and the men who think that special services, protracted meetings, labors of evangelists, earnest prayers, and gospel hymns, will make amends for wrong, robbery, slander, and abuse, will probably find out their mistake before the day of Judgment comes, but if they do not, will certainly find it out then.—Christian (Boston).
MARIOLATRY
By W.
THE SPIRIT OF ANTICHRIST. NO. 14.
MARIOLATRY.
THE homage which the Catholic Church pays to the Virgin Mary is one of the most pernicious phases of the spirit of antichrist. It is true that in their catechisms they disclaim any intention of paying her divine honor, or of worshiping her as God; but those who are familiar with the facts know that the honor and worship which should be given to Christ alone are by them given the Virgin Mary, and Christ is virtually ignored. But this worship of the Virgin Mary, and of the saints and martyrs, which detracts from the honor due to Christ, springs solely from the doctrine of the natural immortality of man; for if they did not hold that human beings are by nature possessed of the immortality which actually belongs to God alone, they could not give to those human beings, after death, the worship which is due to God.
To show the pernicious effects of the Roman Catholic worship of the Virgin Mary and "saints" we shall make a few quotations from a Catholic publication entitled, "The Glories of Mary." The work was first published in Venice, Italy, in 1784, and we copy from the first American edition of the translation from the Italian, which translation bears the approval of Archbishop John Hughes, of New York, dated Jan. 21, 1852. We quote the following statements concerning the author, Alphonsus Liguori, in order that the reader may know how he and his work are regarded by the Catholic Church:—
"Nine years after his death [which occurred Aug. 1, 1787], he was pronounced venerable by Pius VI., was beatified by Pius VII., Sept. 15, 1816; and on May 26, 1839, was canonized by Gregory XVI. Pius IX. added, July 7, 1871, to these honors the dignity of Doctor of the Church; thus placing him beside Thomas Aquinas, Bernard of Clairvaux, etc. The decree was based upon the scholarly and devotional character of his works, and especially the circumstance that they 'teach in the most excellent manner the truths relating to the immaculate conception of the blessed mother of God, and the infallibility of the Roman bishop speaking from his throne.' It ordained that 'his works should be cited as of equal authority with those of the other doctors of the church, and should be used in schools, colleges, controversies, sermons, etc., as well as in private.'"—Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, art Liguori.
The reader will know, therefore, that every quotation made from "The Glories of Mary," is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. On page 19 we find the following:—
"If the assertion is true and incontrovertible, as I believe it to be, and as I shall prove in the fifth chapter of this book, that all graces are dispensed by the hand of Mary alone, and that all those who are saved, are saved solely by the hand of this divine mother, it may be said as a necessary consequence, that the salvation of all depends upon preaching Mary, and confidence in her intercession."
If this is not antichrist, can anyone tell what would be? When the Catholic Church teaches that "all those who are saved, are saved solely by the hand of this divine mother," what room is left for Christ? Further quotations will show that the Catholic Church openly gives to Mary a higher place than to Christ. On pages 27, 28 we find:—
"The kingdom of God consisting of justice and mercy, the Lord has divided it; he has reserved the kingdom of justice for himself, and he has granted the kingdom of mercy to Mary, ordaining that all the mercies which are dispensed to men should pass through the hands of Mary, and should be bestowed according to her good pleasure."
And on page 29:—
"Ernest, Archbishop of Prague, also says that the eternal Father has given to the Son the office of judging and punishing, and to the mother the office of compassionating and relieving the wretched."
Sometimes professed Protestants are guilty of setting the Father and the Son in antagonism with each other, representing the Father as desiring to wreak vengeance upon men, and the Son as restraining him. The natural result of such teaching is to cause men to regard God as unloveable. In like manner the Catholic Church represent Christ as the stern, unyielding judge, and Mary as the only one who can induce him to show mercy. Of course the result must be the neglect of Christ. In the following questions this is made more apparent:—
"Every blessing, every help, every grace that men have received or will receive from God, to the end of the world, has come to them, and will come to them, through the intercession and by means of Mary." P. 119.
Again on page 133 we read:—
"St. Bonaventure remarks that Isaias in his day lamented, and said, 'Behold, thou art angry, and we have sinned . . . there is none that riseth up and taketh hold of thee;' because Mary was not yet born into the world. But now, if God is offended with any sinner, and Mary undertakes to protect him, she restrains the Son from punishing him, and saves him."
But the following caps the climax:—
"To increase our confidence, St. Anselm adds that when we have recourse to this divine mother, we may not only be sure of her protection, but that sometimes we shall be sooner heard and saved by invoking her holy name than that of Jesus our Saviour. And he gives this reason: Because it belongs to Christ as our judge to punish, but to Mary, as our advocate, to pity."
These statements are so clear that they need no comment to convince the reader that Christ is practically ignored in the Roman Catholic Church, and that that church is essentially pagan. It teaches men to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator. It matters not how much that church may profess to be Christian, nor how much prominence they may give to the name and image of Christ; the fact remains that it is not a Christian church, but is essentially antichrist. And this, let the reader not forget, is due wholly to its assumption of pagan doctrines, notably that of the inherent immortality of man. But for this, they could not thus exalt a creature to the place of God.
PROMISES TO ISRAEL.
By W.
In the Saviour's sermon on the mount there is a prophecy which is familiar to everyone who has read the Bible at all, but which is very seldom thought of as a prophecy. It is this: "Blessed are the meek; for they shall inherit the earth." Matt. 5:5. This prophecy, which is at the same time a blessed promise, is only one link in a chain of promises that will find their fulfillment at the second coming of our Lord. The study of these promises in their connection with one another, serves to throw light on many passages of the Bible that are otherwise obscure, and to bring out in bold relief the Christian's hope.
It should be evident at first thought, that the promise that the meek shall inherit the earth, does not refer to the earth in its present condition, and under the present order of things. A meek person is one who is "mild of temper; not easily provoked or irritated; given to forbearance under injuries; soft, gentle, yielding." By a comparison of this definition with the description of charity, in 1 Cor. 13:4, 5, we must conclude that meekness and charity must exist together, or, rather, that meekness is a part of that charity which is "the bond of perfectness;" for, "charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil." This was the character of Christ. "When he was reviled, he reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to Him that judgeth righteously." 1 Peter 2:23. He "came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Matt. 20:28), and he said of himself, "I am meek and lowly in heart." Matt. 11:29.
Now a person who possesses these qualities is so rarely found as to be peculiar; and in the struggle for place and power in this world he will invariably be left behind. The man who doesn't look out for himself will have a very limited amount of this world's goods; for, as a general thing, he will not find others to look out for him. With rare exceptions, those who have great worldly possessions, have acquired them by aggressively pushing their own claims. The most of the wealth of this world is in the hands of men who do not fear God, and who have but little regard for man. The following description of "the prosperity of the wicked" in ancient times, will apply equally well to-day:—
"They are not in trouble as other men; neither are they plagued like other men. Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment. Their eyes stand out with fatness; they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression; they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth. Therefore his people return hither; and waters of a full cup are wrung out to them. And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the Most High? Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches." Ps. 73:5-12.
At one time when there was a strife among the disciples of Jesus, as to "which of them should be accounted the greatest," Jesus showed them the difference between those who now possess this world, and those to whom it is promised as a future inheritance, by saying:—
"The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. . . . Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; that ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Luke 22:25-30.
The epistle of James was addressed to "the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" (James 1:1), and in that we read: "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?" And then the apostle adds, "Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?" James 2:5, 6.
From these texts we must conclude that the earth, which is to be inherited by the meek, is the kingdom of which those who are poor in this world's goods, but rich in faith, are heirs. Those who learn of Him who is meek and lowly in heart, and who follow him in his life of self-denial, being sharers in his sufferings, may now be oppressed and derided by the haughty who have more than heart can wish; but a time will come when they who hunger now shall be filled, and those who are full now, shall hunger; when those who weep now shall laugh, and those who laugh now shall mourn and lament. See Luke 6:20-25. The psalmist, in the following words, tells when the meek shall inherit the earth: "For evil-doers shall be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Ps. 37:9-11.
Thus the subject is before us in brief outline. We learn that the inheritance is yet future; that the earth is the kingdom which the meek shall inherit; that the saints who inherit the earth will be none other than the twelve tribes of Israel; and that they will not enter into the possession of their inheritance until after the wicked have had their day of prosperity. The details of the promises and their fulfillment will next claim our attention. (To be continued.)
THE LOGICAL OUTCOME.
The Christian Union of March 1 contains the following communication:—
“I have in my congregation a number of young people who read your editorial in a recent number of the Christian Union on the subject of a possible probation after death, one of whom has asked me if I would write to you and ask you for the scriptural proof of your position; and I take the liberty of doing so. It will relieve me of a great deal of responsibility which I feel in connection with this subject, as your views are so utterly at variance with my own that I am not able to help her any, and the subject is troubling a good many.”
To this perfectly reasonable request, the editor of the Christian Union undertakes to give “a categorical reply,” and does so as follows:—
“If our correspondent, or any number of his flock, desires to know what are the intimations of Scripture upon this subject, so far as it makes any intimations, we recommend him to take his Bible and collate all the passages which refer to the final Judgment, beyond which there is no hope of redemption; then let him examine every one of these passages which gives any hint as to the time of such final Judgment. We think he will find that they all connect it with the end of the world; that not one of them connects it with death. He, therefore, who asserts that death is practically the final Judgment, or is coterminous with the final judgment of any soul, in so far makes a statement which, if not anti-scriptural, is at least unwarranted by Scripture. As we believe that all our knowledge respecting the world beyond death is derived from Scripture, we neither propose ourselves to make any statement which Scripture does not explicitly warrant, nor to allow, in so far as our effort can prevent it, any such statement unwarranted by Scripture to be imposed on the faith of the Christian church.”
From the popular standpoint, the Christian Union’s position is impregnable. Whoever holds to the commonly-accepted theory of conscious existence in death, must, if consistent, accept the above conclusion. It is a fact that the Scriptures do not place the final Judgment at death. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the Judgment.” Heb. 9:27. How long after the death of any man the Judgment will take place is not stated; but the fact that all are to be judged at one time is evident from the statement that God has “appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world.” Acts 17:31. Paul tells us, also, that the Lord will “judge the quick [living] and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” 2 Tim. 4:1. And the coming of Christ is at “the end of the world.” Matt. 24:3. These Scriptures, which are but samples, show that the dead will not be judged before the living are judged, and that the judgment of all takes place at the end of the world.
Now this being the case, we do not see how anybody who holds to the theory that the dead are as conscious and as active as the living, and even more so, can deny the possibility of a probation after death. The Christian Union is perfectly consistent with itself. It does not say that all men will have a probation after death, for it does not claim that probation continues until death in the case of every man; but it is consistent in advocating that, aside from the cases of those who have willfully rejected the gospel, probation must continue for all living persons until the Judgment, no matter in what state or condition those persons may be living.
We say that the Christian Union is consistent with itself; but it is most positively out of harmony with the Scriptures, for they assure us that “the dead know not anything,” and that in the very day that a man’s breath goes forth, his thoughts perish. They teach us that we must make the most of present opportunities, because “there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave,” which awaits all men. Therefore there cannot by any possibility be a probation after death. A person’s probation begins with his consciousness of right and wrong, and cannot possibly extend beyond the close of his consciousness, which is at death.
With one who believes what the Bible says as to the condition of man in death, there cannot be any question as to a probation after death. But, as before stated, everybody who holds the pagan theory that the dead are conscious, must of necessity, if consistent, hold to the theory of probation after death.
Therefore the Roman Catholic purgatory is the logical outcome of the popular theory of the state of the dead. If, however, one believes that each individual is amenable to himself alone, then he must hold that after death each one is working out his own destiny, and so he lands in Spiritualism by a short cut. When one throws aside any Bible doctrine, the bars are down, and there is nothing to hinder him from accepting the most absurd and even wicked theories.
w.
HISTORICAL NECESSITY OF THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE. NO. 4.
BUT however bitter the opposition between Lutherans and Calvinists, and amongst the Lutherans themselves, and again, between all of these on one hand and the Catholics on the other, they could call a truce upon all their differences, and unite all, Catholics, Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, in one common onset against Anabaptists.
The name "Anabaptists" signifies re-baptisers, and was applied indiscriminately to all who denied the validity of sprinkling for baptism, and especially of infant baptism, or sprinkling rather. Before the period of the Reformation there were scattered throughout almost all the countries of Europe, and persecuted everywhere, lineal descendants, in point of doctrine, of the Albigenses and Waldenses, who did not practise infant baptism (sprinkling) but held to the genuine doctrines of baptism, the sleep of the dead, and some to the true Sabbath. Of course these doctrines caused them to be considered then abominable heretics; but when, unfortunately, in the early days of the Reformation, some of the name ran into the most fearful fanaticism, all of the name were classed together in it, and the severest of penal laws of those severe times were enacted against all who could be classed as Anabaptists.
"In almost all the countries of Europe, an unspeakable number, . . . preferred death in its worst forms to a retraction. . . . Neither the view of the flames that were kindled to consume them nor the ignominy of the gibbet, nor the terrors of the sword, could shake their invincible . . . constancy, or make them abandon tenets that appeared dearer to them than life and all its enjoyments. . . . And it is much to be lamented that so little distinction was made between the members of this sect, when the sword was unsheathed against them. Why were the innocent and the guilty involved in the same fate? Why were doctrines purely theological . . . punished with the same rigor that was shown to crimes inconsistent with the peace and welfare of civil society? Those who had no other marks of peculiarity than their administering baptism to adult persons only, and their excluding the unrighteous from the external communion of the church, ought undoubtedly to have met with milder treatment than that which was given to those seditious incendiaries, who were for unhinging all government and destroying all civil authority. . . . It is true that many Anabaptists suffered death, not on account of their being considered rebellious subjects, but merely because they were judged to be incorrigible heretics; for in this century the error of limiting the administration of baptism to adult persons only, and the practice of re-baptizing such as had received that sacrament in infancy, were looked upon as the most flagitious and intolerable of heresies."—Mosheim, Church History, Cent. 16, sec. 3, part 2, par. 6.
As before remarked, the Anabaptists became the one object of the attack of all parties, civil and religious. Their opposition to infant baptism was what disconcerted Melanchthon in the presence of the fanatics at Wittenberg. He owned that they had hit upon a "weak point;" and his doubts on this point led him to make the familiar statement, "Luther alone can decide" the question of their inspiration. It was the fear of being landed in Anabaptism that was the reason that "Luther did not face this question thoroughly." The Protestant Council of Zurich ordered "that anyone who administered anabaptism should be drowned;" and the order was actually executed upon Felix Mantz, "who had formerly been associated with Zwingle at the commencement of the Reformation."
One of the very earliest of Calvin's theological efforts was the composition of a book entitled, "Psychopannychia," on the immortality of the soul, in opposition to the Anabaptists in France. And the claim of the true Sabbath was not the least of the causes of Luther's bitterness against Carlstadt. (For a full and fair discussion of this point, see "Andrews' History of the Sabbath," chap. 23.)
England was not entirely exempt from these scenes; yet while exempt from some she was subject to others from which the continental nations were free. To escape the persecutions of "Bloody Mary," many of the English Protestants fled to Germany. Worship while in exile was conducted by some with the rites of the Church of England as established under Edward VI., while others preferred the Swiss or Calvinistic form of worship. This caused a division, and the former were called Conformists, the latter Non-Conformists or Puritans; and thus the Puritans appear upon the scene. After the death of Mary, at the accession of Elizabeth, these exiles returned to England, and carried their controversies with them; and England not only supplied a better field for their propagation, but there the Scotch Presbyterians, who had spread to a considerable extent in England, allied themselves with the Puritans. These controversies turned, as stated above, upon the forms of worship: whether the clergy should wear vestments; whether the church should be governed by bishops; about cathedral churches, and the archdeacons, deans, canons, and other officials of the same; about festivals and holy days; the sign of the cross; about godfathers and godmothers, etc., etc.184There were, again, branch controversies from some of these. For instance: on the office of bishops, the question at first was whether bishops are allowable as they stand in the Church of England. But Bancroft, afterward archbishop of Canterbury, asserted that bishops are superior to all other officers in the church, by divine right of the appointment of God himself. To sustain this claim, they were compelled to hold, not the Bible alone as authority, but the Bible and the church of the first five centuries, especially as illustrated in the forms of church government.
The Puritans and Presbyterians, in denying this, and asserting the sufficiency of the Bible alone, and charging all these other things to the account of Rome, as being "vain, superstitious, idolatrous, and diametrically opposite to the injunctions of the gospel," were involved in a serious dilemma. When they inveighed so heavily against the rites, ceremonies, and festival days of the Conformists, as being of Rome, and "superstitious, idolatrous," etc., the Episcopalians retorted upon them, that the observance of Sunday was only an ordinance of the church, and that therefore if they renounced the authority of the church, and held "the Bible and the Bible alone," they must give up the observance of Sunday.
But the Non-Conformists, instead of facing this question boldly, and instituting an honest inquiry at the oracles of God, "What day is the Sabbath?" determined that they would keep Sunday anyhow, and if anything must yield, it should be the Scripture. And so Mr. Nicholas Bound, D. D., invented the, to them, very pleasing doctrine, which is yet perpetuated by many who will not obey the commandment of God, that the fourth commandment requires only one day in seven. And such is the origin of the seventh-part-of-time, one-day-in-seven fraud. This was adopted by all the Puritans and Presbyterians with wonderful celerity. And so a second time the Sabbath of the Lord pleaded for release from condemnation at the hands of men, and was denied, as was its Lord, "Not this man, but Barabbas."
Another subject that grew out of the differences between the Conformists and Non-Conformists was sprung by Thomas Cartwright, in an attempt to establish Calvin's system of church government in England, and which also effectually frustrated all hopes of any compromise. We shall give this in the words of Mr. Green:—
"So difficult, however, was her [Elizabeth's] position that a change might have been forced upon her had she not been aided at this moment by a group of clerical bigots, who gathered under the banner of Presbyterianism. Of these, Thomas Cartwright was the chief. He had studied at Geneva; he returned with a fanatical faith in Calvinism, and in the system of church government which Calvin had devised; and as Margaret professor of divinity at Cambridge, he used to the full the opportunities which his chair gave him of propagating his opinions. No leader of a religious party ever deserved less of after sympathy. Cartwright was unquestionably learned and devout, but his bigotry was that of a mediæval inquisition. The relics of the old ritual, the cross in baptism, the surplice, the giving of a ring in marriage, were to him not merely distasteful, as they were to the Puritans at large, they were idolatrous, and the mark of the beast. His declamation against ceremonies and superstitions, however, had little weight with Elizabeth or her primates; what scared them was his reckless advocacy of a scheme of ecclesiastical government which placed the State beneath the feet of the church. The absolute rule of bishops, indeed, Cartwright denounced as begotten of the devil; but the absolute rule of presbyters he held to be established by the word of God. For the church modeled after the fashion of Geneva he claimed an authority which surpassed the wildest dreams of the masters of the Vatican. All spiritual authority and jurisdiction, the decreeing of doctrine, the ordering of ceremonies, lay wholly in the hands of the ministers of the church. To them belonged the supervision of public morals. In an ordered arrangement of classes and synods, these presbyters were to govern their flocks, to regulate their own order, to decide in matters of faith, to administer 'discipline.' Their weapon was excommunication, and they were responsible for its use to none but Christ.
"The province of the civil ruler in such a system of religion as this, was simply to carry out the decisions of the presbyters, 'to see their decrees executed, and to punish the contemners of them.' Nor was this work of the civil power likely to be a light work. The spirit of Calvinistic Presbyterianism excluded all toleration of practice or belief. Not only was the rule of ministers to be established as the one legal form of church government, but all other forms, Episcopalian and separatist, were to be ruthlessly put down. For heresy there was the punishment of death. Never had the doctrine of persecution been urged with such a blind and reckless ferocity. 'I deny,' wrote Cartwright, 'that upon repentance there ought to follow any pardon of death. Heretics ought to be put to death now. If this be bloody and extreme, I am content to be so counted with the Holy Ghost.'
"The violence of language such as this was as unlikely as the dogmatism of his theological teaching to commend Cartwright's opinions to the mass of Englishmen. Popular as the Presbyterian system became in Scotland, it never took any popular hold on England. It remained to the last a clerical rather than a national creed, and even in the moment of its seeming triumph under the commonwealth it was rejected by every part of England save London and Lancashire. But the bold challenge which Cartwright's party delivered to the Government in 1572, in an 'admonition to the parliament,' which denounced the government of bishops as contrary to the word of God, and demanded the establishment in its place of government by presbyters, raised a panic among English statesmen and prelates, which cut off all hopes of a quiet treatment of the merely ceremonial questions which really troubled the consciences of the more advanced Protestants. The natural progress of opinion abruptly ceased, and the moderate thinkers who had pressed for a change in ritual which would have satisfied the zeal of the reformers, withdrew from union with a party which revived the worst pretensions of the Papacy."—Larger History of English People, book 6, chap. 5, paragraph 31.
Shortly after this, in 1581, there occurred a division among the Puritans, which was followed by very notable results. Robert Brown drew off in a revolt from the government of synods and presbyteries, as well as from the government of bishops; and held that each church or assembly of worshipers was entirely independent of all others, and self-governing, and all points of doctrine or discipline were to be submitted to the congregation for discussion and final decision; that, each congregation should elect its own pastor, etc. The sect that thus arose were called Independents, or Congregationalists. To escape the persecution that arose against them as a matter of course, they fled to Holland, and founded churches in Middleburg, Amsterdam, and Leyden. Shortly after going to Holland, Brown deserted his followers, returned to England, and took a benefice in the English church. This left John Robinson in charge, who remodeled the whole society, and in 1620 sent a company to America, who were the Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock, and the first settlers of New England.
(To be continued.)
CHARITY.
By George C. Tenney
If ever a beautiful word has been misused and abused, this one has. Etymologically it means high esteem or affection. It is defined to be, "That disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow-men, and to do them good; love; benevolence; good-will." In its use in the New Testament, it is invariably taken from the word agapē, of which the only signification is "love; as, the love of God to man." And the Revised Version recognizes this fact by always calling it "love."
In the common use of the word, it has come to have different meanings, more or less remote from the true. The worst perversion of the term is in the way it is made to apply to wrong principles or practices. And this perversion claims for its authority a false interpretation of those familiar words of Peter, "Charity shall cover the multitude of sins." It becomes in the popular sense little else than a hypocritical covering for that which is evil; a specious excuse for the wrong-doer, based upon no valid reason whatever, except a supposed obligation to look with favor upon the motives and deeds of others, no matter how erratic they may be. And he who fails to do this exposes himself to the charge of being uncharitable, narrow, and cynical.
Optimism sees good in everything. Charity is by many supposed to go much farther by not only ignoring the presence of evil, but transforming it into good by a sugar-coating process by which people are induced to swallow many a nauseous dose without considering its true nature. Iniquity ceases to be iniquity, if someone says, "He meant well." Wrong practices arising from erroneous doctrines cease to be wrong if a man is only "honest." Persistence in serving error and opposing the truth must be covered with the elastic blanket of this kind of charity, "because, you know, he is sincere."
The same faulty idea leads many who stand high in the Christian churches to-day, to seek affiliation with the Romish Church—a church whose soul and spirit consist of the most abominable dogmas and misleading heresies, whose characteristic tenets are opposed to God and his plan of grace; a system described by inspiration as "antichrist," "that man of sin," a blasphemous "beast," and "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth;" and identified by all Bible students.
Her history reeks with the blood of martyrs and saints; and her utterances, many of them, "speak great words against the Most High." And while she yet pursues, as far as permitted to do so, the same policy, with no word or sign of repentance for the past, or reformation for the future, there are plenty of Protestant apologists whose "charity" is so ample as to cover all these sins and deformities and give Catholicism a place in the front ranks of evangelical Christian churches. A charity for which they get no Catholic thanks, however.
But let us suppose that all this untempered daubing succeeds; differences of faith and practice are ignored, crimes are "hushed up," errors and sins in private life, or in a denomination, are passed over in silence, or lightly alluded to, and the wrong-doer is called well-disposed, and made to think lightly of his offenses, what is the result? Oh, a very pleasant time. Truth and error join hands, sin becomes the protégé of charity, it loses its character and hideousness, while its seductive charms are enhanced, its victims are multiplied, and it is left for the Judgment of the great day to reveal the secret things. The hand of God strips off the frail refuge of hypocrisy called charity, and corruption and death meet the astonished eyes of those who had flattered themselves that all was fair.
Is this the work of charity? Nay, a thousand times! What is the nature and office of this chiefest grace? Let the Scriptures tell: "Charity shall cover the multitude of sins." 1 Peter 4:8. How it covers sin is shown in James 5:19, 20: "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins." Any attempt upon our part to cover one sin in ourselves or in another, is a long step towards eternal death. The only way sin can be successfully covered is brought to view in the following: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity." Ps. 32:1, 2. "Thou hast forgiven the iniquity of thy people; thou hast covered all their sin." Ps. 85:2. All other covering is worse than vain. Charity, then, or love, leads the sinner from his errors and sins, through repentance and reformation, to the foot of the cross, to the blood of Christ, and to the forgiving mercy of God. Thus and thus only can the dreadful nature of sin be canceled, and its consequences averted. Love for a person or a church in error or transgression, will not lead us to flatter them to destruction, nor to compromise our own sense of right; but, true to our conscience, and armed with the spirit of meekness, it will impel us to seek their restoration. G. C. TENNEY.