"THE retreat of the victorious Goths, who evacuated Rome on the sixth day [A. D. 410, Aug. 29] might be the result of prudence; but it was not surely the effect of fear. At the head of an army encumbered with rich and weighty spoils, their intrepid leader advanced along the Appian way into the southern provinces of Italy, destroying whatever dared to oppose his passage, and contenting himself with the plunder of the unresisting country. The fate of Capua, the proud and luxurious metropolis of Campania, and which was respected, even in its decay, as the eighth city of the empire, is buried in oblivion; whilst the adjacent town of Nola has been illustrated on this occasion by the sanctity of Paulinus, who was successively a consul, a monk, and a bishop. . . . Nola was not saved from the general devastation; and the captive bishop was protected only by the general opinion of his innocence and poverty.
"Above four years [A. D. 408-412] elapsed from the successful invasion of Italy by the arms of Alaric, to the voluntary retreat of the Goths under the conduct of his successor, Adolphus; and, during the whole time, they reigned without control over a country which, in the opinion of the ancients, had united all the various excellencies of nature and art. The prosperity, indeed, which Italy had attained in the auspicious age of the Antonines, had gradually declined with the decline of the empire. The fruits of a long peace perished under the rude grasp of the barbarians; and they themselves were incapable of tasting the more elegant refinements of luxury, which had been prepared for the use of the soft and polished Italians. Each soldier, however, claimed an ample portion of the substantial plenty, the corn and cattle, oil and wine, that was daily collected and consumed in the Gothic camp; and the principal warriors insulted the villas and gardens, once inhabited by Lucullus and Cicero, along the beauteous coast of Campania. Their trembling captives, the sons and daughters of Roman senators, presented, in goblets of gold and gems, large draughts of Falernian wine to the haughty victors, who stretched their huge limbs under the shade of plane-trees, artificially disposed to exclude the scorching rays, and to admit the genial warmth of the sun. These delights were enhanced by the memory of past hardships: the comparison of their native soil, the bleak and barren hills of Scythia, and the frozen banks of the Elbe and Danube, added new charms to the felicity of the Italian climate.
"Whether fame, or conquest, or riches, were the object of Alaric, he pursued that object with an indefatigable ardor, which could neither be quelled by adversity nor satiated by success. No sooner had he reached the extreme land of Italy than he was attracted by the neighboring prospect of a fertile and peaceful island. Yet even the possession of Sicily he considered only as an intermediate step to the important expedition, which he already meditated against the continent of Africa. The Straits of Rhegium and Messina are twelve miles in length; and, in the narrowest passage, about one mile and a half broad; and the fabulous monsters of the deep, the rocks of Scylla, and the whirlpool of Charybdis, could terrify none but the most timid and unskillful mariners.
"Yet as soon as the first division of the Goths had embarked, a sudden tempest arose, which sunk, or scattered, many of the transports; their courage was daunted by the terrors of a new element; and the whole design was defeated by the premature death of Alaric [A. D. 410] which fixed, after a short illness, the fatal term of his conquests. The ferocious character of the barbarians was displayed in the funeral of a hero, whose valor and fortune they celebrated with mournful applause. By the labor of a captive multitude, they forcibly diverted the course of the Busentinus, a small river that washes the walls of Consentia. The royal sepulcher, adorned with the splendid spoils and trophies of Rome, was constructed in the vacant bed; the waters were then restored to their natural channel; and the secret spot where the remains of Alaric had been deposited, was forever concealed by the inhuman massacre of the prisoners, who had been employed to execute the work.
"The personal animosities and hereditary feuds of the barbarians were suspended by the strong necessity of their affairs; and the brave Adolphus, the brother-in-law of the deceased monarch, was unanimously elected to succeed to his throne. The character and political system of the new king of the Goths may be best understood from his own conversation with an illustrious citizen of Narbonne, who afterwards, in a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, related it to St. Jerom, in the presence of the historian Orosius. 'In the full confidence of valor and victory, I once aspired,' said Adolphus, 'to change the face of the universe; to obliterate the name of Rome; to erect on its ruins the dominion of the Goths; and to acquire, like Augustus, the immortal fame of the founder of a new empire. By repeated experiments, I was gradually convinced that laws are essentially necessary to maintain and regulate a well-constituted state; and that the fierce, untractable humor of the Goths was incapable of bearing the salutary yoke of laws and civil government. From that moment I proposed to myself a different object of glory and ambition; and it is now my sincere wish that the gratitude of future ages should acknowledge the merit of a stranger, who employed the sword of the Goths, not to subvert, but to restore and maintain, the prosperity of the Roman empire.'
"With these pacific views, the successor of Alaric suspended the operations of war; and seriously negotiated with the Imperial court a treaty of friendship and alliance. It was the interest of the ministers of Honorius, who were now released from the obligation of their extravagant oath, to deliver Italy from the intolerable weight of the Gothic powers; and they readily accepted their service against the tyrants and barbarians who infested the provinces beyond the Alps. Adolphus, assuming the character of a Roman general, directed his march [A. D. 412] from the extremity of Campania to the southern provinces of Gaul. His troops, either by force or agreement, immediately occupied the cities of Narbonne, Thoulouse, and Bordeaux; and though they were repulsed by Count Boniface from the walls of Marseilles, they soon extended their quarters from the Mediterranean to the ocean.
"The oppressed provincials might exclaim that the miserable remnant, which the enemy had spared, was cruelly ravished by their pretended allies; yet some specious colors were not wanting to palliate, or justify, the violence of the Goths. The cities of Gaul, which they attacked, might perhaps be considered as in a state of rebellion against the government of Honorius; the articles of the treaty, or the secret instructions of the court, might sometimes be alleged in favor of the seeming usurpations of Adolphus; and the guilt of any irregular, unsuccessful act of hostility might always be imputed, with an appearance of truth, to the ungovernable spirit of a barbarian host, impatient of peace or discipline. The luxury of Italy had been less effectual to soften the temper, than to relax the courage, of the Goths; and they had imbibed the vices, without imitating the arts and institutions, of civilized society. . . . The professions of Adolphus were probably sincere, and his attachment to the cause of the republic was secured by the ascendant which a Roman princess had acquired over the heart and understanding of a barbarian king. Placidia, the daughter of the great Theodosius, and of Galla, his second wife, had received a royal education in the palace of Constantinople; but the eventful story of her life is connected with the revolutions which agitated the Western empire under the reign of her brother Honorius. When Rome was first invested by the arms of Alaric, Placidia, who was then about twenty years of age, resided in the city. . . . The victorious barbarians detained, either as a hostage or a captive, the sister of Honorius; but, while she was exposed to the disgrace of following round Italy the motions of a Gothic camp, she experienced, however, a decent and respectful treatment. The authority of Jornandes, who praises the beauty of Placidia, may perhaps be counterbalanced by the silence, the expressive silence, of her flatterers; yet the splendor of her birth, the bloom of youth, the elegance of manners, and the dexterous insinuation which she condescended to employ, made a deep impression on the mind of Adolphus; and the Gothic king aspired to call himself the brother of the emperor.
"The ministers of Honorius rejected with disdain the proposal of an alliance so injurious to every sentiment of Roman pride; and repeatedly urged the restitution of Placidia, as an indispensable condition of the treaty of peace. But the daughter of Theodosius submitted, without reluctance, to the desires of the conqueror, a young and valiant prince, who yielded to Alaric in loftiness of stature, but who excelled in the more attractive qualities of grace and beauty. The marriage of Adolphus and Placidia was consummated before the Goths retired from Italy; and the solemn, perhaps the anniversary, day of their nuptials was afterwards celebrated in the house of Ingenus, one of the most illustrious citizens of Narbonne in Gaul. The bride, attired and adorned like a Roman empress, was placed on a throne of state; and the king of the Goths, who assumed, on this occasion, the Roman habit, contented himself with a less honorable seat by her side. The nuptial gift, which, according to the custom of his nation, was offered to Placidia, consisted of the rare and magnificent spoils of her country. Fifty beautiful youths, in silken robes, carried a basin in each hand; and one of these basins was filled with pieces of gold, the other with precious stones of an inestimable value. . . . The barbarians enjoyed the insolence of their triumph; and the provincials rejoiced in this alliance, which tempered, by the mild influence of love and reason, the fierce spirit of their Gothic lord.
"The hundred basins of gold and gems, presented to Placidia at her nuptial feast, formed an inconsiderable portion of the Gothic treasures, of which some extraordinary specimens may be selected from the history of the successors of Adolphus. Many curious and costly ornaments of pure gold, enriched with jewels, were found in their palace of Narbonne, when it was pillaged, in the sixth century, by the Franks: sixty cups, or chalices; fifteen patens, or plates, for the use of the communion; twenty boxes, or cases, to hold the books of the gospels. This consecrated wealth was distributed by the son of Clovis among the churches of his dominions, and his pious liberality seems to upbraid some former sacrilege of the Goths.
"They possessed, with more security of conscience, the famous missorium, or great dish for the service of the table, of massy gold, of the weight of five hundred pounds, and of far superior value, from the precious stones, the exquisite workmanship, and the tradition that it had been presented by Ælius, the patrician, to Torismond, king of the Goths. One of the successors of Torismond purchased the aid of the French monarch by the promise of this magnificent gift. When he was seated on the throne of Spain, he delivered it with reluctance to the ambassadors of Dagobert; despoiled them on the road; stipulated, after a long negotiation,293the inadequate ransom of two hundred thousand pieces of gold; and preserved the missorium, as the pride of the Gothic treasury. When that treasury, after the conquest of Spain, was plundered by the Arabs, they admired, and they have celebrated, another object still more remarkable; a table of considerable size, of one single piece of solid emerald, encircled with three rows of fine pearls, supported by three hundred and sixty-five feet of gems and massy gold, and estimated at the price of five hundred thousand pieces of gold. Some portion of the Gothic treasures might be the gift of friendship, or the tribute of obedience; but the far greater part had been the fruits of war and rapine, the spoils of the empire, and perhaps of Rome."-Decline and Fall, chap. 31, par. 26-30.
(To be continued.)
Progress of the Sunday Movement.
By G. D. Ballou
THE Christian Statesman in its issue of February 4, speaking of "the struggle for the Sabbath" (Sunday), says:—
"From this outlook we see many signs of deepening conviction and increasing zeal and determination on the part of the friends of the Sabbath. [By Sabbath, the Statesman always means Sunday.] Temperance men are perceiving more clearly than ever that the liquor traffic is the implacable foe of the day of rest, and that the strict enforcement of Sabbath laws would of itself greatly cripple the saloon. The Law and Order movement is being pressed to the logical conclusion that in the effort to secure general obedience to law, the violation of the Sabbath laws by others than saloon keepers cannot be consistently ignored. The Sabbath committees in some places are showing increased activity. In Cincinnati the Law and Order society secured last week the written agreement of all the theater managers to discontinue performances on the Sabbath."
After stating that one of the theaters in question had failed to keep its agreement, and that all the employes were arraigned in court the next day "and fined in the nominal sum of one dollar each, on condition that they would not repeat the offense," the writer gives an extract from an article in Music and Drama, a Chicago theatrical journal, which claims that Chicago wants a similar reform (a law to compel all to close), and sets forth the commercial disadvantages of those managers who close on Sunday in a city where nearly all theaters are opened on that day; and then continues as follows:—
"This illustrates the beneficent operation of law. It constrains the obedience of the few, and secures the willing compliance and hearty support of the majority even in such a profession as the management of theaters."
Further on, the article speaks thus of the condition of things in Philadelphia: "While saloon keepers, however, are obliged ostensibly to close their saloons and are occasionally punished for their sales, many other kinds of business are continued on the Sabbath [Sunday]. . . . The Sabbath [Sunday] Association, recognizing this inconsistency, and feeling that it weakens and ultimately imperils the enforcement of the law as against the saloons, has twice waited on his honor, the mayor, to secure the suspension of all other forms of business as well." The article closes by saying that the mayor is putting forth his best efforts to carry out the wishes of the committee.
The student of prophecy will notice one important fact in the foregoing, i. e., that the elements working for the legal support of the Sunday sabbath are constantly becoming more unified and better disciplined for action. Their method of popularizing their cause by getting the "respectable" theater managers and perhaps soon the "respectable" saloon keepers to pledge themselves not to open on Sunday, bids fair to soon form a precedent for forcibly stopping all kinds of business on that day, even that which is morally legitimate.
Here are two classes of business that on any day of the week are morally illegal and vile,—one debasing men through the lust of appetite, and the other corrupting them through the lust of the eyes. And it becomes necessary to restrain all legitimate business on Sunday in order that these corrupting influences may be temporarily suspended. Will not all pious Sunday people be anxious to see all the respectable people of the community make this little sacrifice of Sunday closing in order that the saloons may consistently be shut up? This plea cannot fail to accomplish much towards the speedy enforcement of a universal Sunday law.
Another important reflection forces itself upon the mind. How much more moral and pious will the non-professing people of the United States be when, like those saloon keepers of Philadelphia, they are forced into outward compliance with a strict Sunday law, while behind closed doors they carry forward their business just the same? Or will it make this a Christian nation, to have the pious people compel the ungodly to wear an outward robe of piety on Sunday while in their hearts they care nothing for the claims God has upon them? It will not be the claims of God to which they have yielded in acquiescing with this proposed Sunday law, but only the arrogant claims of men. How much better will the unconverted men and women of this nation be in the sight of God, when simply to save their reputation and keep their business position they have yielded outward obedience to these man-made laws? I should think there were hypocrites enough in the land now, without legislating millions more into a state of hypocrisy. Will this be a Christian nation when thirty millions more of our citizens formally observe this man-made Sunday law, for which scarcely one of its advocates dares to claim any divine authority, while their hearts are strangers to divine grace, and God is not in all their thoughts? It would certainly be interesting to have the pious advocates of Sunday laws explain what moral change of heart takes place as the result of obedience to human laws.
Trust.
THE exhortations to trust in God, and the reasons for it, are often reiterated in the word. It seems as if the Holy Spirit who “moved” holy men to speak and write, in his tender sympathy with humanity, understood our deepest wants, and sought to bring to human hearts the strength and stay so sorely needed. To trust! What else can be done in the midst of life's perplexities and its seeming impossibilities? There are moods of the soul when it cannot rise to the heights of faith. Those lofty peaks on which we have sometimes stood and feasted our eyes on wide and glorious prospects, are for the time hidden in mists. Impassable rocks intervene; chilling snow-drifts have beaten in upon the way; it seems as if we shall never stand upon those summits again.
The sun of hope has set in the evening of disappointment, and the blackening of night has shut out every star; then, in the valley and in the night, the soul can only trust.
“Even when my faith is small,
Trusting Jesus, that is all.”
“Who is among you that . . . walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.”
If we can but feel after God, and find him in all the realizations of a holy trust, surely we shall have found the center of eternal calm—God's unutterable peace. Oh, how we need it, you and I! “As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried; he is a buckler to all them that trust in him.”—Sel.
THE practice of tithing, if honestly carried out, compels sincerity. I have often felt that the habit of self-examination fails with us for lack of a definite test. This law furnishes a sure test. Evil influences will be present with us to overthrow our resolution; but they will be thrown back like waves beating against a solid rock. The character will gain strength, stability, insight, as well as the qualities of faith and trust.
The practice of tithing, if honestly carried out, is an effectual corrective of the terrible and fatal sin of avarice, which, if inherited, grows with our growth, and increases with age. No one who trusts in riches, and whose life is built upon such trust, can enter into the kingdom of Heaven. And this spirit of avarice continually moves us to escape from the obligations of the law of love to the Lord and the neighbor. The law of tithing is an effectual and constant rebuke to these tendencies. It is like a clear light, shining into the deep recesses of the mind, revealing all that is mean and sordid, and showing up the unrealness of the fancied trust and faith of the avaricious spirit. It is an immovable barrier in the path of self-deception.
It helps us to decide our duties by divine law instead of human custom. We now are apt to measure our obligations by the deeds of others. "I will give as much as you will," is a common remark. "I will do my share," is another. We measure our duties by others. In so doing, we are apt to judge of others' ability to their disadvantage. There is in it a constant appeal to self-hood. An unwilling spirit pervades it. Not so with the tithe. Following this, one only lives according to his real ability. We cease to judge. And then there is no disappointed feeling that some might have done better. The means are ready when the use calls. And then, behind all and above all, is the powerful assurance that one is obeying the voice of the Lord, and not that of man.
It will enable us to spread abroad the tidings of the kingdom of God. It will melt the ice in our hearts, cure us of our stagnation, and, opening the windows of Heaven, pour us out a blessing that there shall not be room to receive it. It will be a firm foundation for spiritual and natural development, a bond uniting the individual man more closely with his fellows, a new stimulus to the church as an institution, and to the principles of faith and love which are the real church. This truth, obeyed, will be a ladder upon which angels can descend from Heaven to earth, and ascend from earth. "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of Heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it."
The Book Bad Men Hate.
By Charles Henry Parkhurst
ONE reason why we believe the Bible is the word of God, is the extraordinary and indefatigable pains taken by men of obscure integrity to get rid of the Bible. The things that bad men hate, it will, as a rule, be safe for good men to believe in. Men's hearts stain through into their philosophy. It never ceases to be true that every one that doeth evil hateth the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. Light always shows the spots. Bad men congregate under the shadows. Men like to have the Bible vilified because it eases a little the pressure on their conscience. It is always possible to gather an audience to listen to an unbeliever.—C. H. Parkhurst.
Learning Love Through Charity
By Frederick William Robertson
You must love in order to understand love. One act of charity will teach us more of the love of God than a thousand sermons.—F. W. Robertson.
Doctor Munhall on the Sabbath.
By Editor
WE had the pleasure one day last week of listening to a "Bible-reading" on the Sabbath question, given by Doctor L. W. Munhall, the evangelist who has been holding revival services in San Francisco for several weeks. It was advertised to be a Bible-reading, but was, in fact, a short sermon, with a few more Scripture quotations than are usually heard in the popular modern sermon. The "reading," however, was more pointed and interesting than any other Sabbath effort we ever heard from a first-day preacher.
The Doctor began by saying that the law of the Sabbath was given long before Mount Sinai. He quoted Ex. 16:25, 26: "And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none." "These words," said the speaker, "indicate that the Sabbath was not first given at Sinai, but was kept before. The law of the Sabbath is as old as creation. The Fourth Commandment, found in Ex. 20:8-11, connects itself with what was said at the first, recorded in Gen. 2:1-3, and makes good the law that obtained among God's people even before the thunders of Sinai. The Sabbath was the seventh day of creation."
In the above paragraph we have given the exact expressions of Mr. Munhall. No one could have made a better statement of the case, for it is the exact truth. The speaker then read the following texts:—
"Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest; in earing [plowing] time and in harvest thou shalt rest." Ex. 34:21.
"Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death." Ex. 35:2.
"These," said Mr. Munhall, "are explicit statements with reference to the Sabbath law. We are to cease on the Sabbath from our usual daily employments. The Sabbath is to be a day of rest. It is not to be spent in idleness, sleeping half the forenoon, eating a big dinner, and taking a buggy ride in the afternoon. Rest don't mean idleness. But the Sabbath is to be spent in work for God, because it was hallowed by him."
The Doctor then read Neh. 10:31; 13:15, as another point on the way the Sabbath should be kept. They read thus: "And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day." "In those days saw I in Judah some treading winepresses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day; and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals."
On these texts the following strange comments were made: "This touches a point that needs to be noted by Christian people. Some of you will send your children to market on Sunday morning for meat. Or you will step into a cigar store, or stop and get a glass of soda on your way home from church on Sunday. But you will say, 'Suppose I should forget to get any beefsteak on Saturday night; would it not be necessary to get it on Sunday morning?' You have no business to forget. If you do forget, you must go without. Every desire of the heart and the stomach is not to be gratified at the expense of God's law. If your grain will spoil if you don't work on Sunday, then lose your grain. If you are a produce dealer, and your provisions will spoil if you don't work on Sunday, then lose your provisions. Obey God."
To the last sentence in the above paragraph we can heartily subscribe. So we could to all the rest, if the speaker had used the word Sabbath instead of Sunday. He had previously said that the seventh day was set apart at creation, and that it was kept by the people of God before the commandment for its observance was given upon Mount Sinai. Of course the seventh day must have been kept by God's people after the specific law for its observance had been given amid the thunders of Sinai; and this is allowed by Mr. Munhall, for later in his discourse he said that no day but the seventh day is the Sabbath. How then can he learn from Ex. 34:21; 35:2; Neh. 10:31, and 13:15 how Sunday should be kept? We agree that the things of which he speaks ought not to be done on the Sabbath, because God has forbidden them. "Obey God," says Mr. Munhall. So we say; and therefore we refrain from labor on the seventh day of the week, as God has commanded. But how can a man obey God by doing something which God never commanded? Impossible. Mr. Munhall exhorts the people to obey God by refraining from labor on Sunday, and in the same discourse tells them that "there is no 'Thus saith the Lord' for the observance of Sunday," and that "the Sabbath has never been transferred from the seventh to the first day."
But a still more wonderful exposition followed. The Doctor said: "I may be called a Puritan, because of my rigid observance of Sunday. Very well, I am willing. There are specific reasons in God's word why this day should be kept. Ex. 20:11 says: 'In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.' God has hallowed this day. Because he has hallowed it, we must keep it holy."
God has hallowed the seventh day, therefore we must keep the first day holy! If the Doctor had designed to give us an example of a non sequitur, he could not have done better. Yet he was in sober earnest. God commands us to do a certain thing, and we obey him by doing something directly contrary! People never reason that way in regard to the laws of men.
Eze. 20:12: "Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they may know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." On this text, the Doctor made the following true statement: "Unless we observe the Sabbath as God has directed, we shall forget God. There was never a nation that ignored the Sabbath that did not forget God. France is an example, and the same thing is coming upon this country. [The speaker then quoted Ex. 31:15, 16; Neh. 13:18; and Eze. 20:20, 21.] These also have direct reference to God's ancient people, and to the troubles that came upon them because they violated the Sabbath. Their land was filled with mourning. The Sabbath was made for man (Mark 2:27), for the welfare of society. The violation of the Sabbath always brings trouble. Look at the riots in Chicago, St. Louis, and Cincinnati. In these cities the Sabbath is almost universally trampled under foot. There will also be riot and bloodshed in San Francisco if the Sabbath is not observed better. Show me a city where there is riot and bloodshed, and I will show you one where the Sabbath is disregarded."
It is a truth that the violation of the Sabbath is always accompanied by forgetfulness of God. If all people kept the Sabbath, there would be no heathenism, and prosperity might be expected. But Sabbath-keeping is not a national, but an individual affair. That is, a nation, in its national capacity, cannot keep the Sabbath. A nation can be said to keep the Sabbath only when all the individuals composing the nation are Sabbath keepers. And when any considerable number of people in a nation do not observe the Sabbath, any number of legislative acts in favor of Sabbath-keeping will not make that nation a Sabbath-keeping nation. The same is true with regard to any other duty which God requires.
But it is the keeping of the Sabbath that makes people know the true God. Now Doctor Munhall himself declares that the seventh day, and that only, is the Sabbath. It alone was rested upon by the Creator; the seventh day alone was blessed by him; and the seventh day, and no other, was by the Creator appointed to be kept holy. No other day could be kept holy, because no other day was ever made holy. How then is it possible for Doctor Munhall, while acknowledging all these facts, to say that the disregard of Sunday is responsible for the prevailing godlessness? Further: Since the keeping of the Sabbath is the only evidence given to indicate that people know God, must we not conclude that the keeping of a day which is not the Sabbath, and the consequent profanation of the only day which God ever appointed as the Sabbath, is evidence that people have largely forgotten God? It cannot be otherwise. And when a nation goes so far as to enjoin the observance of Sunday, then we may know that God is practically ignored. And still further: When we find legislators and ministers of the gospel combining to enact laws devoting the Sabbath of God's appointment to pleasure, in order that men may rest on Sunday, concerning which God has said nothing except to command us to work upon it, we have overwhelming evidence that men are not only ignoring God, but that they have so far forgotten him that they can heap insult upon him without the slightest fear of his power. "For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience." Most true it is that terrible judgments are coming upon this land because of the insults which the people have offered to the one great Lawgiver; and we cannot help trembling for the fate of men who use their influence as ministers of the gospel to induce people to disregard the true Sabbath of the Lord for a day which they acknowledge has no "Thus saith the Lord" in its behalf.
W.
Concluded next week.
The Bible vs. Mythology.
By W.
AMONG Christian people of modern times nothing is more common than to speak of death as a river. It is spoken of as "the dark river," "death's river," "the dismal flood," etc. People who have died are said to have "crossed the river," or "passed over to the other side." Of course these terms can be used only by those who believe the paradox that at death men still continue to live. They believe that death is but the entrance to life, and therefore they sing, "Death is the gate to endless joy," and, "'Tis but the voice that Jesus sends to call us to his arms." In harmony with this idea, also, they sing, "Shall we meet beyond the river?" meaning, shall we meet after death?
Now every Bible student ought to know that these expressions are entirely unscriptural. Death is not the gate to endless joy, but an enemy. See 1 Cor. 15:26. It is not the voice that Jesus sends to call us to his arms, but something that is under the control of the devil. Heb. 2:14. Christ gained the power and the right to call his children to his arms295only by gaining the victory over death. Heb. 2:14, 15; Rev. 3:18. Death is not a river across which the righteous are ferried to the realms of bliss, but a voracious monster by which they are held until the last trump releases them from its cruel grasp. 1 Thess. 4:16; 1 Cor. 15:51, 52; Hosea 13:14. And then this last enemy shall be destroyed. Nowhere in the Bible is death likened to a river.
Whence then did these expressions arise? Some, no doubt, think that the figure comes from the Israelites crossing the river Jordan into the land of Canaan. But that is a mistaken idea. 1. Although the entering of the Israelites into Canaan was a type of the entering of the saints into their final inheritance, we have seen that death is not the gate to that inheritance, and that some will receive their inheritance without seeing death. See 1 Cor. 15:51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:15-17. Therefore the river Jordan cannot be a type of death. 2. Even if it were a type of death, the popular idea would not hold, because the river was cut off, so that the Israelites went over dry shod. 3. There was no change whatever in the condition of the Israelites after they crossed the river. The entire absence of any Bible comparison of death to a river, and the fact that death is emphatically stated to be an enemy, and that it is not in any sense the boundary of our eternal inheritance, show that the popular expressions for death have no Bible foundation.
If we study heathen mythology, however, we find the origin of these terms. Among the heathen, the river Styx encircled the abode of the dead. In order to get to this abode, the departed had to be rowed over the Styx in a ferry-boat managed by Charon, who demanded an obolus, about three cents, as his fee. To provide the soul with the necessary means to defray his expenses to hades, an obolus was always placed in the mouth of a dead person. From this heathen custom arose the modern practice of calling death a river, and of speaking of the dead as having passed to the other shore, or as having been wafted over the river.
Now we have no objection to this. Indeed, we think that it is eminently fitting that those who hold to the heathen doctrine of natural immortality should use heathen terms in speaking of it. Nevertheless, the users of such language sometimes get mixed in their metaphors, as is evident from the following extract from a communication written by Dr. William Dean to the Watchman:—
"Yesterday I stood on the banks of the dark river to help a young man of twenty-nine years, a New York broker, into the ferry-boat to take him over to the other side. As he was moving off, his young wife stretched out her arms and caught him, exclaiming, in her anguish, '—, don't go! I cannot let you go. If you must go, take me with you.' This departure reminded me that I was soon to cross the same river, and gave rise to a train of serious reflections."
The mixture of the literal and the figurative in the above paragraph is amusing. For instance, are we to suppose that the Doctor was himself at the point of death? That is what is usually meant when a person is said to be standing on the brink of "the dark river."
Again, when the Doctor says that he was helping the young man into the ferry-boat which was to bear him over the river, are we to understand that he was trying to hasten the young man's death? We have never heard it claimed by even the most enthusiastic believer in the doctrine that "death is the gate to endless joy," that it is allowable to kill a good man in order to get him to Heaven sooner. The Doctor's conduct ought to be inquired into.
But the next sentence is more wonderful still: "As he was moving off, his young wife stretched out her arms and caught him, exclaiming in her anguish, '—, don't go! I cannot let you go!'" How was this? Was the young man about to cross the river bodily? We never supposed that Charon's craft was staunch enough to carry anything more substantial than an immaterial spirit. The language would indicate that his body was about to make the attempt to accompany the spirit to the "other side." Or are we to infer that the young wife caught her husband's immaterial spirit in her arms? If so, it was a remarkable case of materialization. We hope that in a future letter the Doctor will give us more of the details of this affair. He ought at least to tell us plainly whether he killed the young man or not.
The only moral which we shall draw from this narrative is that professed Christians ought not to mix their faith with heathen doctrines and mythological expressions. Leave such things to the unenlightened heathen, but let Christians follow the doctrines and use the language of the Bible.