p. 1 | Review and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 34. (8/20/1908)

Review and Herald

Aug 20, 1908

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 20, 1908

Victory Through Sorrow

By Worthie Harris Holden

WORTHIE HARRIS HOLDEN

We haste with eager steps to join the triumph Of Him who comes in glory from on high; We laud Him with our glad and loud hosannas, And swell the host that cry, “The King is nigh!”

But scarce perceive we ere our Lord, triumphant, Ascended to be glorified in heaven, His mortal life maligned, assaulted, stricken, In ignominy died, by anguish riven.

The cross precedes the crown, and death must sever Our love of self and earthly prize or gain; The soul that triumphs with our blest Redeemer Must share His grief, His wrestling, and His pain.

Methinks that to each soul some special sorrow, Some strife, must come ere we may enter in, To know the wrestling of our Lord and Saviour, And claim the victory that through Him we win.

Ah, do we pray to be more like our Master? Then surely must we meet Gethsemane. O may our souls in strife be well sustained, And know the triumph blest through Calvary.

Portland, Ore.

The Prophetic Number

The Straight Third Angel’s Message

The formation and the work of the beast and his image, as foretold in the prophecy, are fully set forth, and associated with the act of the United States Senate in passing the Johnston Sunday bill; and the general principles violated in all religious legislation are also considered.

The connection is clearly shown between the prophecies and the present work of this nation in repudiating its lamb-like principles, and preparing to assume the dragon nature.

Never before has Liberty placed before the public a clear statement of the prophecy, and applied it to the present efforts to secure enforced religious observances, and exposed Sunday-keeping as a mark of loyalty to a state religion. It clearly reveals the meaning of present movements, and definitely produces evidence which places the issue between the law of God and the commandments of men.

Many have pronounced this number the most important of any so far issued. Others have expressed their opinion of it in the following—

Good Words for Liberty

Liberty, No. 3, is before me. I have examined it, and am convinced that the magazine is moving in great lines. Plainness of speech is what we need to-day, and there is no doubt but greater good can be accomplished by teaching the message direct, presenting Revelation 12–14 in a most decided manner, than by simply using the magazine as a news carrier. The time is ripe for these most startling portions of scriptures to be presented, and made prominent in pulpit and press.—H. G. Thurston.

Liberty, No. 3, has reached my desk, and I embrace this my first opportunity to say to the editors that it is an output of literature which is most timely, and which will be sure to have a mighty influence for the cause of liberty wherever it is circulated.—E. K. Slade.

I have just examined a copy of Liberty, No. 3, and I will say that I consider it the best and most important issue to date. The idea of presenting the question of religious liberty from the standpoint of the Bible prophecy, appeals to me, and ought to appeal to every wide-awake Seventh-day Adventist. I shall certainly do all within my power to bring before the people of our conference the importance of circulating this number of Liberty.—W. H. Heckman.

I have examined the third number of Liberty, and am glad to see that it throws a strong search-light on the great struggle now on between liberty and her foes. This issue of Liberty portrays clearly the dangers of the present hour, and is truly an educator on that most important of subjects, religious liberty.—C. A. Hansen.

Liberty No. 3, has been received, and after a thorough examination I must say that it is the best number I have seen, and can well be considered a masterpiece on the subject of religious liberty. I wish we could put it in every home in our field. I will do all that I can to give it a wide circulation.—A. M. Neff.

I have received a sample copy of the new issue of Liberty, which I consider the very best magazine in the interests of civil and religious liberty. This copy, however, surpasses all preceding ones.”—Amos A. Mitchell.

I have carefully examined a copy of Liberty No. 3, and most heartily approve of the way it deals with the question of religious legislation. I, too, believe the time has come when we need not fear to present our arguments on this issue from a prophetic standpoint. This number should have a wide circulation.—H. H. Burkholder.

The magazine for the third quarter has come to hand, and I have given it a first reading. Words fail me when I think of the great need of the people of this nation for the principles contained in this gem of Liberty. You ask if we will co-operate in circulating one hundred thousand. A million of them would not suffice to stem the tide now setting in against American liberty; and who would say that our responsibility as custodians of such light would then be met? I am glad to see the two greatest evils in the world—falsehood in religion, and intemperance—so ably exposed. The two cartoons on pages 26 and 43 are, to my mind, the most eloquent captions possible for the logical articles contained in this number.—Walter E. Gillis.

Send for Suggestive Canvass and Special Rates to Agents. Address

LIBERTY, Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C.

Whole-Hearted Service of God

CONSIDERED in the abstract, it would seem to be the most natural thing in the world for one to give himself unreservedly to the whole-hearted service of God. For all that we are, and all that we have, we are indebted to God, who “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things.” He has made the one supreme gift for us, the “unspeakable gift,” in providing the sacrifice for sin in the person of his only begotten Son, and with him he has freely given us all things. How mysterious, how deceptive, how unaccountable, is the power of evil, which blinds the mind, and hardens the heart, and turns us away from such a God and Father! How cruel is the bondage in which Satan holds his captives! “That which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do. . . . O wretched man that I am!” There must be a set purpose, a determination of the mind to serve God. There must be the daily choice, and the constant staying of the mind upon God. The service of God must be made the first and the chief business. God will co-operate with this purpose, and enable us to realize our choice. Thus will the abstract theory become concrete fact.

“Jesuitical Vaticanism”

The leading editorial article in the July issue of the Missionary Review of the World is entitled “Political Plotting at the Vatican.” In these days, when the fear of Rome, or the desire for the favor of Rome, deters most writers from telling the unvarnished truth about the Roman Catholic Church, it is not often that we find an article which presents the facts so fully and so forcibly. It is a very striking summary of the testimony presented in a work entitled, “The History of a Movement to Make the Pope Governor of the World, By a Universal Reconstruction of Society, from the Issue of the Syllabus to the Close of the Vatican Council.”

There are three distinct divisions in the analysis of this movement, each one of which is quite fully elaborated in the editorial article. The first proposition is this: “The Vatican plot aims at the concentration and consolidation of power;” the second feature of this scheme is declared to be, “The method for maintaining this central authority;” and the third division is summarized in these words: “Secularism is a powerful ally of sacerdotalism in furthering the Vatican schemes.”

From that portion of the article which tells of the method employed by Rome in maintaining her central authority, we quote the following paragraphs:—

This Jesuitical Vaticanism which plots to secure power, plans ways for effective control of church and state. There are three recognized courts, or tribunals: the Supreme Tribunal—the pope; the External Tribunal—the church; and the Internal Tribunal—the confessional. But while the last ranks lowest, it is valued highest, and upon it supreme dependence is placed; for it holds the key to the whole situation. In the confessional, the priest gets a hold upon the individual, and the individual is the controlling factor in the family, the church, and the state. Here he unveils the secrets of the heart, otherwise known only to God; and such revelation of these innermost privacies puts into the hands of the priest the iron scepter that sways all else. He can control property, children, and schools; he can prevent or promote marital alliances, commercial schemes, ecclesiastical enterprises; in the box of the confessional, even emperors become suppliants, and, through them, the church can sway armies and navies, courts and councils. A subtle priest, having both capacity and sagacity, can shape events at the point where the springs of action are found, turning the stream as he will; and this Internal Tribunal of the confessional, skilfully managed, may make action in the External and Supreme Tribunals needless.

Hence the masterly ingenuity with which this weapon of power is wielded. The pope is head over the whole church, and the bishop sways the diocese, and may rule the State; but the priest may secretly undermine or establish the authority of both bishop and pope!

Few of us have ever grasped the full significance of sacerdotalism as a papal device. It puts the priest between the soul and all else, even God, at every stage of development, in the most ingenious and subtle system ever imagined. First of all, it controls wedlock, coming between the man and the woman, to determine whom each shall wed, in the interests of the church. Then when offspring come, it puts the priest between the infant and its ingrafting into the church in baptism; subsequently between the child and the Word of God, in catechetical instruction; between the sinner and absolution, in the confessional; between the communicant and the mystic wafer, in the mass; between the candidate and the gift of the Spirit, in confirmation; between the man and the ministry, in ordination; between the dying and his hereafter, in extreme unction; and, even beyond death, follows the soul into purgatory, in masses for the dead. From cradle to grave, and even afterward, there is always a human mediator to interpose; and this alone accounts for the marvelous power of the priesthood, wherever this Internal Tribunal holds sway.

This whole system is the logical result of the development of the central doctrine of the papacy,—that the pope is the vicegerent of the Son of God,—and the more one studies the question, the more deeply he is impressed that a wisdom far beyond the human has been revealed in thus putting man in the place of God. There is certainly good ground for declaring that “all the world wondered after the beast,” and for making the inquiry, “Who is like unto the beast?

who is able to make war with him?”

This is the papacy, whether it be in Catholic Spain or Protestant America; and it is against such a complete perversion of the gospel of Christ that this threefold message provides a warning.

Editorial

By Editor

Jesus is the meeting-place between God and humanity. In him divinity and humanity have been united, and he thus becomes the mediator between God and man. “There is one mediator between God and man, himself man, Christ Jesus.” “Through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Only thus can the finite be brought into fellowship with the Infinite.

The Mystery of the Gospel

WE can never solve the mystery of the gospel. By revelation it is made known unto us, and by faith we may receive it, and in our lives we may experience it; but the plan of redemption will ever remain a mystery to be dwelt upon during the eternal ages.

“O the depths of love divine! Earth or heaven can never know How that sins as dark as mine Can be made as white as snow.”

The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America

By C. M. S.

The Hierarchy Goes Down Before the Throne

In order that the great Reformation should be a success, it was necessary that theocratic forms of government should not be permitted in the United States of America. America, in God’s providence, was to be a lighthouse for the world. The Reformation had brought to light the glorious truths of justification by faith; but the theater of its first operations soon became unwelcome ground for the gospel of a free conscience. To propagate in America that false theocratic theory, which was binding consciences in the Old World and had begun to do so in the New, would have been the second great calamity of the Christian era. It was time for the prison-house of the soul to be thrown open, and for the jailor of conscience to receive his discharge.

The revolt of the laity in Massachusetts, as pointed out last week, strengthened the hand of the English king against the clerical power in the colonial government, and it must be confessed that the king’s hands needed strengthening; for weak as the colony was, she was so determined in her course that she even defied the king’s commissioners and the laws of the realm, and continued her audacious course for a number of years. The somewhat vacillating course of the king toward the Massachusetts Bay Colony was due to the fact that the necessity of preparing for his own troubles with the continental countries left little time or means for carrying out his purposes in New England.

While King Charles was instructing Massachusetts to deal more gently with the Quakers, he was also having brought to his attention the fact that members of the established church of England were forbidden to worship in New England according to the dictates of their consciences, and also that freeborn Englishmen were denied the suffrage. He wrote to the colonial legislature, demanding that liberty of Episcopal worship be granted, that individual Episcopalians be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in the Congregational churches, and be afforded the baptism of their infants. The general court replied, recounting the causes of Congregational emigration to New England, asserting that Congregationalism was established there, and begging that “our orthodox brethren would bear with us.”

Not liking the tone of this letter, the king appointed four commissioners to visit the colonies and regulate these affairs. In their instructions occur these words: “That such who desire to use the book of common prayer may be permitted so to doe without incurring any penalty, reproach, or disadvantage in his interests, . . . it being very scandalous that any man should be debarred the exercise of his religion, according to ye laws and customs of England, by those who by ye indulgence granted have liberty left to be of what profession in religion they please. . . . Differences of opinion doe not lessen charity to each other, since charity is fundamental in all religion.” The king’s commissioners were charged to be very careful not to give the impression that it was the king’s purpose to make any alteration in the church government, stating that his exception to their conduct was in the fact that they denied “liberty of conscience to each other.”

An illustration of the impossibility of men acting justly and consistently when once wedded to the church-and-state doctrine, is seen in what the king’s commissioners reported to the English secretary of state: “Those whom they will not admit to the communion they compel to come to their sermons by forcing from them five shillings for every neglect: yet these men thought their own paying of one shilling for not coming to prayers in England was an insupportable tyranny.”

In 1665 another demand was made upon them for freedom of Episcopal worship in Massachusetts. To this the general court replied, again setting forth their reasons for coming to America, and declaring that for the Episcopal worship to be set up in that colony “will disturb our peace in our present enjoyments; and we have commended to the ministry and people here the word of the Lord for their rule therein.” This was a practical refusal to yield to the demand of their king, and permit the worship of which he was the head to be recognized as a legitimate religion in one of his colonies. They were wedded to the church-and-state idea, and yet took the inconsistent position of denying to the real and only legitimate head of their state the headship of their religion. It really amounted to this, that if their king himself should come to New England, he would find the religion which he professed forbidden, and he himself a criminal for worshiping in harmony with its rituals.

This condition of affairs could not, of course, long continue; and yet the king seems to have borne very patiently with his colonial rebuffs. The commissioners themselves were powerless to enforce their king’s demands, and the only satisfaction they had was in freeing their minds as to the unreasonableness of the colony’s position. In their reply to the general court occur these words: “His majesty does not impose the use of the common prayer book on any, but he understands that liberty of conscience comprehends every man’s conscience as well as any.” But while the king’s commissioners were saying this of him, he was industriously putting the Covenanters to death in Scotland, and was doing nothing to ease the afflictions of Congregationalists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers in Virginia. This world has not yet produced an individual who could uphold the theory of a united church and state, and at the same time act consistently and deal justly with all.

In spite of the king’s ill success in bringing about a speedy correction of the conditions against which he complained, and in spite of the recurring revivals of intolerance toward those not of the established church, the leaven of a change toward a better condition was persistently working. The Baptists built a church in Boston. This exasperated the hierarchy, and a law was passed sentencing the sect to banishment; but the law was not enforced—the Baptists had come to stay and to “share with the Quakers the honor of securing liberty of conscience and of worship in Puritan Massachusetts.” While the general court took no action to indicate that dissenters were welcome, we hear no more of fines, imprisonments, and

whippings for exercising the rights of conscience.

The king had empowered his commissioners to hear appeals from the decisions of the Massachusetts General Court. To this the clerical party were bitterly opposed. The general court maintained that the observance of their charter was inconsistent with appeals; and this was no doubt correct; for should an appeal be taken to the commissioners of the British government from a decision of the general court concerning the rights of those outside of the established church,—especially if it were in the case of a Church of England man against a Congregationalist,—the commissioners would be bound to be guided by the laws of England rather than by the laws of the colony. They said: “Should it take place [that the commissioners be permitted to hear the appeals from the general court], what would become of our civil government which hath binn, under God, the head of that liberty for our consciences for which the first adventurers bore all discouragements that encountered them in this wilderness?” The commissioners forced the issue by giving notice that on a certain day they would sit “to hear the case of Thomas Dean et al vs. The Gov. & Co. of Mass. Bay.” Immediately the general court declared that the hearing would not be permitted—and it was not. The commissioners had no troops with which to enforce their purposes, and there the matter rested for the time. Several years elapsed, and in the meantime King Philip’s war broke out. This was a disastrous affair for the colony, and the clergy taught that it was a judgment from God against the colony because of their “tenderness toward the Quakers.”

In the year 1674 the English government began to turn its attention again toward affairs in Massachusetts. The king sent a special agent, Edward Randolph, who was received by the colonial government with scant courtesy. The letter which he brought from the king to the Massachusetts government was received in a very disrespectful manner by the governor, who stated to the king’s agent that the matters contained therein “did no way concern that government to take any notice thereof.” When the legislature met, however, they did consent to send agents to represent them in England, as the king had commanded them; but to these agents they gave such explicit instructions and such restricted powers that practically nothing was accomplished. In the autumn of 1677 one of these agents wrote to the governor that unless something were done, a breach was inevitable. In the spring of the following year the law officers of the kingdom gave a decision that the misdemeanors alleged against Massachusetts were sufficient to void her patent.

Later new agents were sent over to England. Their powers were at once rejected, the patent was declared void, and the government agent, Randolph, was sent to Boston to serve the writ of quo warranto; but he was also charged to declare for the king that if proper submission were made, the charter would be restored. The magistrates, realizing the results of persisting in such a policy, voted an address to the crown accepting the proffered terms; but the clergy opposed it. So in 1685 the royal charter of Massachusetts was revoked, the Puritan hierarchy ceased to be, and a royal governor was appointed.

Among the first declarations of the king to the people of Massachusetts through the royal governor, Andross, was this one: “We do here will and require and command that liberty of conscience be allowed to all persons, and that such especially as shall be conformable to the rites of the Church of England be particularly countenanced and encouraged.” The governor proceeded at once to break down the opposition to the Church of England form of worship by demanding a house of worship in which the liturgy of that church could be carried out. This was denied him, and he took forcible possession of one. The triumph of the governor in this broke the force of the opposition, and an arrangement was made permitting Episcopal worship in the churches on Sunday afternoons.

In 1687 there was published a proclamation of religious liberty which was designed by the king to remove Catholic disabilities. It was not received with any degree of enthusiasm in the colony, and when, in 1691, a new charter was granted to Massachusetts, by which the colony of Plymouth was merged into the larger colony, it was decreed that “forever hereafter there shall be liberty of conscience allowed, in the worship of God, to all Christians (except papists).”

Thus it is seen that neither king nor colony understood the true grounds of religious liberty. While they designated it “liberty of conscience,” it was nothing more than tolerance in religious practice. That the king withheld it from the “papists,” while granting it to all others, shows that he regarded the exercise of the rights of conscience merely as a privilege granted by him, which he had a right to withhold if he chose. The position taken by him in this, and the position taken by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in their opposition to him and his mode of worship, and to all forms of worship save their own, was no whit better than the doctrine of the papacy, which they opposed.

Thus we have in Massachusetts for a time what was virtually two hierarchies opposing each other and hindering each other, and out of those oppositions and hindrances religious liberty was growing; but Massachusetts did not get rid of all her church-and-state trappings for many years—nor has she indeed done so even yet; for support of the church by public taxation was continued even to the year 1833, and there still remain on her statute-books laws requiring the observance of Sunday.

We will consider in following articles the interesting history of the struggles for religious liberty in the colony and State of Virginia. C. M. S.

Our Pattern — the Life of Jesus

By W. A. S.

WHAT a blessed thing it is that we can boldly tell all the world that our faith and practise is to follow Jesus. Seventh-day Adventism stands only and fully for following Christ, who lived in this world, and left us an example that we “should follow his steps.” “He that saith he ‘abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.’”

We are Sabbath-keepers because Jesus was a Sabbath-keeper — “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to-day, and forever.”

Where Jesus walked, we would walk. As he did, we would do. He is our example in commandment-keeping, our pattern in every religious practise of life, and his life is the doctrine of life, and the inspiration and power in every department of our work, evangelistic, educational, or health and temperance.

Jesus lived to show men how to live; and thank God we have only to point men to the actual life lived. There are the footprints, leading straight through this world into heaven. That is the path in which we are to follow, and into which we are to seek to turn the feet of others. W. A. S.

Shall We Solicit Donations ?

By I. H. EVANS.

WHEN thinking of the missionary campaign to be carried on during the week of November 22-28, doubtless many ask the question, “Shall we solicit donations from those who do not believe this message?” A letter just received from Brother W. C. White contains several extracts from his mother’s writings on this important question. We quote the following: —

Several years ago it was presented to me that the Gentile world should be called upon to make donations to our work in the Southern field. Let discreet, God-fearing men go to worldly men that have means, and lay before them a plan of what they desire to do for the colored people. Let them tell about the Huntsville School, about the orphanage that we desire to build there, and about the colored mission schools that are needed all over the Southern States. Let the needs of this work be presented by men who understand how to reach the hearts of men of means. Many of these men, if approached in the right way, will make gifts to the work.

Let the plans for a sanitarium for the whites be brought to their attention also. Tell them what is needed to place this in running order. Tell them that there are many sick ones who need to be cared for, not in a hospital, but in a home.

There is aggressive work to be done. In the past too much dependence has been placed on the General Conference. There has been too much looking to it to support the work financially. The General Conference has heavy burdens to bear in sustaining foreign mission work, which must constantly be extended.

Why not ask the Gentiles for assistance? I have received instruction that there are men and women in the world who have sympathetic hearts, and who will be touched with compassion as the needs of suffering humanity are presented before them. Let men who have the ability to tell what a sanitarium should be, and the need that there is for such an institution, go to the Gentiles for financial aid. Our missionaries are fully authorized to do this in all the large cities of the South. There are men of the world who will give of their means for schools and for sanitariums. The matter has been presented to me in this light. Our work is to be aggressive. The money is the Lord’s, and if the wealthy are approached in the right way, the Lord will touch their hearts, and impress

them to give of their means. God’s money is in the hands of these men, and some of them will heed the request for help.

Talk this over, and do all in your power to secure gifts. We are not to feel that it would not be the thing to ask men of the world for means; for it is just the thing to do. This plan was opened before me as a way of coming in touch with wealthy men of the world. Through this means not a few will become interested, and may hear and believe the truth for this time.

It seems to me that this is positive proof that the Lord desires his people at this time to lay the great work they are doing before their neighbors and friends, and ask them to contribute financial aid. Such statements can not be strengthened by any comment. They stand as from the Lord, appealing to God’s people at this time to move forward in the work of soliciting from those who are not of our faith, that our work may be built up and established in various parts of the world.

I. H. EVANS.

Jesus and Sunday-Keeping

INASMUCH as Jesus never observed Sunday, and never gave any instruction to any one concerning the observance of Sunday, it seems rather incongruous to find an article in one of the current magazines with the title, “Sunday Observance from the Standpoint of Jesus.” Nevertheless the writer attempts to make Jesus responsible for the present liberal tendency in Sunday observance. He wishes it to be remembered “that Jesus struck the blows which liberated the religious spirit from the shell of institutionalism and allowed it to expand,” and says:—

The modern tendency in Sunday observance, which rescues the Lord’s day from its gloom, and gives more regard to the relief of mental tension and the recreation of the body, is a movement back toward the law of God behind Jewish institutions,—a movement which owes its being to Jesus himself. It is a movement back to the heart of that principle of his, that the needs of man come first, the institution second.

It seems to be a peculiar perversion of that teaching of Jesus which called men away from following tradition to the keeping of the commandments of God, to make it responsible for a disregard of the plain letter of God’s law, and the following of tradition in the matter and the manner of Sunday-keeping. This can only be accomplished by a misinterpretation of the principles inculcated by Jesus.

Science and Spiritualism

By investigations which are said to be conducted under the most rigid conditions, scientists have been seeking to establish the reality of a conscious existence beyond the grave, and have been endeavoring to prove that communication may be held with those who have departed this life. Sir Oliver Lodge, an English scientist, is one of the leaders in this kind of research, and in a recent article he declares:

On the whole, I am of those who, though they would like to see further, and still stronger and more continued, proofs, are of opinion that a good case has been made out, and that as the best working hypothesis at the present time it is legitimate to grant that lucid moments of intercourse with deceased persons may in the best cases supervene, amid a mass of supplementary material, quite natural under the circumstances, but mostly of a presumably subliminal and less evident kind. The boundary between the two states—the known and the unknown—is still substantial, but it is wearing thin in places; and like excavators engaged in boring a tunnel from opposite ends, amid the roar of water and other noises, we are beginning to hear now and again the strokes of the pickaxes of our comrades on the other side.

It is strange, but doubtless true, that the testimony of this eminent scientist will have more weight with many persons than the inspired teaching of the Scriptures. The rapid growth of spiritualism in its various phases is an evidence that the time is drawing near for a threefold union between Protestantism, Romanism, and spiritualism, and it is under the influence of this threefold union that the prophecy of Rev. 13:14-17 will be fulfilled.

Note and Comment

Ten to One

THE worse than useless extravagance in church architecture, in its relation to the missionary problem, has received a striking interpretation in the remark of a missionary:—

With one of the many church steeples in this land we could supply ten missionaries; and so, in many cases, instead of pointing the road to heaven, they are blocking up the way.

If the money and effort either wasted or wrongly applied in this country, could be utilized in the evangelization of the world, the gospel would soon be heard in every land.

The Testimony of Facts

It is said that facts speak louder than words. Let the following facts taken from a reliable source speak for themselves:—

The whole Christian world of 150,000,000 contribute only some $17,000,000 for missions, while in the State of New York, with less than 8,000,000 population, about the same amount is expended every year in licenses for the privilege of selling liquor, not for the liquor itself. In Germany it is stated that the average contribution to missions is only five and a quarter cents per capita, while the money expended per capita for beer alone is seven dollars, and twelve dollars for wine, whisky, and beer together. The total incomes of British missionary societies is nearly $9,000,000, while the people of Great Britain lay aside in savings nearly $5,000,000 a day. Thus more is accumulated in two days than is given to foreign missions in a whole year.

If all professed Christians would make a serious business of proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, how quickly the work could be finished, and “that crowning day” be ushered in.

“Separate the Levites”

WHEN the apostles found that they were being overburdened, even with the legitimate work of caring for the poor among them, they said to the believers, “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables;” and they asked that brethren should be appointed to attend to these matters. It is certain that the mind can not be largely occupied with business cares and perplexities, and at the same time be in the best condition for appreciating and presenting spiritual truth. Even a secular paper perceives this, and has expressed the fact in these words:—

You can not plow with a race-horse and expect him to keep his speed. A man absorbed in business for six days can not emerge as an uplifting speaker the seventh.

There is a lesson here which might profitably be studied by many whose time and energies are so largely devoted to secular affairs that their preaching does not lift their hearers above the ordinary plane of Christian experience.

A Hindu’s View

IN an article in the Congregationalist, Dr. Robert A. Hume speaks of the influence of Christ on the Oriental mind as revealed in the utterances of non-Christians. He gives a number of instances to prove the extent of that influence, and the ability of the Oriental to grasp the vital principles of the gospel. The following is an instance of that kind:—

In a recent conversation with one of the most influential Hindu gentlemen in the whole country [India], he said to me: “You Christians think that Jesus Christ reveals the love of God far more than any other religious teacher. For myself that is not his supreme revelation. But when I read in the New Testament—as I often do—about the death of Jesus on the cross, the thing that most impresses me is that Jesus Christ reveals supremely the suffering of God for the sins of men.”

It would be difficult for the Christian himself to express the import of that sacrifice in clearer terms.

Continue reading: A Broader View