Earlier text: General Articles“Flames of Fun and Frolic.”
By A. O. Tait
Such is the heading of a large poster advertising the Fourth of July celebration at Centralia, Illinois. In the programme of sports and games are advertised, two horse races and a mule race, four foot races, one of which was to be run by colored boys on their hands and feet; and a furniture set was to be given to the couple who would come on the speaker’s stand and get married; a base ball match and a mock battle between Indians and cow-boys; which latter was to represent sensational scenes of the wild West. At the bottom of the poster it said, “For further particulars, see small bills,” “Rev.” — was advertised to deliver the oration. We had always been taught that the Fourth of July was celebrated to keep alive the memory of the Declaration of Independence. But how such a programme as the above could inspire patriotism in the rising generation, and cause their hearts to swell with emotions kindred to those that were in the hearts of the founders of our Government, we are unable to tell. How can there be any fitting similarity between horse and mule racing, base ball matches, “fun and frolic,” and the seriously important work of signing the Declaration of Independence? Instead of showing their patriotism by such performances, our citizens show more plainly that they have lost much of the true patriotic spirit, and are rapidly degrading our memorial of independence into a day of ridiculous revelry. But the most significant point is, that a man who prefixes “Rev.” to his name will allow himself to be advertised as orator in the midst of a programme of such “fun and frolic.” From the conversation I have had with those who were on the grounds, I learn that church members, worldlings, and all were indiscriminately represented as the eager spectators of the exciting scenes. In the first horse race one of the horses flew the track, dashed into the crowd, and severely injured several persons. As soon as these wounded were hastily cared for, another race was run, and at the same place where the other accident happened another horse ran from the track into the crowd, this time killing a man almost instantly and also badly crippling a number of others. After the dead and wounded were carried out of the way, they were all ready for the third race, when the president of the day stopped them and would not allow them to run any more. How can those who profess to be followers of Christ, engage in such scenes? Paul teaches us in 2 Tim. 3: 1-5, that, in the last days, men “having a form of godliness” will be “lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God.” The great lines of prophecy all tell us that we are in the last days. And here, sure enough, we find that Paul’s prediction is being literally fulfilled. For the above is only a sample of the manner in which “Christians” are being lost sight of in the world, as they are both together wildly seeking after pleasure. May the Lord help us to escape from the whirlpool of “fun and frolic,” into which Satan is trying, in these last days, to drag not only the world, but also the professed church. Longing for the Lord’s Courts
“How AMIABLE are thy tabernacles, O Lord of hosts! My soul longeth, yea, even fainteth for the courts of the Lord; my heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God.” Ps. 84: 1, 2. Every one knows what snags are; and almost everything that moves, from the bare-footed boy who roams the woods to the largest steamer that navigates the Mississippi or Missouri Rivers, is in more or less danger of being snagged. Snags are constantly in the way, and have to be avoided; even in our towns and cities care must be exercised if one would avoid injury from things that are closely akin to them, while all know that they are the constant dread of river pilots; and many a valuable steam-boat has been lost because of snags. But snags are not confined to material things, nor is the injury which they inflict always physical. The pathway of each one of us is beset with spiritual snags, and if these are not carefully avoided, we are liable not only to suffer minor injuries, but there is danger that we shall make shipwreck of faith and go down in the dark waters of everlasting death. But let us examine one of these snags. Perhaps the biggest of all is the inconsistencies of false professors and the failures of true Christians. A great many are wrecked on this snag; and the strangest thing about it is, that so few try to avoid it. Suppose that there is a dangerous snag in one of our largest rivers. It cannot be removed, but its location is described, and everything that can be done is done to warn people against it. What would we think of a pilot who should deliberately search for that snag until he had found it, and then, with a full head of steam, run his boat right upon it? Every one would say at once that he was a madman. But that is just the way people do in spiritual things. Ask almost any worldly man you meet, why he is not a Christian, and most likely he will tell you that it is because of faults which he sees in this or that person. In short, he has been snagged! But how did it happen? Well, he once felt that he ought to be a Christian, but was not willing to make the sacrifice required; so he sought for some excuse; he went hunting around for a snag, and presently he found it in the life of a poor, struggling fellow-mortal who, though fighting against sin, was sometimes overcome by temptation. He could not see the poor man's heart; he never witnessed his heartfelt grief, nor heard his broken cry as upon his knees he sought the forgiveness of Him whose law he had transgressed; no, he only saw the mistake, the failure—the sin if you please—and straightway he says, “There's a snag; that man is no better than I am; I want none of his religion.” A Christian friend says: “You will not be called to account for another's sin. The short-comings of that man will not excuse you; the Saviour alone is to be your example,” etc.; but it makes no difference, he won't pass that snag; the sensation of being snagged is too pleasant! Of course it wounds his soul and injures his character, but then it eases his conscience, and that is what he wants; and so he steams up full force, strikes the snag head on, and settles down into the mud of infidelity, consoling himself the while that he is about as good as his neighbor; and perhaps he may be, but he is not good enough for a place in the kingdom of God, and never will be till he pulls away from that snag. But even professed Christians are sometimes snagged. The writer once knew of a man who was led to investigate the claims of the law of God, and was convinced of his duty to obey; but to do so would require a sacrifice, and so, to use his own expression, he began to cast about for “snags;” and where do you suppose he found them? Well, strange as it may seem, though a professed Christian himself he sought and found them just where the worldling did,—in the lives of other professed Christians; only, instead of looking among Sunday-keepers, he went snag-hunting among Sabbath-keepers, and, like any one who looks away from Christ and the Scriptures of truth, he soon found what he wanted and settled down satisfied with himself, his conscience fully at ease and quiet! But is it not surprising that any one with even a limited knowledge of the principles of the gospel should seek such an excuse? Such a course can only be accounted for in the light of the declaration that “the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.” The apostle Paul thus condemns those who, by looking at their fellow-men, are enabled to build themselves up on their self-righteousness: “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves; but they, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Cor. 10: 12. Even among the twelve apostles there was one traitor, and one weak disciple who denied his Lord even with oaths; dare we then condemn religion in general, or any special system of faith in particular, because all its adherents are not all that they should be? If we trust now in such subterfuges, what shall be our confidence when the Lord brings to pass that which he has spoken, saying: “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding-place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand”? In following Christ we are safe; in keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14: 12), we have the promise of eternal life. More than this no man can do, and less than this is not acceptable to God, for it is written: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. 12: 13, 14. The Messiah's Inheritance.
“Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.” Ps. 2: 8. THE italics are supplied by the translators. The word goim is properly translated nation. It is equivalent to the Greek ethnos, Gentiles, and applied by the Jews to all foreigners. The correct reading of the passage is: “Ask of me, and I will give thee thine inheritance—the nations, and thy possession—the whole earth.” Four scenes of fearful interest are introduced in connection with those nations. 1. They belong to Christ; not simply as God, but as the second Adam, the Son of man, the heir of all things, who by covenant engagement is to triumph and rule over this earth which rejected him, and restore it to its original righteousness and splendor. They are his inheritance; he is head of the race, the first-born and proprietor. As the Son of man, he will possess and dwell upon and rule the earth and its inhabitants. 2. The nations are in allied opposition to Christ. Why do the nations (the heathen) rage or roar—properly, make a noise?—Alexander. Why boast of might and culture? Why take counsel together against the Lord and his anointed? God, from his throne, smiles at their vain and wicked opposition with contempt. He looks upon the atheism of philosophers, the godlessness of diplomacy and statesmanship, and the combination of kings and priests to defeat his purposes, with derision, bending their plans and purposes to his sovereign will, and making their wrath subserve his designs. 3. Christ will be enthroned in his inheritance in the midst of the allied opposition. The language of the psalmist is peculiar and emphatic: “Then shall he [God the Father] speak” “to them [the nations] in his wrath, and vex them [cause them to tremble] in his sore displeasure.” “And will set [or establish] his King on his holy hill of Zion.” “And” is acknowledged to be more correct than “yet.” (See Barnes.) And in the midst of the daring and combined opposition of the nations “He will set his King upon his throne.” (1) The nations reach the height of their audacious godlessness and defiance. (2) God causes them to tremble—the meaning of the Hebrew word bahal, translated “vex.” (3) And he sets his Son, or inaugurates his personal reign amid fury—judgments. “Vex them in his sore displeasure,” is literally “in his heart or burning anger.” (Barnes et al.) “Who shall abide the day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth?” Mal. 3: 2. “He shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire.” 4. Christ claims the right to rule the nations. He is the speaker in the seventh verse: “I will declare the decree.” That decree pronounces him the Son of the eternal Father. It includes the covenant engagement. He recites its pledge: “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations—thine inheritance as the second Adam.” It is the wicked nations—the allied opposing Christless nations—that are to be given to him. Given to him in the height of their rage and boasting opposition. Given to him while trembling beneath the burning wrath of God poured upon them. Given to him for what? 5. Christ will judge and punish the heathen, or literally those nations. Men generally, in speeches and sermons and prayers, quote part of this decree. “He shall have the heathen for his inheritance” is on so many lips which are dumb as regards what follows: “He shall rule or judge them with a rod of iron.” “He shall dash [or shiver] them to pieces as a potter’s [or clay] vessel”—and he will order to “slay his enemies before his face.” He will take vengeance on those that know not God. “For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. But unto those that fear my name shall the Son of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of Hosts.” Mal. 4: 1–3. This is not a time of universal righteousness; his coming to reign upon this planet which rejected him will be the day of vengeance. Observe.—There is not one instance in God's Word in which the reign of Christ is promised, which is not accompanied with threatened judgments upon the wicked, who will be found in the height of their opposition when he comes.—Ford's Christian Repository for Feb., 1879. The tyranny of strikers and Knights of Labor becomes more and more odious, as its details are known. A master plumber is forbidden to employ his own sons as apprentices; a widow who keeps a little shop is threatened with the loss of patronage unless she stops her subscription to a newspaper that has offended some union printers; five peaceable workmen, minding their own business, are set upon and beaten by members of the Empire Protective Association, because they will not rot in idleness at the demands of its officials. Let us have done with all nonsense about the rights of labor, and with milk and water compliments to demagogues, who are posing as philanthropists. It is time to call them by their right names, and to treat them as conspirators against liberty, and as law-breakers and plunderers.—New York Sun. Plain Facts on the Sunday Question.
By W.
AMONG the letters on the Sunday question, published in the St. Louis Republican of July 4, is one from a Catholic priest, D. S. Phelan, of St. Louis, which states the facts relative to the Sunday in such plain language that we reproduce it entire. We earnestly invite all Protestants to give it a careful perusal:— “St. Louis, July 3.—EDITOR REPUBLICAN: I have been asked my views on the question of Sunday observance. I have no views. It is a matter of positive law. Dogmas of faith and canons of discipline are grave and stubborn things; views are trifles light as air. The Sunday is an institution of the church. The attempt to identify it with the Jewish Sabbath, or to make it heir to its rights and ceremonies is futile and absurd. The ceremonial law of Moses is abrogated—buried in the same grave with the synagogue. The Lord’s day is the creation of the church in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in the week would seem to be of divine origin. When the church set apart the first day of the week for public worship, she enacted that all her children who reached the years of discretion should first hear mass, and secondly abstain from servile works on that day. This is positive law, and any man’s views contrary to this enactment are treasonable. The mass is the one great sacrifice of the new law, and all the faithful are obliged to assist at it on the Lord’s day. Sunday is likewise a day of rest—made so by the church’s enactment. She says we may not do any work on that day which is of servile or ordinary wage-earning character.” “But how about games and amusements on the Lord’s day? ‘What saith the law?’ The church does not condemn them, although she encourages the faithful to works of piety and prayer. She knows the world too well to impose a burden on men they cannot bear. She is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for all Christians to spend the whole of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour.” “Why do our separated brethren lay so much stress in observing this Sunday ordinance of the Catholic Church? They are more Catholic than the Catholic Church. But they are Catholic only on Sunday. On Friday they are pagans. Why do they eat meat on the latter day? The church, who presented the method of Sunday observance, forbids the use of flesh meat on Friday. Why, too, do they not observe the laws of the Lenten season? They emanate from the same authority which fixed the time and method of the weekly public worship. The Pharisees were in the habit of higgling about trifles, while they neglected the weightier things of the Mosaic law. Our separated brethren are in the same predicament. They take the Sunday from the church, and make it the scare-crow of Christendom, while they throw away the Friday abstinence, and the Lenten fast, not to speak of the annual confession and communion.” The only thing in the above that we would criticise is the implication that by the abrogation of the ceremonial law the Sabbath was also abolished. The fourth commandment had in it nothing of a ceremonial nature, consequently it was not affected by the blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances. So when “the church” set apart the Sunday as a demi-semi-holy day, there were two weekly days of worship claiming man’s allegiance: one given by man himself; the other, the original Sabbath which God gave to man. We wish now to call the reader’s special attention to the following points in the letter of “Father” Phelan:— 1. “The Sunday is an institution of the church.” It has no connection with the Sabbath, and derives none of its “authority” from the command enjoining the observance of what is termed the “Jewish Sabbath.” 2. “The Lord’s day [an erroneous title for Sunday] is the creation of the church, in its specific form, although the obligation to sanctify one day in455the week would seem to be of divine origin.” But why should it “seem” that the obligation to observe one day in the week is of divine origin? If the Sabbath commandment be abolished along with the ceremonial law, the obligation to observe one day in the week must also be gone; for the fourth commandment is the only place where such obligation is expressed. But if there is now obligation to observe one day in the week, and that of divine origin, it must be derived from the fourth commandment, which specifies particularly which day of the week shall be observed. Note this point: Our Catholic friend distinguishes between the obligation that is of “divine origin,” and the “obligation” which originated in the “church.” This is as it should be. The observance of one day in the week is enjoined by the Creator, in the fourth commandment; the setting apart of the first day, instead of the seventh “according to the commandment,” rests solely on the authority of man. There is nothing divine about it. 3. The same power that set apart the Sunday also originated the mass; and the Sunday was set apart solely for the celebration of this mummery. Notice: The church “is satisfied with what is essential, while counseling what is of supererogation. It would be well for all Christians to spend the whole of Sunday in church, but the church obliges them to about one hour.” Outside of that hour, the people may engage in anything except servile work. Thus the only essential thing about Sunday is the mass. If professed Protestants want to know how to keep Sunday, why do they not go to the only source of authority on that subject? The remainder of the letter speaks for itself. We commend to all Protestants the questions which it contains. If they are determined to follow, and even to exceed, the Catholic ordinance concerning Sunday, why not be consistent, and attend mass on that day, abstain from meat on Friday, and go to confession? But if they are determined to be Protestants indeed, the way is plain. We do not acknowledge the Pope’s authority, and the only treason that we know of in matters pertaining to morals, is disobedience to the commandments of God. “TILL the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” There is no question of course but that the “seed” is Christ. The sixteenth verse plainly says so. Then what is the coming of the seed? Some have supposed it to be Christ’s first advent, but a little study will show that the second advent is here spoken of. The “seed” is never mentioned except in connection with the promise, and the promise is fulfilled only at the second coming of Christ. The following texts and argument will make this appear:— In Gen. 3:15, the Lord, in pronouncing the curse upon the serpent (Satan), said, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [the seed] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Paul, in his letter to the Romans, many years after Christ had come and had ascended to Heaven, said, “And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” Rom. 16:20. The bruising of a serpent’s head is its destruction; but this was not accomplished at Christ’s first advent, but was something still future. The destruction of Satan begins only at Christ’s second coming. See Rev. 20. Again, in the promise to Abraham it was said, “And thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies.” Gen. 22:17. This was not fulfilled at the first advent of Christ. On the contrary he was then delivered into the hands of his enemies, and they did to him whatsoever they would. He will possess the gate of his enemies only when the following promise is fulfilled: “Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” Ps. 2:7, 8. And this is fulfilled at Christ’s second advent, when he takes vengeance “on them that know not God and that obey not the gospel,” as is described by the revelator:— “And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood; and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in Heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings, and Lord of lords. And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; that ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. . . . And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.” Rev. 19:11-21. Thus he possesses the gate of his enemies. Again, another part of the promise to the seed was that he should possess the whole earth. See Ps. 2:7, 8, where the uttermost parts of the earth are promised to Christ for a possession; also see Gen. 13:14-17, and Rom. 4:13. But when Christ was on earth, he possessed not so much as a place where he could lay his head. Matt. 8:20. When, however, the seventh angel sounds (when the mystery of God is to be finished, Rev. 10:7), then it will be said: “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.” Rev. 11:15. The eighteenth verse says that this is at “the time of the dead, that they should be judged,” showing conclusively that it is at the second coming of Christ. Compare 2 Tim. 4:1. Still further, in the prophecy of Ezekiel the promise of the earth to Christ is directly associated with his second coming. The prophet foretells the captivity of the Jews, the succession of the four universal monarchies, and the setting up of the kingdom of God, as follows:— “And thou, profane wicked prince of Israel, whose day is come, when iniquity shall have an end, thus saith the Lord God: Remove the diadem, and take off the crown; this shall not be the same; exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it; and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him.” Eze. 21:25-27. The diadem was taken from the king of Israel when he and his people were carried away to Babylon. At that time Babylon was a universal monarchy. Then three “overturnings” are mentioned, which reach to the second coming of Christ. Thus: The first overturning made Medo-Persia a universal dominion; the second gave the dominion of the world to Grecia; and the third overturning made the empire of Rome fill the world. This was the state of things at Christ’s first advent, and for four hundred years later, and the prophet declared that there should be no more general revolution “until He come whose right it is.” Note the parallel between this and the clause in Gal. 3:19, which says, “Till the seed should come to whom the promise was made.” In the light of Eze. 21:25-27 we think there can be no question but that in the latter passage the second coming of Christ is referred to. Once more: The promise to the seed was that in him all the families of the earth should be blessed. This of course could not be fulfilled as long as any wicked are in existence. But when Christ comes, sitting on the throne of his glory, to destroy sinners out of the earth, “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” Matt. 25:34. From the above quotations and references it will be seen that the promises to “the seed” are not fulfilled until the second coming of Christ; they all culminate at his second advent. It was willful forgetfulness of this fact that caused the Jews to reject Christ. They read the promises to the seed,—promises of glorious triumph,—and applied them to the coming of the Messiah; and when they saw none of those promises fulfilled in him, they rejected him. Let us not, like them, fall into grievous error by referring to his first advent those promises to be fulfilled only at his second glorious coming. That was the time of his humiliation, not of his triumph. Christ then came as an offering for sin, and not as the seed to whom the promise was made. When he comes the second time he comes as King of kings and Lord of lords; he comes to take possession of the gates of his enemies, whom he will dash in pieces as a potter’s vessel; he comes to take possession of his inheritance, even “the uttermost parts of the earth,” and to receive as his own a great multitude whom no man can number. Compare Rev. 7:9 and Gen. 13:16. In short, he comes as “the seed to whom the promise was made.” W. A YOUNG friend in the interior of the State writes us in regard to the propriety of attending school exhibitions or amateur theatrical performances. She sends us a program of one, and states that it was midnight before the play was over. She says:— “There was some doubt in my mind whether it was right or not, and I asked some of the brethren about taking part in it, and they thought it was all right. After I promised to take part, I talked with some of the others, and they did not think it right to have anything to do with such things. I do not think myself now that it is right, as I could not ask God's blessing on it; but I ask you the question, that I may have authority on the subject. I also ask for the sake of those who do not see any harm in it.” The question is already answered. She says that the exhibition was such that she could not ask the blessing of God upon it. That condemns it. No other rule is needed to enable one to determine whether a thing is right or wrong. Let every one adopt this rule, and none will need to ask concerning any particular case. We would not presume to declare specifically what things may be done and what may not, for even if we had the wisdom to do so the list would be interminable. There are general rules of conduct laid down in the Bible, and God has given each of us reason and a conscience, and expects us to decide individual cases for ourselves according to those principles. As we said a short time ago, in answering a similar question, this rule will cover every case: “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” 1 Cor. 10:31. One thing more. The writer intimates that if she had a decision from us, she would have authority. This is a mistake. No man is authority as to what is right or wrong. We may declare the word of the Lord, or direct people to it, but that alone is authority. Our opinion, or that of any other person, is of no consequence whatever, in such matters. “To the law and to the testimony.”