Earlier text: MOUNT HERMONThe Delf and the Porcelain.
THANK God for a merciful, all-wise God;
(Not minded as men, my brother;)
But who gauges the strain of a soul's distress,
And measures our strength or our feebleness;
Yea, knoweth us one from another.
And here is a proof of His perfect self,
In that none of His works are in vain;
For He knows that the shock that jars the delf
May shatter the porcelain. Thank God for a God who delights to love;
(And so small a return demanding;)
And who handles His vessels mercy-gloved,
And loves forever the thing once loved,
With a love past understanding.
And His final work of the great sixth day
Shall ever His care retain;
For His image hallows our common clay—
Both the delf and the porcelain. Last week we considered Mr. Parker’s first chapter on the “Transferred Sabbath,” in which it was clearly shown that all the week there was in the beginning, all the seventh day there was in the beginning, were those appointed of God,—all the days of that week having direct reference to the Sabbath. Mr. Parker’s second chapter deals with the “Evidence from the New Testament of the transfer of the Sabbath,” which he believes (and we will not question it) “is sustained by a correct interpretation of the sacred Scriptures.” Mr. Parker continues:— “In Matt. 28:1 two Sabbaths are mentioned, one occurring on Saturday, and one on Sunday. The words of the apostle are, ‘In the end of the [Jewish] Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,’ or as it reads literally, Towards one of the Sabbaths (eis mian Sabbaton), that is, the Christian Sabbath. The apostle here speaks of two Sabbaths, and says that the [Jewish] Sabbath had come to an end, and as the Christian Sabbath began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the sepulcher.” The whole chapter is a labored argument by the writer to sustain his rendering. In this he violates the grammatical laws of the original Greek; he sets aside the modern Greek version; he utterly ignores all the reputable translations of modern times—translations by observers of Sunday. To be more explicit, (1) Mr. Parker’s rendering does violence to the original language itself. The Greek expression, eis mian Sabbaton, does not mean one of the Sabbaths. Eis means “to,” “toward,” “into,” or “unto;” mian is a numeral adjective meaning “one,” used by a Hebraism for the ordinal “first.” Sabbaton is a noun meaning “Sabbath” or “week,” as all the lexicons agree. Now one of the laws of the Greek grammar is that an adjective must agree with its noun in gender, number, and case. But mian is in the feminine gender, singular number, and accusative case, agreeing with a similar noun; while Sabbaton is in the neuter gender, plural number, and genitive case. There is no agreement between them. But mian (first) does agree with hemera (day), a noun in the feminine gender. This would make eis mian hemeran Sabbaton, “toward the first day of the week.” 2. Mr. Parker is against the Modern Greek, as he himself admits. That rendering is tes protes hemeras7tes hebdomados; literally, “the first day of the week.” 3. Mr. Parker ignores all the best translations of to-day—translations in which the translator would be pre-eminently glad to be able, if he could be faithful, to give the first day of the week the divine term of Sabbath. But he can not. Take the following renderings of Matt. 28:1, which might be greatly multiplied:— Our Common Version: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.” Literary Greek of Hind’s Interlinear Translation: “Now late on Sabbath as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week.” Rotherham: “And late in the week, when it was on the point of dawning into the first of the week.” Rotherham’s New Translation: “And late in the week, when it was on the point of dawning into the first of the week.” American Bible Union Version: “And late in the Sabbath, as it was dawning into the first day of the week.” Revised Version: “Now late on the Sabbath day, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.” Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac: “And in the close of the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn.” Certainly if Mr. Parker’s rendering were justifiable, these eminent authorities would have adopted it. Now Mr. Parker’s contention, in the chapter under review, is that the first day of the week, or Sunday, is the holy Sabbath transferred. In a circular advertising the book is quoted the approving opinions of certain learned men, and men of prominence. Among these is the following:— “Whatever may be said as to the technical exegetical contention of the book, no one can candidly read it without being deeply impressed with the fact that there is a divine sanction for our Christian rest-day, and a sacred obligation for its permanent religious observance.”—Henry Hopkins, D. D., pastor First Congregational Church, Kansas City, Mo. “He gathers from prophecy the foreshadowing of its [the Sabbath’s] transfer to the day of the resurrection, and from the early records of the church the evidence that they regarded that transfer as made in fact.”—The Sunday-school Times, Philadelphia, Pa. “This brief discussion ... makes very plain to the discerning and intelligent reader that the transfer of the Sabbath, or the choosing of the first day of the week as the Sabbath day, was an actual fact. It is a clear answer to seventh-day people, and they ought to read it.”—The Baptist Commonwealth, Philadelphia. “I shall take great pleasure in commending it to pastors, Sunday-school students and workers, as a work fitted to do good in strengthening the hold and promoting the observance of the Lord’s day as the Christian Sabbath.”—George W. Clark, D. D., Author of Harmony of the Gospels in English, People’s Commentary on the New Testament. Now all the writers quoted as approving the book believe in a definite day, the first day of the week, and seem to talk as tho they thought Mr. Parker had proved it; yet in the same circular Bishop John H. Vincent, D.D., LL.D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, sweeps away the whole definite-day idea in the following:— “I have long been familiar with the theory advanced and defended in your little volume on ‘The Sabbath Transferred.’ I am in sympathy with anything that appropriately belittles the absurd idea that it makes the slightest difference as to which twenty-four hours a man worships God.” Then the seventh day is as good as the first. And finally, not to weary our readers, we quote from the Christian Statesman of July, a paper which has excelled in its labors for the first-day Sabbath. In speaking of Mr. Parker’s rendering, the Statesman says:— “But the so-called literal rendering is not grammatically correct. The Greek word sabbaton is neuter. The adjective mia is feminine. The corresponding neuter is hen. ‘One of the Sabbaths’ in Greek would not be mia sabbaton, but hen sabbaton. The feminine cardinal mia used for the ordinal, relates to and agrees with the feminine Greek word for ‘day’ understood. The only grammatical rendering of the Greek words, therefore, is, ‘the first day of the week.’ If not classical, this is at least a Hebrew idiom in harmony with the rules of Greek grammar. The other so-called literal rendering is neither classical nor grammatical.” “All such authorities as Schleusner in his magnificent Lexicons of Septuagint and New Testament Greek, give sound and reliable discussions of this use of the cardinal adjective in place of the ordinal.” “This attempt to find in a so-called literal translation of a well-understood New Testament Greek expression a proof of the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week does not help the other arguments of this volume. Our judgment is that if this part of the argument were wholly eliminated from the book, it would do far better service in the cause of the Christian Sabbath.” (Italics in English ours.) And all this applies to all the other passages in the New Testament when the Greek is similar. One thing more: What right has Mr. Parker to say that one Sabbath occurred on Saturday, or to call that seventh-day Sabbath the Jewish Sabbath. In the first place, Saturday is purely a heathen day as to name, and a civil day as to time, extending from midnight to midnight, while the Lord’s Sabbath extends from sunset to sunset. And in the second place, the Bible Sabbath is never called “Jewish;” nor is any other term applied to it that would indicate that it was in any way a local or racial or national institution. The Sabbath law, spoken by the Creator, declares: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” What right has man to term it “Jewish”? As well call the Bible Jewish, or Christ Jesus Jewish. The seventh day is the Sabbath of Christ Jesus the Creator, the only Bible Lord’s day; and those who love the Word, believe in the integrity of God’s law, and the example of Christ Jesus, will not be moved by the argument under review. It is not a difficult thing to call a religious body a “sect,” and a member of that body a “sectarian.” It is easy to catalogue as “sects” all who are outside of “my church,” which sometimes is summed up in one individual. The Roman Catholic Church condemns as “sects” all bodies outside of her communion. The Church of England and the Greek “Orthodox” Church make similar charges as regards the dissenting bodies of Christendom. But these characterizations and charges are in themselves nothing to a Christian. One body of religionists may condemn a man as a heretic, his brethren as a sect; but this does not make them so. In his relation to a religious body a man may be a sectarian, while in his relation to God, he may be a true member of the church of Christ. Let us examine the meaning of the terms, and decide our relation to sectarianism in the light of the Word. The word “heresy” is the literal Greek word, hairesis Anglicized and transferred, not translated. “Sect” in Scripture is translated from the same word. The meaning of the Greek word is “to take for oneself,” to choose, to prefer. Neither its definition nor use in the New Testament necessarily attaches to the word a bad meaning. The Sadducees and Pharisees are each spoken of as a “sect,” in the simple sense of party division, or class. Acts 5:17; 15:5; 26:5. It is used by the Jews of the Christians. Acts 24:5; 28:22. In none of these instances does reproach attach to the use of the term. It was the kind of sect that was condemned, not the fact that certain ones were a sect. So much for its use by men. On the other hand, God condemns heresy, a sect, or sectarianism. See 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; 2 Peter 2:1. Heresy is among the works of the flesh, among the last-day developments of apostasy. The wrong of heresy, of sectarianism, lies not in the mere choosing, but in the motive of choosing and the thing chosen. Either a wrong motive or the choice of a wrong thing would be the heresy condemned by the Word as one of the fruits of the flesh. “Heresy,” or “Sectarianism,” in the light of the Gospel lies in the choice of that which is contrary to the Gospel, in preferring the way of man to the way of God, whether that may be held by one man or by a body. Now the rule of the Christian’s faith is the Word. That was the guide of Christ’s faith. It is the living Scriptures of truth, “given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine [“teaching,” R.V.], for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. No wonder that the apostle charges the Christian minister with but the one thing—“Preach the Word.” Naught else is needed. The child of God finds in the Bible all that he needs both for his own character-building and his labor for other souls. It therefore follows that he who takes that Word—the Holy Scriptures—as his guide, the lamp to his feet and the light to his path, is not a heretic. He may not know all the truth; but he has grasped it all in principle, and coming to its knowledge is but a matter of time. He is in the path of knowledge; let him pursue it to the end. It also follows that he who chooses some other standard from that of the Word is in the light of the Gospel a heretic. When he feels that human wisdom must formulate the living Word into a formal creed, must add or subtract something to make it clearer (or easier), must in some way fix or crystallize human expression of faith so as to define heresy, in that very doing he becomes a heretic, and the people who thus erect a different standard from the Word become a sect, a class, a division of God’s army. And, again, it follows that no person is a heretic, no body a sect, that faithfully, truly, takes God’s Word as the rule and follows that alone. But what about the “name”? says one. Well, the name may be important; it may not be. It may mean honor to some man instead of Christ, such as Lutherans, Calvinists. Such a name, it seems to us, would hide the face of the Master by the man. It may indicate some prominent characteristic, such as Methodist (the methodistical one), Presbyterian (government by presbyters), Congregationalist (government by the congregation). In some cases prominent features of belief are expressed in the name. In the word Baptist the fact is indicated that emphasis is laid on baptism. Seventh-day Adventism makes prominent two things, the seventh day and the second advent. Some of these names first came in as a term of reproach by enemies, and were afterward used by the body to whom applied. Others came in thru the special features emphasized in the beginning of the denomination. In the early church, it is very probable that the disciples did not themselves formally adopt a distinctive name. We have the terms “church of God,” “church of Christ,” “disciples,” “saints,” “the faithful,” “the elect,” “household of God,” etc.; but none of these were evidently adopted as a name; at least we have no record of such an act. The more definite names came later. The name used was the one best suited to the occasion. That the adoption of one of these ancient names is not a prevention against sectarianism is manifest in the different bodies which have adopted, for instance, the name “the Church of God.” Tho possessing the same name, they are at antipodes oftentimes in belief and practice. What the name may be called is of minor importance if it be God’s glory that is sought, and the name does not glorify the creature rather than the Creator. This brings us to the question of a friend, “Are not you, in adopting a name, sectarian? Is not the ‘SIGNS OF THE TIMES’ published to build up a ‘sect, the Seventh-day Adventists?’” To both of these we reply, No. The name is not that which is held with respect to God; it does not express our relation to Him. We are His children by grace, His called-out-ones (ekklesia) if we have heeded His Gospel. The name Seventh-day Adventist serves a threefold purpose: (1) Primarily, in purpose it is a part of the message which we have to bear to the world. We are associated together in order to give that message to the world. The name in itself represents two great Gospel truths, one of which has long been trodden under the feet of the apostasy, and the other greatly neglected. Around the Sabbath truth, vitally connected with it, are the great truths of God’s creative and regenerative power; for the Sabbath is a sign of the latter as truly as it is a memorial of the former. Eze. 20:12; Ex. 20:8–11. The Sabbath truth is a protest against the life-destroying, evolutionary-higher-criticism theories, which like deadly miasma are poisoning the very life-blood of Christendom. And the doctrine of Christ’s second coming, including the when and the how, is a protest against the delusive theory of a converted world, while it embodies all the glorious blessings and promises of the Christian’s hope. This was the object, the sole object, in adopting the name. (2) It serves to distinguish those who are bearing this message to the world from other bodies especially other bodies of Adventists. (3) In its corporate existence the body must have some legal name, or else hold its property thru individuals in trust. There are few who care to assume so much responsibility, and for the publishing houses and other institutions among us, a corporate existence is necessary, and for this one name is as good as another. “But why not take the name ‘Church of God,’ or ‘Christians’?” (1) Because we do not believe that all the church of God is found in us; God’s people are scattered thru all the bodies of Christendom. (2) The above, and similar terms have been assumed by others who are no nearer the truth because of the name they hold. Why add to the confusion by assuming names already overburdened and often misapplied? The name Seventh-day Adventists have chosen is a part of their God-given message to the world. Are they by adopting such a name a “sect”?—No; for they have chosen not their own way, but God’s way. They have no creed; no formulated statement of belief to which subscription is demanded. The words of Holy Writ are sufficient,—“The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. They propose to follow, hindered by no human creed, bound by no dead human hand, the light of the ever-unrolling scroll of the seven-sealed Gospel thru the gloom and darkness of earth’s errors to the dawning of the perfect day. When the creed comes, crystallization comes, and growth ceases. And that has been the case with every body of religionists which for conscience’ sake has been born anew from its parent fold. Human creeds can not contain the new wine of the Gospel. Its place is hearts renewed from day to day in Christ Jesus. Our reply to the latter question asked above is already given. Yet we are constrained to make the reply more direct. We are not publishing this paper to build up Seventh-day Adventists as a denomination. We trust that our motive is higher than that. This paper is published for the one purpose to bring men to God, to convert souls to the Lord Jesus Christ, to save them from sin and sinning thru the power of His endless life, in order that His character, His obedience, may be developed in them. And in this, reader, go with us. Study with us in the way. Take God’s Word as it is. Let it be a living word in your life. And where that lamp leads you, fear not to go. It is ever the way of righteousness, peace, and everlasting life. If this brings souls to unite with us in the carrying forward of this blessed message, well; we praise God for it; and can say with one of old, “Come thou with us, and we will do thee good; for the Lord hath spoken good concerning Israel.” CHRIST is pre-eminently the leader of His people. There have been many nominal human leaders, but Christ has always been the real director in any successful undertaking. When the people have failed to follow His guidance, their efforts have invariably failed. When God called Abraham out from his country and from his kindred, it was to a land that He would show him. So when the trusting pilgrim came to the land of Canaan, the Lord was there, and appeared to him, and made promise to him that his seed should possess that land. God made other promises to Abraham, among them “the promise that he should be the heir of the world.” Rom. 4:13. And from Abraham’s day on, the people of God have been led with direct reference to the fulfilment of those promises. Deut. 7:7, 8; Ex. 32:11–14. The angel of the Lord went before Abraham’s servant as he journeyed in quest of a wife for Isaac, the immediate heir to Abraham’s temporal estate and the typical heir to the promises. Gen. 24:1–7. Moses was the visible leader of Israel, but from Mount Sinai the Lord declared, “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Ex. 20:2. And His Angel went before the people all the way thru the wilderness into the promised land. See Ex. 23:20–23; 32:34. In all the ministry of Christ upon the earth, He took the position of leader. From the moment of His baptism and anointing, He acknowledged no human superior, being led solely by the Spirit of God. In all of His journeying and teaching, the people who were interested to see or hear Him followed Him; He followed no one. As He gathered up His chosen twelve, singly or in pairs, He said to them, “Follow Me.” And after His resurrection, when Peter became concerned as to what a brother disciple should do, Jesus answered, “If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.” Peter was not to be the director of his brethren. Before His departure, to take up His mediatorial service in the heavenly sanctuary, Jesus made provision for the work on earth. He gave commission to His disciples, representing the church, to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” He did not leave them to their own leadership, for He said, “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” And wherever He is, He is leader in His own work. Men can not be entrusted with leadership, for they are fallible beings; Christ has to be making intercession for them continually. The church can not be her own leader, for she has no power of her own. Jesus lays claim to all power in heaven and earth; therefore the church must go forth in His power. Before His death, Jesus told His disciples how He would lead them after His departure. They were much troubled about His leaving them, as they felt the need of His visible leadership. As yet they knew nothing of the power and efficacy of spiritual influence and direction. But Jesus said, “I will not leave you comfortless; I will come unto you.” Then He told them that the Father would send the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, in His name—as His representative—and this Comforter would be their leader. He would “guide” them “into all truth.” So important was it that Christ retain the leadership of the Gospel work, that when He was about to leave His disciples, He “commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith He, ye have heard of Me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.” Acts 1:4, 5. They were not even fitted for labor, much less for leading in the work, until thus qualified. Being “baptized” with the Spirit means entire submission to its guidance. That is what it meant in the experience and example of Christ. Jesus had before enunciated the true principle when the subject of pre-eminence had caused a strife among His disciples. At that time He said to them: “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.” Luke 22:25, 26. Such a principle as this could not predominate under any other leadership than that of Christ. After the day of Pentecost, the disciples displayed a spirit of wisdom and courage, of self-denial and fidelity, that showed beyond question that they were being led by a superhuman power. The heroism of Stephen, the discernment of Peter in the case of Simon Magus at Samaria, the calling of Philip to instruct the Ethiopian eunuch, the power and influence of the disciples in “everywhere preaching the Word” when “scattered abroad” by the persecution, all demonstrate that an all-seeing eye and a master hand was at the helm of the Gospel ship. The great signs and wonders that were performed in witness of the truth,—the raising of the dead, the healing of the sick by the mere passing of an apostle’s shadow, the opening of prison doors by the hands of angels, the indication of individuals for certain work by the Holy Spirit, as in the cases of Paul and Barnabas, all show that the Lord Himself was directing the work. The personal appearance of the Lord to Paul as he journeyed to Damascus on a mission of persecution, and the personal direction of his movements by the Lord, are unmistakable evidences of the continuance of divine supervision. Paul says of his conversion and ministry: “I certify you, brethren, that the Gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Gal. 1:11, 12. Again he testifies: “When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.” Verses 15–17. The appearance to John on Patmos, and the record of the Revelation, still further testify that in the direction of His work the Lord is the “first and the last,” and that He is “alive forevermore.” Since the record of the Scriptures, however, the evidences of divine leadership of the true people of God have not been wanting. The various striking periods of reformation—a throwing off of the usurpation of human rule—have shown the care of the Master for His truth, and His power to guide into all truth those who have no confidence in the flesh, but desire to “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus” rather than the “traditions of men.” It is cheering in these days of the confusion of human leaders, to know that we have a divine Director, who sits on “the right hand of the throne of the Majesty on high,” and without whom we can “do nothing.” G. THE INFLUENCE OF THE ARMY.
By S.
IN an article in a recent number of the Outlook, Chaplain O. J. Nave, of the regular army, explains the power of the liquor influence in the army, showing the terrible trend toward dissipation and drunkenness. He also declares positively that there are no army orders or regulations for curtailing the evil, while everything conspires to break down any and every barrier of resistance to drinking on the part of new recruits. We give the following extract from the chaplain's article:— “Drinking, from an occasional glass to excessive indulgence, is almost universal in the army. Officers who graduate from West Point, or who are appointed directly from civil life, many of whom are total abstainers when they enter the army, become drinkers, with few exceptions, soon after they go upon the active list. “Soldiers who are total abstainers when they enlist (and I aver that there are many such) soon fall into the pernicious habit, not only of moderate but of immoderate drinking, so that drunkenness is one of the blots on the army. “Serious as these two facts are, fruitful as this indulgence is of breaches of good order and military discipline—and it is almost wholly accountable for disorders in the army—there has never been any effort made to discourage the initial steps toward this vice. No line or word in Army Regulations or Army Orders, or by inspection inquiries or administrative regret, so far as I have any knowledge, has ever appeared to discourage the initial indulgence in drink. On the contrary, the attitude of the government has encouraged the drink habit. It licensed traders to furnish alcoholic liquors, giving all necessary facilities and encouragement to them, and latterly has maintained co-operative saloons, going so far as to force them upon commanders who were adverse to them as a post policy, so that the only conclusion to which officers and men can arrive is that the government has been entirely favorable to the use of alcohol, even in the face of the degradation and disgrace to the service, as well as to officers and men, consequent upon its use. “The traditions of the service, as well as the codes of conduct, have been entirely favorable to drinking. They are so to-day. The officer or soldier who is persistently a total abstainer is the object of jest, and too often of mockery. He is regarded as peculiar, eccentric, affected, and too often is not fellowshiped by his associates. The drinker prates about his loathsome indulgence as a virtue, and typical of his profession of arms. He does this with no fear of disfavor, but, on the contrary, knowing that he is in harmony with the ruling customs and traditions of the service. An officer informed me not long since that when he graduated from West Point, he, with twenty other members of his class, was a total abstainer and member of a total abstinence society at the Academy. But he stated that when he reached his regiment, he was forced to give it up. The officers made it so hot for him that he had to choose between resignation, transfer to another regiment, and yielding to the customs of the service, and, he said, he yielded. It is a rare man who can resist the tremendous pressure, let him be officer or soldier.” The influence which the army exerts upon those whom it rules can not be better than the influence exerted by it upon its own members. What, then, has the Christian to expect from the army in the way of advancing the cause of Christ in any part of the world? The “gospel of powder and ball,” administered under the stimulus of alcohol, is not a God-ordained precursor of Christianity. The Christian must look to Christ, and not to such an agency, to open the doors and hearts of heathendom to the Gospel message. Since the first day of January, 1901, new consolidations of capital to the extent of over two billion dollars have been gathered into trusts. A big trust means that there is some masterful leading spirit back of it, who is able to combine and control this vast wealth. It means also that there are but very few men who stand with him to own and receive the benefits from these great fortunes. In carrying out their big undertakings, they may incidentally give employment to a large army of men; but at heart the organization is despotic and intensely covetous. Men are trying to find some omens of good cheer in these conditions that confront the world, but there is no good cheer in them. Wrong principles are working, and nothing but wrong can result. It is only necessary for the attention to be called to the situation when it will be readily seen that an unprecedented condition is confronting us. This amassing of wealth cultivates the spirit of selfishness, and the fruit of selfishness is despotism. And thus may we see the dark image of tyranny that is rising. But in order for despotic tyranny to hold undisputed sway, it must have an ignorant and superstitious people to rule over. Where the attempt is made to exercise tyranny over a people that are educated and enlightened by the principles of freedom, there is bound to be a violent clash. There can be no question about the general intelligence and liberty-loving spirit of this age. Neither can there be any question but that some strong men have sprung up who have both the ability and the disposition to grasp immense fortunes, and to hold and manipulate them with a merciless hand. All of the luxuries and the profligate and selfish expenditures of money that are the usual accompaniment of despotism are indulged by these present-day “kings of commerce and trade.” The proverbial “half an eye” is not taxed in seeing that a broadly intelligent and free people will bring on a terrible conflict in resisting these conditions. The selfishness and tyranny of the age is not confined, however, to the rich. The desire to control money and use it for purely selfish ends is a strong part of the make-up of every unregenerate heart. And woven into these conditions of selfishness and greed are all the vices and passions of an age that is crazed with a desire for luxury and exciting pleasures. Exciting amusements and luxuriant revelings are sought by the people with the intensity of madness. The rich revel in every pleasure that their hearts can suggest, and the poor are envious of them in consequence. Instead of the poor being ignorant now and looking up to the rich with a superstitious reverence, as they did in the days of the feudal lords, they have minds that are made keen and sensitive by the general intelligence and freedom of the age, and they are smarting under what they consider the injustice of the wealthy class. In this we are not presenting a mere theory. We are speaking of facts and conditions that confront us. The Lord, in His sure Word of prophecy, has foretold that the end of all this will be the stormiest troubles that the world has ever known. Scenes that beggar description are staring the world in the face. Are you prepared to meet them? T. The Prevalence of Bank Burglary
According to recent statistics, bank burglary was never more prevalent in the United States than now. This is not true of the great city banks, which are guarded with all the care of an old feudal castle in time of siege. The all-night watchman pacing outside, electric alarms connecting forbidden ground with police headquarters, the bright and complete illumination of bank interiors, the barricade of steel around the vault, and finally the vault itself, render large city banks practically safe. But this is not the case with the smaller country towns. Most of the recent burglaries have taken place in the Mississippi Valley States. The number of successful burglaries (the unsuccessful are equally numerous) in the last five years are thus given by a writer in the American Banker: Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Tennessee, Idaho, Nevada, one each; Connecticut, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Oregon, two each; Massachusetts, Texas, four each; Pennsylvania, 6; Minnesota, 7; Wisconsin, 9; Indiana and Michigan 10 each; Ohio and Missouri, 17 each;9Nebraska 18; Kansas 24; Illinois 35. Another evidence of “increasing lawlessness,” which would have been still more aggravated if it were not for extraordinary precautions taken. WOULD RESTORE THE INQUISITION.
By s.
What we might expect at the hands of Rome, were she in power to-day, is plainly stated in the following extract from the Libre Parole, a Jesuit and anti-Jewish journal of Paris:— “The anti-Semites do not blame the Inquisition. They are convinced it assured the grandeur and independence of Spain; and their first care, if they were in power, would be to establish a tribunal which should be, it is true, exclusively laic [carried out by the laity], but which would much resemble the Spanish Inquisition.” Which is to say, they would have an Inquisition carried on by the laity, in order to relieve the church of the charge of burning and torturing “heretics.” At the same time, that organization would be founded on papal principles, and would be doing the bidding of the church. It is upon this very ground that the Catholic Church disavows responsibility for the death of the millions of Christians who sealed their faith with their blood during the Dark Ages. In the light of such facts as these, the toadying of professed Protestants to that institution is unexplainable. Rome’s purpose, expressed by the pope himself, is to do for this country what it has done for the countries over which it has held sway—Spain, South America, Central America, Mexico, Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. Their names are synonyms for stagnation in all lines of material or real spiritual progress; and in such countries religious liberty is hardly known. The present attitude of professed Protestantism in this matter portends a steady growth of Catholic power and influence in the United States. It indicates an apathy as dangerous as it is deceptive, and portends a melting away of barriers which will eventually throw the formal churches of Protestantism into the arms of Rome. This is not the dream of an alarmist. It is what is coming—coming with a swift and powerful current, and coming soon. s. REGULATION VERSUS PROHIBITION.
By S.
The following extract from the New Voice is a complete answer to the oft-repeated denunciations of prohibition which we hear from the lips of liquor men. We are continually being told that prohibition of the traffic is a failure. Do the facts given below indicate that “regulation” or license is anything else?— “As an illustration of the state of civilization produced by a ‘regulated’ drink traffic, the first page of last Thursday’s Cincinnati Enquirer was worthy of study. In the second column there was a brief news note of some previously exploited horror, the centerpiece of which was a headless body in a Columbus saloon. The fourth column tells of ‘drunken tramps’ shooting at officers and citizens in a town in a neighboring State. The fifth column bears big headlines telling of a brutal murder and suicide by a man who had been ‘on a spree’ for three weeks. Column seven, with headlines five inches deep, tells a shameful story of outrage and possible murder, of which two girls were the victims, and the means of accomplishment drugged whisky. Across the bottom of columns seven and eight, four inches in double measure tell another story of outrage, in which the victim is first made helpless by being plied with liquor in a saloon, and during which a would-be rescuer is fatally wounded. On the same page the outcome of the Hamilton murder trial—a whisky case at Minneapolis—is told. If only a half of this had happened in prohibition States, what texts it would make for editorials on the ‘failure of prohibition,’ but every crime mentioned was committed in the realm of regulation. Is regulation a success?” And in connection with this may we not ask another question, namely, in view of these facts, what becomes of the declaration that the world is growing better? Rather, is it not indisputable evidence that we are hastening to a crisis in the history of the world? Evils of every description are waxing worse and worse, and deceptions of every kind are multiplying on every hand. These are the tokens which the Lord Himself gave of the nearness of His coming. They are strong arguments for the abolition of the liquor traffic; they are unmistakable signs that the coming of the Just One draweth nigh. S. CHICAGO’S SALOON BUSINESS.
NEARLY one-third of the more than $11,000,000 of Chicago’s yearly revenue is derived from saloon licenses. Other facts and figures presented by the Chicago Tribune show the size, and consequently the political influence, of the rum business. There are 6,371 saloons in the city, and it is estimated that they sell 1,700,000 barrels of beer in a year, and, of course, large quantities of liquors. It is assumed that the saloons, big and little, take in an average of $25 a day. Virtually all of them keep open on Sunday, and for a year of 365 days this means $58,135,375 a year as the bar bill of Chicago.