Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 32.

The Living Bread

Review and Herald

Aug 6, 1908

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Aug 6, 1908

The Living Bread

By Mary A. Lathbury

Break Thou the bread of life, Dear Lord, to me, As Thou didst break the loaves Beside the sea; Beyond the sacred page I seek Thee, Lord; My spirit pants for Thee, Thou living Word.
Bless Thou the truth, dear Lord, To me, to me, As Thou didst bless the bread By Galilee; Then shall all bondage cease, All fetters fall; And I shall find my peace, My All-in-All, —Mary A. Lathbury.

YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR

By Editor

Special Christian Education Number, Aug. 18, 1908
“Christian Education, How and Where Obtained,” is the theme of a special number of the Youth’s Instructor bearing date of August 18, now ready to mail.
The filling of our schools the coming year is the motive that inspired the preparation of this special number of the Instructor, and no pains has been spared to make it effective in securing this most desirable result.
Short, stirring articles that tersely present the essential instruction and necessary inspiration have been prepared by some of our best writers and principal educators, and can not fail, when read, to arouse the latent energies of some, and to reassure the determination of others, to make the most of present opportunities for securing a thorough preparation for service in the Lord’s work.
The long vacation period being now well spent, the young people are beginning to think and plan for the coming year of school. The Instructor desires to help them to decide to attend one of our denominational schools.
Some of the young people of our churches have already made this wise choice; and this special number may help them to interest some friend or acquaintance whose decision to spend a year in one of our schools may prove to be as the very gate of heaven.
The illustrations, including twenty views of our different schools, make this a very attractive as well as a very practical number.

PRICES

Single copy, 5 cents; 25 or more copies, one order, one address, 2 cents a copy. Orders for the special Christian Education number may be sent through the regular channels, or direct to the publishers.
YOUTH’S INSTRUCTOR, Takoma Park, D. C.

WHAT IT TEACHES:

LIBERTY No. 3

The Prophetic Number

WHAT IT TEACHES:

The distinct spheres of the church and the state.
The fundamental principles of liberty.
The United States in prophecy—its work in the closing scenes of the drama of the world's history.
The history of the church in the days of Rome—its union with the state, and the formation of the papacy, as depicted in the prophecies.
The union of church and state in the United States—the image forming as predicted in the prophecies.
The meaning of present movements.
The change in governmental principles.
The work of recent sessions of Congress committing this nation to the policy of religious legislation.
The specific work of the Sixtieth Session of Congress—the nature and purpose of pending Sunday bills.
The history by consecutive dates and events of the religious movements made in the United States government to unite church and state from 1811 to 1908.
The deceptive nature of the claim that Sunday laws are civil and not religious enactments.
The fallacy of the exemption clauses in Sunday bills favoring those who observe another day.
The plain facts contrasted with the inconsistencies indulged in an attempt to justify Sunday laws upon any other than religious grounds.
The evils of the saloon.
The distinction between Sunday observance and prohibition by law.
This number also contains some very attractive and desirable illustrations.

PRICES

Single copy, 10 cents; 2 to 25 copies, 5 cents a copy; 25 to 500 copies, 4 cents a copy. Special rates to agents on orders of 500 or more copies.
The subscription price is 25 cents. Ten or more copies one year, to one address, one order, 15 cents a copy. Foreign subscriptions, including Canada, 35 cents a year.
LIBERTY, Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C.

Religion and the State

THE evidence is not lacking to show that this country is being leavened with ideas which will prepare the way for a reversal of the traditional policy of separation between church and state. The campaign is being carried forward from two different standpoints. On the one side the conception of religion is being so changed as to make it more an affair of this world than of the next, as dealing with the relations between man and man, rather than with the relations between man and God. It seems quite reasonable that religion of this sort may properly come within the purview of civil government.
On the other side, there is a continuous campaign of education to bring the people to consent that with a nominal separation of church and state, there may yet be an actual union of religion and the government. The fruit of this twofold agitation will doubtless be seen in due time.
As a contribution to the discussion of this whole question, Prof. Charles Zueblin, until recently a member of the faculty of the University of Chicago, has published in book form a series of lectures in which he makes a strong plea for a certain type of religion organized and fostered by the state. He declares that “it is no more incongruous to have a national organization of universal religion than to have a national organization of humanitarianism.” This statement throws a clear light upon Professor Zueblin’s conception of religion. As further defining his views, we quote:—
There is a common faith of the whole people; it may not be tangible, it may not have been capable of expression in creeds, without producing schism and sect; but it can be conceived, and it is in need of organization. The state must be supreme; the church must be subordinate; and religion can only be free in the state. Our minds have been so befogged by the conflict between church and state that we have grown unable to see the harmony of religion and society. When it is recognized that every individual must have his own religion, regardless of the ecclesiastical authority to which he may hold allegiance, then it will be seen that only the state can facilitate this.
In urging his scheme for a state organization of religion, Professor Zueblin does not hesitate to advocate that houses of worship should be provided at public expense. He says:—
It is more practicable for the state to provide edifices for common worship, or for the consecutive service of different bodies of religionists, so that all may have use of public property without discrimination, than to exempt [from taxation] sectarian church property. If people will have private churches, they should be permitted to do so and to pay for them; but if they will worship in common, or in a common building, as often occurs in Switzerland, it may promote universal religious fellowship.
The kind of religion which can be encouraged and directed by the state, and which is contemplated in this plan, is clearly indicated in the following paragraph:—
A national organization of religion, like the national faith, will pass beyond the scope of the church or churches. The church of the republic will know neither Jew nor Gentile, Greek nor barbarian, bond nor free, because its raison d’être [basis of existence] will not be that of external authority, historic orthodoxy, or the aggregate of temperamental faiths, but the will of the people, inspired by the moral impulse of collective effort in the state.
The present trend toward a religion which might consistently be placed under state control is voiced in a recent editorial in a leading exponent of liberalism. We quote one statement:—
Men who never gave much thought to the ethics of good citizenship, confess they now realize that religion that does not express itself in conduct socially useful is not true religion.
Professor Zueblin gives expression to the same idea in his reference to “the substitution of social utility for theological sanction;” and upon this tendency he rests largely his hope for the success of his movement. In commenting upon this plea for a state organization of religion, one of the leading magazines, Current Literature, to which we are indebted for the quotations in this article, gives expression to some thoughts deserving of special attention. It says:—
The Constitution of the United States declares that American citizens shall be free from any special religious influence; but this uncompromising declaration has already been modified. In many of the States, religious exercises are conducted daily in the schools, and legislative assemblies are opened with prayer. The principle involved in such practises is akin to that underlying Professor Zueblin’s plea.
According to this view of the case, one violation of the constitutional provision against a union of religion and the state affords a sufficient reason for
going further in the same direction, and for a complete union of religion and the government.
The significance of the utterances quoted in this article should not be overlooked. They plainly indicate a trend toward a religion founded not upon revelation but upon “the will of the people.” They show that there is rapidly gaining ground a conception of religion which reduces it to the plane of good citizenship, a merely social movement. As these views are more generally adopted, it will become easier to regard it as the proper function of the state to define and to supervise religion, and the disregard of such a state religion will naturally be defined as treason.
The best answer to this whole perversion of religion, and this false view of the relation between religion and the state, will be found in the preaching of “the everlasting gospel,” and the manifestation of the truth in the lives of the true subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The demand for the teaching of the pure gospel was never greater than at the present time.

Editorial

By Editor

The coming of the Lord, which has been the hope of the church for many centuries, is made entirely unnecessary, and in fact, undesirable, by those perversions of the gospel which change the truth of God into a lie. It is a significant sign of the times that in this last generation, when the second advent is an impending event, the whole trend of religious teaching should be such as to detract from the impressiveness of this vital doctrine. On every side the inquiry is being made, “Where is the promise of his coming?” There is a distinct call for the advent message.

The Kingdom Yet to Come

The Saviour taught us to pray, “Thy kingdom come.” This shows that the kingdom to which he referred was not set up at the first advent; and so long as this prayer is appropriate, the kingdom must still be in the future. When, according to Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, the image shall be smitten, and the God of heaven shall set up his kingdom, “which shall stand forever,” the prayer will have been answered; but the desired result can never be realized by a gradual process, in which the enemies of God’s kingdom will be transformed into loyal subjects, and thus the reign of righteousness be introduced. “Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.” In the meantime we must preach the gospel of the kingdom among all the nations as a testimony.

The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America

By C. M. S.

The Making and Meaning of Rhode Island — No. 3

In a work entitled, “The Beginners of a Nation,” by Edward Eggleston, occurs an expression which explains the reason for the inconsistent and unchristian acts of all false theocratic governments. He says: “When once the civil government weights itself with spiritual considerations, its whole equilibrium is disturbed.” It is just as true that when once the church of Christ weights itself with civil considerations, affairs of state, its whole equilibrium is disturbed. “Liberty and justice,” says the same author, “seem insignificant by the side of the immensities.” And yet, says the Word, “Justice and judgment are the habitation of his throne.”
The results of a union of religion and the state, as seen in the injustice which it works to the citizens of a country, stamp the system at once as opposed to the principles of the gospel of Christ, and utterly antagonistic to the purpose of God regarding man. That fact alone is able to account for the cruel treatment accorded to dissenters in New England by the established church and the ingratitude of the Massachusetts and Connecticut governments toward Roger Williams and the Narragansett settlements after the invaluable services rendered.
One of the most persistent antagonists of Roger Williams and his followers was Rev. John Cotton, a former friend and associate of Williams, but “whose moral intuitions were fairly suffocated by logic.” There was considerable correspondence carried on between Cotton and Williams over this very matter of persecution. Such suffocation of morals by “logic” is well illustrated in the reply of Cotton to the following words of Roger Williams:—
“It is a monstrous paradox that God’s children should persecute God’s children, and that they that hope to live eternally together with Christ Jesus in the heavens, should not suffer each other to live in this common air together. I am informed it was the speech of an honorable knight of the Parliament: “What! Christ persecute Christ in New England?”
Mr. Cotton’s reply:—
Though God’s children may not persecute God’s children, nor wicked men either, for well-doing; yet if they be found to walk in the way of the wicked, their brethren may justly deprive them in some cases not only of the common air of the country, by banishment, but even of the common air of the world by death, and yet hope to live eternally with them in the heavens.
The sophistry of such “logic” needs not to be pointed out to him whose heart is enlightened by the light and love of Christ; but let men adopt the idea that it is the business of the church to meddle in civil government, and that it is the business of the state to interfere in matters of conscience, and such a statement as the above seems not only logical but necessary. From such a view-point the advocates of theocratic government in New England guided their course of conduct in whipping Baptists, imprisoning, whipping, and hanging Quakers, exiling members of the established church who had opinions of their own, and finally attempting to rob the Providence Plantations of their colonial autonomy, as pointed out last week.
Mr. Cotton’s reply above quoted is in perfect harmony with the doctrine enunciated by Augustine in the fifth century, that “many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development.” The carrying out of that doctrine brought the martyrdoms of the Dark Ages; and the propounding of such doctrine by Rev. John Cotton and the clergy of his day shows the papal origin of the church-and-state doctrine, while the result of the effort to carry it out in New England likewise puts upon the system the stamp of the papacy.
The patent for the Providence Plantations, which was secured by Roger Williams in 1643, protected the Rhode Island settlers against absorption by Massachusetts, and insured a republican form of government, but said nothing in reference to matters of faith or religion. Some have wondered at this omission; but the silence is eloquent. The one who was instrumental in procuring that patent recognized the faith and the religion of the inhabitants as being entirely outside the jurisdiction of the state, and therefore it was unnecessary for the state tomake any provision with reference thereto. In the matter of government, however, the patent is sufficiently explicit. It gave them “full power and authority to rule themselves and such others as shall hereafter inhabit within any part of the said tract of land, by such a form of civil government as by voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their estate and condition. . . . Provided, nevertheless, that the said laws, constitutions, and punishments, for the civil government of the said Plantations, be conformable to the laws of England, so far as the nature and constitution of the place will admit.”
In the above, emphasis seems to be laid upon the fact that this instrument is for the “civil” government of that colony, and the absence of any word about religion confirms the inference. That republicanism was also guaranteed by that patent is seen in the provision that they were to have authority to govern themselves and those who came among them by such a form of civil government “as by voluntary consent of all, or the greater part of them, they shall find most suitable to their estate and condition.” That was government by the consent of the governed, one of the first principles of the Declaration of Independence—a Rhode Island doctrine for more than a hundred years before the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. It is not to be supposed, either, that such a doctrine in that patent was a product of the English thought and teachings of the time; for never before was there anything like it under England’s jurisdiction. There is no question but that he who took the long journey to England for the protection of the rights of his followers had much to do with wording the provisions of that instrument which was to guarantee those rights.
Upon the basis of that patent the code of laws for the Providence Plantations (Rhode Island) was framed. The closing sentence of that early code runs thus:—
These are the laws that concern all men, and these are the penalties for the transgression thereof, which, by common consent, are ratified and established throughout the whole colony; and, otherwise than what is thus therein forbidden, all men may walk as their consciences persuade them, every one in the name of his God.
After the overthrow of the Oliver Cromwell régime in England, the Rhode Islanders began to fear that their patent might not be honored by King Charles, or that the enemies of their political entity might in some way rob them of the rights which they had attained through so much toil and opposition. Events proved that they had good reason to fear for their liberties. It was as true then as it is now that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”
Mr. John Clarke, a resident of Rhode Island, was in England at the time, acting as agent for the colony; and to him was entrusted the task of securing for the colony a new charter. Application for this charter was made in 1661, but it was not granted until 1663. In the second application for the patent occurs this memorable sentence:—
Your petitioners have it much on their hearts (if they may be permitted) to hold forth a livelie experiment, that a flourishing civill state may stand, yea, and best be maintained, and that among English subjects, with a full liberty in religious concernments.
The language of the second petition seems to have had a favorable effect upon the king, for the very wording of the above quotation is woven into the charter granted at that time. It will be of interest in this connection to quote the following portion of that charter:—
Whereas, in their humble addresse, they have freely declared, that it is much on their hearts (if they may be permitted), to hold forth a livelie experiment, that a most flourishing civill state may stand and best be maintained, and that among our English subjects, with a full libertie in religious concernments; and that true pietye rightly grounded upon gospell principles, will give the best and greatest security to sovereignetye, and will lay in the hearts of men the strongest obligations to true loyaltye: Now know yee, that wee beings willinge to encourage the hopefull undertakinge of oure sayd loyall and loveinge subjects, and to secure them in the free exercise and enjoyment of all theire civill and religious rights, appertaining to them, as our loveing subjects; and to preserve unto them that libertye, in the true Christian ffaith and worship of God, which they have sought with soe much travaill, and with peaceable myndes, and loyall subjectione to our royall progenitors and ourselves, to enjoye; and because some of the people and inhabitants of the same colonie can not, in theire private opinions, conforme to the publique exercise of religion, according to the litturgy, formes, and ceremonies of the Church of England, or take or subscribe the oaths and articles made and established in that behalf; and for that the same, by reason of the remote distances of these places, will (as wee hope) bee noe breach of the unitie and uniformitie established in this nation: Have therefore thought ffit, and doe hereby publish, graunt, ordeyn, and declare, That our royall will and pleasure is, that noe person within the sayd colonye, at any tyme hereafter, shall bee any wise molested, punished, disquieted, or called in question, for any differences in opinione in matters of religion, and doe not actually disturb the civill peace of our sayd colony; but that all and everye person and persons may, from tyme to tyme, and at all tymes hereafter, freelye and fullye have and enjoye his and theire owne judgments and consciences, in matters of religious concernments, throughout the tract of lande hereafter mentioned; they behaving themselves peaceablie and quietlie, and not useing this libertie to lycentiousnesse and profanenesse, nor to the civill injurye or outward disturbance of others; and lawe, statute, or clause, therein contayned, or to bee contayned, usage or custome of this realme, to the contrary hereof, in any wise, notwithstanding.
That “livelie experiment” in the separation of church and state has come down to us as the most precious heirloom of early colonial days. Like every good thing that has come to this world, it came into being through travail and perplexity and pain. As the “dragon” of Revelation stood ready to devour the “child” Jesus as soon as it should be born, so stood the New England hierarchy on three sides of Rhode Island to snuff out its life in the days of its infancy.
Massachusetts had endeavored to blot the colony out of existence as an independent colony in 1643, and Connecticut attempted practically the same thing in 1661-63. Connecticut was endeavoring at that time to secure a patent, or charter, from King Charles, covering the whole of the present territory of Rhode Island with the exception of the town sites of Providence, Newport, Portsmouth, and Warwick. Through the interposition of divine Providence, the undertaking of Connecticut was thwarted, and that little beacon of religious liberty among the colonies was not suffered to be extinguished. Rhode Island became a State among the States, holding aloft to the world as well as to the States among which she was planted the gospel of the only freedom worthy of the name.
We can not pass from a consideration of the charter of Rhode Island without mentioning another fact which shows that when God has a truth for the world, he will permit nothing to stand in the way of having that truth made known. The gospel of soul liberty was due. The only political organization that professed to stand upon that principle was the infant colony of Rhode Island. That colony, in pleading for a charter from the crown of England that would guarantee soul liberty to the inhabitants was appealing for England to repeal her own laws so far as Rhode Island was concerned. The laws of England rigidly required uniformity in religious belief. In its view, as expressed in its fundamental law, church and state were essential portions of each other. But the charter granted to Rhode Island in 1663 exempted Rhode Island from operation of those laws, and by its provisions did literally disestablish the church so far as it affected the colony. It is a significant fact that in that royal charter were summed up, as the basis of Rhode Island’s government, the very principles which characterized the Americannation as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States—that is to say, republicanism and religious liberty.
For one hundred seventy-eight years that royal charter remained the fundamental law of Rhode Island, and every vital principle of the charter was incorporated into the State constitution when adopted in 1842. The opening sentence of that constitution reads as follows:—
We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which he hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this constitution of government.
One of the chief articles of that constitution is Article 3, as strong and forceful a declaration upon the matter of religious freedom as man could devise. It reads:—
SECTION 3. Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free, and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishment, or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and whereas a principal object of our venerated ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this State, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we therefore declare, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfilment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess, and by argument to maintain, his opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity.
In that constitution we find the church disestablished, we find the principles of republicanism, we find the equality of man, and we find the prohibition of religious tests as a qualification for holding public office. All of these principles we find later incorporated into the Constitution of the United States; but none of them were to be found in any of the charters of those colonies where church and state were united. It is easy to determine, then, the germinant source of those principles which have made America great, and a refuge for the oppressed of every land. The nation’s debt to Roger Williams is a debt that can never be canceled.
We have now shown the evil results that followed the establishment of the church in the different colonies and the reaction for soul liberty in Rhode Island. We will seek in following articles to show the growth of the principles of religious liberty in the nation, and the later abandonment of those principles and the retrogression toward the evils of church and state union.
C. M. S.

A Quick Work

By W. A. S.

Only two years ago a conference was organized in the province of Alberta, Canada. There were but a few hundred believers, and the field was counted as mission territory. In fact, it appealed to the General Conference for assistance in establishing school and sanitarium enterprises; and though the help could not be given, it was recognized as a legitimate call for help.
Two years pass; and now this little conference raises twenty-three thousand dollars in cash and pledges at their camp-meeting, and Alberta is pressing forward in the hope of soon sending good supplies of means and workers out to more needy fields. At their recent small camp-meeting there were over sixty young people in attendance, many seeking a training for the work. The financial strength which the grace of God enabled the believers to display at the Alberta meeting is another one of the cheering omens that the Lord is to do a quick work.
W. A. S.

The Missionary Campaign

By I. H. Evans

It is most interesting to glance through the letters received at the office of the General Conference, and to see how the brethren in the field view the coming missionary campaign. The date of this missionary week is Nov. 22-28, 1908. Let us not forget the date; for we must all plan our business so that we can devote our time to the foreign mission work during that week.
The plan is somewhat as follows: 1. To bring out a missionary number of the REVIEW AND HERALD which will contain an outline of the missionary operations of our people in all the world, especially in heathen lands. This number will be amply illustrated with a variety of cuts, and the fields will be written up briefly, and yet in an interesting manner, so that the reader will have something of an idea of the extent of our work in all parts of the world.
2. This number of the REVIEW is to be furnished free to all our churches in quantities such as they order beforehand, and these REVIEWS are to be given away to those who will promise to read them. Every one who takes a copy of the REVIEW is to be asked for a donation to foreign missions. This money is to be forwarded through the regular channels to the Mission Board, and will be used in the advancement of the work of the third angel’s message.
3. It is desired that every Seventh-day Adventist in the English-speaking countries of the world shall devote at least one week to this missionary campaign, distributing papers during this week, praying with the people, interesting them in the work of the third angel’s message, and soliciting donations for the advancement of the missionary work among the heathen peoples of the world. It is hoped that every Seventh-day Adventist can secure as much as ten dollars, on an average, for this work. We believe that if we could throw ourselves with earnest enthusiasm into this great enterprise, there could be a large ingathering of funds for the advancement of the message at this time.
4. There may be those who can not give a week in this way, owing to their being tied up in business, or working for those who will not allow them their liberty, and it is suggested that in all cases of this kind, the person might give his week’s earnings for the advancement of the missionary cause, so that it can be said that every Seventh-day Adventist in the denomination is devoting one week’s effort to the advancement of the foreign mission work.
5. The churches should consider at an early date how many REVIEWS they can circulate, and should order as many as they can distribute, the General Conference paying for the same out of the donation that is to be received.
We believe that merchants, business men, bankers, and people of wealth should be visited during this time, receive a copy of the REVIEW, and be given an opportunity to contribute to our mission work. I do not believe we should ask for less than one dollar, but of course we would receive anything that the people would give.
This endeavor is looked upon with favor by nearly all our leading brethren. Brother A. O. Burrill, president of the Kentucky Conference, writes:—
I think that the general plan for a missionary number of the REVIEW is born of the Spirit. I have wondered for some time why something of this kind was not brought forward for the people. Could not this or such a number be sold also for a help to the missionary work?
Brother Wm. Covert, president of the Northern Illinois Conference, writes as follows concerning this plan:—
This question must be agitated continually in order to accomplish all that the Lord requires us to do. I know that every person bearing responsibility in this work should take a deep interest in its progress. I also know that the financial propositions require more attention than almost anything else. I am always interested in this feature of the work, and will do what I can to make it a success in this little conference. I shall be glad to co-operate with you in the ingathering.
Brother H. W. Herrell, president of the Virginia Conference, writes:—
Your letter concerning the missionary number of the REVIEW AND HERALD, and the missionary campaign this fall, was duly received, and I wish to place myself on record as heartily in favor of the same, and that we will do all we can. We believe our people generally will do what they can in this special effort. We shall endeavor to keep the campaign before our people in this State.
Brother C. F. McVagh, vice-president of the Southern Union Conference, speaks of this plan in these encouraging words:—
I have felt for some time that we could raise much money from the world for our work in heathen lands, and also for the work among the colored people in the South, if we go about it in the right way. I shall work hard for the success of the proposed plan and shall watch the result with much interest.
Brother E. K. Slade, president of the East Michigan Conference, says:—
I am heartily in favor of a strong, definite effort to create a much larger awakening among our people in the interests of foreign mission work. I believe also that to have a special number of the REVIEW of this character will result in much good for the REVIEW, for our people in the churches, and for the needy cause. The more I think of the plan, and consider the large influence such an effort will have if entered into unitedly by our people, the more I favor it. I shall take pleasure in inviting our committee to enter into this thing with unison, provided the effort is carried out.
Brother W. J. Stone, president of the Indiana Conference, speaks thus:—
I will only briefly reply at this time, but will say that I am favorably impressed with your plans, and will give the matter careful thought. You can count on our co-operation in this matter.
Brother S. E. Wight, president of the Southern Illinois Conference, says:—
I believe it is a capital idea. I am sure that we must do strong work for our churches, and the missionary work will help us in this. We must increase the faith in our denomination, and while some will be hardened by some of these things, the true sheep of the fold will stay by the cause. I will do all in my power to help you in this plan, and to secure money for the furtherance of the cause in foreign fields.
Brother D. U. Hale, president of the Missouri Conference, in writing on this subject, says:—
I have been wondering how the prophecy of Isa. 60:5 would be fulfilled. It says, “The forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee.” The margin of the word “forces” is “wealth.” For a long time I have felt that this would be literally true. Now it seems to me that this idea of the missionary number of the REVIEW is to be a beginning in this direction. Truly I believe the Lord is preparing to do great things in the earth in finishing this work.
Brother G. W. Reaser, president of the Southern California Conference, says:—
I certainly think that our people will take hold of this heartily, as it will be a new departure for the REVIEW AND HERALD, our official denominational paper, to issue such a number, and call upon our people to give it general circulation. I am sure that our people in Southern California will be glad to take hold of this matter energetically, and that we can rely upon them quite largely to give the net earnings of a week’s labor for this particular work.
Brother V. B. Watts, president of the Arkansas Conference, in writing of this missionary week, says:—
I will do all I can to help in the missionary campaign this fall. I assure you that my heart is in this work, and I want to see it finished up.
Brother G. W. Wells, president of the Georgia Conference, passes in this cheering word:—
I have no other thought than that of throwing my influence and might into this effort, and shall talk the matter up to our people here. I see no reason why we can not gather in a large sum of money at this time. To my mind the only thing that stands in the way is the full co-operation of our people, and this I believe we shall have; so far I have heard no dissenting voice.
Many other testimonies might be added, nearly all speaking with unanimous voice of pushing the work, and endeavoring to make it a success, but space forbids. Let us all pray for the success of this effort.
I. H. EVANS.

As to Teaching Religion

In a recently published article Prof. John Dewey, of Columbia University, discusses the vexed question of teaching religion in the public schools. He finds so many practical difficulties in the way of making religion one of the subjects of instruction that his conclusions are mainly negative. Some of his inquiries run thus:—
Where are the experts in religion? And where are the authoritative teachers? There are theologians; do we want theology taught? . . . There are preachers and catechists; but, unless we are committed to some peculiar faith or institution, it is not exhortation or discipline of this sort that constitutes religious instruction. There are psychologists; but is introspection our aim? There remains, indeed, the corps of faithful, more or less well-prepared, hard-working, and hard-worked teachers. This brings us to the crux of the whole matter. Is religion a thing so specialized, so technical, so “informational” that, like geography or history or grammar, it may be taught at special hours, times, and places by those who have properly “got it up,” and been approved as persons of fit character and adequate professional training? . . . Our schools, in bringing together those of different nationalities, languages, traditions, and creeds, in assimilating them together upon the basis of what is common and public in endeavor and achievement, are performing an infinitely significant religious work. They are promoting the social unity out of which in the end genuine religious unity must grow. Shall we interfere with this work? Shall we run the risk of undoing it by introducing into education a subject which can be taught only by segregating pupils, and turning them over at special hours to separate representatives of rival faiths?
These inquiries indicate the embarrassment which is encountered in any effort to bring religion under the direction of the state. The one answer to all these inquiries is that the teaching of religion is not a matter which can be properly under state control or conducted at public expense.

Note and Comment

Political Preaching

THE chairman of the campaign committee having in charge the movement to secure the nomination of Judge W. H. Wallace for the governorship of Missouri makes the statement that “of the six thousand preachers in Missouri, five thousand already are pledged to support Wallace, and to give him all the aid they can.” The same campaign manager announced that on a recent Sunday fifteen hundred ministers throughout the State would preach sermons advocating the nomination of Judge Wallace. Thus do the preachers of Missouri prostitute their pulpits for political purposes; but this is in harmony with the theory that the kingdom of God will come through the gateway of politics.

_One of the Issues_

In his campaign to secure the nomination for the governorship of Missouri, Judge W. H. Wallace, of Kansas City, puts forward as his main issue “law enforcement with special reference to our Sunday and liquor laws.” In a recent speech at Hannibal, Mo., Judge Wallace said:—
There are three great issues before the American people to-day,—Sabbath observance, the trusts, and the liquor question,—and any one of them, decided wrong, will seal the destiny of American liberty.
When “Sabbath observance” means the observance of Sunday, it is easy to foresee the outcome if men of the type of Judge Wallace secure control in this country. The prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes.
Continue reading: Scientific Religion