Review and Herald, Vol. 49, No. 25. (6/21/1877)

Review and Herald

Jun 21, 1877

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 21, 1877

CHRIST AN EDUCATOR.

By Ellen G. White

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

The human mind is susceptible of the highest cultivation. A life devoted to God should not be a life of ignorance. Many speak against education because Jesus chose uneducated fishermen to preach his gospel. They assert that he showed preference for the uneducated. Many learned and honorable men believed his teaching. Had these fearlessly obeyed the convictions of their consciences, they would have followed him. Their abilities would have been accepted, and employed in the service of Christ, had they offered them. But they had not moral power, in face of the frowning priests and jealous rulers, to confess Christ, and venture their reputation in connection with the humble Galilean.

He who knew the hearts of all, understood this. If the educated and noble would not do the work they were qualified to do, Christ would select men who would be obedient and faithful in doing his will. He chose humble men and connected them with himself, that he might educate them to carry forward the great work on earth when he should leave it.

Christ was the light of the world. He was the fountain of all knowledge. He was able to qualify the unlearned fishermen to receive the high commission he would give them. The lessons of truth given these lowly men were of mighty significance. They were to move the world. It seemed but a simple thing for Jesus to connect these humble persons with himself; but it was an event productive of tremendous results. Their words and their works were to revolutionize the world.

Jesus did not despise education. The highest culture of the mind, if sanctified through the love and the fear of God, receives his fullest approval. The humble men chosen by Christ were with him three years, subject to the refining influence of the Majesty of Heaven. Christ was the greatest educator the world ever knew.

God will accept the youth with their talent, and their wealth of affection, if they will consecrate themselves to him. They may reach to the highest point of intellectual greatness; and if balanced by religious principle they can carry forward the work which Christ came from Heaven to accomplish, and in thus doing be co-workers with the Master.

The students at our College have valuable privileges, not only of obtaining a knowledge of the sciences, but also of learning how to cultivate and practice virtues which will give them symmetrical characters. They are God's responsible moral agents. The talents of wealth, station, and intellect, are given of God in trust to man for his wise improvement. These varied trusts he has distributed proportionately to the known powers and capacities of his servants, to every one his work.

The Giver expects returns corresponding to the gifts. The humblest gift is not to be despised or left inactive. The little rivulet does not say, I will not flow along my narrow channel because I am not a mighty river. The spires of grass do not refuse to grow because they are not forest trees. The lamp does not refuse to give its little light because it is not a star. The moon and stars do not refuse to shine because they have not the brilliant light of the sun. Every person has his own peculiar sphere and vocation. Those who make the most of their God-given opportunities will return to the Giver, in their improvement, an interest proportionate to the entrusted capital.

The Lord does not reward the great amount of labor. He does not regard the greatness of the work so much as the fidelity with which it is done. The good and faithful servants are rewarded. As we cultivate the powers God has given us here, we shall increase in knowledge and perception, and be enabled to comprehend and value the immortal life. Those who have abused their God-given privileges in this life, and have been content with their ignorance, having their minds completely occupied with subjects of trivial value to themselves or others, will not comprehend personal responsibility, subdue evil tendencies, and strengthen high resolves for a purer, higher, holier life.

The youth should be learners for the next world. Perseverance in the acquisition of knowledge, controlled by the fear and love of God, will give them an increased power for good in this life, and those who have made the most of their privileges to reach the highest attainments here, will take these valuable acquisitions with them into the future life. They have sought and obtained that which is imperishable. The capability to appreciate the glories that “eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,” will be proportionate to the attainments reached in the cultivation of the faculties in this life.

Those who will empty their hearts of vanity and rubbish, through the grace of God may purify the chambers of the mind, and make it a store-house of knowledge, purity, and truth. And it will be continually reaching beyond the narrow boundaries of worldly thought, into the vastness of the Infinite. The justice and mercy of God will be unfolded to the moral perceptions. The grievous character of sin, with its results, will be discerned. The character of God, his love manifested in giving his Son to die for the world, and the beauty of holiness, are exalted themes for contemplation. These will strengthen the intellect, and bring man into close communion with the Infinite One.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

By S. Brownsberger

DO S. D. ADVENTISTS HOLD LEARNING IN CONTEMPT!

Every effort is being made by this people to place their children under the most favorable circumstances for developing their minds and shielding them from the base influences so prevalent in our public schools. I have no hesitancy in venturing the assertion that, as a people, S. D. Adventists are behind no other denomination in their lively interest in, and high appreciation of, the value of education. Yet this interest is not understood by many of our friends of other religious bodies. Some regard it a great mystery that they should feel any concern about the education of their youth. When the editor of the St. Louis Democrat, a few years ago, first heard the click of the builder in hewing the stone for Battle Creek College, in an issue immediately following, we noticed this in substance:— “One of the latest marvels of the age is just now being developed at Battle Creek, Mich. The Adventists are building a college. Now we should like to know what Adventists want with a college. The dilemma thus forces itself upon our minds: If Adventists are so soon to withdraw from this terrestrial sphere, of what benefit will their college be to them? But if they do not expect to go, why in the name of reason are they establishing a school to propagate this dogma among young men? Who will answer first?”

Now I cannot say whether he ever received the desired information or not; if he did not, I am sure it was not on account of any difficulty involved in the answer; but it was probably thought he might understand the matter by making a little effort.

The fact is this: When the Lord shall appear, Adventists expect to leave their money here, and take their brains with them. For this reason, they value brain culture more than money. You see it becomes a simple matter of shrewd investment. Now on what ground this transaction can be involved in any mystery I cannot say, except it be this: Our friend of the Democrat was expecting the reverse, that they would take the money but leave the brains.

Prof. David Swing, in a recent sermon at Central Church, Chicago, said: “Second Adventism brings with it contempt for invention, industry, learning, and philosophy of all kinds, which would soon strand the ship of life; hence, if widely spread, it would become a great practical evil.” If there were not many individuals in the ranks of S. D. Adventists of whom the above is literally true, we might well look with pity and surprise upon the large number of this very class in the ranks of other denominations. To admit the existence of one such among S. D. Adventists is a humiliation.

But is it reasonable or even humane to indulge such unqualified assertions as the one quoted above? If the statement be based upon the fact that some Adventists are known to despise learning and philosophy, we reply that our nearest neighbors in the planetary system can with equal reason and truth assert that the inhabitants of the earth hold human life in contempt because cases of suicide have been known among them. Or if the view be based upon a theory of cause and effect, we can find no circumstances in the case from which such conclusions would receive the least support. But, on the contrary we find that which will utterly preclude the possibility of any such result.

We find in their faith the very ingredients that would tend to stimulate S. D. Adventists above all classes of religionists to throw their whole energies into the improvement and development of man in his relations to society, as well as to God, and as an individual. The measures of S. D. Adventists in educational interests are comprehensive and active, and when fully developed will prove to the world that they have been in earnest. They have willingly and gladly donated means to the amount of about seventy-five thousand dollars within the past two or three years for the establishment of a college, wherein are taught all the branches of the sciences, and languages, both ancient and modern, usually found in a college curriculum of study. The patronage of this institution in so short a time after its establishment is truly a wonder to the observer, and a source of congratulation to its founders and friends. No other denomination during the first twenty-five years of its existence will compare favorably with S. D. Adventists in the extent of their educational interest and enterprise. S. BROWNSBERGER.

WHAT NEXT?

By J. O. Corliss

A FRIEND of mine was talking the other day with a prominent minister on the perpetuity of God’s law through both dispensations, when the minister remarked that Christ at his death abolished the law, and the apostles afterward re-enacted it, with the exception of the fourth commandment. Said my friend, “How could a law be enacted, and become valid under the new covenant, after that covenant was ratified and sealed by the blood of Christ?” “Oh! easily enough,” said the minister, “from the fact that at the death of Christ it was not known just what man needed; and as it is God’s prerogative to change his law at will, he gave parts of the new law at different times, as it was needed, through his disciples.”

This position was so novel that I was at first amused. How extremely hopeless a cause must be to require its supporters to make such reckless statements, the transparency of which, instead of proving a support to their cherished theory, only betrays the desperation of those who advance them! Thought I, What next will antinomians produce in support of their theory?

It is an established rule that when a covenant has once been confirmed between parties, neither has authority to alter its conditions. Said the inspired apostle, when writing on the validity of the Abrahamic covenant, “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men. Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.” Gal. 3: 15. The new covenant was ratified by the death of Christ. After his blood was spilled, the covenant was in full force, and Jesus ascended to Heaven to be its mediator. Heb. 8: 1–6. From the moment of his death, then, no change could be admissible, either in the conditions or the ceremonies required in the new covenant. In fact, all conditions and ceremonies not established before the death of Christ, and sealed in the new covenant as a part of it by his blood, can never after be a part of that covenant.

But were all the ordinances of the gospel instituted before his death, and sealed in the new covenant by his blood? Yes. The law of God, too, was kept before his death, and Paul says it was not made void through faith, but established. Rom. 3: 31. But can you, says one, show where the fourth commandment was recognized after the death of Christ? Most certainly. Go to Luke’s testimony, and in speaking of the crucifixion day he says (chap. 23: 54-56), “And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on. And the women

returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.”

Now if that commandment was abolished the day before, at the death of Christ, it did not exist, and they could not keep the Sabbath according to a commandment that did not exist. To illustrate: A clause in the law of Virginia a few years ago required a man to be hanged for horse-stealing; but that law was abolished, and on a certain day it ceased to exist. Now, if on the next day they had hanged a man for stealing a horse, he would have been hanged, but not according to the law; for no such law existed. So in the above case of Sabbath-keeping. If the command for it had been abolished the day before, they could not have kept it according to the commandment. But they did keep it according to the commandment after the death of Christ. And if the fourth commandment existed in the new covenant one day after its ratification, it will always remain there as a safeguard to God’s holy day, the seventh day of the week. J. O. CORLISS.

OUR GOD AND GUIDE.

By Whittier

When the breath divine is flowing, Zephyr-like o'er all things going, And, like touch of viewless fingers, Softly on my soul it lingers, Open to a breath the lightest, Conscious of a touch the slightest,— As some calm, still lake, whereon Sinks the snowy-bosomed swan, And the glistening water-rings Circle round her moving wings: When my upward gaze is turning Where the stars of heaven are burning Through the deep and dark abyss,— Flowers of midnight's wilderness, Blowing with the evening's breath Sweetly in their Maker's path:

When the breaking day is flushing All the east, and light is gushing Upward through the horizon's haze, Sheaf-like, with its thousand rays, Spreading, until all above Overflows with joy and love, And below, on earth's green bosom, All is changed to light and blossom:

When my waking fancies o'er Forms of brightness flit and hover, Holy as the seraphs are, Who by Zion's fountains wear On their foreheads, white and broad, “Holiness unto the Lord!” When, inspired with rapture high, It would seem a single sigh Could a world of love create,— That my life could know no date, And my eager thoughts could fill Heaven and earth, o'erflowing still!—

Then, O Father! thou alone, From the shadow of thy throne, To the sighing of my breast And its rapture answerest. All my thoughts, which, upward winging, Bathe where thy own light is springing,— All my yearnings to be free Are as echoes answering thee.

Seldom upon lips of mine, Father, rests that name of thine,— Deep within my inmost breast, In the secret place of mind, Like an awful presence shrined, Doth the dread idea rest! Hushed and holy dwells it there,— Prompter of the silent prayer, Lifting up my spirit's eye And its faint, but earnest cry, From its dark and cold abode, Unto thee, my guide and God!

— Whittier.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

By G. V. Kilgore

We believe and teach that the mark of the beast, spoken of in Rev. 14:9, is the willful violation of the fourth commandment, in compliance with earthly rule. Any one can easily see, by reading verses 9 to 12, that the mark is something directly contrary to the commandments of God. But when we show that it has its place in the “very great things” spoken by the “man of sin,” the papal church; and then preach that it is nothing more nor less than the old festival of Sunday, which the pagans set apart to a false god, and which the Church of Rome commanded instead of the holy Sabbath of our God, we are met with what some seem to think serious objections. I never heard anybody try to offer scriptural objections; but the conclusion to which nearly all opposers come is, “If Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, then all Christians who have kept Sunday have been lost; and all the Christians who keep it now will share the same fate.” But none can be said to have the mark of the beast, until they do as the beast has done in regard to the fourth commandment.

That God has a sign in his law to show his authority, is very certain. Speaking of the Sabbath, in Ex. 31:17, he says, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever [that is, as long as God has an Israel]; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” In the fourth commandment he gives the same reason: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Thus we see the Sabbath is the sign of God’s almighty power: it is the seal of his law. In that law, God has written his name, not in a form that can be applied to heathen gods, but in such a form that none can mistake the author; and besides his name, he has placed his Sabbath there, to be a sign (or seal, which is the same, Rom. 4:11) in his unchangeable law. In Eze. 20:12, he says he gave the Sabbath to be a sign that his people might know that he is the God that sanctifies them. And what would God’s law be worth without his name and seal? It would be like the laws of any governor, who neglected to affix the seal to his edicts: it would be of no force, for we should not know who commanded it. But God made no such mistake. He placed both his name (the Lord that made all things) and his seal (the Sabbath that he set apart at creation) in his law—both in the fourth commandment.

Now what power has a right to change that law or alter that sign? No power but God himself. Have we any record in the Bible of his making any alteration? None at all; but he does say, “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.” No power has ever claimed to change any part of God’s ten commands, except the Roman power. The Church of Rome says she changed the fourth commandment by “changing the Sabbath into Sunday”; and she declares that that “very act” shows her power to command other institutions. See the “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” a Catholic work.

That this beast of Rev. 14:9 is Papal Rome, all Protestants will admit. And as the mark of that power is directly contrary to the commandments of God, it is natural to conclude that that institution which Papal Rome commanded instead of God’s sign, is the sign (or mark) of the beast. And how certain it is, when that power claims “the very act of changing the Sabbath [God’s sign] into Sunday, which Protestants allow of,” as the sign of their authority! They have torn out God’s signature, and inserted one of their own.

If all Christians had known this, and still willfully disregarded the Lord’s holy day, and offered to him the first day, which he never sanctioned, but which the Church of Rome appointed, then they would have been sinners before God; but they did not know what Rome had done: they were worshiping God, but had a false impression in this matter.

An illustration that Bro. Canright uses sometimes, makes this point clear, and shows the difference between our responsibility when we have light on a subject and when we have no light: A certain man had a ten-dollar bill, which he thought was good, and went to buy goods. He offered the money to a merchant; but the merchant refused to accept the bill, saying it was counterfeit. The man had not thought of such a thing, and declared he never would pass bad money if he knew it. So they both went to the detector, and proved the bill to be counterfeit. Then the man gave the merchant good money instead. Would anybody condemn that man for trying to pass bad money? Would he be arrested? No; but all would say he was honest, and did just right, the best he knew. But now suppose that man should take that same counterfeit bill across the street to another store, and try again to pass it for good money. Would people condemn him this time? Yes; and they would have good reason for it, too. Why? Simply because the man had knowledge that he did not have before; he knew he was doing wrong.

Just so it is with the people who have been keeping the first day of the week. Before it was suggested to their minds that that day is a counterfeit, they honestly thought it was genuine. But when they see it tested by the detector—the fourth commandment—they are accountable if they keep it as genuine any longer.

“But why did not our good fathers see this?” says one. Many ask the same question wherever we go. And the same might be asked in regard to the man with the counterfeit bill: “Why did that man not see before that he had bad money?” It was because he did not look to see: he did not think of looking. But a harder question to answer was never thought of than the following one will be when men appear before God in judgment: “Why were you not willing to obey God when you did know his will?” G. V. KILGORE.

HOW I WAS CONVINCED THAT SATURDAY IS THE SABBATH.

By Thomas Ferguson

“AFTER the most straitest sect,” I was brought up in the old-school Presbyterian faith. While a clerk in a large city of Canada, and while only about seventeen years of age, a Roman Catholic gentleman, finding me of a religious turn of mind, considered me an easy fish to catch for his church to fry. He took me with him to the cathedral, where my eyes were opened by the farce enacted there. I saw by the absurdities of the priests and their attendants, and by the devotion of the congregation, that a blind faith is a terrible virtue.

Next a book was handed me to read. It was a controversy between a Roman Catholic priest and a Protestant minister, in which it was supposed that the priest gained a glorious victory. On one subject only I found, upon investigation, that the supposed victor had made a good argument. Here it is: “You Protestants discard all tradition, holding strictly and only to the teachings and laws of the Old and the New Testament. Now, where do you find in either any authority for changing the Sabbath (about which God was so very particular) from the seventh to the first day of the week?”

Oh! thought I, all the different denominations of Protestant Christians would not do such a thing without having a Bible warranty deed for the act. So I turned to my shorter catechism, and read regarding the fourth commandment (I write from memory having no such book now): “From the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, God appointed the seventh day of the week to be the weekly Sabbath, and the first day of the week, ever since, to continue to the end of the world, which is the Christian Sabbath.” Then I looked in the marginal notes for the proofs, and was referred by them to a portion of scripture which tells about the disciples being met together and having the door closed, on the first day of the week.

This was not satisfactory to my mind, and I appealed to the preachers of different denominations with whom I met, desiring light. They all treated the subject very lightly and as though it was not worth talking about. The celebrated Methodist revivalist, Dr. Caughey, was the first one I went to. He said the spirit of the law required us to keep one-seventh part of time. This did not suit my ideas of a positive command from God, ratified by his Son. According to that doctrine, we might keep seven consecutive days out of forty-nine. Some preachers said, “While we are keeping the seventh day, what are they doing in China?” My answer was, “Worshiping Joss, I suppose; but that is not my business. My day is ruled by the sun’s rising and setting.” Some had one argument, some another; and although at that time I was not aware that there was one individual on the earth who believed Saturday to be the Sabbath except the Jews, yet I was not satisfied with the arguments of any of the divines. Their reasoning seemed to me to be wresting the Scriptures to their own destruction.

Of late years, I put the Sabbath question to all the preachers I meet, with a different object in view; viz., to see to what shifts they will resort to evade the truth. One very eloquent preacher of the Christian order grew quite angry, apparently, and talked his arguments (?) at a furious rate. I let him alone till he ran down, listening attentively, however, and then said, “You have had a long journey through the woods, found many blazes, but not one witness tree.”

A few Sundays after that, he delivered an earnest and talented discourse on baptism, followed the roots “baptizo” and “abluo” through all their ramifications, and showed that God had positively expressed the mode of baptism, etc. After service, I said to him, “Mr. —, I have been very much edified by your sermon. One expression particularly suited my views, viz., ‘Remember this always: There is no ambiguity in regard to our religious duty. God wants us to do nothing without giving us a positive command.’” “Certainly,” said he. “Well,” I replied, “where has God or Christ, or any of the apostles or disciples, given as a positive command to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday?” and he answered not a word.

THOMAS FERGUSON.

SIGNS OF THE NEARING ADVENT OF CHRIST.

By Bonar

The night cometh! Nor does it seem far off. It never appeared so nigh. The shadows are lengthening out, and falling with ominous gloom upon the valleys of earth. The dimness of twilight is beginning to make itself felt. It is settling down drearily upon our cities, and on our solitudes; upon the towers of our strength, and the palaces of our pomp; nor can the noisy rush of eager multitudes hurrying to and fro for gain or pleasure, wholly stifle the utterance of fear and awe. Men cannot help foreboding evil, for who can tell them what may be in the womb of darkness? The night birds are already on the wing, flitting around us, and reminding us of the descending night.

Yet it is written also, “The day is at hand.” The night, though dark, will be brief, and will soon be succeeded by a glorious day. But still of that day the night will be the forerunner. And this world’s night is surely near.

The signs of Christ’s second advent that have been given us by the Lord and his apostles are both notable and numerous. And it is very evident that those have been selected which were the most expressive and the least ambiguous. They are chosen as being the most prominent and explicit that could be given. It cannot be thought that the least striking have been announced and the most striking concealed. If so, then is it not very remarkable that the millennium of a thousand years (Rev. 20) is never mentioned as a sign at all? Had this been to take place before the second advent, how has it never been alluded to as one of the signs? It would have been by far the most distinct and visible. No one could overlook or mistake it. Yet nowhere by prophets or apostles, or by the Lord himself, is it noted as a sign. How can this be accounted for, save upon the ground that it was to take place after, not before, the advent? If this be admitted, all is plain; if it be denied, then let those who deny it account for the fact that, among the many signs of the advent, the millennium is never mentioned as one. How the most palpable of them all could be omitted seems to me to require an explanation. On the post-millennial system, the omission seems to me inexplicable. For thus our Lord would be made to profess to tell us the signs of his appearing, and yet to conceal the most notable of them all.

But this is not all. The signs which are given are inconsistent with the idea of a millennium before the second advent. Who that reads the Lord’s prophecy in Matt. 24, which begins with the destruction of Jerusalem and ends with his second appearing in the clouds of heaven, does not feel that the whole drift of it was to show the church that they were to expect sorrow, not joy, tribulation, not triumph, up to the time when he should return? These signs were successive crests of the billows on which she was to be tossed, till he, with his own voice and presence, should rebuke and calm the ocean. The simple omission, then, of the millennium as a sign is a fact on which we ought to lay much stress; but the omission of it in circumstances which preclude the possibility of its being a thing reserved or merely unspoken, furnishes a strong argument in proof of a pre-millennial advent.

Let me now note some of the signs which, in the present day, seem most remarkable as forerunners of the Lord’s appearing. And though of some of these it might be said that they have been found in former days, yet others of them, as we shall see, are peculiar to our own.

1. Wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilences, and famines in divers places. Matt. 24: 6, 7. I need not enter minutely into the proof of the existence of these. The public journals bear witness to it. For a while, it seemed almost as if the world were at rest, as if its storms had spent themselves. But now all seems changed. Every day brings new indications of disquietude and convulsion. Few nations seem willing to draw the sword, yet every nation has her hand upon the hilt; with some it is already gleaming in the air, and with others it is reddened with blood. Over the whole earth is heard “the long, low, distant murmur of dread sound.” And is not this the prelude to the last universal war? Ezek. 38; Zech. 14; Dan. 11: 40–45, 12:1; Rev. 13:7; 16:12–16; 17:8–14; 19:11–14. Is it not a sign of the near approach of Him who, when earth’s madness and ambition are at their height—when the summoned nations are gathered at Armageddon, girt for battle and slaughter—himself appears for their discomfiture and ruin? Then, but not till then, wars shall cease, and the weapons of war perish. Then the true Solomon shall begin his reign, hushing the tumults of the nations, and introducing the long-expected Sabbath of this weary “work-a-day world.” Rev. 19:20.

2. The restlessness of the world. This sign is in part connected with the preceding, yet may be viewed separately. The state of the world is at present very ominous. “Distress of nations with perplexity—men’s hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things that are coming on the earth,” “and then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud” (Luke 21:27), is God’s picture of the state of man as the final crisis draws on. This seems our attitude at this moment. The earth, and the things that are coming on it, attract the attention of all serious thinkers. There is something in the state of the world so unsettled, so pregnant with uncertain evil, that every eye is moving to and fro in expectation of strange issues, and as if to catch the first sign of their approach. The form and color of the clouds forebode speedy change and threaten tempest to the nations. The time for listlessness and apathy is gone. Some thirty years ago, when the skies were bright, and men could promise themselves days of sunshine, it was safe enough to fold the hands and take our ease. But all this is over. No doubt, after the excitement of recent wars and revolutions, men would prefer repose. But the onward swell of the waters stays not for an hour. There is among the nations a spirit of restlessness, anarchy, and insubordination, a passionate love of change, a headlong rush to overturn every established system, too furious and united to be ultimately withstood. Many call it but a passing tumult, the frenzy of an hour; but they who understand it know how deep is the spring out of which it flows. The storm, long gathering, but resisted by the barriers which ancient Wisdom had erected for the stability of kingdoms, is concentrating and condensing its strength in these venerable recesses,

which may for a while refuse to yield to the explosive force, but which, overstrained at length, give way to the accumulated pressure; then will the kingdoms of the earth be shivered, throne and temple overturned, wall and fortress laid in ruins. Such is the night which is to precede the long-looked-for day when not only Israel but the whole earth shall arise and put on the garments of beauty, fit and meet for the personal presence of their glorious King.—Bonar.

THE COMMERCIAL VALUE OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.

At the annual meeting of the Birmingham and Midland Institute, England, the chairman, Mr. J. Thackeray Bunce, in the course of his address spoke at some length on what we may term the commercial value of scientific knowledge, or on the value of that kind of information to those engaged in manufactures and industrial pursuits of all kinds.

“By a study of science we do not mean study in its highest and best sense, a search after knowledge for its own sake, but that amount of study which is undertaken for the advantage it gives in competition with other manufacturers or professionals, and with other nations. As a nation we must be workers, producers; we cannot afford to wander about the by-ways of learning for the mere pleasure of gaining knowledge; we must, or the great majority of us must, tread the broad roads already graded and laid out by previous workers, picking up all the information we can, and storing it in orderly fashion in our mental wallets for use by and by. Others amongst us—a gradually increasing number—will strike out paths for themselves across untrodden fields, and seek for new treasures with more or less of success.

“We cannot all make researches and experiments, nor are we all fitted for the work; but we can all learn something of what is known already, and so prepare ourselves to take advantage of and utilize the discoveries of scientific investigators. Every artisan in the kingdom can, if he will, make himself acquainted with the principles on which the practices with which he is familiar are based, and there is no manufacture and no industry in the country which would not be benefited by such knowledge on the part of its workers. In a few years now, a considerable portion of our workers will be men who are more or less well grounded in theory; they are receiving a technical education, and when they enter the ranks of the industrial army they must, in the natural order of things, occupy prominent places. Even now Whitworth scholars, at present a comparatively small number, make their way readily to the front, and in competition with more rule-of-thumb men gain an easy victory. This patent fact will shortly make an impression on the artisan world, and in a few years we shall see that technical education will be regarded as a necessary part of the training of our mechanics and other workers.

“It will readily be understood how important is the possession of both theoretical and practical knowledge by the worker, for, while the scientific man is capable of pointing out improvements in processes, he is so placed in the majority of cases that he is unacquainted with the methods of working; on the other hand, the practical man, looking upon his processes as trade secrets, and being unacquainted with their defects, never seeks the aid which a knowledge of science places at his disposal.” Many instances of a persistence in wrong methods or in wasteful processes might be collected, but one alluded to by Mr. Bunce will sufficiently indicate the commercial value of a knowledge of science. “Birmingham, as is well known, reckons amongst its most important industries the manufacture of jewelry, and in the processes of coloring and refining gold and silver considerable waste of the valuable metals was, and probably is still to some extent, incurred. In the process of coloring gold articles, a minute portion of the valuable metal is washed off; but owing to a want of acquaintance with the chemical processes involved, only a percentage of the gold is recovered from the washing waters. Thus, in recovering silver from the liquor, the usual process is to throw it down as chloride by means of common salt, but the workmen and the employers, being unaware of the fact that an excess of salt redissolves a portion of the silver, have for years been throwing away a considerable quantity of silver. On the authority of Mr. Woodward, the Professor of Chemistry to the Institute, it is stated that one firm has effected a very material saving in this process entirely by the knowledge gained by one of its members while attending the classes of the Institute. Here we have a definite instance of the commercial value of a knowledge of science; but, if the proposition were not obviously true and required to be demonstrated by evidence, many instances might be gathered together.”—Scientific American.

Continue reading: IOWA AND NEBRASKA CONFERENCE