The Place of Sunday Legislation in the Making of the Beast.
In the union of Church and State in the Roman Empire, in the making of the papacy, the kingdom of God was held to have come. But that kingdom was a kingdom of this world, dependent solely upon worldly means for its existence.
The only power known to the kingdoms of this world is force. In established governments this force is exerted through law, enforced by pains and penalties. And we have seen that in this new kingdom of God it was by means of the Sunday laws and the power of the State that those who dwelt on the earth were rendered “fit subjects” of this kingdom of God.
At every step in the course of the apostasy, at every step taken in adopting the forms of sun-worship, as well as against the adoption and the observance of Sunday itself, there had been constant protest by all real Christians. Those who remained faithful to Christ and to the truth of the pure word of God, observed the Sabbath of the Lord according to the commandment, and according to the word of God which sets forth the Sabbath as the sign by which the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, is distinguished from all other gods. These accordingly protested against every phase and form of sun-worship. Others compromised, especially in the East, by observing both Sabbath and Sunday. But in the West, under Roman influences and under the leadership of the Church and the bishopric of Rome, Sunday alone was adopted and observed.
Against this Church-and-State intrigue throughout, there had been also, as against every other step in the course of the apostasy, earnest protest by all real Christians. But when it came to the point where the Church would enforce by the power of the State the observance of Sunday, this protest became stronger than ever. And additional strength was given to the protest at this point by the fact that it was urged in the words of the very arguments which the Catholic Church had used when she was antagonized, rather than courted, by the imperial authority. This, with the strength of the argument upon the merit of the question as to the day which should be observed, greatly weakened the force of the Sunday law. But when, in addition to these considerations, the exemption was so broad as to allow all who dwelt “in the country, freely and at full liberty” to pursue their regular avocations on Sunday, and when those who observed the Sabbath disregarded the Sunday law, its effect was largely nullified.
Since any disrespect to Sunday, or any weakening of its standing would, in the nature of things, hinder people from attaining to the place of “fit subjects” of this “kingdom of God,” it became necessary for the Church to secure legislation extinguishing all exemption, and prohibiting the observance of the Sabbath, so as to quench that powerful protest of the Sabbath-keepers. And now, coupled with the necessity of the situation, the “truly divine command” of Constantine and the Council of Nice, that “nothing” should be held “in common with the Jews,” was made the basis and the authority for legislation utterly to crush out the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, and to establish the observance of Sunday only, in its stead. Accordingly, the Council of Laodicea enacted the following canon:—
CANON 29.— Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [“Sabbath,” in both Greek and Latin], but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out [“accursed,” Greek and Latin] from Christ.— Hefele, “History of the Church Councils,” Laodicea.
The report of the proceedings of the Council of Laodicea is not dated. A variety of dates has been suggested, of which A. D. 364 seems to have been the most favored. Hefele allows that it may have been as late as 380. But whatever the date, before A. D. 380, in the political condition of the empire this could not be made effective by imperial law. In 375 the emperor Valentinian died, and was succeeded by his two sons, one aged sixteen, the other four years. In 378 Theodosius, a Spanish soldier, became emperor of the East. In 380 he was baptized into the Catholic Church; and immediately an edict was issued in the name of the three emperors, commanding all subjects of the empire, of whatever party or name, to adopt the faith of the Catholic Church, and assume the name of “Catholic Christians.”
As now “the State itself recognized the Church as such, and endeavored to uphold her in the prosecution of her principles and the attainment of her ends” (Neander); and as Theodosius had already ordered that all his subjects “should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful tradition” had preserved, and which was then “professed by the pontiff Damasus,” of Rome, and had now ordered that they should all “assume the title of Catholic Christians,” it was easy to bring the imperial power to the support of the decrees of the Church, and make the Laodicean canon effective.
Now was given the opportunity for which the Church had waited so long, and she made use of it. At the earliest possible moment she secured the desired law; for, “by a law of the year 386, those older changes effected by the emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced; and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege.”— Neander.
As the direct result of this law, there soon appeared an evil which, under the circumstances and in the logic of the case, called for further legislation in the same direction. The law forbade all work. But as the people had not such religion as would cause them to devote the day to pious and moral exercises, the effect of the law was only to enforce idleness. Enforced idleness only multiplied opportunity for dissipation. The natural consequence was that the circuses, the theaters, and other places of dissipation throughout the empire were crowded every Sunday.
The object of the Sunday law, from the first one that was issued, was that the day might be used for the purposes of devotion, and that the people might go to church. But they had not sufficient religion to lead them to church when there was opportunity for amusement. Therefore, “owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially in the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same days which had been consecrated by the Church to some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair of the life and of the heart. Church teachers . . . were, in truth, often forced to complain that in such competition the theater was vastly more frequented than the church.”— Neander.
And the Church was now in a condition in which she could not bear competition. She must have a monopoly. Therefore the next step to be taken, the logical one, too, was to have the circuses and theaters closed on Sundays and other special Church days, so that the churches and the theaters should not be open at the same time.
There was another feature of the case which gave the bishops the opportunity to make their new demands appear plausible, by urging in another form the selfish and sophistical plea upon which they had asked for the first edict respecting Church days. In the circuses and the theaters, large numbers of men were employed, among whom many were church-members. But, rather than give up their places, the church-members would work on Sunday. The bishops complained that these were “compelled to work,” and were “prohibited to worship;” they pronounced it “persecution,” and demanded more Sunday laws for “protection.”
As a consequence, therefore, and in the logic of the situation, at a council held at Carthage, in June, A. D. 401, the following canon was enacted:—
CANON 5.— On Sundays and feast-days no plays may be performed.
That this canon might be made effective, the bishops in the same council passed a resolution, and sent up a petition to the emperor Honorius, praying “that the public shows might be transferred from the Christian Sunday and from feast-days, to some other days of the week.”— Neander. The reason given in support of the petition was not only, as already stated, that those who worked in government offices and employments at such times, were persecuted, but that “the people congregate more to the circus than to the church.”— Id.
In the logic of this theory, there was one more step to be taken. To see how logically it came about, let us glance at the steps taken from the first one up to this point: First, the Church had all work on Sunday forbidden, in order that the people might worship. But the people would not worship; they went to the circus and the theater instead of to church. Then the Church had laws enacted closing the circuses and the theaters, in order that the people might attend church. But even then the people would not be devoted, nor attend church; for they had no real religion. The next step to be taken, therefore, in the logic of the situation, was to compel them to be devoted—to compel them to attend to things divine.
This was the next step logically to be taken, and it was taken. The theocratical bishops were equal to the occasion. They were ready with a theory that exactly met the demands of the case, and one of the greatest of the Catholic Church Fathers and Catholic saints was the father of the theory, thus:—
It is, indeed, better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected. . . . Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development.— Augustine.
Of this theory, the author who, of all the Church historians, has best exposed the evil workings of this false theocracy, justly observes that “it was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded, which . . . contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism of intolerance and persecution which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition.”— Neander.
The history of the Inquisition is only the history of this theory of Augustine’s. But this theory is only the logical sequence of the theory upon which the whole series of Sunday laws was founded. In closing his history of this particular subject, Neander says, “IN THIS WAY THE CHURCH RECEIVED HELP FROM THE STATE FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF HER ENDS.”
This statement is correct. Constantine did many things to favor the bishops. He gave them money and political preference. He made their decisions in disputed cases final, as the decision of Jesus Christ. But in nothing that he did for them did he give them power over those who did not belong to the Church, to compel them to act as if they did, except in the one thing of the Sunday law. In the Sunday law, power was given to the Church to compel those who did not belong to the Church, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, to obey the commands of the Church. In the Sunday law there was given to the Church control of the civil power, so that by it she could compel those who did not belong to the Church to act as if they did: so that thus they might be more “fit subjects” of that false kingdom of God. The history of377Constantine’s time may be searched through and through, and it will be found that in nothing did he give to the Church any such power, except in this one thing—the Sunday law. Neander’s statement is literally correct, that it was “in this way the Church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.”
That this may be set before the reader in as clear a light as possible, we shall here summarize the facts stated by Neander, in their direct bearing. He says of the carrying into effect of the theocratical theory of the apostate bishops, that they made themselves dependent upon Constantine, by their disputes, and “by their determination to use the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.” Then he mentions the first and second Sunday laws of Constantine; the Sunday law of A. D. 386; the Carthaginian Council, resolution, and petition of 401; and the law of A. D. 425, in response to this petition; and then, without a break, and with direct reference to these Sunday laws, he says: “In this way the Church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.”
She started out with the determination to do it: she did it; and “IN THIS WAY” she did it. And when she had secured control of the power of the State, she used it for the furtherance of her own aims, and that in her own despotic way, as announced in the inquisitorial theory of Augustine. The first step logically led to the last. And the theocratical leaders in the movement had the cruel courage to follow the first step unto the last, as framed in the words of Augustine, and illustrated in the horrors of the Inquisition during the fearful record of the dreary ages in which the bishopric of Rome was supreme over kings and nations.
Thus was made the Beast. Thus was Sunday legislation the chief means, the very key, in the making of the Beast. And before the eyes of all people to-day Sunday legislation is being employed in the same way precisely, which is nothing else, and can not possibly be anything else, than the making of the image of the Beast.
In a word, the Beast signifies attainment to righteousness, to salvation, and to the kingdom of God, by force,—by law and works of the flesh; and Sunday is the sign of it.
America as a Larger Britain
President “Patton,” of Princeton University, has lately defined the United States as being, in brief, “simply a larger Britain.” That is strongly confirmed by the following parallel presented by the Yale Review:—
Townsend Revenue Act, 1767, one of the causes of the American Revolution.
All the moneys that shall arise by the said duties . . . shall be applied . . . in making a more certain and adequate provision for the charge of the administration of justice and in the support of civil government, in such of the said colonies and plantations where it shall be found necessary; . . . the residue of such duties shall be paid into the receipt of his majesty’s exchequer, and shall be entered separate and apart from all other moneys paid or payable to his majesty; . . . and shall be there reserved, to be from time to time disposed of by Parliament toward defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies in America.
Porto Rican Bill, enacted by the American Congress, 1900.
The duties and taxes collected in Porto Rico in pursuance of this Act, . . . and the gross amount of all collections of duties and taxes in the United States upon articles of merchandise coming from Porto Rico, shall not be covered into the general fund of the treasury, but shall be held as a separate fund, and shall be placed at the disposal of the president, to be used for the government and benefit of Porto Rico until the government of Porto Rico herein provided shall have been organized.
And since the United States has thus become “a larger Britain,” how stands the nation with respect to the principles upon which the nation was founded, and for which it stood in the world?—Plainly these principles are abandoned. And when these principles are so abandoned, then, in the estimation of those who have abandoned those principles, what could have been the character, and what could have been the use, of the American Revolution? Yet the worst feature of this case is, not that the United States is a Britain either larger or smaller, but that it is so completely another Rome. If in this career of apostasy, the United States would stop with being as is Britain, the evil would not be so great; but when she becomes not only what Britain was, but goes on and becomes what Rome was, then the evil can be only such as came to Rome—irretrievable ruin.
“Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia.”
Hagar represents the covenant from Sinai. Hagar was a bondwoman, and an Egyptian. Her son, therefore, was a bondson. He was a bondson, by whatsoever means he might have been born; because his mother was a bondwoman.
As we have seen, the means by which Hagar’s son was born was altogether out of distrust of God and of unbelief in his promise—was only a scheme of the flesh; and, therefore, “he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh.” But, “The minding of the flesh,” the carnal mind, is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh can not please God.” Rom. 8: 7, 8, margin.
Accordingly, the covenant for which Hagar stands—the covenant from Mount Sinai—is a covenant in which people, in distrust of God and unbelief of his promise, knowing only the natural man and the birth of the flesh, seek by their own inventions and their own efforts, to attain to the righteousness of God, and to the inheritance which attaches to that righteousness. This, because, as we have also seen, Sarai and Abram had the fullness of the promise of God, and of his righteousness, in God’s covenant confirmed in Christ, before ever the scheme concerning Hagar was invented. And this scheme was invented, and could be invented, only by forsaking that promise and covenant. And to forsake that promise and covenant was to trust only in the flesh.
Did, then, the people at Sinai have any promise of God, or any covenant, in which they could trust, before they entered into the covenant at Sinai.—They had. They had the Abrahamic covenant, exactly as had Abram and Sarai before they entered into the scheme which brought in Hagar.
Not simply did they have this covenant with Abraham, as a far-distant thing, bedimmed by the lapse of time between Abraham and them; but they had it repeated to them, directly by the Lord, and made with them, as with Abraham; and all this before they ever left Egypt at all. Read: “And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them. TO GIVE THEM THE LAND OF CANAAN, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have REMEMBERED MY COVENANT.
“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: and I WILL TAKE YOU TO ME FOR A PEOPLE, and I WILL BE TO YOU A GOD; and YE SHALL KNOW that I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I DID SWEAR [“I lift up my hand,” margin] to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I WILL GIVE IT YOU FOR AN HERITAGE: I am the Lord.”Ex. 6: 2–8.
Here was given to the children of Israel, in Egypt, all that was ever given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The same covenant precisely that was “made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac,” and which was “confirmed” unto Jacob, was made with Israel, WHILE THEY WERE YET IN EGYPT, when God came down to deliver them from Egypt.
How, then, could it come about that Israel must enter into a covenant at Sinai?—Just as the scheme concerning Hagar came about. How could another covenant be brought in at all?—Just as Hagar was brought in—altogether because of distrust of God’s covenant; altogether because of unbelief of the promise of God confirmed by his oath. For if they had trusted the promises of God which he had made to them in Egypt, they would have had all that Abraham or any other person ever could have, they would have had the righteousness of God, his everlasting salvation, and the inheritance promised to Abraham; and this ALL IN CHRIST; for this is how Abraham had it.
True, they had sung the song of triumphant faith at the Red Sea, after crossing; and if they had continued in this faith, they would have continued in God’s everlasting covenant which he gave them in Egypt; and there never would have been any covenant at Sinai.
But they did not continue in that faith; for, immediately afterward, when in their journey they came to Marah, they murmured against the Lord. And when the Lord had delivered them from their fears at that place, and they came into the Wilderness of Sin, “the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured” again. “And the children of Israel said unto them [Moses and Aaron], Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, and when we did eat bread to the full: for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” Ex. 16: 3. And when the Lord had delivered them from their fears that time, and they had left the Wilderness of Sin, and had come to Rephidim, again they murmured, and said: “Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.” Ex. 17: 3, 4.
All this shows confirmed distrust of God, and unbelief of him, on the part of Israel. And this distrust and unbelief hid from them the blessings and the power given to them in the covenant with Abraham, which God had given to them when they were in Egypt.
They could not trust God for the inheritance to which they were coming, nor for the righteousness which alone would entitle them to that inheritance. This they thought that they themselves could earn. And, that they might see how far short of earning it they would come, the Lord gave to them the widest possible opportunity to try. Accordingly, he said: “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voiceINDEED, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. [“So shall ye be my people, and I will be your God.” Jer. 11: 4.] These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, all that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.” Ex. 19: 4–8.
They had not yet heard his voice; but, when they did hear it, the ten commandments were spoken. And so they had agreed to obey the ten commandments indeed. And, even after they had heard his voice in such majesty that they feared, and “removed and stood afar off,” they declared, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Ex. 24: 7.10
But they corresponded to the child of Hagar the bondwoman, who “was born after the flesh.” They knew only the birth of the flesh; and so had only the mind of the flesh, which “is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;” and they could no more obey that law “indeed” than Ishmael, the child of the flesh in the family of Abraham, could fulfill the promise to Abraham. In that condition they could no more keep God’s covenant than the scheme of Sarai in bringing in Hagar was the keeping of that covenant.
How, then, could such a covenant ever be brought in? Why did they enter into such a covenant?—“They had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, IN THEMSELVES, to render obedience to God’s law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught. . . . The people did not realize the SINFULNESS OF THEIR OWN HEARTS, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God’s law; AND THEY READILY ENTERED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Feeling that they were able to establish THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, they declared, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.’”—Patriarchs and Prophets, pages 371, 372.
They were already in the bondage of sin and self-righteousness; and in that bondage, with minds “not subject to the law of God,” and which indeed could not be, they promised to obey the law of God “indeed.” But in the condition in which they were, it was inevitable that they would break their promise: they simply could not keep their promise. It was not in them to do it. Thus, in that covenant, they were breakers of the law, and BREAKERS OF THEIR PROMISE not to break the law.
And this is all that they could be, in that covenant, or by virtue of anything in that covenant. Accordingly, that covenant, AS HAGAR, gendered, and could gender, only to bondage. And this, all simply because of their distrust of God and their unbelief of his promise as revealed in the covenant with Abraham, which covenant was given to them directly, before they ever started from Egypt at all.
“These are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above IS FREE, which is the mother of us all. . . . Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”
MINE
By Uriah Smith
Whose?
God’s.
Who says this?
The Lord himself.
To whom does he refer?
To those whom he calls his “jewels.” “They shall be mine.”
When?—Now, and evermore; for Paul says, “All things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s.” 1 Cor. 3:21, 22.
It is not all, however, in this life; for another apostle says, “It doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:2.
And when the Lord by the prophet Malachi says of certain ones, “They shall be mine,” we find that he is speaking of a future, definite day: “They shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.”
A mere glance at the circumstances described in this prophecy will show a striking parallel with our own times. The time is set forth as one of pharisaism, hypocrisy, and apostasy. In verse 13, of Malachi 3, the Lord’s charges begin: “Your words have been stout against me, saith the Lord.” In their self-righteousness, the people answer, “What have we spoken so much against thee?” The Lord’s reply reveals the fearful condition of murmuring and complaining into which they had fallen. “Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the Lord of hosts?” This implies that the doctrine had been preached that it was not vain to serve the Lord, and to keep his ordinance, and to walk mournfully before him; and they assumed that they had served God strictly, and had kept his ordinance, and walked correctly before him, but had grown weary of the service, and now affirmed that it was a vain and profitless thing to do. Their claim was that they were all right, that they had rigidly performed their duties, kept the ordinance, walked with true humility and contrition before God, and had received no benefit therefrom; hence God had not been true to his promises. Yes, they had been wonderfully zealous and devoted to the service of the Lord; but now, they say, you see that it does no good; the Lord does not keep his word toward us.
Then verse 15 comes in as a colloquy between these murmurers and complainers, and the prophet, speaking for the Lord: “And now we call the proud happy,” etc. It is said that the construction of the Hebrew in this portion of the chapter makes the language much more forcible than it is in our version. Thus the word “blessed” in verse 12 (“all nations shall call you blessed”) is the same that is rendered “happy” in verse 15, and there applied to the proud; and the word “prove” in verse 10, which the people are exhorted to do, is the same as “tempted” in verse 15, which some had exercised toward the Lord. Bearing these facts in mind, the bitter contrast which the people throw in the face of the Lord, will be more clearly perceived.
In this whole dramatic dialogue the prophet speaks for the Lord, and the people argue against him. Thus, you tell us to return to the Lord, pay our tithes, keep his ordinances, and we shall receive such favor from the Lord that all nations will call us blessed, or happy. But “we” have to say, from all our observation, and according to our best judgment, that the proud are the happy, or blessed, ones, not those who tried to follow the Lord so fully; and then you tell us to prove the Lord; but, lo! here are some who have proved (tempted) him by reproaching his name, and refusing to follow his ways; and they are “delivered,” they do not fall under his judgments, but are as successful and prosperous as any others in the world.
No; Mr. Prophet, you are entirely wrong. We have not robbed the Lord, nor spoken against him, but have kept his ordinances and walked mournfully before him; but it is all in vain. There is no profit in it; and we know of those who have made a full trial of the matter, and have proved God; and they get along as well as others; they are delivered. So let us make us a captain, and go back again into Egypt.
Thus the prophet describes a time when faith is leaking out of the hearts of the people, and influences are at work to turn men away from the worship of God.
We are now in just such a time; but not all are lost in the general tide of indifference that is prevailing. A few are left to think upon God and fear him. And what will be their course of action? The prophet goes on to describe what their position will be. He says, “Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.” A few fear the Lord. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” These are wise; they are therefore the ones of whom Daniel speaks when he says that in the last days, the time of the end, the wise will understand, while none of the wicked will understand. They speak often one to another, or, as some read, speak often with one another. In opposition to the apostasy of the times, they enter into free and Christian converse with one another to encourage and strengthen faith and love, and maintain their connection with God.
Malachi does not say what their conversation was about, nor tell us what their words were; and there has been much study to determine this point. He does give us the drift of conversation among the careless and the worldly; but we are left to conjecture what the other would be. But it is not a difficult matter; for Paul speaks of the same company, when he says, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.” Heb. 10:25. The exhortation of these would naturally and inevitably be in regard to the day, the approach of which is made the basis of the apostle’s injunction. They would talk about its nature, the signs of its near approach, and the preparation necessary to be ready for it. Just so, in Malachi, they that fear the Lord speak often with one another, in opposition to the current of disbelief and apostasy around them. They say that it is not a vain thing to serve the Lord; and that it is profitable to keep his ordinances, and to walk in humility and contrition before him, when this is done in sincerity, and not as a matter of pharisaism.
And the Lord is pleased with this talk of faith and courage; and he hearkens and hears it; but more than this, it is all written down in a book of remembrance, recorded by the unerring pen of the angelic scribes, to be brought out and read, by and by, before an admiring universe. Not a word of hope and encouragement to a struggling soul will ever be lost. Not a word of help for one who is seeking for light and truth and the presence of the Lord, will ever be forgotten. They will be remembered in the day of recompenses, and will have their reward. “A word spoken in due season, how good is it!” Prov. 15:23.
And how often it happens that when Christians are holding helpful converse with one another, Jesus will himself draw near and join them, as he did the disciples on the way to Emmaus; and they can hold sweeter communion with him. But if our words of faith, hope, and encouragement are entered in the book of remembrance, so also are our words of distrust and discouragement; and there is no declaration to be found fraught with more serious meaning than the announcement that “by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned,” and that for “every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.”
Reference to books of remembrance, even among men, are found in Ezra 6 and Esther 6. But here it is a book of remembrance for them that fear the Lord, and that think upon his name. Such persons are held together in happiest union by the holiest ties of Christian love and fellowship. The advantages of this fellowship are here set forth in most attractive colors. They have one common feeling of regard and reverence for the Lord; and one common bond of thought, thinking upon the name of the Lord. These the Lord regards as11his jewels; and “they shall be mine,” he says; and he will make them up in the appointed time in proper array for his kingdom. He will gather them out from the darkness and rubbish of the earth, and polish and burnish them as his peculiar treasure; but of others he will say, Bind them hand and foot, and cast them out; they are not “mine.” Then shall the righteous “shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.” There they shall shine “as the brightness of the firmament,” forever and ever.
Looking at all the circumstances of felicity and glory, who would be content that his name should be missing when the King makes up his jewels? A peculiar protection is secured for them, which the Lord himself expresses in these words: “And I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.” Their sonship is acknowledged, and no harm can befall them. “At thy right hand,” says the psalmist, addressing the Lord, “there are pleasures for evermore;” and one of these pleasures will perhaps be to look back upon the winding path of our earthly pilgrimage, and see that every step was ordered by infinite love.
Are you one of whom the Lord can say, He is mine? If not, why not? Read what he says to the overcomers in the Philadelphia church: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.” Rev. 3:12. And when the saints are thus sealed and labeled, can not the Lord truthfully say of them, “They are mine”? Can anything then separate them from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord?
“Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not.” The lines between the two classes are greatly confused and intermingled now; but the day is coming, and is not far distant, when they will stand out in great distinctness. You who have said that it is vain to serve God, and that there is no profit in keeping his ordinances, will see your mistake. You will “return” to your former opinion, and see that there is a difference between him that serveth God, and him that serveth him not; that there is a difference between those of whom God can say, “They are mine,” and those of whom he will say, “I know you not.”
The jewels, after they are rescued from the dirt and rubbish of the earth, must be polished and burnished before they are ready for the coronet of him to whom they belong. The Holy Spirit is the polisher for us; and that Spirit will extract every stain and spot of sin, and smooth out every wrinkle, till we shall shine as the sun not only before men, but before the heavenly hosts themselves.
On great occasions and during seasons of triumph and rejoicing, jewels are worn by those who possess them. So it will be now with these heavenly jewels. When the Lord makes them up, it is to wear them on the day of his coronation, at the marriage supper of the Lamb. And we, too, are to have a part in that scene; for “they who were ready went in with him to the marriage,” and “blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb.” Rev. 19:9.
U. S.