Earlier text: GRACE AND GLORY;I HAVE been deeply interested in D’Aubigné’s description of this remarkable man, who lived in Luther’s time. When only thirteen years of age, his teacher exclaimed, “This child will attain the highest summits of learning.” These words proved to be prophetic. But let us trace his history and see if we cannot learn a valuable lesson. He pursued his studies with great perseverance, never wasting his time. Even when journeying, he would compose, and, when arriving at an inn, write down his thoughts. In this way, while traveling from Italy to England, he composed his celebrated “Praise of Folly.” As a scholar, he acquired a high reputation, and was offered a life of luxury in the courts of Charles V., Henry VIII., and Francis I. He published a critical edition of the New Testament with a Latin translation, and did much toward bringing about the Reformation, and yet, when it came, he knew not on which side to take his stand. “It is dangerous to speak,” said he, “and dangerous to be silent.” D’Aubigné says he was one of those “who, from a desire to displease no one, displease all.” Again he says, “What, we may ask, would become of truth if God were not to raise up in its defense more courageous champions.” “Duke George of Saxony, the mortal enemy of Luther, having received an equivocal answer to a question he had addressed to Erasmus, exclaimed aloud, “My dear Erasmus, wash me the robe if you can without wetting it.” “Secundus Curio, in one of his works, depicts two heavens, the papal and the Christian. He found Erasmus in neither; but perceived him incessantly wheeling in never-ending eddies between both.” “Such was Erasmus. He wanted that liberty of heart which makes truly free. How different would he have been if he had given up himself to devote his soul to truth. But after trying to work some reforms, with the approbation of the heads of the church—after having for the sake of Rome abandoned the Reformation when he saw the two could not walk together, he lost all his influence with either. On the one side, his recantations could not repress the indignation of the fanatic partisans of popery. They felt the injury he had done them and never forgave it. The monks poured forth abuse from their pulpits. They called him a second Lucian—a fox that had laid waste the vineyard of the Lord. “And, on the other hand, Erasmus, forsaking the standard of the gospel, found himself deprived of the affection and esteem of the noblest men of his age, and had doubtless to suffer the loss of those heavenly consolations which God sheds into the hearts of those who act as good soldiers of Christ.” And of him who had said, “I am firmly resolved to die in the study of the Scripture, in that is my joy and my peace,” the learned historian says, “In him Christianity was second to learning. He was too much influenced by vanity to acquire a decided influence over his contemporaries. He carefully weighed the effect that each step might have upon his own reputation.” “Erasmus was powerful as long as he was an instrument in God’s hands. When he ceased to be that, he was nothing.” How many at the present time are pursuing the same course? They have become acquainted with plain Bible truth and try to live it without letting any one know it. They reason thus: “I must be very careful or I shall lose my influence over my friends, and I want them to see the truth.” Evidently, like Erasmus, they are weighing the effect each step will have upon their reputation. With many, the inquiry is not so much, “What must I do to be saved?” as “How can I live and dress so as to be popular and still be a Christian?” It is not so much the love of souls as the love of the approbation of poor mortals that actuates many. What if Noah, when commanded to build the ark, had said, “Everybody will ridicule me if I construct such a building—my reputation will be sacrificed?” What if Lot, upon that memorable evening, had said, “If I go around to tell them the city is to be destroyed, they will all call me a fool, so I will say nothing to them, and get away as quietly as possible before any one is stirring in the morning?” What if Abraham had concluded that if he took Isaac upon the mountain and sacrificed him, his neighbors might find it out and execute him as a murderer? They simply took God at his word—not by saying they believed what he had said and then sitting quietly down, but by doing the very things he had required. If we only half live what we profess to believe, it gives people occasion to say that we do not believe it, or it is something we are ashamed of. Though the Bible does not recommend placing lights under bushels, one might suppose, from the moral darkness in the world, that if many lights existed, the greater number of them occupied that position. My dear friends, we want to remove and trim them, that they may give light to those around us. Children, brothers, sisters, and friends, are in darkness, pursuing the wrong road, and we are, some in one way, some in another, preventing the light from falling on their pathway. Professing love for Jesus and precious souls while attending parties and festivals to “remove prejudice” and “make a favorable impression” has been tried without success. Chignons, jewelry, a profusion of ribbons and ruffles, &c., have been tried, but where are the backsliders who have been reclaimed, or the sinners converted to God? Would you think a young man who had been engaged to work on a farm understood his business if he appeared at the plough in his glossiest broadcloth and kid gloves? What would you think if a young woman engaged to do housework should enter the kitchen in a white muslin dress looped up with sky-blue ribbon and announce herself ready for work? You profess a desire to gather in souls. Paul seemed to understand how to do this, and has given advice in regard to dress. He does not say you must put just so many ruffles on your dress or Miss C. and Mrs. D. will not accept of your religious views; but he says, “In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” 1 Tim. 2:9. “Oh! how I should like to be a missionary and go to the islands of the sea to tell them of a Saviour,” says one. Do you suppose that an agent for a mercantile firm who, in passing from place to place, talked eloquently of things in general, but who never mentioned his employer’s business, or one who, after saying much to recommend the firm, exerted an influence which told powerfully against it, would be employed to represent their business interests in foreign lands? And is not God wiser than man? There are many who would gladly sit in the presidential chair; and those who would be willing to fly, if suitable wings were provided, are plenty enough; but just now there is not so much call for people to work in beds of rose leaves as for those who are willing to walk among the poor and suffering ones of earth, administering to their wants, and, when opportunity offers, pointing them to the “Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.” Of these, there are very few. A little friend talked to me of her Saviour’s love, and it seemed her little heart was full. She attended the social meeting with the intention of telling in her own words how she loved the dear Saviour and wished to be a Christian. But when she saw those whom she knew belonged to the church, dressed fashionably, sitting immovable at prayer time, and speaking no word to indicate an interest in spiritual things, her courage failed her. She afterward said with tears, “I felt as if I ought to speak, but if ——— and ——— can be Christians and say nothing about it, why can’t I?” Time is passing rapidly, and our dear ones are drifting downward. As we stretch our hands to prevent their frail barks from going over the falls, we must grapple with the world, its sins, fashions, and follies, but oh! what bitterness of sorrow do we experience, when we see professed Christians—in darkness themselves, therefore unconsciously—plying the oars, helping them to elude our grasp, and hastening them on to certain ruin. May God help us to awake—to seek him with the whole heart, only asking what is duty, and humbly, cheerfully, doing it, though friends, and the good opinion of those we love be sacrificed; yet leaving the consequences with Him who has promised, “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” THE PREPARED PLACE.
By Harriet M. Campbell
I go to prepare a place for thee,
The blessed Jesus said,
I am the way, then follow me;
I'm Christ, the living head. I go to prepare a place for thee,
Thou weary, sin-sick soul;
Lay now thy burden all on me,
And I will make thee whole. I go to prepare a place for thee,
Oh! faint not by the way.
In darkest hours, trust thou in me,
Thy night shall turn to day. I go to prepare a place for thee,
Child of my deathless love,
That where I am, there thou may'st be
In my Father's house above. I go to prepare a place for thee,
Where many mansions are,
That there thou may'st my glory see,
And in my kingdom share. Oh! glorious hope, oh! blest abode,
Where many mansions be,
When shall I be with Christ my Lord,
In the place prepared for me? MRS. HARRIET M. CAMPBELL. How should a woman “professing godliness,” dress? How adorn herself? With “shamefacedness,” i. e., with no intent to draw the eye. 1 Tim. 2:9. With “sobriety,” i. e., with nothing conspicuous. 1 Tim. 2:9. Not with “braided hair;” not with “plaiting of hair,” i. e., elaborate arranging of the hair. 1 Tim. 2:9; 1 Pet. 3:3. Observe, there are three points as to clothing the body: Let it be modest, let it be inexpensive, let it be unobtrusive. There are two points as to the sort of decoration to be avoided: No jewelry, no fanciful dressing of the hair. And there are two points to be observed as to the adorning: “A meek and quiet spirit,” “good works.” Surely a woman professing godliness should be careful in this matter, which the Holy Ghost has not considered unimportant; surely she should clothe herself in all “modesty,” “shamefacedness,” and “sobriety,” while she adorns herself with a “meek and quiet spirit,” and with “good works.” Now if she be so adorned, she will not be anxious to attract the gaze of admiration by heaping jewelry upon her person, or decorating it with handsome clothing, nor will she be much busied in the way she arranges her hair. If given to good works, she will have neither time nor money for the decorating of her body. The above is merely a summing up of Paul's and Peter's thoughts in the matter, as contained in 1 Tim. 2:9, and 1 Pet. 3:3; and as it has made these thoughts very clear to my own mind, I now write them for others who may be exercised on the subject, and honestly anxious to walk in simple obedience to the word of God.—The London Christian. Love for Truth and Its Sufferers
THE man who loves truth with all his heart likewise loves those who suffer for the sake of truth. The Life Promised to the Righteous.
By John Nevins Andrews
WHEN man had sinned against God, we are told that God spoke thus concerning him: “And now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and LIVE FOREVER; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way to keep the way of the tree of life.” Gen. 3: 22-24. No one will deny that man was excluded from the tree of life on purpose that he should not live forever. There is but one interpretation that can be given to these words. God had given to man the tree of life, that he might eat of it and live forever. But when man rebelled against God, his right to this tree was forfeited; and he was excluded from it on purpose that he should not continue to live always. Man’s right to endless life was forfeited by sin. To “live forever” he must “have right to the tree of life.” “To him that overcometh will I grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” Rev. 2: 7. Now it is plain that the overcomer will eat of the tree of life. It is equally evident that no other persons will taste its immortal fruit. To eat of this tree is the sure pledge of immortal life. But man, having lost the right to this tree because of sin, can never get back to it unless he overcomes his sinful nature. This does not agree with the view that man can live forever though he continue in his sins. For if men can live as long who are excluded from the tree of life as can those who have access to it, then the Lord overestimated the importance of a right to it when he shut man away from it lest he should eat of it and live forever. In the record of man’s glorified state in the heavenly Jerusalem, we read still further of the tree of life, and with it, we read of the river that flows beneath its branches and that issues from the throne of God. “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing [literally the service] of the nations.” Rev. 22: 1, 2. And in verse 14 we read: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” These two, the river and the tree of life, are for the righteous only. Or to state this in another form, those only shall drink of the river, and eat of the fruit of the tree, who have their names written in the book of life. Rev. 21: 27. These are very expressive terms. This book contains the names of those who are to have immortal life. These shall have access to that river which possesses the virtues of endless life, and that tree which is the certain pledge to all who eat of it that they shall live forever. Those who do not have their names within the book of life shall have the second death for their portion. And this will be in the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 14, 15; 21: 8. Can we learn nothing from these terms? Shall we maintain that those who have the second death for their portion will live just as long as will those who eat of the tree of life, and drink of the river of life which issues from the throne of God? The Saviour did not place a light estimate upon having the name written in the book of life. “Notwithstanding, in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in Heaven.” Luke 10: 20. And Paul speaks of certain of his fellow-laborers thus: “Whose names are in the book of life.” Phil. 4: 3. And we are further told that “he that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.” Rev. 3: 5. To this book, Isaiah refers when he says: “And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem.” Isa. 4: 3. Is it not manifest that those whose names are not blotted out of the book of life are the persons that shall have endless life for their portion? Is it reasonable to believe those whose names are taken out of the book of life, and whose portion is the second death, shall live as long as shall those who eat of the tree of life and drink of the river of life that springs from beneath the throne of God? The nature of that great blessing which God promises to his people is thus defined by David: “For there the Lord commanded the blessing EVEN LIFE FOR EVERMORE.” Ps. 133: 3. Now the idea of duration is certainly made very prominent in this statement. It is endless life which is the theme of the sacred writer. In Ps. 91: 16, it is said of the righteous: “With long life will I satisfy him, and show him my salvation.” How long must that life last which shall satisfy the people of God? How soon will those who drink of the river of God’s pleasures feel that they are ready to separate themselves from it and to lie down in death? God shall satisfy his people when he fulfills to them his promises. And John tells us what he will give them: “And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.” 1 John 2: 25. And he marks the sense of this when, in verse 16, he distinguishes between the continued existence of the righteous, and the temporary continuance of the men of the world: “And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof; but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.” Of the righteous, it is said: “They shall be abundantly satisfied with the fatness of thy house; and thou shalt make them drink of the river of thy pleasures. For with thee is the fountain of life; in thy light shall we see light.” Ps. 36: 8, 9. This fountain of life is that which issues out of the throne of God. Those who drink of it are partakers of God’s own immortal nature. Shall we then say that men are immortal by nature? Is it not manifest that God has promised to those who form virtuous characters that they shall live forever because they are such as he would have them be? And is not this gift of immortal life one which shall secure to the receivers an endless existence, while those who live in sin shall not be counted worthy of living forever? Is it reasonable to say that life here means happiness, and that the tree of life has nothing to do with respect to man’s continued existence, but only determines whether he should have happiness or misery for his portion? Without doubt, infinite happiness will be the portion of those who eat the fruit of this tree. But the distinguishing characteristic of its fruit is that those who eat it shall live forever, and those who are excluded from it shall have the second death for their portion. The History of the Sabbath, Chapter xv— How Impeached.
By John Nevins Andrews
I have given an analysis of each chapter of the first edition of the History of the Sabbath, which Eld. Preble has attacked, and have shown the nature of his reply. I have thus given chapters 12, 13, and 14, stating the several points made in those chapters, and giving the authorities for those points. Then I have given all the points in his professed impeachment, with the evidence on which he founds it. I have thus shown, 1. That he has attempted to answer but few of the points, and generally those which he has noticed were not the most important. 2. That he has not answered fairly a single point. 3. That, while writing with the purpose of showing the History of the Sabbath to be a fraudulent work, he has taken the notes of a modern editor of Justin Martyr, and given them to his readers as the words of Justin himself. I have an object in this examination. The second edition of the History of the Sabbath is now given to the public. If it is a truthful work, the importance of its historical statements can hardly be overestimated. Now we have, in the case of Eld. P., a man of some historical knowledge, who makes a most determined effort to impeach the veracity of the work. If he succeeds with respect to the first edition, the second may be esteemed worthless. But if he fails most signally, the reader may be sure that he undertook more than he was able to accomplish. I now briefly state the points made in chapter 15, with the evidence on which each was made, and shall then note Eld. P.'s reply:— ORIGIN OF FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
1. Sunday a festival very generally observed by the heathen at the opening of the Christian era. Testimony of Noah Webster, J. E. Worcester, LL. D., the North British Review, Verstegan, and Dr. Jennings. 2. This heathen observance very powerfully contributed to the establishment of Sunday as a festival in the Christian church, as proved from the statements of the North British Review, Chasie, and Morer. 3. Sunday one of three voluntary festivals in the early church, and holding but slight pre-eminence over the other two, sustained by citations from Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. i. part 2, c. 4, note ‡; and cent. ii. part 2, c. 4, sect. 8; and Dr. Heylyn's Hist. Sab., part 2, c. 1, sect. 12; and part 2, c. 3, sect. 4; and part 2, c. 1, sect. 10; and Domville's Examination of the Six Texts, Sup. pp. 6, 7. 4. Justin Martyr, the first witness for Sunday, A. D. 140, speaks of this day as a voluntary festival. Justin Martyr's First Apology, translated by Wm. Reeves, p. 127. 5. Justin shown by the American Tract Society to be utterly unreliable as a witness concerning tradition. See their book entitled “Spirit of Popery,” pp. 44, 45. 6. Justin Martyr an out-spoken no-Sabbath man, and therefore unfairly claimed as a witness for the change of the Sabbath. Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, Brown's translation, pp. 43, 44, 52, 59, 63, 64. 7. The testimony attributed to Irenæus in behalf of Sunday as the Christian Sabbath shown to be a quotation from an interpolated passage in a spurious epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians. Domville's Ex. of Six Texts, pp. 128–132. 8. The first instance upon record in which the bishop of Rome attempted to rule the Christian church was by an edict in behalf of Sunday. Bower's Hist. of Pope's, vol. i. p. 18; Dowling's Hist. of Romanism, p. 32. 9. Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, A. D. 200, assigns no divine authority for the observance of Sunday by Christians, but excuses such observance on the ground that it was not to worship the sun, but to put a difference between themselves and those who kept the Sabbath. Reeves' Translation of Tertullian, vol. i. pp. 238, 239. 10. Tertullian is the first writer who applies the term Lord's day to Sunday, or that makes even an allusion to abstinence from labor on that day. Kitto's Cyclopædia of Biblical Literature, Art. Lord's Day. Rose's Neander, p. 186, marginal note. 11. The first great effort of the Romish church to render the Sabbath despicable was by making it a fast day, while Sunday was made a day of joyful celebration. Heylyn's Hist. of Sabbath, part 2, c. 2, sect. 3. James' Sermons before the University of Oxford, p. 166. Rose's Neander, p. 186. Hase's Ancient Ch. History, part 1, div. 2, A. D. 100–312, sect. 69. Lord King's Inquiry into Constitution of the Primitive Church, chap. vii. sect. 11. The points presented in the above analysis are very important in their bearing upon the early history of the Sabbath. Now how many, and what ones, of them does Eld. P. impeach? Not a single point! What, then, constitutes his answer to this chapter? Two things, the first of which is that I did not give the whole of Webster's definition of the name Sunday. Observe that my first point is this:— “Sunday, a festival very generally observed by the heathen at the opening of the Christian era.” Among the witnesses which I cited in support of this statement is Dr. Webster. I was showing the origin of the word, and so I quoted his dictionary thus:— “Sunday; so called because this day was anciently dedicated to the sun or to its worship. The Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week.” He complains (First-Day Sabbath, p. 413) because I did not give the remainder, which is as follows:— “A day consecrated to rest from secular employments, and to religious worship. It is called also the Lord's day. Many pious persons, however, discard the use of Sunday, and call the day the Sabbath. (See Sabbath.)” This is the ground of his insinuation. But I gave all that Webster (edition of 1859) says concerning the derivation of the word Sunday, which was the only point under consideration, and I proved that anciently the day was a heathen festival. I also gave Webster's theological views on the Sabbath question by continuing his definition thus: “The Christian Sabbath; the first day of the week.” As I did in no sense conceal Webster's views, and as what is omitted adds no fact not stated, or understood to be implied in what I gave, no candid critic can complain. The omission saved over one-half the space, which was an important consideration where so many authors were to be quoted in one small book. But in the second edition, all that Webster gives under the word Sunday is quoted. Every one can see, however, that the ancient heathen festival of Sunday is not denied nor modified by what is added. Eld. P. also gives Webster's lengthy definition and statement under the word Sabbath, as though I ought to have given that also, if I quoted Webster as to the derivation of the word Sunday! This is Eld. P.'s method of answering my first point. My second point is that “This heathen observance very powerfully contributed to the establishment of Sunday as a festival in the Christian church, as proved from the statements of the North British Review, Chasie, and Morer.” Now, what answer does Eld. P. make to this point? How does he dispose of it? He does not even attempt to do it. He charges me with unfairness (p. 414) in quoting Morer. Though I gave almost one whole page of Morer, containing his entire testimony relative to Sunday as an ancient festival of the heathen when taken up by the fathers as a Christian festival, he says that I “garble the testimony of this witness,” because I do not give the next page also in which Morer in nowise modifies what he said as to the heathen festival, but simply argues that the fathers “might safely” choose that day, “because it was the day on which the Lord Christ arose from the dead,” and might retain, as they did, the name of Sunday, because Christ is “the Sun of Righteousness.” This is the substance of the page, and it amounts to nothing so far as detracting from, or changing, what I gave from Morer is concerned. And now what answer does he make to the nine remaining points in this chapter, as shown in the foregoing analysis? Here it is:— “We now pass over J. N. A.'s work from p. 227 to p. 243, with feelings of regret that any man should be so misled as to devote his energies to a cause so unworthy a Christian! It is not often we find so much sophistical reasoning as is contained in the above-named pages. History has been garbled, and another attempt made to impeach the testimony of the early Christian fathers, so as to turn the scale of evidence in favor of the seventh-day Sabbath!” Pages 415, 416. Several things are evident: 1. That Eld. P. saw not one point in this chapter which he could successfully attack. 2. But, that he might appear to do something, he charges me with unfairly quoting Webster and Morer, and, as I have shown, does this without any ground for his charge. 3. That he might dispose of the remainder of the chapter, he calls it “sophistical reasoning,” when he has not yet pointed out one instance of misstatement nor of false reasoning in the book. He also says that I attempted to impeach “the early Christian fathers.” I have not impeached them, but I have impeached those first-day writers who (for instance) make Irenæus testify that Sunday is the Christian Sabbath; for every word of that testimony is a fabrication! This exposure is one of the things in this chapter which Eld. P. so lightly passes over, and yet with the knowledge that not one word of this pretended testimony of Irenæus is to be found in that father. He professes, on pp. 73, 74 of his book, to quote this fraudulent testimony as the genuine words of Irenæus! “AND there followed another angel saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” Its chronology. This message belongs to the last days; for 1. We have shown that the first message which immediately precedes it, has been brought before the world in the great Advent movement of the present generation. A second in any series of events cannot go before the first. This message follows the first, and is fulfilled in connection with it. 2. When this message is given, the plagues and utter destruction of Babylon, which come under the seventh vial, are immediately impending. Rev. 18: 1–10; 16: 17–21. This is just before the coming of Christ. Therefore the generation that shall be alive when the destruction of Babylon comes, is the one to which this message is addressed. Meaning of Babylon. This word signifies “confusion.” It is derived from Babel, a name given to a certain place in the land of Shinar, because God there confounded the language of men. Gen. 11: 9. As it is not applied in the Revelation to a literal city, the term is doubtless chosen with especial reference to its signification, and we may therefore expect to find among the elements that compose the Babylon of the Apocalypse, confusion and jargon in sentiment the same as there was confusion and jargon in language, when language was confounded at Babel. Babylon is not the whole world. In Rev. 17, it is represented by the symbol of a woman seated upon a scarlet-colored beast. If the woman, Babylon, represents the whole world, what does the beast represent? The same chapter represents69her as a great city reigning over the kings of the earth. With these kings therefore she must not be confounded, for she does not include them. Babylon is not the city of Rome. This is evident from the following considerations: 1. Rome is the seat of the beast, Rev. 13: 2, and is not therefore the woman, Rev. 17: 3, seated upon the beast. 2. Rome, the seat of the beast, receives the fifth plague. Rev. 16: 10; but great Babylon receives the seventh. Verse 19. Therefore they are not the same. 3. When Babylon is destroyed, it is a terrible blow to commercial interests; Rev. 18: 11–19; but Rome is not a commercial city. 4. Babylon, at one time contains the people of God, as a body; Rev. 18: 4; but this has never been true of Rome; and is especially far from being true at the time this message is given. 5. If Babylon is Rome, the fall of Babylon is the destruction of Rome; but it is not till after Babylon’s fall that the people of God are called out. To call Babylon Rome, therefore, involves the double absurdity, first, of supposing that the people of God are at any one time as a body in Rome, and, secondly, that they are called out after the city is destroyed! Babylon is the universal worldly church. It is presented under the symbol of a woman; and a woman is the symbol of a church. Rev. 12; Eze. 16. The woman of Rev. 17, represents one ecclesiastical body, doubtless the Romish church, called pre-eminently, mystery, Babylon the great. But this is not all there is of Babylon; for this one bears the title of mother. She must therefore have daughters, which belong to the same family. And inasmuch as the influence of Babylon has affected all nations, it can symbolize nothing less than a universal church, composed of all denominations in whose ways and worship there is more of the spirit of the world, than of the Spirit of Christ. It is no gratification to us to find evidence in any professedly religious denomination that they are a constituent part of this great worldly church. But wherever facts exist, they demand that we do not ignore them; and who does not feel compelled to admit that war, oppression, conformity to the world, love of pleasure, and the like, show with too sad and faithful accuracy, that the great body of the Protestant churches help to compose this mystical “city of confusion”? This application does not rest on our assertion. Men of acknowledged position as teachers in the religious world have given solemn utterance to the same sentiments. The Catholic Christian Instructed speaks as follows of the church of England:— “If the church of Rome were ever guilty of idolatry in relation to the saints, her daughter, the church of England, stands guilty of the same, which has ten churches dedicated to Mary, for one dedicated to Christ.” Wm Kinkade, in his “Bible Doctrine,” p. 294, says:— “I also think Christ has a true church on earth, but its members are scattered among the various denominations, and all are more or less under the influence of Mystery Babylon, and her daughters.” Alexander Campbell says:— “The worshiping establishments now in operation throughout Christendom, increased and cemented by their voluminous confessions of faith, and their ecclesiastical constitutions, are not churches of Jesus Christ, but the legitimate daughters of that mother of harlots, the church of Rome.” Lorenzo Dow, in his Life, p. 542, says of the Romish church:— “If she be a mother, who are the daughters? It must be the corrupt national established churches that came out of her.” In the Religious Encyclopedia, art. Antichrist, we read:— “An important question, however, says Mr. Jones, still remains for inquiry: ‘Is antichrist confined to the church of Rome?’ The answer is readily returned in the affirmative by Protestants in general; and happy had it been for the world were that the case. But, although we are fully warranted to consider that church as the ‘MOTHER of harlots,’ the truth is, that by whatever arguments we succeed in fixing that odious charge upon her, we shall by parity of reasoning, be obliged to allow all other national churches to be her unchaste daughters, and for this plain reason among others, because in their very condition and tendency, they are hostile to the nature of the kingdom of Christ.” Further on in the same article, we read again:— “The writer of the book of the Revelation tells us he heard a voice from heaven, saying, ‘Come out of her, my PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues,’ Rev. 18: 1–4, an address which obviously could have no meaning, if none of Christ’s people were in her. But if such persons are to be found in the ‘mother of harlots,’ with much less hesitation may it be inferred that they are connected with her unchaste daughters, those national churches which are founded upon what are called Protestant principles.” Dr. Cumming, D.D. of England, says:— “Then what is our duty? To call to all that are at this moment in the church of Rome, whether sprinkled by her baptismal waters, or inhabiting within another church her forms, her ceremonies, her pomp, and her grandeur, to come out of her, lest, partaking of her sins, they receive also of her plagues.”—The End, p. 241. U. S. A Word to the Tract Societies.
By Stephen N. Haskell
A FEW weeks since, there was a call for 10,000 names of those who would be interested in reading one volume of the REVIEW and Reformer on trial. In some Conferences, their proportion of the number has already been made up. There was a necessity for this being done in a very short time, from the fact that the trial volume of the REVIEW commenced Dec. 16, 1873; and with the commencement of the volume, it was expected there would commence a series of articles that would be of especial interest to the reader. The new volume of the Reformer also commenced with January, 1874. The names sent in have been mostly for the REVIEW. We hardly think the Reformer has had all that attention in this move which, perhaps, it should have had, judging from the number of names there has been sent in for it. The Reformer is furnished on trial to the Tract Societies the same as the REVIEW. There are some reasons why the Reformer should have especial attention. 1. Although not denominational, yet in some respects, its teachings lie at the very foundation of the Christian religion. 2. It presents health from a moral stand-point, showing that the practice of holy men of old and the teachings of the Holy Scriptures are in harmony with the principles of hygiene. 3. It is well known that there exists in the minds of many a prejudice against a practical belief in the Holy Scriptures. This arises from the supposition that the Bible is either silent or in opposition to the subject of hygiene. The facts brought out in the Health Reformer show the contrary and remove this prejudice. 4. The journal is acknowledged by thousands of intelligent men and women, who have no sympathy with our religious views, to be well worthy the patronage of all. 5. From the high moral tone and general character of the journal, it becomes, in some respects, a handmaid to the Christian religion, showing the ruinous effects upon soul and body of those habits which are contrary to the laws of our being. It has often been said, and is well worthy of repeating, that every respectable reading room in the country should receive the monthly visits of this valuable journal. We would, therefore, especially call the attention of the Tract Societies to the Health Reformer; not to the neglect of the REVIEW, or even to slacken the hand in reference to obtaining subscribers for it. But now as we have already passed six weeks of the first number of the REVIEW in the present volume, and we have only reached the second number of the Health Reformer in the present volume, we would recommend to those Conferences which have not, as yet, filled up the number of names they wished to send in for these periodicals, not to neglect the Reformer. There are many families where the Reformer would accomplish far more good for the present than the REVIEW. There is not a single Conference that cannot fill the list of names assigned to it. See article in REVIEW, Vol. 43, No. 2. We here recommend the re-reading of that article; and let those Conferences which have not filled their quota of names make the Reformer a specialty for the next three weeks. The offer of the Reformer on trial to the Tract Societies will last until March. We know there is no lack on the part of the brethren and sisters when they once become interested in the matter. The secretary of your Tract Society will notify the various directors as soon as their respective numbers are made up. Let every member take hold of this work immediately. Think up your friends, call on your neighbors, visit the respectable reading rooms, and send your names to your secretary at once, and he will forward them to the Office. Do not wait until you raise your funds. There will be no trouble about that. There are hundreds who will be anxious to sustain such a worthy enterprise as this. The cause is rising in all parts of the field, and scores of men and women stand ready to embrace the truth as soon as their attention is called to it. “Why stand ye here all the day idle?” are words that come home with force to men and women to whom God has graciously committed his truth. Because “thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord,” are words addressed to those, and only those, who are faithful in the discharge of their duty. “Go ye also into the vineyard”; and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive” are words from the highest authority, addressed to all who are desirous for a home in the kingdom of God.