Review and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 53. (12/31/1908)

Review and Herald

Dec 31, 1908

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Dec 31, 1908

A New-Year's Hymn

By Thomas H. Gill

BREAK, new-born year, on glad eyes break! Melodious voices move! On, rolling Time! thou canst not make The Father cease to love.

The parted year had wingèd feet; The Saviour still doth stay: The new year comes; but, Spirit sweet, Thou goest not away.

Our hearts in tears may oft run o'er, But, Lord, thy smile still beams; Our sins are swelling evermore, But pardoning grace still streams.

Lord, from this year more service win, More glory, more delight! O make its hours less sad with sin, Its days with thee more bright!

— Thomas H. Gill.

The New CHRIST IN SONG

For the Church Service, the Sabbath-School, the Missionary Volunteer Meeting

THE new edition of "Christ in Song" contains nearly one thousand choice hymns and gospel songs, besides a number of Scripture readings appropriate for opening services. This collection includes over three hundred new selections, besides all the old favorites. The best productions of over five hundred authors and composers give to the possessor of "Christ in Song" the most complete collection of gospel songs published.

For the Church Service

Small companies sometimes desire to use the same book for both Sabbath-school and church service. "Christ in Song" will fully meet this need. To those acquainted with sacred music the names of Lowell Mason, W. B. Bradbury, Fannie Crosby, and Dr. W. H. Doane are very familiar. Each of these authors is well represented in this book. There are over thirty of Fannie Crosby's best hymns, thirty by W. B. Bradbury, forty by Lowell Mason, and twenty-seven by Dr. Doane, besides many of the best compositions of such popular song-writers as Sankey, Sweney, Stebbins, and Kirkpatrick.

For the Sabbath-School

No better song-book could be published for the Sabbath-school than "Christ in Song." There are spiritual, inspiring, and soul-winning songs for the children, the youth, and the older members. The use of this collection will make the exercises doubly interesting. Never before has a Sabbath-school had such a variety of songs from which to choose.

For the Missionary Volunteers

Every Missionary Volunteer society will welcome the new "Christ in Song;" for it contains the most stirring of gospel music. New life will be brought into the meetings by the use of such songs as "Higher Ground," "More About Jesus," "Face to Face," "Saved by Grace," and "Power in the Blood." We believe the march-song entitled, "Who Will Volunteer?" is destined to become the rally song of the Missionary Volunteer societies, as it has a swing that is sure to make it popular.

Prices

The complete book has 576 pages, 160 more than there were in the old edition; but even with the addition of all this new music, we are able to send the book, post-paid, at the following prices:— Flexible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ .45 Cloth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Half morocco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00

Selections from "Christ in Song"

"The Selections" from the new edition of "Christ in Song" contains 128 pages of carefully selected songs for use in public meetings and all kinds of gospel services where a good but inexpensive song-book is desired in large quantities.

The first edition of this book contained only 96 pages, and did not give enough variety of music to be satisfactory. In this edition we have added 32 pages, making in all 128 pages. The old price is still retained—15 cents.

REVIEW AND HERALD PUBLISHING ASSN.

New York City WASHINGTON, D. C. South Bend, Ind. PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING COMPANY Mountain View, Cal. Portland, Ore. Kansas City, Mo. Regina, Sask. SOUTHERN PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION Nashville, Tenn. Fort Worth, Tex. Hickory, N. C.

Editorial

By Editor

The weakness of New-year resolutions is proverbial, and yet every impulse toward a higher and better life ought to be cherished. The determination to conquer evil may be realized by adopting the motto of a successful fighter of old: “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” When the will is placed on the side of God’s will, and is brought into line with his purpose, the human agent is linked with victorious power, and resolutions may result in achievement, instead of being mere words which die with the speaking. “This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith,” that faith which unites human weakness with divine power. “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

The Federal Council of Churches

The report of the committee on Sunday observance was rendered by the chairman, Dr. F. D. Power, of Washington, D. C. It first recorded “great concern” at the tendency toward laxness in the observance of the first day of the week, and then gratification “at the action of Congress forbidding the opening of the doors of the Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition on Sunday, and at the President’s order that Sunday work in the departments of the government must be restricted to ‘that which is of an emergency character, or which is recognized as being absolutely necessary to the public interest and welfare,’ and the closing of the gates of the League Island Naval Station to the public on Sunday.” It also expressed gratitude to the American Federation of Labor and to the National Drugs Association for actions in favor of Sunday observance.

Apparently feeling the need of giving some interpretation to the fourth commandment which would warrant any reference to it as authority for the observance of the first day of the week contrary to the express declaration of the commandment, the committee made a statement which clearly substitutes the tradition of men for the commandment of God. We quote:—

The first principle involved is the consecration of one seventh of our time to God. We have no objection to reading the commandment: “Remember that you keep holy one day in seven. Consecrate this day unto the Lord as the Lord’s. Let it be unlike other days. Sanctify it.”

Having thus interpreted the commandment in such a way as to make possible an appearance of observing it on the part of those who really disregard it, the committee proceeded to quote Blackstone, who lived and wrote under the church-and-state régime, in order to justify the enforcement of the observance of a day not specified in the original commandment. The great commentator on English law said:—

The keeping of one day in seven as a time of relaxation and refreshment, as well as of public worship, is of admirable service to the state, considered merely as a civil institution.

After citing general reasons for the observance of one day in seven, and either directly asserting or constantly implying that that one day in seven must be Sunday, the report of the committee closed with this paragraph:—

We believe that in every community lovers of the Lord’s day should stand together against the inroads of its enemies. The introduction by immigrants of the Continental conceptions of Sunday; the organization of secular unions and liberty leagues for its destruction; the saloon with its lawlessness; the indifference, neglect, and even open violation on the part of many church people, and determined resistance to Sunday regulations on the part of mistaken religionists, must be met. Nothing less than physical and spiritual health, family and Christian life, national prosperity, and the advancement of the kingdom of God call for such federation of the forces of righteousness to hold this Christian institution inviolate. The Lord’s day is the day of days.

The resolutions submitted by the committee as amended and adopted by the council read as follows:—

It is the sense of the council that a new and stronger emphasis should be given in the pulpit, the Sunday-school, and the home to the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day, the home day, the rest day, for every man, woman, and child.

That all encroachments upon the claims and sanctities of the Lord’s day should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord’s Day Associations and Alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity.

That we rejoice in the prospect of unity of action among the various organizations striving in America for the preservation of the Lord’s day as a day for rest and worship.

During the discussion of this report, the following resolution was introduced by one of the delegates:—

Resolved, That it is not our intention that anything shall be done to interfere with the convictions of those brethren represented with us in this council who conscientiously observe the seventh instead of the first day of the week as a day for rest and worship.

The introduction of this resolution stirred the council as nothing had previously done during the entire meeting. A number of delegates were on their feet at once, demanding recognition from the chair, and the discussion was most spirited. One delegate said:—

Some people do not believe in the Lord’s day, but some other day as the Sabbath. If we do not take a stand upon which day we believe we should observe as a day set apart for the worship of God, and for rest, this will give a wrong impression to the people. Is it the Lord’s day or some other day that we are standing for? If it is the Lord’s day, we should take the resolution by the committee, and nothing more, and I trust that the resolution as proposed will not be accepted. We believe in the Lord’s day, and must stand for it.

In support of the resolution, Dr. Wayland Hoyt (Baptist), of New York, said:—

I hope that this resolution as presented will pass. Let us remember that the brethren of the Seventh-day Baptist denomination are members of this council. If we are going to observe brotherhood and Christian love, we are not going to clash because of the religious and conscientious convictions of brethren associated with us in this council of churches. These brethren (I do not myself sympathize with them in their belief) I respect for their convictions, I respect them for the fact that they are

willing to sacrifice, I respect them for their willingness to stand firm and true to what they believe. While I fully sympathize with the spirit of the resolution already submitted, it does seem to me that we ought never in this council of churches to adopt such a statement as shall even seem to conflict, without due explanation, and I fully believe that our brethren are equally united in this.

This federation of churches will be more and more acknowledged throughout the churches, and it is absolutely necessary that we be thoroughly fair with one another, that we be thoroughly brotherly with each other in all our relations.

I believe that God looks smilingly upon this desire to be absolutely fair and just and brotherly to all represented in this federation of churches. I earnestly hope that this resolution will pass.

At this juncture, Dr. Arthur E. Main, professor of theology in Alfred Theological Seminary, Alfred, N. Y., one of the delegates from the Seventh-day Baptist denomination, made an earnest appeal to the council. He spoke with much fervor:—

We know that we represent the smallest body in this council, and on that account we recognize with gratitude your recognition of us, and your invitation to unite with you, as being evangelical and Christian, believing in God the Father, in Jesus Christ his Son, our Saviour, and having no other hope of salvation except through his atonement. In this, you recognize us as standing together with you in the fundamental principles of salvation. We believe with you in the death and resurrection of Christ, and we have heard with delight the pleas made from the platform for religious liberty.

Shall it be in this council, which has heard these grand pleas made, that the essence of all true liberty is in the practise of the principles of Christianity? Shall it be in this city, where the Continental Congress met, and where a Seventh-day Baptist presided? It was at this Congress that he took an active part, and he would have been one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but two months before he was taken ill and died. Shall it be in this council, composed of professed brethren, that we (I dare say it) take an active part? Shall it be that this council refuses to say that we shall not be interfered with in the exercise of our religious convictions when we have stood with you in all these things?

I believe that it is our duty to stand shoulder to shoulder. This council is not a council of America, but of the churches of America. Let our answer be a federated union in the belief of the principles of Christ, and the world’s Redeemer. Let it be the voice of this council that the eighteen million communicants shall keep step, and the time will come when the forces of sin and Satan will be thwarted and vanquished. And it is the power of the church united that is to break down the power of sin and Satan.

I say again, shall we be divided because of the conscientious convictions of those who believe that the seventh day rather than the first day of the week shall be observed by them as a day of rest and worship, or shall we all be united in the Saviour of the world?

In the face of the pleas for fairness and for consideration of the conscientious convictions of others made by Dr. Hoyt and Dr. Main, the protests against the passage of the resolution continued. One delegate declared:—

The question is whether this council will step back and leave that first day of the week without its due recognition from us as a body? I believe in some sabbath day, and this is the only sabbath day we will be able to get in this country in one hundred fifty years. We are confronted with a condition—not a theory.

There was a call made for the rereading of the resolution before the council, after which another delegate took the floor, and opposed the resolution in these words:—

We are not desiring to interfere with the convictions of any one, but that is not all that is embodied in the resolution. We must remember that with the brethren who have come to sit with us, there are others who hold hostile relations to us and to the principles we believe to be right. There are those who are indifferent, but I say again, there are those who are not only indifferent, but hostile. If we were to accept the resolution, that gives the impression that we acknowledge that there is another day than the first day of the week which is the Lord’s day, the Sabbath, a day of rest and for the worship of God, I say that there are those who will take advantage of any such admission on our part. The Jews will feel a little stronger assurance in their belief. They will say that we acknowledge that there is another day than the first day of the week which is the Lord’s day.

The Seventh-day Adventists will take heart in their antagonism to many of the things which we hold sacred, in addition to their assaults upon the first day of the week as a day for rest and worship.

It is not only a question which concerns these brethren who have united with us in this council, and who have taken a part in our actions, but it is against the forces which are seeking to destroy that day we observe as the Christian sabbath, the Lord’s day, that day we observe as a day of rest and worship.

This resolution should be left alone; it should not come before us. We must take a stand as a body united in the belief that the Lord’s day is a day of rest and worship. Thus we can take our stand before the world. Let us enter into no controversy; let us as a body stand united in the conviction, and therefore not accept the resolution.

During the progress of the discussion, Bishop Thomas B. Neely (Methodist), in opposing the resolution, made these significant utterances:—

We must decide on one day as a sabbath, or the whole purpose goes for naught. If we make a formal consent to another day, how can we hope to bring about proper observance of the first day of the week in our mission fields, and in places where there is little disposition to observe it in our own country?

The proposed amendment of the report was then rejected by a decisive vote, and when the result was announced, the majority gave expression to their feelings of satisfaction by vigorous applause.

The great significance of this action of the federal council in the matter of Sunday observance should not be overlooked. In one of the opening sessions of the council, attention was called to the fact that while the early councils of the church met to decide doctrinal questions, and to establish dogmas, this council was convened for no such purpose, but merely to unite the different denominations in friendly co-operation in actual work. In harmony with this idea, an evident effort was made throughout the meeting of the council to avoid all doctrinal discussion, and yet in their attempt to deal with the question of Sunday observance, although theoretically interpreting the fourth commandment to refer simply to one day in seven, they authoritatively decided by an overwhelming majority that they would recognize no other day as the Sabbath than the first day of the week, and “that all encroachments upon the claims and sanctities of the Lord’s day [now officially defined to be Sunday] should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord’s Day Associations and Alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity.”

Thus the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America has placed itself on record as rejecting the seventh-day Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment, and substituting in its place the first day of the week, and has declared in favor of enforcing the observance of this man-made institution by securing legislation in its favor. The significance of this action, and the results which are likely to flow from it, will be considered in another article.

After the Earthquake

By W. G. KNEELAND

A New-Year Appeal

[The Mission Board calls special attention to the following appeal from the president of the Jamaica Conference. Such appeals for local needs are rarely made; for if all local enterprises in the mission fields were listed, the calls would be confusing, and the most important thing of all, the general fund for aggressive work, would suffer. But the great Kingston earthquake was no ordinary calamity. Our Jamaica brethren have struggled manfully to meet the situation that followed, but must have help. Many lost their own homes. All have worked and sacrificed to see their church building raised up as a witness to the truth in Kingston. Will not many join them in a New-year's gift, and make up the six hundred dollars called for from the States? Send gifts to your conference office, marked Kingston Earthquake fund, or to I. H. Evans, Takoma Park,

Washington, D. C. Some one with a hundred-dollar gift may be waiting for just such a call. If the fund should overflow, it will help other Jamaica churches, where over thirty houses of worship are awaiting completion. In that island the believers—men, women, and children—gather and carry materials and toil for years, getting up the little white chapels in mountains and valleys. The help from this side will be appreciated. Read the appeal, and respond as you may be led.—W. A. SPICER, Secretary Mission Board.]

We read that if “one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.” 1 Cor. 12:26.

Your brethren in Jamaica take this opportunity to call your attention to conditions here. You will remember the earthquake that visited Kingston, Jan. 14, 1907, when our first union conference meeting was in session. Our church in Kingston was destroyed, and several in other places were damaged. A more suitable location in Kingston was secured, and we began at once to build. Our people, in spite of their poverty, and their heavy losses in the earthquake, a hurricane, and two severe droughts that caused great suffering throughout the island, sacrificed nobly to assist the work. The citizens of Kingston and many friends in the States responded liberally during 1907. Elder D. E. Wellman gave up a well-earned and much-needed furlough in America that he might repair the faulty construction and complete the building.

The general poverty of our people, together with the fact that about thirty other church buildings were in process of erection or undergoing repairs from the effects of the hurricane and earthquake, has prevented our meeting the obligation on the Kingston building as we should. Last spring we presented the situation to the General Conference Council, and they advised us to complete the building, and authorized a call for help to the amount of six hundred dollars in addition to what we had already received.

Our total indebtedness at the present time is about twelve hundred fifty dollars. The most of our obligations have been due nearly a year, and our creditors are urging a settlement. All our efforts are directed to reducing the debt as fast as possible. Our church-school has been discontinued, owing to our straitened circumstances. Unless the promised help can be given us, it will take about three years more to pay off the debt at the rate we are now able to raise money. It will also involve the holding back of other unfinished buildings, and the development of our church-schools for our four hundred children in the conference, to say nothing of hindering the efforts to reach unworked territory.

For these reasons we are appealing to all our people, who have their houses of worship, to give a thank-offering to God, who has spared them from the trying experiences we have had in the hurricane, earthquake, and drought of the past few years. Thanking you for the liberality of the past, and for what we still hope to receive to enable us to do our part promptly in heralding the message of truth to all the islands of the sea, I remain;

W. G. KNEELAND, Pres. Jamaica Conference.

The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America

By C. M. S.

Religious Persecution Revived in This Country

It has always been true that as the church has gained in political influence and power, she has lost in true spiritual growth and in a true appreciation of the sacred rights of conscience. The early church was a power for good when earthly rulers were against her, and the wild beasts of the arena were slaying her adherents to “make a Roman holiday.” Under such circumstances she battered down the strongest walls of heathenism, and made conquests in the very households of pagan emperors. But when she yielded to the temptation of political influence and power, she lost her sense of the sacredness of her mission and the sanctity of the right of individual choice in religious things, and turned the great machinery of her organization against as true-hearted Christians as ever lived—to scourge and to rack, to brand and to burn, to wear out by every conceivable means every man and woman within the grasp of her long arms, who would not permit that power-loving church to take the place of God in the sanctuary of the soul. And that work went on until that period of the church’s history became synonymous with everything that is cruel and oppressive.

The church of the Reformation illustrated the same tendency when it had obtained commanding influence; and men and women went to their death for no other crime than exercising the rights of conscience in the realm of religion.

The church of colonial days was no whit behind the church of Luther, Calvin, and Henry VIII in forcing the consciences of men into the mold of an established creed; and she kept it up as long as she was permitted to hold and to wield the sword of temporal power.

The church of our day has shown itself a close follower of its predecessors in this particular wherever the civil power has pandered to its demands and put the power of law behind an ordinance of the church. In every epoch of the church’s history since her love of power led her into that first great apostasy, there has been a company of people who have stood stoutly against that prostitution of the church’s high function. That company, in each epoch, has been in the minority, and for taking the stand it did, has suffered fines, imprisonment, and death. Savonarola was but a prototype of the millions who went to the gibbet or the stake in the Dark Ages for independence in matters of belief. Michael Servetus will stand as a type of those whose lives were snuffed out in Reformation times for following their own conscience in matters of faith, when the church of that day had eaten the forbidden fruit of political influence and temporal power. The church of colonial days is not without its martyrs, of whom Mary Dyer and William Leddra are types of those who paid the death penalty for conscience’ sake, even as Anne Coleman and Roger Williams are types of those who suffered scourging and exile for the same cause.

As every fruit comes true to the seed planted, we need not expect that the history of our own day contains no records of religious intolerance and the fruits thereof. In all ages of the world God has had his witnesses; and no matter how intolerant the times, they have borne faithful witness, stood stoutly for the truth, and paid whatever penalty the oppressive power demanded. The forerunner of our Lord was not exempt from the penalty that so often follows the giving of a straight testimony for the truth. The blood that flowed from the thorn wounds in our Saviour’s head, from the nail wounds and the spear thrust, bears its testimony also to the iniquity of religious intolerance. That divine sacrifice on Calvary ought to have taught the whole world—and certainly the whole Christian world—the lesson of religious liberty. How slowly we learn! While the Christian world to-day is celebrating the birth of our Saviour, laws are being made or executed designed to bind and oppress the consciences of those for whom that same sacrifice was made. While celebrating his resurrection from the dead, they strike hands with those who slew him, by bringing oppression upon those who follow him.

There is to-day, in this country, no law against those beliefs and practises for which Lutherans, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and Quakers have suffered in the past. All that they stood for is now permitted in all parts of Christendom, without let or hindrance; and even the union of church and state, which made their oppressions possible, has been theoretically dissolved in this country. Along what line, then, can a power-blinded church practise her intolerance to-day? There is one road still open to the goal of religious persecution, and upon that she has entered. All along the history of the true followers of Christ, we find them suffering for some practise plainly taught in the Word, but not yet incorporated into the creed of the dominant church organization.

So it is to-day. The greater church organizations of the present time are unitedly importuning the state to put its

force behind an ordinance of the church, unrecognized in the Bible, that that ordinance, or practise, may be enforced upon all the people, and that, too, in spite of the fact that many conscientious Christians can not yield to it without violating conscience. That ordinance which the larger church organizations desire to have enforced upon all by legislative enactment and courts of law is the Sunday sabbath. Instituted by no divine authority, energized by no divine command, the ecclesiastical combination finds that institution a difficult one to enforce, even upon the congregations which the combination represents. A sabbath denuded of divine sanction, and of divine command for its sacred observance, turns to the state for that sanction and support which Heaven has denied it. Its adherents feel that they must do this or see the institution perish. To clothe the institution with a semblance of sacredness, the fourth command of the decalogue is misinterpreted to teach merely that one day in seven is sacred time. Then Sunday is arbitrarily declared to be the Lord’s day, and that one-day-in-seven indefinite sacredness is made to apply only to the definite day, Sunday. Behind such a cheval-de-frise do the promoters of Sunday enforcement entrench themselves when called in question for overriding the consciences of fellow Christians who prefer to observe the Sabbath of Jehovah, in accordance with the divine command and the divine example. Behind that entrenchment the mightiest combination of religious forces the world has ever witnessed is now being marshaled. The one point of agreement is the necessity of enforcing the Sunday institution upon the people. For that object the National Reform Association and its allies, the American Sabbath Union, the Lord’s Day Alliance of Canada, the Lord’s Day Alliance of the United States, the Federal Council of Churches, numerous State organizations, the great American Federation of Catholic Societies, and the American Federation of Labor are now directing their great energies.

Will there be no persecution when this combination has achieved its object? Is America too liberal to-day, and too enlightened, and too Christian to fine and imprison and otherwise persecute men and women for conscience’ sake? Let us see what has been done in this line already, even before these great organizations had bent their energies to a common focus. Between the years 1885 and 1896 more than one hundred observers of the seventh day of the week in this country were arrested, and either fined or imprisoned, for the performance of the most common and unobtrusive labor of the farm and home. These God-fearing, Christian men, and most of them poor men, were mulcted of $2,269.69 for fines, and compelled to serve 1,438 days in prison. Of this time 445 days were spent in the chain-gang. Since that time there have been other arrests, but definite information as to the exact number is not at hand. The States in which these arrests occurred are Alabama, California, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas. That the prosecution of these Christian men was not in the nature of the ordinary enforcement of law was abundantly shown at the trials. In many cases the men who brought the indictment had labored on the same day upon which they accused the defendant of having labored, in fact, were themselves working at the time they saw him at work. That they were Christian men, law-abiding, and exemplary in all their relations with their fellow men, even their accusers could not deny. For instance, an observer of the seventh day, a minister of the gospel, J. W. Scoles, was arrested in the town of Springdale, Ark., in 1885, tried, and convicted, for painting on a meeting-house,—Sunday work that could in no possible way have disturbed any one in the observance of Sunday. His case was appealed to the supreme court of the State, and went against him. His indictment, as well as the indictments of five others, was obtained in this manner: J. A. Armstrong, of Springdale, was called before the grand jury and asked if he knew of any violations of the Sunday law. He testified that he did.

Grand Jury.—“Who are they?” Armstrong.—“The Frisco Railroad is running trains every Sunday.” G. J.—“Do you know of any others?” A.—“Yes; the hotels of this place are open, and do a full run of business on Sunday, as on other days.” G. J.—“Do you know of any others?” A.—“Yes, sir; the drug-stores and barber shops all keep open, and do business every Sunday.” G. J.—“Do you know of any others?” A.—“Yes; the livery stables do more business on Sunday than on any other day of the week.”

So the record goes on, the grand jury asking for others, and Mr. Armstrong giving similar information; but the grand jury was not satisfied. It knew all this before, and did not consider the “peace and dignity of the State” threatened thereby; but there was one class of people whose violation of the State Sunday law it could not brook, a class of the most inoffensive and conscientious citizens of the State, a religious people, whose offense consisted not so much in working on Sunday, along with their neighbors, as in refraining from work and attending divine worship on the seventh day of the week. This was shown by the following question of the grand jury, and by the indictments following the answer, the indictments being issued against seventh-day observers only:—

Grand Jury.—“Do you know of any Seventh-day Adventists who ever work on Sunday?” Armstrong.—“Yes, sir.”

Mr. Armstrong was then compelled to give the names of five of his brethren whom he knew to have worked on Sunday, and all five, with himself, were at once indicted, and none of the other violators of the Sunday law were molested by the grand jury. Some of these Christian men paid their fines and trial costs, others went to prison. Some who were not able to pay had their meager possessions levied on and sold at sheriff’s sale. The same experience has been met by these people in other States, notably in Tennessee, Maryland, and Georgia, and the vast combination above referred to is seeking by every possible means to duplicate those conditions in every State of the Union, and put under general indictment that class of Christians whose only offense is the religious basis on which their conduct rests. Again and again has it been demonstrated that men who had worked on Sunday without let or hindrance while professing no religion, or while belonging to some Sunday-keeping church, were quickly arrested when it became known that their Saturday rest and Sunday work were a matter of religious conviction.

The great principle of religious liberty, lauded to the skies by Americans, is being trodden in the dust to-day by an organized movement, in order that a man-made sabbath may be exalted above the Sabbath of Jehovah in the hearts of the people.

The next article will show how the great Catholic organization is relating itself toward this movement against the Constitution of the country and the religious liberties of the people.

C. M. S.

Finishing the Thanksgiving Ingathering Work

By A. G. Daniells

THERE are two important items in the Thanksgiving Ingathering movement that should not be overlooked. First, all the money collected should be sent to the fields for which it has been given, just as promptly as possible. Each brother or sister who has any contributions on hand should at once pass these to the church or conference treasurer. Then, all treasurers of churches and conferences should promptly send what comes to them to the general treasurer. It is hoped that none will be negligent on this point. All that has been gathered can reach the general treasury by the tenth of January, if all will act promptly.

The other item that should receive attention

is the matter of seeing that all the copies of the Thanksgiving number of the REVIEW are distributed. None of these copies should be allowed to lie on the shelves in either our homes or churches. They can do no good there. They have been printed at great cost of time, effort, and money, and every person to whom they have been sent should be faithful and conscientious in seeing that they are placed in the hands of the people. We hope that all church officers will give attention to this.

This good missionary number of the REVIEW is not out of date now, and will not be for weeks. It can be distributed now as well as during Thanksgiving week, and gifts can be solicited. But even if no gifts are asked for, all the copies printed should be faithfully distributed.

Many inquiries are being made regarding the amount received from this effort. It is impossible at this date to tell. We shall notify our people through the REVIEW, and other papers, just as soon as we have received fairly complete returns. From the reports received thus far, we find that our experiences were exceedingly varied. Some collected very little, while others had excellent success. But the success of the movement does not depend chiefly on the amount of the gifts received. The circulation of seven hundred thousand copies of that good number of the REVIEW will give the public a knowledge of the growth of this cause, which will be worth more than all the effort and sacrifice required to do the work. May the Lord add his blessing to what has been done.

A. G. DANIELLS.

Note and Comment

The Theater Indicted

A QUARTER of a century ago there were comparatively few members of the church who would defend the theater, or who regarded attendance at play-houses as consistent with the profession of a Christian. In recent years, however, there has been a marked change in this respect, until now it is probable that the majority of those whose names are on the church-books attend the theater more or less regularly. The claim is made that the theater has become moral, and that it is now an ally, rather than an enemy, of the church. One man who had always “opposed the theater as an institution” yielded to the arguments in favor of its present uplifting influence, and went to witness what were recommended as high-class plays. After a varied experience, during which he had many moments when he “abhorred the whole thing,” he attended a well-recommended play which he declared was simply “abominable, low, suggestive, immoral, and highly inexcusable.” This brought him to his senses, and to his old ground of opposition to the theater. His testimony is of value:—

As a whole, the theater is bad, bad, bad, through and through, and I believe, is growing worse. The perfectly good plays are very few, and can not save the wreck. The influences of stage life upon those employed are very dreadful, and I fear that very many, if not most of such, are sooner or later corrupted. One of the fearful dangers is to my mind the ease and complacency with which good people can learn to tolerate grievous departures from a New Testament standard of morality. The tendency is for the moral sense to become perverted, blinded. “For art’s sake,” positively repulsive immorality is quietly ignored. It is a strange and sad sight, far too common, to see cultivated and intelligent people sit calmly through performances that ought to shock the moral sense of their inmost soul. No, the church must let the theater alone. Christians must come out from it, and be separate, and touch not the unclean thing.

It is one of the marked evidences of the decadence of piety that so many professed followers of Christ can be habitual attendants at theatrical performances where the principles laid down by Christ are not only ignored, but are openly trampled upon. The theater is far from being an aid to any one in the battle against sin, and in the development of Christian character.

Continue reading: A Startling Comparison