Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 88, No. 10.

Yearning for the Homeland

Review and Herald

Mar 9, 1911

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Mar 9, 1911

Yearning for the Homeland

By Worthie Harris Holden

WORTHIE HARRIS HOLDEN
I AM longing for the homeland And its rest from sin and strife; I am yearning for the welcome With its warmth of light and life; And the days seem long and weary ’Mid the earth scenes dark and dreary While I wait till my Redeemer comes With angel guards for me.
O, I long to speed the story Of the coming of my King, Until all who love my Saviour Hear with joy the welkin ring! Though the waiting-time is weary, And the midnight darkness dreary, I rejoice; for soon the morning dawns To all eternity.
O the homeland, blessed homeland, With its bliss beyond compare! How our ardent souls are yearning For the joys that wait us there! And we haste to barge our treasure On the river of Thy pleasure For the home where joy shall wake our song Throughout eternity.
Portland, Ore.

Protestant Magazine

First Quarter 1911

A Lutheran Clergyman Writes:

“Enclosed find 25 cents, for which send me the Protestant Magazine. I am a Lutheran clergyman, and have forwarded letters to fellow clergymen soliciting subscriptions for your magazine. May the same prosper. It is a pity we Protestants are not more alert to Jesuitism in our country, and do not recognize the dangers to our liberty and country.”

A Powerful Appeal for a Revival of True Protestantism

A Weighty Testimony in Favor of the Christianity of our Forefathers and their Constant Fidelity to Principle

A Convincing Exposure of the Claims of the Papacy, and the Spiritual Shipwreck of Modern Protestantism

Some of the Articles “The Christ of the Prophets,”—a Biblical test of the true Christ. “A Vigorous Protest,”—a plain statement of the real meaning and tendency of Higher Criticism, and an appeal from it to the old-fashioned faith. “Modern Philosophy,”—a remarkable contribution to the discussion of the present condition of the religious world, by a New York attorney. This searching analysis of the teaching of religious philosophers, and startling warning of the inevitable results, must be read to be appreciated at its true value. “Lying for the Glory of God,”—an answer to a charge made by a Catholic editor that lying is considered a legitimate weapon of defense in Protestant polemics. Two other articles, “Immoral Moral Theology” and “The Development of the Papacy,” should be read in this connection. “The Roman Priesthood” is a clear demonstration of the fact that Romanism is a revival of the religion of Babylon—a mere adaptation of paganism. The large number of references to authorities increases the value of these articles, which, with many other strong presentations of the principles of true Protestantism, makes this issue one of the best ever published.
Those who do not read the Protestant are making a mistake. No other publication can take its place. It throws a clear light upon the real meaning of the message against the beast and his image.
Subscription price, only 25 cents a year. Special rates to agents: 5 to 40 copies, any issue, 5 cents a copy; 50 or more copies, 4 cents a copy.

Send All Orders to the Conference Tract Societies.

The True Christian

By Clarence Santee

CLARENCE SANTEE
While it is a blessed privilege, and one greatly to be desired, to be a Christian, it is nevertheless a serious matter, if rightly understood. There are many who live a fairly good life, in a general way, but who can not say from the heart that they know the blessedness of acceptance with God. Many live on from week to week, until the time is drawn out into years, self-condemned because of known sins which they are unwilling to confess and surrender.
When we are really ready to yield up a cherished indulgence, God will not fail to give the victory in its removal. We may at times believe that we are willing to yield, hope that we are, or will be; but when the test comes, we reveal that we are not willing, and the weakness of doubt and condemnation takes away all that would otherwise be courage and joy.
God has said, very plainly, “It is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful;” and the true child of God will be as faithful when with worldlings, as when in his own home, or when alone, as when he is with other members of the church. In eating or drinking, in conversation or in business, he will be a representative of the light which God has given to him.
The person who is constantly seeking excuses for some deviation from the light given, betrays the fact that to him the yoke of Christ is a yoke of bondage, and that his heart is still with his idols.
Some will serve the Lord if all the perplexities are removed. One says, “I would obey if I was sure I could make a living.” Another says, “If I only knew a place where I could work and keep the Sabbath, I would keep it.” Even the patriarch Jacob said, at one time in his experience, “If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God.” Gen. 28:20, 21. It took Jacob twenty years to learn the lesson of implicit faith and trust, with no added conditions of raiment, bread, peace, or even life. In the night of wrestling, the victory was gained, and God gave Jacob a new name, and with it a place among the conquerors through faith. Gen. 32:24-28. Entire consecration will say, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him;” or, as Paul says, “Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.” Phil. 1:20, last part.
The surrender which makes one reserve betrays the fact that nothing has been surrendered; for when a man makes any reserve at all, he thereby claims for himself the right to decide the extent of that reserve, whether all or part, thus putting God’s claim secondary to man’s judgment. But man has sold himself to the author of sin (Rom. 6:16), and when he reserves some the whole, or even the smallest part, it is not for himself, but for the master who has claimed all in the past. It is a plea for his rights to be first. As God accepts no divided heart, the decision of the man leaves all in the hands of the old master, and he is a slave still. 2 Peter 2:19.
Christ said: “The prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” John 14:30. There can be no divided ownership. “Doth a fountain send forth at the same place both sweet water and bitter?” James 3:11. “Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt.” Matt. 12:33.
The man, then, who clings to sin, may allow the enemy to deceive him; but the reserve reveals the fact that the old master has not been dispossessed, and that he still holds the first claim. Unless this claim is broken, and that quickly, the tyrant will bring other agencies to his aid, and all that has been thought to be surrendered will be reclaimed, and the last state of that man will be worse than the first. The only way of success, the only way of life, is to make a complete, unconditional surrender, and then to endure as “seeing him who is invisible,” doing nothing that we would not be willing to have the angel record in heaven’s ledger, and standing true though standing alone.
Loma Linda, Cal.

Duty to Enlighten the People

By D. E. ROBINSON

A Study of Principles—No. 1

Duty to Enlighten the People

D. E. ROBINSON
The following is a compilation from the writings of Mrs. E. G. White regarding our treatment of opponents, the crisis that will come on account of the enforcement of unrighteous laws, and the duty of Seventh-day Adventists to do all in their power to avert the crisis and to enlighten the people regarding the issue. The following principles have a vital bearing on this subject, and have through the years been advocated by Mrs. White:—
1. It is the duty of all who know the truths of the third angel's message to labor in every way possible to teach the binding claims of the law of God to friends, neighbors, and the people generally.
2. Great care should be exercised not to arouse bitterness or unnecessary prejudice, that would cut us off from influencing those for whom we labor. We are warned against making harsh or denunciatory statements regarding opponents of truth, or against rulers and statesmen; and we are advised “to conform in all things to the laws of the state,” even to the extent of waiving some of our rights, “when we can do so without conflicting with the law of God.”
3. In our work, we are to watch for special opportunities to do effective labor. When the minds of the people are agitated regarding Sunday laws, it is an opportune time to enlighten them concerning the principles involved. We are to teach in a positive way the binding claims of God's law, rather than to attack or denounce men, some of whom may be acting conscientiously, and possibly are susceptible to the truth, if it is presented in a winning way.
4. There are special advantages pertaining to the use of Sunday as a day for general missionary effort in behalf of those who should be warned of the impending crisis.
5. In the final crisis, the issue will be not merely in regard to refraining from labor on Sunday, but it will be over the disregard of the Sabbath. In Mrs. White's writings on this subject, almost invariably it is pointed out that the issue will be over the exaltation of the spurious, and the trampling upon the Sabbath of Jehovah.
It is believed that as these points are made clear by the writings of the spirit of prophecy, Seventh-day Adventists willappreciate more highly the teaching found in “Testimonies for the Church,” Volume IX, regarding our methods of labor when Sunday laws are being rigidly enforced.
In the summer of 1886, several of our brethren were arrested in the Southern States for Sunday labor. In Maryland and Massachusetts, also, the Sunday laws were enforced against Seventh-day Adventists. Elder G. I. Butler, who was at that time president of the General Conference, wrote to Mrs. White, asking for her counsel regarding the duty of our people in the crisis that then seemed to be coming upon them. The following was written in reply:—
“You inquire in regard to the course that should be pursued to secure to our people the right to worship God according to the dictates of their own conscience. This subject has been a burden on my soul for some time, whether to take such a course of action as you suggest would be a denial of our faith, and an evidence that our trust was not fully in God. But I call to mind many things God has shown me in the past in regard to the draft, and other things of a similar character.
“I can speak in the fear of God and say, It is right that we should use every power we have to avert the pressure that is being brought to bear upon our people. Were our people spiritualized by the truth, they would exercise love toward all men, and great care not to provoke those who have accepted as the Sabbath a spurious institution introduced by the Papacy to take the place of God's holy Sabbath. The fact that they do not have the Bible argument in their favor, makes them all the more angry and determined to supply the lack of argument by the power of their might. . . .
“Everything in God's world—men and doctrines, and nature itself—is fulfilling God's sure word of prophecy, and accomplishing his grand and closing work in this world's history. We are to be ready, and waiting for the orders of God. Nations will be stirred to their very center. Support will be withdrawn from those who proclaim God's law as the only standard of righteousness, the only sure test of character. And all who will not bow to the decree of the national councils, and obey the national laws to exalt the Sabbath instituted by the man of sin, to the disregard of God's holy day, will feel not only the oppressive power of the Papacy, but the oppression of the Protestant world, who will seek to enforce the worship of the image of the beast.”
From another manuscript, written in Europe about the same time, we take the following instruction, pointing out our duty to enlighten the minds of the people, and speaking of the special opportunities to do this when the Sunday question is brought before the public:—
“While Satan has been making a success of his plans, the people of God have failed at their post. God had an earnest work for them to do for the honor of his law. The religious liberties of the people are at stake; and yet the watchmen failed to discern clearly the deceptions of the enemy, and to give the trumpet a certain sound. . . .
“There are many who are at ease, asleep as it were. They say, If prophecy has foretold the enforcement of Sunday observance, the law will surely be enacted. And having come to this conclusion, they sit down in calm expectation of the event, comforting themselves with the thought that God will protect his people in the day of trouble.
“But God will not save us if we make no effort to do the work he has committed to our charge. We must be found faithfully at our posts, watching as valiant soldiers, lest Satan shall gain an advantage which it is our duty to prevent. We should diligently study the Word of God, and pray in faith that God will restrain the powers of darkness; for as yet the message has gone to comparatively few, and the world is to be lightened with its glory. The present truth regarding the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus has not yet been sounded as it must be. There are many almost within the shadow of our own doors for whose salvation no personal effort has been made.
“We are not prepared for the time when our work must close. We must take a firm stand that we will not reverence the first day of the week as the Sabbath, for it is not the day that was blessed and sanctified by Jehovah, and in reverencing Sunday we would place ourselves on the side of the great deceiver. The controversy over Sunday observance will open the subject to the people, and an opportunity will be given to present the claims of the genuine Sabbath. . . .
“There are many who, if they understood the spirit and the result of religious legislation, would not do anything to forward in the least the movement for Sunday observance. The world is overborne with falsehood and iniquity, and those whom God has made the depositaries of his law and of the pure religion of Jesus, must be determined to let their light shine. If they do nothing to disabuse the minds of the people, and through ignorance of the truth our legislators should abjure the principles of Protestantism and give countenance and support to the Roman fallacy, enforcing allegiance to the spurious sabbath, God will hold his people, who have had great light, responsible for their lack of diligence and faithfulness. But if the subject of religious legislation is judiciously and intelligently laid before the people, and they see that through Sunday enforcement, the Roman apostasy would be re-enacted by the Christian world, and that the tyranny of past ages would be repeated, then whatever comes, we shall have done our duty.
“The man of sin has thought to change times and laws. By trying to compel the conscience, he is exalting himself above God. But God's people should work with persevering energy to let the true light in regard to the law shine upon the people, and thus to withstand the enemies of God and his truth. When the law of God has been made void, and apostasy becomes a national sin, the Lord will work in behalf of his people. Their extremity will be his opportunity. He will manifest his power on behalf of his church. . . .
“As faithful watchmen we should see the sword coming, and give the warning, that men and women may not pursue a course through ignorance that they would avoid if they knew the truth. The Lord has enlightened us in regard to what is coming upon the earth, that we may enlighten others, and we shall not be held guiltless if we are content to sit at ease with folded hands, and quibble over matters of minor importance. . . .
“The people must not be left to stumble their way along in darkness, not knowing what is before them, and unprepared for the great issues that are coming. There is a work to be done for this time in fitting a people to stand in the day of trouble, and all must act their part in this work. They must be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and be so fortified by the truth that the delusions of Satan shall not be accepted by them as genuine manifestations of the power of God.”
Sanitarium, Cal.

“A Sick Man, a Very Sick Man”

P. T. MAGAN
In my last article in the Review on the subject of the Eastern question, I endeavored to show how the policy of helping Turkey became, under the guiding hand of England, a matter of European international law, and that the reason always advanced was that the presence of the Ottoman Porte in Constantinople was “necessary to the peace of Christendom.”
For more than half a century the name of “the Sick Man of the East” has been commonly applied to Turkey. The Bible had stated concerning Turkey, by the pen of Daniel, the prophet statesman and chancellor of Babylon and Medo-Persia, that he would “come to his end,” and none should help him. Indirectly, this scripture would indicate a condition of sickness and decrepitude upon the part of the Ottoman for a time prior to his dissolution.
The name “Sick Man of the East” was coined in the year 1854, and the circumstances surrounding this rechristening of the Sublime Porte are styled by the greatest historian of Russia as “the strangest series of negotiations known among the archives of diplomacy.” As the name has now become a classic, and depicts the most widely known and discussed of all international problems, I will endeavor simply and briefly to relate the circumstances leading to its bestowal.
In 1852 Louis Napoleon became head of the second empire in France, under the title of Napoleon III. He was very subservient to the church of Rome, and consequently won the special approbation of the Pope. For a long time therehad been going on a dispute about the so-called holy places in Palestine; namely, those places which tradition assigned as the scenes of the birth and suffering of our Lord Jesus Christ. The claims of the Greek Church and those of the Latin Church were antagonistic. Czar Nicholas I of Russia was the protector of the Greek Church, and Louis Napoleon had the monks of the Latin Church under his care.
The entire quarrel was disgraceful, the chief bone of contention being the possession of the key to the great door of the church at Bethlehem, and the right to place a silver star in the sacred grotto where the Master was supposed to have been born. But beneath this petty strife were deeper political machinations. In reality, both Russia and France were struggling for a better foothold in the near East. And over this strangely mediæval question, relations between Russia and France soon became quite strained.
Toward the close of the year 1852 the British ministry, headed by the earl of Derby, fell; and a coalition cabinet, headed by the earl of Aberdeen, took its place. On the whole, this cabinet was hostile to France. Her one friend in it was Lord Palmerston, and he was assigned to the Department of the Interior instead of the Foreign Office, as had been commonly expected. That place was first filled by Lord John Russell, later by the earl of Clarendon. The news of this disposition of appointments was hailed with delight at St. Petersburg.
It was clear that the Turkish government was in a desperately hard place. She was, indeed, betwixt the upper and the nether stones, with Russia and the Greek Church above and France and the Latin Church beneath. As usual, she made promises to both and fulfilled them to neither.
Nicholas was alert, watching for an opportunity to finish the Ottoman power. He proclaimed the lack of good faith on the part of the sultan as an insult to his own person. Next he decided on the boldest steps ever attempted in the annals of diplomacy. “If he could succeed in persuading England to recognize his grievances, to share his views, and to assist in his plans, it was over with the Turkish empire.” If England would join him in a division of Turkey, he would humiliate his old enemy, France, and leave her as well as Prussia and Italy out of the reckoning. Everything rested upon his ability to persuade England. There lay the question: Could England—she whose policy was to help Turkey—be persuaded to come over to Russia’s side of the international game? “The enterprise was delicate, difficult, possibly risky; but should it succeed, what a triumph it would be! . . . In playing so dangerous a game, he determined to trust no one but himself. Never before in the history of the world did a monarch so absolutely and directly take upon himself a responsibility.”—Rambaud, “History of Russia,” Vol. III, chap. 4, par. 5.
On Jan. 9, 1853, the Grand Duchess Helena gave a reception in her palace at St. Petersburg, at which Emperor Nicholas approached Sir George Hamilton Seymour, and speaking graciously in regard to the new British ministry that had just been formed, sent his especial congratulations to Lord Aberdeen, adding: “You know my sentiments in regard to England; it is essential for the two governments—that is, for England and me—to be on the best terms. Never was the necessity of it greater than at present. I beg of you to transmit these words to Lord John Russell. If we agree, I have no solicitude about Western Europe; what others may think is in reality of little consequence. As to Turkey, that is another question. That country is in a critical state, and may easily give us much embarrassment.”—Id., par. 6.
Having delivered himself of these sentiments, he started to turn away, when Sir Hamilton urged him to continue on this most interesting topic. “The czar hesitated at first, and seemed disinclined to go beyond generalities; then, suddenly, like a person about to commit himself: ‘Well,’ said he, ‘we have on our hands a sick man, a very sick man. I tell you frankly it would be a great misfortune if he should give us the slip some of these days, especially if it happened before all the necessary arrangements were made. But this is not the fitting time to speak to you of these things.’”—Id., par. 7.
Five days after, on January 14, Sir Hamilton was summoned to the palace, where he had another interview with the czar, in which the latter unbosomed himself as follows: “Turkey, placed as it is, has by degrees fallen into such a state of decrepitude that, as I said the other evening, however anxious we all may be to prolong the sick man’s existence,—and I beg you to believe that I am as desirous as you may be for his continued existence,—he may suddenly die upon our hands. We can not bring the dead to life again. If the Turkish empire falls, it falls to rise no more; and I put it to you, therefore, whether it is not better to be provided beforehand for such a contingency, than to run the risk of the chaos, the confusion, the certainty of a European war, all of which would attend the catastrophe, if it should occur unexpectedly, and before some ulterior system has been sketched. This is the point to which I am desirous that you should call the attention of your government.”—Id., par. 11.
From this it is clear that the czar believed that the hour of Turkey’s doom was about to strike, and he was more than willing to hurry up the impending catastrophe, provided England would join him in sketching out some “ulterior system,” which would prevent “the risk of the chaos, the confusion, the certainty of a European war.”
But England was not to be deterred from her policy of helping Turkey. Blandishments and persuasive phrases did not move her from her ground. Consequently Sir Hamilton replied, in effect, “that Turkey had more than once emerged from crises in which it had been believed that the end had come; that England was not as a general thing inclined to make these provisional engagements; and that, in fact, it would be very loath to anticipate the succession of an old friend and ally.”—Id., par. 12.
But the czar’s blood was up. He was determined to win England to his view that the Turk should “come to his end, none shall [should] help him.” So he began again, more frankly, even, than before: “Now I want to speak with you as a friend and as a gentleman. If England and I come to an understanding in regard to this matter, everything else is indifferent to me, no matter what the others [Prussia and France] think and do. So I tell you, without reservation, that if England expects to get a foothold sometime in Constantinople, I will not allow it. Not that I ascribe that intention to you, but it is better to speak frankly. As for my part, I am equally willing to engage not to establish myself there; that is, as a proprietor; I do not say as a guardian. If no precautions are taken, if everything is left to chance, I may be obliged by circumstances to occupy Constantinople.”—Id., par. 13.
Sir Hamilton Seymour communicated the words of the czar to Lord John Russell, and the redoubtable “Lord John” concurred in the ambassador’s view of the case, and sent a despatch to this end to his ambassador. On February 20 Sir Hamilton met the czar at a reception, who, according to the authority before quoted, said:—
“‘I hear that you have received your answer, and are to bring it to me tomorrow.’ “‘Sire, I am to have that honor,’ was his reply; ‘but your majesty is aware that the answer is precisely what I had led you to expect.’ “‘So I was sorry to hear; but I think your government does not understand my object. I am not so anxious to know what shall be done when the Sick Man dies, as to determine with England what shall not be done.’ “‘And when Sir George Hamilton Seymour protested that Turkey was not dying, but would exist for many years, unless the event were hastened by the rash action of Russia, the czar answered, with some asperity: ‘I will tell you that if your government has been led to believe that Turkey retains any element of existence, it must have received incorrect information. I repeat to you: The Sick Man is dying, and we can never allow such an event to take us by surprise. We must come to some understanding; and this we should do, I am sure, if I could hold but ten minutes’ conversation with your ministers; with Lord Aberdeen, for example, who knows me so well, who has full confidence in me, as I have in him. And remember, I do not ask for a treaty or a protocol; a general understanding is all that I require; between gentlemen, that is sufficient.’”—Id., pars. 17-19.
It did not require any great amount ofdiscernment on the part of Sir Hamilton to penetrate the designs of the emperor, and he concluded that “there is no room for doubt that a sovereign, upon the imminent downfall of a neighboring state, has decided in his own mind that the hour has come not to expect its dissolution, but to hasten it.” At a later interview on the following day, when the czar still further reiterated his plans for the division of the estate of Turkey, Sir Hamilton, somewhat incensed, inquired why they should continue to discuss the downfall of Turkey and the plans to be made, when it would be far better to “bring the Sick Man to health.” This irritated the czar beyond measure, and he at once broke out with a plan of partition in the event of the dissolution of Turkey.
But Sir Hamilton Seymour stood his ground, and was not to be moved from it. And just at this juncture, on February 21, Lord Clarendon took possession of the Foreign Office in London. He backed up the positions taken by the ambassador and Lord John Russell. In a despatch to Sir Hamilton he wrote: “England desires no territorial aggrandizement, and could be no party to a previous arrangement from which she was to derive any such benefit. England could be no party to any understanding that was to be kept secret from the other powers.” And he then went on to declare how important it seemed to avert any catastrophe, on the ground that the first cannon shot would be “the signal for a state of things more disastrous even than those calamities which war inevitably brings in its train.”
Clearly, the czar had not succeeded in “persuading” England. That power was still determined to stand by Turkey. That power still realized that to bring Turkey to an end meant a catastrophe unparalleled in history, and would be the “signal for a state of things more disastrous even than those calamities which war inevitably brings in its train.” Things had certainly gone against the czar. If he moved, he would have to move alone. Angered beyond measure, he finally declared that though he had not yet moved a ship nor a battalion, he did not intend to be trifled with; and unless the Turks yielded to reason (in the matter of the holy places), they would be brought to yield by the imminence of danger.
“Thus terminated,” says Rambaud, “with this vague and threatening avowal, the strangest series of negotiations known among the archives of diplomacy.”
Madison, Tenn.

The Interpretation of the Bible

By G. B. Thompson

G. B. THOMPSON
ONE claim put forth by the Roman Catholic Church as proof of her love and veneration for the Bible, is that she has preserved it through the ages, and transmitted it to us. Having thus set herself forth as a witness to its authenticity, she follows with the claim of being the only true interpreter of that Word, and forbids to those within her pale the right of private interpretation.
Concerning this claim Rev. J. A. Wylie makes the following observation: “We admit the church—that is, the universal church, and not exclusively the church of Rome—to be a main witness as to the authenticity and genuineness of the Scriptures, on the ground that they have come down to us through her; but that is another question altogether from her right to solely and infallibly interpret the Scripture. The messenger who carries a letter may be a competent witness as to its authenticity and genuineness. He had it from the writer; it has not been out of his possession since; and he can speak very confidently and authoritatively as to its expressing the will of the person whose signature it bears; but is he only, therefore, entitled to interpret its meaning? He may be a very competent authority on its authenticity, but a very incompetent authority on its sense. The church of Rome has confounded the question of authenticity and the question of interpretation. Because the church carries this divine letter to us, we will listen to what she has to say on its authenticity; but inasmuch as this letter is addressed to us, and touches questions which involve our eternal welfare, and contains not the slightest hint that it needs to be either interpreted or supplemented by the bearer, we will use the right and responsibility of interpreting it for ourselves.”—“The Papacy,” pages 175, 176.
Rome’s claim of love for the Scriptures is not for any value which she puts upon them “as connected with the glory of God and the salvation of man, but because they afford her a better foundation than any she could invent on which to rear her system of superstition.” With Rome it is the Bible and tradition. And tradition is, in practice, placed above the inspired Word, in that tradition interprets the Word, but the Word is never permitted to explain tradition. Her claim of love for, and belief in, the Bible is a mockery. To the Bible this so-called mother church adds the Apocrypha; tradition; the acts and decisions of the church, including tomes and tomes of papal bulls, decretals, and sayings and doings of so-called saints; and volumes of the Greek and Latin fathers. From all this chaos of falsehood and contradiction, interpreted and explained by priests and bishops, the poor people are to learn the way of salvation.
Light and liberty are twins. When one is lost, the other is also; when faith is surrendered, peace is parted with. How true, as Wylie says, that “having put out his eyes, popery led man away to grind in her prison-house.”
How thankful we should be for an open Bible, in which every man may read concerning the love of God, and the duty which he owes to his Creator; and that through a loving and merciful Saviour he can come to God, and find compassion and forgiveness for his sin; that without the intervention of priest, prelate, or the Virgin Mary, he can read the blessed Word, understand it for himself, guided only by the Holy Spirit, and obey it according to the dictates of his own conscience. This was the great battle-cry of the Reformation, “The Bible and the Bible only.” Let us daily study the Bible for ourselves.
Takoma Park, D. C.

The Conversion of a Modern Ahab

By David Paulson

DAVID PAULSON, M. D.
SEVERAL years ago the country was startled by the news that Governor Steunenberg, of Idaho, had been blown to pieces by a bomb so placed that it would explode as he passed through his gate. Soon afterward Harry Orchard was arrested on suspicion, and later he not only confessed himself to be the author of this crime, but of more than half a dozen others which, for cold-bloodedness, have hardly been equaled in this generation. After one of the most sensational trials ever held, he was finally given a life sentence in a state prison.
God’s dealing with this man reminds one of his dealing with Ahab, who not only drifted into sin, but actually sold himself to work wickedness. 2 Kings 21:25. Yet when, under the influence of God’s Spirit, he heard the words of God, rent his clothes, put on sackcloth, fasted, and went softly, God in his unlimited mercy said, “Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? because he humbleth himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his day.” Verse 29.
It seems as if Mr. Orchard’s conversion is a demonstration of the fact that even in our day God can save the Ahabs. The change that came over this hardened criminal was such that the most skeptical were forced to admit that something had happened to him.
In reading the account of his remarkable experience, that which impressed me most was the fact that his downward career started with smothering the voice of conscience in reference to what, viewed from a human standpoint, was only an ordinary sin. Such a life and such a career emphasize in a startling manner the danger of taking the first step on Satan’s ground, or smothering in the least the warning voice of conscience and the pleadings of the Spirit of God. It shows, also, the greatness of God’s mercy in pardoning the repentant sinner.
Hinsdale, Ill.

Immigration to the United States Since 1820

Down to 1820, no statistics with regard to the immigration of foreigners to this country were ever collected by the federal authorities; but from 1820 to 1910 inclusive, 27,894,293 persons have been reported as entering the United States. The net addition to the population was less than these figures would indicate, because the statistics of returning emigrants have been gathered only within very recent years. It would seem to be a conservative estimate to place the net immigration to this country since 1820 at twenty million.

GEORGE E. TACK

By George E. Tack

Ruth

GEORGE E. TACK

FAIR maid of Moab, whose unswerving love Led her from home, afar, fore’er to dwell With God and Israel, what tongue can tell Her deeds of love that still the ages move? How bright must shine those deeds in courts above, Where love is greatest, and where seraphim E’er praise love’s deeds in each immortal hymn, And all good deeds of God’s beloved approve!
How sweet are lives when purged of self’s old leaven, Like cool streams sparkling ’neath a burning sun, To bless and to be blessed, the gift of heaven! And such is Ruth’s, till earth’s sad course is run. Great recompense to her of God was given— Ancestress sweet of kings and heaven’s Son.
Baltimore, Md.

The Power of Patience

The steam that is let off never runs anything. It is the repression and control of it that makes it a power in mechanics. In the same way, the impatient person fizzes and fumes and amounts to nothing at all. In a day when men all seem to fear poverty above every other ill, it is well to remember Shakespeare’s golden words, “How poor are they that have not patience!” and to beware of falling into such destitution.
The busy woman of the household, above all other human beings, perhaps, needs patience as her daily power. It seems to be the business of every grown-up and every child in the average family to hurry and to distract the early morning hours of the housewife. Only the woman who learns how to keep herself perfectly in hand can train them all to behave otherwise, and preserve her own freshness of spirit meanwhile. Patience, and patience alone, makes peace out of a worrying day.
Irritation exhausts, both in its explosion and its reaction. Patience gathers and directs every inch of energy, and in the end makes itself respected by every one within its radius. When a patient person finally unlooses a righteous anger,—as occasionally is bound to happen,—definite things are usually accomplished, and transgressors take it to heart. For patience is not weakness. It is controlled strength and solid character. The woman who would be a power must practise patience, hard and long; but every ounce of it will make steam pressure when the time comes.—Harper’s Bazar.
Continue reading: Effects of Worry and Nerve Tension