Newspaper Page Text
THREE DOLLARS PER ANNUM.
VOL. XXXIII. NO. 47.
Original |lorfnt.
Mrs. Jane T. 11. Cross.
BT MBS. MART WARE.
She is gone, the sweet songstress that sang at the
dawning—
She is gone, the sweet minstrel, and gave us no
warning;
We heard but the rustle of pinions ascending,
We gaze on the pathway her spirit is wending;
We listen to catch the sweet harpings that greet
her,
We feel the soft light of the angels that meet her;
But we tarn from the splendor of angels and God,
To think of the form that sleeps under the sod.
She sang, oh! so sweetly, from greenwood and
palace,
She wreathed with bright roses onr life’s golden
chalice,
She sang too, in sorrow of our own southern home,
She clung to it wildly, ’mid sorrow and gloom;
She tuned her sweet harp strings to sorrow’s sad
tone,
And wailed a wild dirge for the brave that are
gone;
She tuff ired affliction, nor murmured the while,
Then folded her hands with a sweet, solemn smile;
And the frail form is sleeping beneath the green
sod,
The immortal soul basking in the glory of God!
Colvmbiana, Ala., Oct. 15 th, 18T0.
Klegiac Lines on the Death of Kev.
Wm. H. Kvaus.
BY REV. M. W. ARNOLD.
Soldier of Christ, thy work is done,
Life’s ceaseless strife with thee is o’er,
A crown of glory thou hast won,
Which thou shalt wear forevermore.
That crown shall sparkle on thy brow,
While spheres their countless cycles run;
Tea, through eternal years, as now,
Thou shall enjoy the victory won
fame’s marble monuments decay,
And pompous busts in fragments fail,
But virtue shall exist for aye,
And view in smiles the doom of sli
Above all soarings of our thought
Now to the realms empyiean rise -
The Saviour hath thy title bought,
To thrones and sceptres in the skies
No severed ties there read the heart,
No tears of grief suffuse the eye,
No friend is doomed with friend to part,
No flowers bloom to fade and die
But what avails my humble lay!
Ah! what avail the strains now given !
When angel bands in bright array,
Now sweep for thee the harps of heaven.
Y et still the muse essays to sing,
The sympathies of hearts sincere,
And to thy urn the tribute bring,
Os feeling’s warmest, tenderest tear
But ah, no tears can ever tell,
The pangs which rend the heaving breast—
A shadow on the heart will dwell,
Though thon art numbered with the blest.
Ah, where Is all we held so dear ?
The Bpeaklng eye ? the cheek of bloom'
The feeling heart ? the words of cheer ”
All I all lie buried in the tomb. v
Could friendship warm, and love sincere,
Have stayed the rude and sudden dart,
Thy absence would have wrung no teai
From this afflicted, bleeding heart.
Twas in the rosy morn of life,
With heart sincere, and purpose strong,
Thou did’st begin the glorious strife,
To wage the war however long.
Though gone so soon to thy long rest,
We measure not thy life by years,
Since he lives longest, who lives best,
And merits most the mourner’s tear.-..
While victors have o’er fields of blood,
Their streaming banners proudly waved,
Thon hast reclaimed the foes of God,
And from his wrath the guilty saved
As Thou hast led the erring soul,
To seek substantial joys above,
Thy name, on fame’s Immortal scroll,
Shall stand, with all thy deeds of love.
Beyond all eulogy of mine,
Thy worth demands the meed of praise,
For many in tby crown will shine,
As stars through everlasting days.
Farewell, but soon we’ll meet again,
To rove elysian fields above,
And perfect life, and bliss attain,
Emparadised with those we love.
Contributions.
Beneficence—No. XVII.
BY A. M. CHBIETZBtJBG, SO. GA. CONFERENCE.
LAW OF THE TITHE.
The necessity and reason for it.
Any expectation of the universal purity
of Christ’s Chureh on the earth is vain; the
Scriptures show a mixture of good and bad
even unto the judgment day. The very col
lege of Apostles had its Judas. The para
ble of the tares represents the angels as mak
ing the separation. St. Paul, Eph. v. 26,
says: “Christ loved the Church and gave
himself for it; that he might sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by
the word; that ho might present it to
himself a glorious Church, not having spot,
or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Presented
where? Evidently in heaven, for the cleans
ing process is “by the word,” relating only
to its earthly state. “The field is the world;”
says Jesus, “the good seed are the children
of the kingdom; but the tares are the chil
dren of the wicked one; the enemy that
sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the
end of the world; and the reapers are the
angels.” Matt. xiii. 38.
Now while we may not look for universal
purity in the Chn ch, we may for its ad
vancement; its progressive growth. Proven
from the grain of mustard seed; “proven
by “the blade, ear, and full corn in the ear.”
In which are set forth, doubtless the germ,
maturity, and harvest in heaven; the rise,
progress and completion of Christ’s king
dom. The blade took in an obedient Abel,
a translated Enoch, a righteous Noah, a
faithful Abraham, a weeping Jeremiah, a
seraphic Isaiah, a supplicating Daniel. After
Christ’s advent came the ear, and in the
final triumph of Christianity shall be seen
the “full corn in the ear.”
“The field is the world,” and viewed as a
field for the reapers or a3 the great battle
ground for the truth, results are the same;
the harvest shall be great, the victory glo
rious. Viewed as a field of conflict, the
principles of good and evil are seen in an
tagonism. Opposed to “love, joy, peace,
long suffering, gentleness, goodness, meek
ness, patience, faith, temperance,” are seen
“wickedness, maliciousness, envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity, uncleanness, las
civiousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, va
riance, emulations, wrath, strife, sedition,
heresies, drunkenness, revellings and such
like.”
In contrast they are as different as dark
ness and light; as hell and heaven. Good
ness is from God, evil is from the devil.
The one is the spirit of benevolence ever
loving others; the other, the spirit of hat
red, loving self only. Heathenism and in
fidelity, arealike destitute of goodness; in
them is no redeeming quality, no inherent
virtue; both are wild, corrupt, cruel, devil
ftanflietii Christian AtUmatc.
ish. To no single province of the earth is
this conflict confined, 'the field is the
world,” and this fieldisio be won by Christ.
Bat how? By miraculous power? It
could be undoubtedly. By angelic agency?
not a doubt of it if it so pleased God. But
He hath ordained otherwise. Man is made
the agent by divine appointment, and satan
shall be vanquished by the very nature over
which he once triumphed. God pronounced
it good, but it failed under the strain of
temptation. The woman’s conquering seed,
the second Adam, shonld prove it could bear
the test, and by this very nature, should
evil be foiled and banished the earth.
Man is by nature evil, selfishness is the
embodiment of that principle; the benevo
lence inculcated in the law of the tithe, and
intensified by the gospel should counteract
that selfishness. God’s resources are infin
ite and entirely at His command, but He
would make that weak, frail nature, by the
devotion of the resources He himself had
given, triumph over its own selfishness and
the evil in the earth besides. So by the ex
ercise of beneficence should religious char
acter be developed, and the world as well
won to Christ.
Any other view of the tithe system, and
the great law of Christian charity is puerile,
falling far short of the grand consummation
designed by heaven. To regard the tithe
as simply conserving the interest of the
Jewish state, as a provision for the support
of the priesthood, Jewish or Christian, only,
or the exercise of beneficence only in the
light of utility is to lose sight entirely of its
chief design. God’s proprietary right in
the individual is marked by its exercise,
and its continuance pledges the soul to be
come more and more like Him. When the
benevolence of the Jewish Church ceased,
or was reduced to merely “tithing mint,
rue, anise, and cummin,” that monstrosity
of selfishness was born as exhibited in the
lives of the Scribes and Parisees. God’s
proprietary rights invaded by the withhold
ing of the tithes, not only were they charge
able with the robbery of God, but also of
themselves. Their religious character became
dwarfish —and while outwardly saintly, in
wardly Christ pronounced them ravening
wolves. How zealous were the hypocrites
for the punishment of detected crime, and
how heavily rebuked by the Saviour, when
told if without sin to cast the first stone.
So must it bo in Christendom to-day Sepa
rate from the gospel its beneficence, its
world-wide charity and it is destroyed; Chris
tian character fails of development, there is
uo likeness to God in the soul, aud the
Church fails to win the field of the world
to Christ. We insist—aud those dissenting
should prove it otherwise—that the law of
the tithe underlies every principle of benev
olence the world has ever seen. Its failure
to be acted upon from the primitive days of
Christianity even until now, no more con
travenes its claims than the failure to obey
Ohri.st’s command to preach the gospel to
every creature, excuses the Church to-day
for its neglect.
The world is to bo evangelized, but that
is not to advance faster—in the very nature
of things it never can—than the sanctifica
tion of the Church. Its moral discipline is
promoted by its co-operation with God, and
Christian character can increase and grow
only by the practice of the benevolence of
the gospel. This then is the grand reason
for the law of the tithe—for, in gospel times,
the consecration of the disciples all. “The
field is the icorld,” and it is to be won, not by
miraculons power, nor angelic agency, but
by the consecration of every individual
heart—the consecration of all to God.
But is this the sight presented by the
Christian Church to-day? We could hardly
ask a question more humiliating. So far
from it, that, secretly if not openly, the de
votion of the tenth is sneered at, as going
back to an antiquated economy—as limiting
the law of love—when men do not even at
tempt to stretch themselves up to this limit
—isobjected to by otherson the ground of in
ability to do so much—objected to because
of one’s being in debt—the necessity of
feeding one’s own family—as if the soul
had no indebtedness to God at all—and as
if He who fed the young ravens whan they
cry, would let his nobler creature suffer
for simply obeying a law of His own devis
ing. All these are but vain excuses. “The
tithe is the Lord’s” and lie that withholds it
—we assert without any circumlocution
whatever, for we have Scripture warrant for
it—is simply guilty of the robbery of God.
The true reason is love to God and man is
wanting, and the very first command in the
decalogue is every moment violated by those
making gold their God.
The leading men and minds of the Church
have failed to look in this direction, or if
they have, they have nut spoken out upon
the subject as they ought to have done. I
have seen grave Bishops write with commen
dation on the setting apart the products of
an acre or two to the cause of benevolence,
and I have wondred while reading if they
had forgotten Paul’s estimate counting
“all loss for Christ.” Have wondered if
such devotion was not mytMcaL Have
asked, was the tenth ever really given, when
under the requisitions of the gospel requir
ing more, scarcely the thousandeth part of
one's increase is so devoted. And so far
from a voice of warning and rebuke being
raised, the chief minds of the church smil
ingly commend the little done. Can any tMng
more plainly show the great departure from
the law of the tithe—from the general prin
ciple of the world-wide charity inculcated by
the gospel? The field is the -world, but it
can never be won by any thing short of the
consecration of all to God.
“Baptismal Demonstrations."
This is the title of a -work, written by Bev.
D. J. Myrick, of the North Georgia Confer
ence. Having been in charge of the Cass
ville Circuit in 1865, a work traveled by Bro.
Myrick a few years previous, I had heard of
his sermons on the subject of baptism, ser
mons considered at that time as being unan
swerable by some of the best minds in Bar
tow county—and that is saying a good deal
for any man’s ability—for I doubt if there is
a county in the State that boasts a brighter
constellation of intellects than old Cass. I
expected, therefore, when I heard that the
book was out, to see a good thing, but really
it not only came up to, but by far ex
ceeded anything I had calculated on. It is
a masterly production. One great blunder
by all our writers on this subject, hitherto,
so far as I am acquainted with them is, that
they have failed to reach the very class—
who of all others are most in need of in
struction on this subject. Their productions
are too learned. Their reasoning is so ab
struse that, except here and there, none but
the most learned, or profoundly logical
minds can grasp their conclusions. I do not
mean to imply that our author is wanting in
learning. No indeed; but it is the learning of
simplicity. The writer treats on the subjeot
from a common sense stand-point; and this
is one of the distinctive excellence* of the
book. I give your readers only o£fc exam
ple ; In chapter 2d, page 25, under the head
of “mode of John’s baptism,” he “waives for
the present, all other arguments that might
be made against the snpposition that John
immersed the people baptized by him,” and
confines himself to two points : “First, as
to the length of time John’s ministry lasted ;
and secondly, as to the numbers he baptized. ”
He then proceeds to show from facts de
duced from these two points that it was a
physical impossibility for him to have im
mersed the vast multitudes which the evan
gelist say were baptized by him. Six months
to baptize six millions of persons by immer
sion—verily—the person that can believe it,
has faith to remove mountains. Make the
calculation, 180 days, at 12 hours per day,
2,160 hours—l29,6oo minutes to immerse
six million people in, but allowing, as Mr.
Webster says it does—that “a//” does not
mean every one, in the place where the
evangelists say—“Then went out to him Je
rusalem, and cdl Judea, and all the region
round about Jordan”—admit I say, that all
means only one-half, one-fourth, or eveD
one-sixth, and is the difficulty removed, or
even lessened. No verily.
Now, Mr. Editor—any ten year old boy
can understand and see the force of such ar
guments as the above, and it is by such ar
guments as these that Bro. Myrick brings the
truth right home to the miuds of the masses,
and hence I say it is the book for the people.
Our preachers ought to read and circulate
it. If they will, the day is not far distant, in
my opinion, when they will cease to be
troubled on the subject of “going down into
the water,” particularly by those who ought
to know better.
After clearing away all the rubbish from
in and around the Temple of trnth, so that
“he that runneth may read,” our writer
then takes up the classic features of his sub
ject, and shows most conclusively in the
light of both the originals that immersion is
nowhere taught in the Word of God as the
scriptural mode for Christian baptism. Yet
that same characteristic simplicity is kept
up that makes the book as a whole so invalu
able.
Reader, if you have any doubts on your
mind, get the book.
Rev. D. J. Myrick is stationed in Coving
ton, at which place lie can be addressed on
the subject. Fraternally,
W. C. Dunlap.
Atlanta, Ga., Nov. 10th 1870.
Ritualism—Does it Obtain in the
Methodist Church ?
Lexicopraphers inform us that the word
ritualism, means : 1. “A system of rituals or
prescribed forms of religious worship. 2.
Observance of prescribed forms of religious
worship. 3. Confidence in mere rites or ex
ternal ceremonies.” Now, Romanists and
Episcopalians have rituals by which they are
respectively governed, in their religious
worsMp. They deem their forms and cere
monies indispensable to the maintenance of
Church order, apostolic usage, and accepta
ble devotion.
None of them may, in their esteem, be
omitted in any of the offices for which they
have been appointed, without guilt, except
in case or cases of emergency. Thus believ
ing, they are consistent in adhering persist
ently to their rituals. A Ritualist is, accord
ing to Webster’s definition, “one skilled in
or devoted to a ritual.” Roman Catholics
and High-Church Episcopalians, are pre
sumed, from their education and customs,
to be somewhat skilled in ritualism, and are
known to be its devotees, and consequently
they are correctly denominated Ritualists.
We, as Protestant Christians, lament their
folly, and grieve for their heresy. Seen
from our stand-point, “the waters of life”
seem to be perpetually eluding them and
gliding away, while thirsty souls famish and
die. Cisterns they have—“hewn out” and
polished by the genius and learning of men,
and consecrated by the lapse of time and
the elegant conceits and fancies of a dreamy,
enervated piety; but after all, they are
found to be “broken,” and are incapable of
holding and conveying “the waters of salva
tion.” They appear to be zealous for the
shadow, but careless of the substance ; con
cerned for the husk, but indifferent as to
the kernel; ready to contend earnestly for
their forms, but denying in many instances,
what Evangelical Protestants understand to
be, “the power of godliness.” In all these
matters we believe them to be in error—dan
gerous, mischievous, and ruinous error; and
we, with one accord, condemn the course of
their clergy, and sorrow over the blindness
and ill-fortune of their flocks. But are we
ourselves consistent ? Is there no unscrip
tual ritualism in our own Churches ? Indeed,
is it not found sometimes, even under the
guise of the much abused phrase—“Old
fashioned Methodism ?”
That phrase—“ Old-fashioned Metho
dism”—once had in the conception of the
writer, a peculiar charm; but that charm has
been broken by the unmethodistic use of
and play upon it, in Church papers, Con
ference discussions, and fireside talks. It is
sounded as the “key note” of opposition to
everything that looks to the adaptation of
Methodist economy and usage to the chang
ing conditions and circumstances of her peo
ple ; and this, too, in the face of the fact,
tha.t flexibility in her economic regulations,
and in the mode and manner of worship, is
an essential element of real Methodism—
that Methodism which John Wesley, unwit
tingly, established.
Flexibility, as a distinct feature of Metho
dism, has contributed largely, under God,
to its marvelous growth and expansion, and
has gradually opened the way to the high
and commanding position it now occupies
in the religions world. It is at home any
where, and, if true to itself, will behave with
ease, grace aud dignity, in any clime, and
under any form of civil government—like
her Divine Head, eminently welcome among
the poor and ignorant, and not in the least
ont of place among the rich, refined and
learned. She can preach the gospel of peace
in the “nooks and comers” of the land;
pour the living light of truth” upon the de
graded mind and heart of the ont-cast and
the abandoned ; and at the same time es
tablish printing presses, issue religious pa
pers and magazines, write, edit and publish
books, found and endow colleges and Uni
versities ; in a word, can make her influence
for good felt throughout all the ramifications
of society ; touching and impressing it, not
only at every salient point, but in the en
tirety of its organization, from the highest
to the lowest ranks. Her doctrines are an
embodiment of the gospel, and her system
of discipline and general economy is scrip
tural, and eminently suited to the grand
achievement of spreading “Bible holiness
over these lands.” But suppose, nnder the
specious cry Os “old-fashioned Methodism,"
she should allow herself placed as in a strait*,
PUBLISHED BY J. W. BURKE A CO., FOB THE M. E. CHURCH, SOUTH.
MACON, GA., FRIDAY', NOVEMBER 25, 1870.
jacket, restricted and bound by what custom
may have prescribed as a Methodistic form
or (substantial) ritual, would she not then
be to a large extent shorn of her elasticity,
and vigor, and strength ? Would she not
then become as formal in her peculiar way
of formality, as are Romanists and High-
Church Episcopalians in theirs ? And are
there not evidences, even now existing
among us, of danger in this direction ? We
fear that there are; indeed, unless we misin
terpret the sayings and doings of some cf
our brethren, there is a class of High-Church
Methodists, who are as great sticklers for
the rigid maintenance of a particular style
and mode of worship, as are the ritualists of
the Episcopal and Catholic Churches.
When a so-called Methodist, asserts it as a
condition of his remaining in connection
with the Church, “that there shall be instru
mental music, and singing by a trained
choir,” we immediately conclude that his
head and heart are dizzily and sinfully
turned towards forms, formality, ritualism.
So on the other hand, when a so called
Methodist of quite a different stylo of taste
and thinking, says, “I am old style—old
style on principle—-believe in it, and in
nothing else—am opposed to choir and in
strumental music in the Churches—can nev
er enjoy or be religiously profited by any
thing affecting the mode of worship to which
I have been accustomed —when you intro
duce instrumental music here, I am done
with the Church, and will no longer worship
with you,” we at once suspect that the broth
er is about to turn High-Church Metho
dist ! Is he not wedded to a mode, a form ?
Does he not exhibit an undue, and an im
proper, attachment to a form ? Does he not
at least seem to assign an importance to, and
place stress upon, mere mode and form, to
an extent not warranted by the word of God,
and in obvious conflict with true Christian
charity ? We think he does. The mode or
form of worship for which he contends, and
which he holds to be so essential to the
maintenance of spiritual religion, is not nec
essarily substituted or abolished in any of
its valuable features, by choirs and instru
mental music. The same hymns, and,
for the most part, the same tunes, are
sung. The choir and organ, under proper
regulations, are to be regarded as aids to the
officiating preacher, in the conduct of pub
lic worship. They shonld be controlled by
the preacher, and so used and directed as to
promote heartiness of devotion in the Church
and congregation.
But it is uo part of our present purpose,
to write in defence of the introduction of
instrumental music into our Churches. Our
design is, to call attention to the fact that
there is a species of ritualism cropping out in
our Church, here and there, in a way and
under a guise, that is calculated to deceive,
if possible, “the very elect.”
It is easy to mistake predelection and preju
dice for principle ; and this error once com
mitted in relation to Church forms, usages
and customs, naturally draws after it anoth
er, which is liable to prove fatal to genuine,
saving religion, namely, the Investiture of
mere forms, usages and customs with an un
due importance. When thi3 is done, the
strong probability is, that the substance will
come to be gradually overlooked in the in
creased and over-zealous attention to the
shadow, and the mere externals of religion,
assume the place of religiou itself. Let
Methodists beware of ritualism among them
selves, while condemning it in others.
Plain Methodists.
Live Oak Grove, Nov. Bth , 1870.
Facts Versus Dogma.
BT EHILIF SCHAFF, D. D.
The presence of Peter in Rome cannot be
proven from the New Testament. The on
ly passage which may be quoted in its fa
vor is that in which Peter, like Jchn in the
Revelation, ominously calls Rome Babylon.
There is no trace either in the Bible or in
Church history that Peter ever conferred
his prerogative upon the bishop of Rome or
of any other city.
The peculiar nature of Peter’s preroga
tive admits of no transfer as little as that of
Paul or John. It was his mission to lay,
under Christ the Architect, the foundation
of the Christian Church, on the day of Pen
tecost, for all time to come. That work
cannot and need not be repeated; that rock
stands immovable forever.
The first Christian Council was presided
over not by Peter, but by James, and adopt
ed the compromise offered not by Peter, but
by James.
Paul never was dependent on Peter in
any sense, but he once publicly reproved
him for inconsistency of conduct before the
congregation at Antioch, and Peter, instead
of claiming infallibility, humbly submitted
to the rebuke of a junior colleague. (Gal.
2; 2d Pet. 3.)
John, writing to the seven churches at
the close of the Apostolic Age, ignores the
church at Rome, and recognizes no other
primary and centre of unity bnt Him who
holds in His hand the seven stars and walks
in the midst of the seven candlesticks.
(Rev. 2 and 3.)
Clement of Rome, the first Roman bishop
of whom we have any authentic account,
wrote a letter to the church at Corinth—not
in his name, but in the name of the Roman
congregation; not with an air of superior
authority, but af a brother to brethren—
barely mentioning Peter, but highly eulo
gizing Paul, and with a clear consciousness
of the great difference between an Apostle
and a bishop or elder.
Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyr
domin Rome under Trajan, highly as he ex
tols episcopacy and Church unity in his
seven epistles, one of which is addressed to
the Roman Christians, makes no distinction
of rank among bishops, but treats them as
equals.
Irenseus of Lyons, the champion of the
Catholic faith against the Gnostic heresy,
at the close of the second century, sharply
reproved Victor of Rome when he ventured
to excommunicate the Asiatic Christians for
their different mode of celebrating Easter,
and told him that it was contrary to Apos
tolic doctrine and practice to judge brethren
on account of eating and drinking, feasts
and new moons.
Hippolytus, a martyr and a saint in the
Roman calendar, in the ninth book of his
newly-discovered “Philosophamena,” or re
futation of all heretics, boldly charges two
Popes at the beginning of the second cen
tury—Zephyrinus (201 to 219) and Callistus
(219 to 221,) with holding the Patripassian
heresy, which identifies the Father and Son
and subverts the Trinity. Callistus taught
“that the Word is the Son and is also the
Father, being called by different names, but
being one indivisible spirit; that the Father
and the Son are both one and the same;
that the Father, having become incarnate,
defied human flesh, that the Father suffered
with the Son.” Hippolytus reveals some
curious facts previously unknown of this
Callistus, who was first a slave, then a bank
er, a bankrupt, a prisoner, curator of the
cemetery, and last, a Pope.
Cyprian, likewise a saint and a martyr,
and the great champion of the episcopal
system in the middle of the third century,
in his zeal for visible Church union, first
brought ont the doctrine of the Homan See
as the chair of Peter and the centre of
Catholic unity; yet he always addressed the
Homan bishop as his “brother and col
league,” and opposed Pope Stephen’s view
of the validity of heretical baptism, charg
ing him with error, obstinacy and presnmp
tion. He never yielded to Home, and the
African bishops, at a third Conncil at Car
thage (256,) emphatically restrained his op
position. Firmilian, Bishop of Ctesarea,
Hid Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, like*
wise bitterly condemned the doctrine and
conduct of Stephen.
During the Arian controversies Pope Li
berius, in 358, subscribed the Arian formu
laries in succession, for the purpose of re
gaining his episcopate. During the same
period another Pope, Felix, was a decided
Arian, but there is some dispute about his
claims.
In the Pelasgian controversy Pope Zosi
mus defended the Pelasgians and Coelestins
as sound and orthodox, although Ms prede
cessor, Innocent 1., had folly agreed with
the African bishops in condemning them as
dangerous heretics. The Africans, under
the lead of St. Augustine, the greatest and
best of the fathers, adhered to their deci
sion (417 and 418) and accused Zosimus,
who finally yielded and condemned Pelas
gianism in his Epistoia Tractoria,
The ancient Ecumenical Councils were
called, not by the Pope, but by the Greek
emperor, and in the first two, that of Nice
(325,) and that of Constantinople (381,) the
Pope was not represented and had no influ
ence at all. The Nicene creed, wMch is
sued from these two Councils, and is the
most universally received of all creeds,
teaches “one holy catholic apostolic
Shurch,” without a word on Rome and the
Pope. The second Ecumenical Council, in
the third canon, put the Patriarch of Con
stantinople on a par with the Bishop of
Rome, and the fourth Ecumenical Council
at Chaleedon (451,) confirmed this canon in
spite of the energetic protest of Popa Leo
the Great.
Gregory the Great, one of the best of
Popes, ruled at the close of the sixth and
the beginning of the seventh century,
stoutly protested against the assumption of
the title of ecumenical or universal bishop
on the part of the patriarchs of Constanti
nople and Alexandria, and denounced tMs
whole title and claim as tin-Christian and
devilish, since Christ alone was the Head and
Bishop of the Church universal, wMle Pe
ter, Paul, Andrew and John, were members
under the same Head, and heads only of
single portions of the whole. Gregory
would rather call himself the servant of the
servants of God.
The sixth Ecumenical Council, summoned
by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus in
680, pronounced the, anathema on the Mono
thelites and on Honorius, “the former Pope
of old Rome,” for teaching that Christ had
not two wills, a divine and a human, but on
ly one. This anathema was several times
repeated and sanctioned even by a Pope,
Leo H., who, in a letter to the Emperor,
said: “We anathematize even Honorius,
who dared to subvert this apostolic Church
(of Rome) by a profane doctrine.” The
following Popes subscribed, at their acces
sion, a confession of faith in which the au
thors of this heretical dogma, including
Honorius (una cum Honoris,) were con
demned by name. This fact is so utterly
subversive of the Papal claim of infallibility
that Baronius and Bellarmine could not
help themselves in any other way but by
boldly and impudently dennying it; but it
is as well established os any fact in church
history, and has been admitted by all honest
Roman Catholic as well as Protestant his
torians to this time. Now, however, Ro
man Catholics must either believe a lie, or
they must renounce the Pope aud the last
Ecumenical Council.— N. Y. Observer.
A Queer Reason.
Some curious information would be elici
ted, could be put all church-goers on the
stand any Monday morning, and question
thfem, as to the motives which carried them
to the House of God the previous day. It
is to be hoped that a respectable portion of
thSm would be able to answer—We went
from a sense of duty and, because we wished
to be (blessed, and for the reason that we
love and delight in the worship of God.
Some it is to be feared, would be puzzled to
assign any definite motive; but, if forced to
respond, would answer, I went beoause I
have been trained to go from a child, and
from the force of habit, or because I would
not feel exactly easy iu mind if I stayed away,
or because it is the custom of the society in
which I move. Others would be compelled
to admit, that they went from uo worthier
motive, than to meet friends, or from curi
osity, to hear some preacher, or to enjoy
the music, or to see and to be seen or even'
to exhibit some new article of dress, etc.
But the queerest reason for going to
church I ever beard of any one’s avowing, is
the following, which I take from an inter
esting little volume entitled, “My Ministe
rial Experience” by the Rev. Buchel of
Berlin.
I was surprised to observe that, for some
Sundays, a rustic, whom I had never seen
there before, now' regularly made his ap
pearance in church, but in the most open
way in the world settled himself to sleep as
soon as he was seated, and snored so loud
that one heard him even during the singing.
A boy, to whom I had often spoken, and
who had an open merry expression of face,
was in the habit of placing himself not far
from the snorer, and I now requested him
to sit more immediately behind him, and to
touch him from time to time to keep him
awake. At first the lad refused to do this,
but the promise of a groschen (about two
cents in silver) led him to comply. During
the whole service I could see the contest
carried on between the little fellow and his
somnolent neighbor, and by a glance of my
eye I sought to encourage the former to keep
up the rousing process. On the following
Sunday' the rustic came again and so did the
boy, whom I begged to continue his good
offices as before, but he declined; and when
I held out the bribe of the groschen, told
me that the peasant had already given him
two, on condition that he should not be dis
turbed. When the service was over, through
out the whole of which the man had slum
bered unmolested, I went up to him in the
church yard and asked him what motive he
could have for coming to church; to which
he answered quite unconcernedly, “ There
arc too many flies in the house for a man to
gel his rest, but in the church it's fine and cool,
in. the winter there's never any need why I
should come ? I was so amazed at this state
ment” concludes the author “that I could
make no reply.”
Query 1. Do some people sleep in church
every Sunday, because the flies wont let
them get their rest at home?
2. When the sleepers are many and con
stant is there anything soporific in the
preacher’s manner, voice, tone, matter, or
length?— South Weste>-n Presbyterian.
Reasons for Dressing Plainly on
the Lord’s Day.
1. It would lessen the burdens of many
who find it hard to maintain their places in
society.
2. It would lessen the force of the temp
tations which often lead men to barter hon
or and honesty for display.
3. if there was less strife in dress at
church, people in moderate circumstances
would be more inclined to attend
4. Universal moderation in dress at church
would improve the worship by the removal
of many wandering thoughts.
6. It would enable all classes of people to
attend church better in unfavorable weather.
6. It would lessen, on the part of the rich,
the temptations to vanity.
7. It wonld lessen, on the part of the poor,
the temptations to be envious and malicious.
8. It would save valuable time on the Sab
bath.
9. It would relieve our means of a serious
pressure, and thus enable us to do more for
good enterprises.
Wiio Plucked the Flower .'
The following inscription in an old English
churchyard appears :
‘ ‘ Who plucked that flower ?”
Cried the gardener as he walked through
the garden. His fellow-servant answered:
“The Master !”
And the gardener held his peace.
Action. —The life of man can, in its true
sense, consist only in constant, active exer
tion, not only of the body, but also qf the
mental faculties. He is a stranger to Happi
ness who passes his days in listless inactivity.
That man can alone possess true joy who de
votes all the energies of his soul and body
to one great specific end and aim ; who lives
for a great object, and strives with all the
powers he can oommand to attain to the ful
filment of his wishes.
Bereavement.
“Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth.”— Heb.
xli.C.
“Pourquoi reprendre.”
Why take away,
O Father, say,
The gift Thy tender love hath given ?
Why give at all,
If Thon recall
At once the treasured boon to heaven 1
Speak, gracious Lord! Thy ways my heart appal,
My heart so weak, with sorrow riven!
Thou speakest, Lord;
And as a sword
The piercing of Thy voice I hear:
And In clear tones
My conscience owns
The justice of Thy stroke severe:
Myself Thou seekest; In Thy darkest frowns
The pleadings of Thy love appear.
The same art Thou
Whether Thou sow
Or watchful come Thy fruits to reap
To Bless my store
Or make me poor,
In equal love thou workest deep:
Startling my soul with righteous chastening sore
When careless on Thy csre I sleep.
Our living Head
Himself “was dead;”
We follow Him, and we must die :
Death? nay, ’tis birth,
Ev’n here on earth
To lay the rags of nature by,
And one with Christ, and dead.’to sin, go fortii
New-clad in light and liberty.
To babblings vain
Os Ups profane,
To vaunted life which Is not. Thine,
To any life
With Thine at strife
Now let me die, O King Divine!
Faithful Thy wounds though keen the prnniug
knlfe
By them new life and health are mine.
To cleause my soul
To make it whole,
My father smite and do not spare
Doth gold require
Refining Are,
And shall not faith the furnace share ?
Yea, though Thou dash to shreds my heart’s desire,
Great Sculptor, I Thy strokes will bear l
Then take Thy way!
It might not stay,
That boon Thy tender love had given:
AU-wlse In aU I
Though Thou recall
Tby gift, ’tls love my heart hath riven,
No longer Thy dark ways my heart appal,
I read tbe’m in the light of Heaven.
Sunday Magazine..
What is Christianity !
BY WILLIAM M. BLACKBURN, D. I>.
When a few sailors and travellers com
mitted certain improprieties in a Moham
medan city, they were described by the
residents as Christians, beoause they be
longed to a nominally Christian nation.
One who indignantly left the organic
Church to its fate, but who still flourishes
the clerical title, has made the oracular de
liverance that a man is not to be judged by
any sort of belief, but by bis life—not by his
creed, whatever may be allowed to his be
lief in creedlessness, but by bis Christianity.
He may choose any of “thegreat religions,”
and all we can ask is that he be a Chris
tian.
One other, in a conversation with several
persons representing different branches of
the Church, has said: “One denomination
is as good as another; the Bible is as good
as any book we have; I take it without be
lieving in it; I acknowledge its wisdom but
not its authority. Ido not go to church.
What of that? Tho great thing is to be a
Christian.”
Another, who protests against being
classed with skeptics and infidels, yet who
expresses his admiration of Hobbes, Vol
taire and Goethe, names Thomas Buckle
and Herbert Spencer as among tbe most
brilliant writers in the Christian ranks of
our age, and considers their “ progressive
ideas” as of the greatest service to Chris
tianity.
All this is proof of a singular phenome
non. The desire to make Christians of ev
erybody is wonderfully ardent. It reminds
us of the Apostolie spirit, only there is this
difference: the Apostles were anxious that
all men should have a Christian nature, and
not merely a Christian name. It was neces
sary, in the ancient time, that people should
be converted, in order to be classed with
Christians. Verily Christianity mu3t be
popular, when some, who treat it with lev
ity or opposition, are claimed among its ad
vocates!
Every thinker, however, must see that in
determining the merits of such cases as we
have cited, we must first decide what it is to
be a Christian? Or, what is Christianity?
We want a clear definition. Worcester de
fines it as: “ The religion taught by Christ;
the religion of Christians.” Webstar thus
puts it: “ The religion of Christians, or the
systems of doctrines or precepts taught by
Christ, and recorded by the evangelists and
apostles.” These definitions are not suffi
ciently near perfect, or what is good in them
does not appear to suit our advunced age
and mode of thought. We still ask: What
is the precise nature of Christianity? What
elements of personal character are essential
to it?
Does the term express simply a general
tendency of mind, or a vague sympathy with
the true and beautiful, or a variable emotion
of love for what is useful and comforting?
And is it thus obscure as the term humanity,
or philanthropy? For one may be humane,
and yet have no fixed principles. With no
sort of faith he may feel deeply for the woes
of his race. He may pity men as sufferers
on earth, utterly ignoring that they are sin
ners in need of a heavenly salvation.
Or is it a general system which one may
help ,to advance, without any intelligent or
conscientious endorsement, and with no
change in his personal life? Is it thus like
Republicanism, or Democracy, which one
may zealously advocate and for which he
may vote, and yet it may not seriously—if
at all—affect his conscience, his will, his
heart, or his morals? Is one a Christian
simply because he moves with the crowd,
and in an outward way accepts the social
and national advantages which result from
the Christian system?
The shadow of a tree is not the tree itself.
The light is not the sun. Christianity is
not identical with its attendants, nor with
its effects. Shall we, then, make it to con
sist in decency, refinement, culture, educa
tion, humaneness, neighborly kindness and
social charity? Is it expressed in the old
term ‘ ‘good breeding?” There may be more
than a play of words in the phrase “ grace
ful but graceless.”
Does Christianity involve any system of
truths—“any series of definite proposi
tions)”—any laws for the conduct? Is the
belief of these essential to Christian faith
and life? Or is one a better Christian for
not believing definite statements of truth?
Is his unbelief a merit, and his free thought
a grace?
Now, surely, Christianity must be some
thing capable of definition. The term has
a meaning. It must involve some princi
ples, and some mode of life according to
them. How can one live in accordance with
them if he do not know and believe them?
Ideas assume a dress in words. The things
known must take shape and find expression,
and hence definite statements are possible.
Or is it insisted that Christianity is chiefly
a life? Then it is something that causes one
to live—live as he would not otherwise do—
live in a specific and definable way. There
must be rules and modes of living. That
life must have its beginning, progress and
perfection. To it belong duties and privi
leges, incentives, aims, purposes and ends
to be gained. And these grow out of laws,
obligations, favors and rewards. Thus if
we define Christian life and whatever is es
sential to it, we define Christianity. To
live rightly is to experience and practice
what ought to be believed. If one do not
believe that two and two make four, he will
not keep good accounts.
On no other subject is there more vague
ness of speech. In some of our religious
conventions, amid abundant exhortations
that all should be Christians and lead others
to be Christians, while many may “stand
up for Christ,” and move the listeners to
tears if not to noble purposes, Christianity
is but half defined. Perhaps the essence of
it is overlooked. It may not be explained
to consist in believing as well as endeavor
ing. It is life as well as labor, being as well
as doing, worship as well as work. It is
customary at meetings of Christians of dif
ferent names for men to say they are not
Sectarians, not Churchmen, not aenomisa-
tionalists, but Christians. Suppose at some
of these gatherings they should tell us what
Christianity is?
The needed definition, however, should
not be reserved for some grand occasion.
It should come frequently from every reli
gious teacher, and especially from the pul
pit. It needs to be preached, and so earn
estly too that every hearer will be prompted
to ask, “Am Ia Christian?” This, we
think, is one of the chief needs of our
times.
Our definition may not be wanted. For
us to put it forth might savor of dogmatism.
It is far better to incite others to study the
subject and frame for themselves one that
will be simple, brief, scriptural, and com
prehensive. If each ono would ask what it
is, think upon it, read about it, get an in
telligent view of it, wrigte down his conclu
sion, and weigh his words with all the care
of one who is buying the truth, there might
be a deeper conviction of its reality. Yet
we may indicate some sources of help.
First, Christianity must properly recog
nize Christ; not simply as its first great
teacher, its founder, its champion, and its
centre, but as its very essence, its spirit and
power. He who said, “lam the way, the
truth and the life,” must be essential to the
system. The very first question is, “ Wbat
think ye of Christ?” Unless we rightly
think of Him, His person, nature, office,
work, life, death and glory, we cannot be
Christians. The thought may be limited in
quantity, yet it must be correct in quality.
Second, Christianity, ns a system, is what
Christ sanctioned, taught, and ordered to
be taught coucerning God and man, Christ
and sinners, and the vital union between
them. Some of His chief teachings relate
to our sinfulness, our regeneration, faith,
love, hope and holiness. Also to His hu
manity, His divinity, His grace, His rnedia
torship, His atonement and His glorious
reign. Each of these is an element in Chris
tianity. Its place was described when our
Lord said, ‘ ‘ No man corneth unto the Father
but by Me.”
Third, Christianity, as a life, is a mani
festation of His spirit and power. It is an
imitation of Christ, not having Him simply
as our model, but as the motive power within
us. The branches are like the vino beoause
they grow out of the vine. Christians are
like Christ in proportion as they derive
their vitality from Him.
Fourth, Christianity, as a result personally
gained, is salvation; not a mere way of sal
vation, not me among various supposed
ways. It is more than the ono and only
way; it is salvation itself. To be really
Christianized is to be saved from sin, death
and boll; saved by Christ, unto Him, for
Him, aud finally with Him. “He that hath
the Son hath life.” “He that believeth
bath everlasting life.”
Here we leave the question. It is often
wiser to start inquiry and awaken thought,
than to offer conclusions. If ono be led to
ask, What it is to boa Christian, ho may be
prompted to “ search the Scriptures,” and
what is there written will prove more satis
factory than anything we can write. It will
be a healthful agitation, when in the com
mon talk of the people, in the class-room
and in the convention, through the press
and in the pulpit, there shall be a full dis
cussion of the questions, What is Christian
ity? Who are Christians?— The Interior.
A Sudden Retribution.
It sometimes is ordered that men who
set themselves to thwart the workings of
God’s grace are taken suddenly out of the
way, and their death gives anew impulse to
the growth of religion, The following inci
dent is a true one, whioh occurrred many
years ago, when Unitarianism first arrayed
itself bitterly against an evangelical faith.
It occurred in the town of Ware, at the time
of an interesting revival there:
It was asserted by some leading and influ
ential Unitarians and Universalists, that
unless immediate measures were taken to
counteract the baneful influence of the re
vival, the disgrace and ruin of the village
would be the inevitable consequence. A
meeting was therefore called by the most
inveterate opponents of the revival, with a
view to get up a dancing school in the pub
lic singing hall. Forty males and females
were induced to subscribe on the spot, and
a resolution was passed to dispatch a mes
senger at once to engage a famous danciDg
master at Deerfield to instruct the school,
which was to be opened as soon as fifty sub
scribers were obtained. He came to Ware
immediately, and it was fixed that the school
should be opened at three o’clock in the af
ternoon of the following Friday.
In the meantime a young man, a prime
mover in this enterprise, who on a rainy day
accompanied the dancing master from house
to house with a view to complete the.required
number of subscribers, took cold; a bilious
colic ensued, and on Wednesday morning
he was summoned to the retributions of
eternity, the dancing master watching his
pillow of sickness, Hand endeavoring to alle
viate the agonies of death.
The funeral of this young man was ap
pointed to take place at one o’clock on Fri
day; but in consequence of delay in the
coming of some of the relatives, the proces
sion did not reach the graveyard until near
three o’clock. The attendants were struck
with the melancholy and appalling fact that
God had caused the remains of the origina
tor of the. dancing school to be consigned
to the silent grave on the very day and
the very hour that the school wa3 to have
opened.
On the same ever-inemorable evening tho
aforesaid dancing master rushed into our
prayer meeting, and fliDging himself on his
knees, exclaimed, “ What shall I do to be
saved?” relating the sad and trying scenes
he had experienced the last three days, say
ing that he should never more dance, and
requesting an interest in our prayers.
The dancing school was of course aban
doned, and to the praise and glory of God
be it said, the dancing master, with most of
the aforesaid subscribers, were shortly under
deep convictions and among our most anx
ious inquirers, and at length obtained a
glorious and joyful hope of having passed
from death unto life.— Watchman and Re
flector.
A Higher Casuality. —Miracles do not so
much obviate natural laws as withdraw indi
vidual occurrences from their control, and
place them under a higher will and a higher
power. We may find several analogies to
this in a lower sphere. If my arm hurls a
a stone into the air, this act is contrary to
the nature of the stone, and not nn effect of
the law of gravitation; but higher power
and a higher will are introduced, pro
ducing the effects which are not the effects
of lower power. And yet these powers and
laws are not abolished thereby, but continue
to exist. Aud so, in the case of miracles, a
Higher causality interposes, and produces
effects which are not the effects of the natu
ral order of lower causalities, but which af
terward conform to this order. This higher
casuality, however, coincides iu purpose
with the highest moral aims of all existence.
To further these is the best and highest office
of nature. It is Divine love which takes
power into its service ; it is the redemption
of mankind which carries on its new and
higher history upon the soil of creation ; it
is in salvation in Christ Jesus, that the rea
son and justification of miracles, because of
revelation, are to be found.— Luthardt.
“Dev Don’t Die Dat Wat.”— There was
u deal of pitch and point in the comment of
the African preacher on the text, “It is
more blessed to give than to receive.” Said
he: “I’ve known may a Ohurchto die ’cause
it didn’t give enough; but I never knowed
a Church to die ’cause it gave too much.
Dey don’t die that way. Brederen, has any
one of yon knowed a Church to die ’cause it
gave too much? If you do just let me know,
and I’ll make a pilgrimage to dat Church,
and I’ll climb by de soft light of de moon
to its moss-covered roof, and I’ll stand dar
and lift my hands to heaven and Bay, ‘Blessed
am de dead that died in de Lord. ’ ’’
American Missions in Italy. —The Ameri
can and Foreign Christian Union sustain
twenty churches in Italy. The results of
evangelization in that country, though hith
erto attended with some difficulty, fully re
pay the expenditure of labor and money.
The field is now open. The Constitution of
Italy secures freedom of worship, and Borne
itself is frse to reoeivs the gospel.
E. H. MYEBS, D. D., EDITOE.
WHOLE NUMBER 1827.
Couple Heaven With It.
An aged Christian had paused to rest him
self, as he trudged along under a heavy
load on a warm summer day. An acquain
tance had just accosted him, when a splen
did carriage rolled past in wMch a haughty
man rode, whose whole appearance bespoke
a life of luxurious ease. “What do you
think of the Providenoe of which you some
times speak?” said the acquaintance. “You
know that that is a wicked man, yet be
spreads himself like a green bay-tree. Eis
eyes stand out with fatness, he is not
plagued as other men; while you, believing
that all the silver and the goldjis the Lord’s,
serving him, and trusting in his providence,
and toiling and sweating in your old age,
getting little more than bread and water.
How can you reconcile this with a just Prov
idence?”
The aged saint looked at the questioner,
with amazement, and with the greatest
earnestness replied: “Couple heaven with it !
couple heaven with it, and then?” Yes,
that addition sweetens many a bitter cup,
and enriches many a poor lot. “For our
ligbt affliction which is bnt for a moment,
worketb for us a far more exceeding aud
eternal weight of glory; while w’e look not
at the things which are seen, but at the
things which are not seen; for the things
which are seen are temporal, but the things
which are not seen are eternal.”— Times arc
Refreshing.
A Detfied American. —A correspondent
of an exchange, writing from Canton, Chi
na, states that Ward the American filibuster,
who went to China and entered the service
of the Emperor, aiding in suppressing the
rebellion, has been deified. The correspond
ent says: “Ward was of great service to
the Emperor in putting down the rebellion.
His success was wonderful to the Chinese,
and at the time he was accidentally shot by
his own men they looked upon him ss the
greatest general that had existed for two
thousand years. At his own request his cof
fin was left at Ning Po, according to Chinese
custom, above ground and uncovered. Nine
months after (1863) the Emperor ordered
the body to be removed to Sung Kong, aud
deposited in the court-yard of the temple of
Confucius. Within the temple was set up a
tablet bearing his name as the captor of
Sung Kong and many other cities. Tho
Emperor has seen fit to go further, and, in
a recent edict, has placed him among the
major gods of China, commanding shrines
to be built and worsMp to be paid to the
memory of this American. The people are
worshiping him along with the most ancient
and powerful deities of their religiou as a
great deliverer from war and famine— a a
powerful god in the form of a man. In every
household, school, and temple his name will
bo thus commemorated. The remembrance
of millions of people secures his immortal
ity.’’
Earthquakes in Asia. —By the way of
China, an account has been reoeived of a
terrible earthquake whioh ocourred on the
11th of April at Batang, on the oonfiues of
Thibet, China and Burmah, affeotingan area
of one hundred and eighty by ninety miles.
The account comes from the Human Catho
lic Bishop. A shock at sin the morning
and a stronger shook at noon were followed
at sunset by an earthquake which levelled
the whole town and killed or bruised half
the population. The missionaries esoaped
to their garden, and only one of their ser
vants perished. The “large and splendid”
Lama-serai, inhabited by three thou-and La
mas, fell with a crash. The Chinese official
reports estimate the loss of human life at
413 Lama priests, 67 soldiers and 2,812
.“common people.” A series of earthquake
shocks were felt as far as Pung mon-tung.
The village and many others are destroyed,
and so many of the authorities and the sol
diers have been buried under the ruins of
their houses, that “robbers, like wild beasts,
run every where. ” The Bishop says: “Trie
imperial highway from Pekin to Lhassa
seems, and is said to be now, totally imprac
ticable near Kong-dze-tin by the fail of a
mountain and the sudden upheaving of »
new one.”
The Whitefield Centennial —A large
congregation of clergymen and others of
various denominations gathered on 30th
September in the old South, or First Pres
byterian Church, Newburyport, M ss , to
commemorate the centennial anniversary of
the death of George Whitefield. It was just
one hundred years since he died at the house
of Kev. Jonathan Parsons, the first pastor
of that Church, and was buried by his own
request under its pulpit. The Church,
originally Congregational, was composed at
first of twelve families. It was the fruit of
Whitefield’s preaching. The edifioe, a very
spacious one, was erected in 1756, aud in it
gathered immense congregations to listeu
to the eloquent evangelist. Whitefleld was
to preach in it on the day of his death On
the previous day, September 29, 1770, ha
preached to several thousand persons in the
open field in Exeter, N. H. His sermon,
nearly two hours’ long, greatly exhausted
him. At its close, he rode home with Mr.
Parsons to Newburyport, hoping to fill the
pulpit of the latter on the following day,
Sabbath. At 6 o’clock in the morning the
Master called the eloquent itinerant from
labor to reward.
Ritualism Culminating. —An exchange
says, under this heading, that a missionary
oliapel in New York, known as Saint S tora
ment, “is already eclipsing its older and
more pretentious rivals by its extreme em
bodiment of the Catholic ritual under the
name of Episcopacy, and in the use of tho
English instead of the Latin tongue. Pro
cessions, recessions, genuflections, crosses,
intonations, and other peculiarities of ritu
alism are seen from Sunday to Sunday. The
Elevation of the Host, daily communion,
six or seven Masses on the Lord’s day, mark
the service. Crowds throng around the
stairway unable to enter. The novelty of
this nonsense and the curiosity of the crowd
do much to explain the apparent interest,
without doubt; but the disposition to exult
ceremony above self-sacrifice, to substitute
surface sentiment for sacred service, and to
find some say to heaven that escapes tho
cross, is at the bottom of much of this glo
rification of rites at the expense of heart
life.”
Hiqh Church Episcopalianism. —The
Christian Era publishes the following sum
mary of a sermon preached by Bishop Doane
at the consecration of Eev. Dr. Niles, as
Bishop of New Hampshire : “He defined
the church as being totally distinct from the
Homan Catholio on the one hand, and from
the Protestant sects on the other, having
little or no sympathy with either, and being
the only true ohuroh of Christ, its clergy the
only authorized interpreters and dispensers
of the gospel with its covenants and sacra
ments. He maintained the real presence of
the body and blood of our Saviour in the
eucharist after its consecration. He spoke
of a confessional as being not necessary for
all, but desirable for some ; and claimed for
the clergy the power to remit Bins. He de
fined baptism as not a mere symbol, but a
rite having regenerative power.”
Pray in Your Family.— Says Rev. Nor
man Macleod : “I shall never forget the im
pression made upon me during the flist year
of my ministry by a mechanic whom I had
visited, aud on whom I urged the paramount
duty of family prayer. One day he entered
my study bursting into tears as he said,
“You remember that girl, sir; she whs
my only child. She died suddenly this
morning ; she has gone, I hope, to Gud.
But if so, she can tell him, what nosv breaks
my heart—that she never heard a prayer in
her father's house or from her father’s lips !
O, that she were with me but for one day
again !”
Hedgehog Headers. —The way in whic h
many teachers read their Bibles is just like
the way that the oH monks thought hedge
hogs ate grapes. They rolled themselves
over and over, where the grapes lay on the
ground. What frnit stuck to their spines
they carried off and ate. So your hedgehog
readers roll themselves over and over their
Bibles, and declare that whatever sticks to
their own spines is Scripture, and that noth
ing else is. But you can only get the skins
of the text that way. If you want their
juices, you must press them in cluster.—
Etakin.