Review and Herald, Vol. 83, No. 19. (5/10/1906)

Review and Herald

May 10, 1906

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D.C. · May 10, 1906

ЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКОМУ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВУ, ГОСУДАРЮ ИМПЕРАТОРУ НИКОЛАЮ АЛЕКСАНДРОВИЧУ.

By Л. Р. Конради; О. Вильдгрубе; Ф. Андерсонъ; Г. И. Лесакъ; Д. П. Геде; Д. Изаакъ; А. М. Капустинскій; А. Мартыновъ

Мы, вѣроисповѣдующіе ВАШЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА, принадлежащіе къ Христіанскому Обществу Адвентистовъ Седьмого Дня, распространенному по всему міру, въ лицѣ нижеподписавшихся уполномоченныхъ общинами, находящимися въ Государствѣ ВАШЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА, въ виду тяжелаго положенія нашего дорогого Отечества, осмѣливаемся всеподданнѣйше выразить ВАШЕМУ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОМУ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВУ нашу глубокую скорбь, вмѣстѣ со всѣми Богобоязненными людьми Страны узнавъ отъ ВСЕВЫШНЯГО о полномъ успокоеніи нашей Родины, при которомъ Она могла бы продолжать Свое развитіе.

Мы преисполнены величайшей благодарности къ БОГУ, въ СВОЕМЪ провидѣніи РАСПОЛОЖИВШЕМУ сердце ВАШЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА даровать всѣмъ Христіанскимъ вѣроисповѣданіямъ давно желанную свободу совѣсти, за которую мы горячо благодаримъ ВАШЕ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОЕ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВО, въ нашей увѣренности, что ея блага будутъ предоставлены и намъ.

При этомъ мы осмѣливаемся всеподданнѣйше изложить передъ ВАШИМЪ ИМПЕРАТОРСКИМЪ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВОМЪ основаніе нашей вѣры:

Священное Писаніе Ветхаго и Новаго Завѣта мы признаемъ за Слово БОЖІЕ и вѣримъ въ ОТКРЫТАГО ИМЪ БОГА и ЕГО ЕДИНОРОДНАГО СЫНА, ІИСУСА ХРИСТА, черезъ КОТОРАГО ОНЪ сотворилъ вселенную, черезъ КОТОРАГО ОНЪ держитъ ее, Кровію КОТОРАГО мы искуплены и КОТОРЫЙ вскоре явится во славѣ СВОЕЙ. Мы вѣримъ также въ БОЖІЮ СИЛУ СВЯТАГО ДУХА.

Въ законѣ десяти заповѣдей мы видимъ неизменную волю БОЖІЮ, согласно которой седьмой день четвертой заповѣди мы признаемъ библейской еженедельной субботой ГОСПОДНЕЙ. Кромѣ того, по ученію Евангелія, мы совершаемъ крещеніе, омовеніе ногъ и вечерю ГОСПОДНЮ.

Посредствомъ нашей вѣры, основанной на Священномъ Писаніи, мы тѣсно связаны съ дѣтьми БОЖІИМИ, находящимися на всей землѣ, и, соотвѣтственно этому, имѣемъ правильное общественное устройство и признаемъ апостоловъ, пророковъ, пастырей, учителей, пресвитеровъ и діаконовъ. Относительно содержанія служителей Евангелія мы вполнѣ руководствуемся указаніями Священнаго Писанія.

Мы вѣримъ, что ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО поставлено отъ БОГА, молимся за НЕГО и, на основаніи Любви, обязуемся „отдавать КЕСАРЕВО КЕСАРЮ,“ принося ЕМУ подати, налоги, страхъ и честь, „а БОЖІЕ БОГУ,“ соблюдая ЕГО законъ.

Мы повинуемся ученію Священнаго Писанія относительно брака и воспитанія дѣтей. Видя во ХРИСТѢ духовнаго и тѣлеснаго ВРАЧА, мы, руководясь ЕГО совѣтами, стараемся вести здоровый образъ жизни и потому не употребляемъ никакихъ спиртныхъ напитковъ и всѣхъ вредныхъ возбуждающихъ средствъ. По той же причинѣ мы, для блага человѣчества, уже имѣемъ во всѣхъ частяхъ свѣта болѣе шестидесяти научно обоснованныхъ лечебныхъ заведеній и пятнадцать школъ для образованія и воспитанія молодыхъ людей. Для сообщенія человѣчеству знаній относительно его духовнаго и матеріальнаго блага мы имѣемъ обширную литературу.

Все наше Общество состоитъ изъ восьмидесяти тысячъ взрослыхъ членовъ, изъ которыхъ болѣе двухъ тысячъ находятся въ Государствѣ ВАШЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА.

Всеподданнѣйше изложивши все это ВАШЕМУ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОМУ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВУ, мы бо́льше всего желаемъ выразить наше сердечное желаніе, чтобы ГОСПОДЬ сохранилъ ВАШЕ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОЕ ВЕЛИЧЕСТВО для блага нашей Родины еще на многія лѣта.

Рѣшено на конференціяхъ въ

С. Петербургѣ, 1. октября 1905 года.　　　　　　　　　Великокняжескъ, 9. октября 1905 года.

ВАШЕГО ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА вѣроисповѣдные:

Л. Р. Конради Гамбургъ.

Вице-президентъ генеральной конференціи

О. Вильдгрубе С. Петербургъ　　 Ф. Андерсонъ Гельзингфорсъ　　 Г. И. Лесакъ Великокняжескъ

Д. П. Геде Рига　　 Д. Изаакъ Александровскъ　　 А. М. Капустинскій Архангельскъ

А. Мартыновъ С. Петербургъ　　 А. Гонтаръ Невьянскъ　　 М. Демидовъ Таганрогъ

An Address to the Czar of Russia

(For Translation see page 12)

The Earthquake Special

“Signs of the Times”

May 1906,

The Signs of the Times has issued a thrilling, profusely illustrated earthquake special of sixteen pages, containing accurate pen and camera accounts of the effects of the recent California earthquake from eye-witnesses after all the excitement and confusion were over.

From the effects of the great perverted forces of nature in the cities and towns reported, one may have some conception of the extent of the destruction in other places, and of its awful shock upon the minds of the thousands who were forced to witness the terrible scene.

Associated with the graphic account of this and other great calamities is forcibly presented the Scriptural meaning of these terrible object-lessons in the light of the prophetic word. The meaning of all these things is presented in such a rational, convincing way, and so logically proved from the Scriptures, that any candid reader must admit the conclusions drawn.

Hence, out of the recent California calamity may come one of the most favorable opportunities to present to, and impress upon, the public mind the great message for this time. The opportunity is present, and the means are at hand; who can refuse to use them? Never was there a better opportunity to get the truth before the people. Through the prompt, concerted action of the whole people at this time in the circulation of this special earthquake number of The Signs of the Times, the message may be better and more extensively given than ever before. No individual interested in the message now due the world should release himself from present responsibility until he has circulated a liberal quantity of this special number of the Signs.

Prices

Less than 1,000 to one name, one address, 3 cents a copy; over 1,000 copies to one name, one address, 2½ cents a copy.

Order direct from the

Pacific Press Publishing Company

Mountain View, Cal., or your State Tract Society

Steadfast, Unmovable

By Editor

Editorial

Steadfast, Unmovable

We have certainly come to a time when every believer in this third angel’s message should know the truth for himself, and should know that he knows it. If any have been simply drifting with the denominational current, they will now find that there are side currents, and they will be compelled to decide where the genuine message is. If any will have been resting their faith upon individuals, they will now find that some are departing from the truth. If any have been uncertain in their adherence to any phase of doctrine, they will in all probability be under the necessity of defending their weakest point, or of yielding it entirely. In view of this situation, we are moved to urge our readers not to be easily disconcerted, or robbed of their confidence in any feature of our work and message, by plausible assertions or grave charges, even though they seem to rest upon a show of evidence, and are made by one who has occupied the position of a trusted teacher for many years. By an adroit and strong presentation of half truths, by an incorrect statement of facts, whether intentional or unintentional, and by a show of logical reasoning based upon unsound premises, it is possible to make an apparently sound case against any person or any work, but a calm and unprejudiced examination of facts and evidence will reverse the situation, and will strengthen confidence in the truth. In past years this advent movement has not escaped opposition from those who were at one time identified with it, and we have been warned that these experiences would be repeated and intensified in the closing days of this work. While we may be shocked by having this opposition from an unexpected quarter, yet we ought not to be overwhelmed by it. After having successfully withstood the attacks of opponents for over half a century, the pillars of this message will not be overthrown now, and the reliability of the spirit of prophecy will not be successfully impeached. Let not our people render their verdict until they hear both sides of the case. Let no one quickly cast away his confidence. “Be ye steadfast, unmovable.”

A Striking Parallel

By Editor

AFTER having devoted seven pages to as strong an argument as he is capable of making to prove that “not everything is Testimony that is issued as Testimony,” the writer of a leaflet now being circulated among us defines his position concerning the Testimonies as follows:—

It is possible that the report will now be spread that I have “attacked,” “denounced,” “renounced,” and “repudiated” the Testimonies. But none of it will be true.

Possibly some may say that what I have written does of itself repudiate the Testimonies. With me it does not; and in truth it does not. Neither by the sanitarium has there been, nor is there to be, any repudiation of the Testimonies. It is perfectly safe to say that there is not to-day a Seventh-day Adventist institution in the world where, in principle and in purpose, and because of their inherent value, the Testimonies are more truly followed than in and by the Battle Creek Sanitarium.

When Jesus was seized and led away to trial, the record states that Peter “followed,” but the fatal trouble was that he “followed afar off.” His next step was to deny any acquaintance with Jesus, asserting plainly, “I know him not.”

For some time in the past the way of following the Testimonies which has been adopted at the Battle Creek Sanitarium has been such as to wreck all confidence in the Testimonies on the part of those who have not been able to profess faith in some of the Testimonies after having listened to repeated demonstrations of the falsity and unreliability of other communications sent out as Testimonies. In order to be able to do this one must first make himself a judge of the Testimonies, and must have unbounded confidence in his ability to distinguish between what is Testimony and what is not Testimony, even when it all comes from the same source, and he then can of course profess to follow most fully what he has himself decided to be Testimony. But this is simply following one’s own judgment, and not the Testimonies, and the claim of following the Testimonies on such a basis as this is only another way of declaring unswerving loyalty to one’s self. Those who are really following the Testimonies do not spend their time in preparing, and their money in circulating, labored arguments to prove the unreliability of some of the Testimonies, making assertions concerning some of the Testimonies which, if true, would inevitably destroy the confidence of the people in all the Testimonies, unless they had complete confidence in their own ability to separate the false from the true in what professes to be Testimony.

We do not think it necessary to argue the case as to whether the Testimonies have been followed and are being followed at the Battle Creek Sanitarium. The record is a public one, and will speak for itself. Those who have read any considerable portion of the warning and instruction which has been sent to the management of that institution during the past few years, and who know the situation as it now exists, will have no difficulty in arriving at an intelligent decision concerning this claim of following the Testimonies.

The parallel between this course concerning the Testimonies and the course of the “Higher Critics” concerning the Bible is perfectly plain. One of these prominent liberal thinkers has recently written a book in which “he denies the miraculous, as ordinarily understood, absolutely, declares that it is the modern thinker’s foremost duty to disengage religion from supernaturalism, and speaks of seeking to understand the Biblical accounts of miracles as ‘poesies.’ The virgin birth, the stilling of the sea and feeding of the thousands, the turning of the water into wine, the resurrection, the ascent into heaven and return on the clouds, are all to him alike incredible.” And yet it is asserted in his behalf that “he confesses for himself the ‘faith which the gospel requires—faith in God the Father, in his fatherly grace in forgiving sins, and in an eternal life.’” As

these things are revealed only in the Bible, it is plain that this writer claims to believe and follow the Bible, after having eliminated from it such portions as he can prove to his own satisfaction to be unreliable and unworthy of credence. But there are many people who are unable to juggle with the Bible after this fashion, and who will consequently lose their confidence in the whole Bible if they accept this writer’s conclusions concerning some parts of it. We regard such an attitude toward the Bible as more likely to lead men into infidelity than a frank rejection of the whole Bible.

We regret exceedingly that a former companion in arms should now direct his attack upon what he has formerly taught, and upon what we continue to teach; but when the choice comes between following any man, even an intimate associate, and the Testimonies which have been an integral part of this movement from the beginning, we make our choice without hesitation. No man can scatter doubt and uncertainty concerning the Testimonies, and at the same time maintain the integrity of this message. ‘Let God be true.’

How the Light of the Advent Message Came to South America

By William Ambrose Spicer

TWENTY years ago, as we looked over the map of South America, we could point to no place where this message was represented, unless possibly a faint light was glowing in British Guiana. Now, thank God, jets of light are multiplying all about the continent.

At Camarero, where the Argentine school is located, I met the two brethren who were the agents to bring the truth into this part of the world. Eighteen years ago, in Kansas, Brethren Riffel and Frick received this message. They were Russian Germans, and Brother Riffel had previously lived for a time in South America. Just at the time he received the truth, the Testimonies were saying much about moving out into new places, and living the truth among those who had never heard it. Brother Riffel thought of the Russian German colonies in Argentina, and the conviction came that he ought to go and live among them. So fifteen years ago he and the other brother sold out in Kansas, and came to Argentina, scarcely knowing whither they went. They came to Crespo, near our present school location, and decided to settle there. The first Sabbath after they arrived, their first new Sabbath-keeper, Brother Hetze, was ready to join them in keeping the holy day. God still further blessed their labors, and the little company at Crespo were the means of calling us to South America to take up the work.

When Elder F. H. Westphal came in among these Russian-German communities to preach the message, he found the leaven of truth working in all the region round about.

It was a joy to meet these two brethren, simple farmers who heard the cry of souls in the darkness, and went out to answer the call. I asked Brother Riffel if he lost money by the effort. He replied that it cost him considerable loss for years, but the Lord had given him more now than he had in Kansas when he decided to move out as a missionary farmer into the regions beyond. And all through our meetings in Argentina, that Sabbath at Camarero and in the union conference meeting that followed at Parana, it did one good to see how these brethren rejoiced at the changes that had taken place since they landed in this country, the first representatives of the third angel's message. It was a grand investment that they made, when they decided to plant their all in unentered regions, and the outcome shows how grandly the Lord rewarded their faith in the messages of the spirit of prophecy which moved them to come out.

I must speak later of the Camarero school, where I first met these German-Russian believers. About a mile from the school Elder J. W. Westphal has his home. A near neighbor is Dr. Habenicht, and close by also lives a German brother. Brethren Fulton and Lude live at the school during the school year. Now, good many believers have homes within a radius of ten or fifteen miles. On this Sabbath many came in who ordinarily met in their own little companies. Brethren J. W. and F. H. Westphal and E. W. Thomann had just come in from Chile, and it was known that special meetings would be held, and that at the close Elder J. W. Westphal's daughter Flora, and Elder Thomann, one of our faithful Chilean workers, were to be united in marriage. It was a good Sabbath. There were also in the company a sprinkling of Spanish-speaking people, for whose benefit the services were translated into that tongue.

Here was a sample of the meetings among these farm colonists, who came from Russia seeking greater freedom and better industrial openings in this part of the New World, and who have also found the greater liberty of the third angel's message. They stand by this truth with all the love and loyalty to be found anywhere. For years most of the work was among the German-speaking people, but now the effort is turning more generally toward the Spanish-speaking people, who form the great body of the population. But surely the providence of the Lord planted these Protestant colonist communities from Russia and from Switzerland amid the dark places of South America in order that by those who received the truth among them there might be developed quickly the resources needed to extend the work among the Catholic peoples.

W. A. S.

Buenos Ayres.

“The Gist of the New Theology”

By Editor

An English clergyman has written a book with the title “The Evangel of the New Theology.” In a recently published review of this book we find the following suggestive characterization of the author’s teaching: “The basal question of religion, as he observes, is the relation of God to the living world. The theology now being outgrown conceived of God and man as external to each other, beings apart, and out of this fallacious dualism the Unitarian controversy grew. But ‘the gist of the new theology’ is the oneness of the spiritual nature in God and man, so that humanity itself is ‘an incarnation of the divine life.’”

It does not require any very close examination of this authoritative statement concerning “the gist of the new theology” to see that it shuts out the plain Biblical teaching of the entrance of sin into the world, of the atoning work of Christ, and of the necessity of faith in Christ in order to be brought again into oneness with God. And the necessary and strong tendency of these views is toward the Unitarian and pantheistic conception of God. This kind of apparent exaltation of God, which either belittles or ignores entirely the dignity and glory of the eternal Son and his wondrous condescension in behalf of fallen man, is one of Satan’s most pleasing sophistries. Under the pretense of honoring God this enemy of both God and Christ is inspiring in men’s minds such views as dishonor both the Father and the Son, and open the way for the final attempt on the part of the great rebel to make himself like the Most High.

By this teaching a personal God is dissipated into a living Force, or an infinite Energy which is so closely related to the living world that they are to be regarded as inseparable. This is the gist of pantheism. By this teaching, Jesus the Son of God is no longer permitted to be regarded as one with God, but is represented as the most godlike example of human perfection which the world has ever produced. This is the gist of Unitarianism. By this teaching humanity as a whole becomes “an incarnation of the divine life,” and every man is therefore a temple of the Holy Ghost. This is that doctrine of the divine immanence which is being so widely accepted

and advocated, but which really denies to Jesus Christ the unique work of uniting divinity to humanity in himself as the only way of salvation. The fatal fallacy in the reasoning which leads to this conclusion lies in assuming that the blessings of life and health which are vouchsafed to all members of the human family through the gift of Christ are the proofs of that indwelling of the Holy Spirit which is assured only to the believer. This is the logical result of that evolutionary conception of Christianity which eliminates the life of faith, and views all spiritual attainment as the outcome of development rather than of the new birth.

It is thus clear that “the gist of the new theology” consists in assuming the divinity of humanity. It consists in advocating a pantheistic conception of God, and then in claiming a saving union between God and man without any necessary place for the “one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” In the third angel’s message we have a divinely ordained protest against this whole perversion of the truth of the gospel. And the present indications are that only those who receive the truth as it is found in this message will be saved from the sophistries and delusions which are now being advocated as new light upon old doctrines. We warn our readers against these false ideas under whatever guise they may come to them. To receive them is to abandon the true gospel of Christ the only Saviour. This is the real gist of the new theology.

Faulty Arguments for Sunday-Keeping

By L. A. S.

A CORRESPONDENT asks for an answer to the argument for Sunday-keeping which has been presented to him, that the Sabbath commandment requires the observance of one day in seven, but no particular day, and that Sunday should be selected as the proper day because the resurrection of Christ was an event greater and of far more importance than creation.

This argument for Sunday observance does not rest on a solid foundation. The only true foundation for Christian belief and practise is the Word of God. Sunday-keeping has another foundation altogether.

In the first place, the Sabbath is not any one day in seven, but a definite day of the week. The week originated at creation. It was the change from work to rest on the seventh day which made the division of time into periods of seven days, and the Sabbath was the seventh day of the first week. The Creator instituted the week and the Sabbath. He put the Sabbath in its place in the week, and no human power could afterward change it. Adam received the week and the Sabbath from his Creator, just as he did the garden in which he was placed. He had no need to change or attempt to create anything himself, for everything had been made for him by an all-wise Being, and it was all perfect. “God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.”

No one is at liberty, therefore, to make the Sabbath any one day in seven. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. It was given to commemorate creation, and no other sabbath but the creation Sabbath can do this.

To have made the Sabbath any one day in seven, with each person free to choose his own day of rest, would have resulted in general confusion, and it would have been necessary for man, to avoid a confusion which would be intolerable, to designate and appoint some definite day of the week as the Sabbath day. Imagine a community of people in which all days of the week were observed as the Sabbath. Under such a practise one day would not be the Sabbath any more than another, and the observance of all days as Sabbaths would result in there being no Sabbath at all. For the fundamental idea of the Sabbath is that it is a day distinguished from all other days of the week. A particular day was set apart by the Creator, and blessed and hallowed. All days were not blessed and hallowed; not even two days were so honored, but only one, and that one is the Sabbath day, the day on which God rested. And as surely as only one day of the week was blessed and hallowed, so surely must it be that the Sabbath can not be any one day in seven, but only one definite day of the seven. There is but one Sabbath in the week; there can not be two.

Was not the Creator wise enough to know that the Sabbath must be a particular day of the week, and to designate the day?

The idea that the resurrection of Christ was an event greater than creation likewise rests upon another foundation than the Word of God. Resurrection power and creation power are one and the same, and the Sabbath, being the memorial of creation, is also the sign of the power which raises from the dead. The sinner who repents and turns to God dies, is buried in baptism, and rises to a new life. There is a new birth. “If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature.” 2 Cor. 5: 17. There is a new creation. “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” Eph. 2: 10. The resurrection of the sinner to the new life, the Christian life, is by a new creation. Hence only the Sabbath which commemorates creation can be the Sabbath of the Christian, the one who has experienced the new birth. No other would be appropriate. The creation Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, is as vitally related to the resurrection as it is to the original creation. Only creative power can create the sinner new in Christ; only creative power can redeem the sinner. Redemption is by creative power, and the Sabbath is the sign of this power. Only the true God can save the sinner from his sins. The true God is distinguished by the possession of power to create, and the Sabbath is the sign of the true God. Eze. 20: 12, 20. Thus the resurrection calls for the observance of the creation Sabbath, which observance is a sign to the Christian that he worships and is sanctified by the true God, the Creator, who, having the power to create, has the power to redeem.

The Sabbath day is related to the other days of the week. There must first be work before there can be rest; working days before there can be a rest day. But the resurrection of Christ is not in any way related to the week. The Sabbath was made the seventh day of the week, marking the end of the working portion of the week. The week was made by the institution of the Sabbath. But the day of the resurrection of Christ, while it was necessarily a day of the week, bears no relation to the week as such, and to say that every Sunday is the day of Christ’s resurrection is a manifest absurdity. The day of Christ’s resurrection, like the day of one’s birth, can occur but once a year, and a yearly celebration would be the only proper way of observing it. The celebration of Easter as the day of Christ’s resurrection, is an acknowledgment of this fact. But here a new difficulty for the Sunday-keeper presents itself, for a yearly celebration, like Christmas or the fourth of July, would fall on a different day of the week with each successive year. The day of the month on which Christ rose from the dead would coincide with Sunday only about once in seven years. But it would never do to celebrate the resurrection on any day but Sunday, for that would deny the whole argument for Sunday as the Sabbath day. Hence Easter is a movable feast, so movable, in fact, that it ranges through a period of several weeks, and the anniversary of the resurrection day comes sometimes in one month and sometimes in another!

There is consistency and harmony and beauty in doing what God has commanded us to do; but when men get outside of God’s instructions and institute religious observances of their own, their efforts to maintain them against the statements of Scripture only lead them further and further into the mazes of inconsistency and absurdity.

L. A. S.

Revivals and Conversion

By L. A. S.

A GREAT revival has been in progress at Princeton, Ill. The number of conversions is stated to be 2,325. It is spoken of by many as being “the greatest general awakening that has ever taken place in the State of Illinois.”

A writer in the Northwestern Christian Advocate enumerates the reasons for the great success of the effort. He states that there was (1) “a heartfelt conviction of the need of a revival;” (2) “a sincerely united church,” ten pastors and churches working together; (3) “the best business and professional men of the community backed the enterprise with money, attendance, and personal influence;” (4) the leading newspaper of the country advertised and commended the meeting, and reported the addresses; (5) there was good music, furnished by an orchestra of twenty-five instruments, and a choir of two hundred and fifty voices; (6) the revival was conducted by Evangelist W. A. Sunday, formerly prominent as a professional baseball player. On this point the writer in the Advocate says: “Evangelist W. A. Sunday’s unique and forceful personality was, of course, paramount. A natural actor, he makes use of his dramatic abilities to awaken curiosity, to draw in the non-churchgoing crowd, and to enforce fundamental truths that have been heard so often as to have lost their novelty. . . . Mr. Sunday’s slang, wit, and pyrotechnics come chiefly in the first ten days of the meeting.” After that he settles down to sober earnestness, and speaks with an intensity and directness which forces conviction upon his hearers; (7) “personal work,” which included “the passing hand-shake, communication by letter and even by telephone;” (8) “the high-school pupils were given special consideration,” the school work being shortened to give them opportunity to attend the meetings.

These are all the causes enumerated, and it will be noted that no mention is made of any deep conviction of sin in the hearts of the people on account of their violations of the holy law of God. No mention is made of any such experience as that of the apostle Paul at his conversion, described in the seventh and eighth chapters of Romans. It was evidently not a revival effort of the character of that on the day of Pentecost, as described in Acts 2, when Peter charged his hearers with being guilty of dreadful sin, in having put to death the Son of God.

We do not refer to this revival, however, for the purpose of disparaging it in any way, or denying the good it is claimed to have accomplished. It is stated as among the good results that have followed the meeting, that “the saloons are doomed;” “a recent theater failed to draw a paying house;” the high-school authorities have been petitioned by the graduating class to give up dancing at the June banquet; and “every form of social evil has been rebuked.” No one will deny that these represent a most commendable transformation in the life of the town.

What we would call attention to, and emphasize, is that the law of God, as the standard of righteousness and the foundation of the divine government, is the foundation upon which every true work of reformation from sin to righteousness must be based. That law is fundamental in Christianity, and in every step of the process of conversion it is to be reckoned with. The sinner who comes to Christ must first awaken to the fact that this law condemns him to death. And when he is released from this condemnation, so that he is no more “under the law,” he finds in it the standard of righteousness, the rule of conduct by which he will be judged in the Judgment day. After he accepts Christ, he finds that the purpose of it is “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled” in him, as he walks “not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:4. Every reform work which is not based on the claims of God’s law falls short of the mark which Christian conversion should attain.

There is such a thing as success which is apparent rather than real. A really successful work, one which will be lasting, must have the right foundation. A house may be built upon the sand, and stand for a time, and serve a useful purpose while it lasts; but when the storm beats upon it, it falls, because it has no secure foundation. Likewise people may be converted, and for a time change their course of life, but the deciding question is that of whether they have been converted to God or have been swayed by some influence from another source. It is no uncommon thing for individuals to be “converted” to some man, or to experience “conversion” of a psychological sort, which fails to hold them after the peculiar conditions and influences of the revival have passed away.

An understanding of faith as being implicit trust in the Word of God, of sin as being the transgression of the law, of salvation as being salvation from sin, of Christ as being a perfect Saviour for all, and of God’s law as being the eternal foundation of the divine government, must be the essential things fixed in the mind by true conversion. Conversion which is upon this basis will be lasting.

There is a reason why so little mention is made of the law in modern revival work. The law condemns the course that is being pursued by the churches. It demands a reformation on their part, in a most essential feature of the worship of God. It calls attention to the “Sabbath of the Lord,” the seventh day, and no man can urge upon others the claims of this law while face to face with the fact that he himself holds to tradition by which the law has been made void. The great reform message proclaimed by Seventh-day Adventists exalts the law of God, and this is its justification for the points of contrast which it presents with modern revival efforts.

L. A. S.

Note and Comment

A MISSIONARY who writes from Argentina says:—

In all lands where Roman Catholicism is the official religion and left unconfronted by the preaching of the gospel, morals are lax; this at least is true of all the countries of South America.

This is the inevitable result of such a religion of human nature as is fostered and propagated by the papacy. The gospel is “the power of God unto salvation” from sin; popery is the weakness of human philosophy attempting to provide a method of condoning sin. The pope may pretend to assume divine prerogatives, but he can not wield divine power to change the heart of a sinner. Popery is a mockery.

Supreme Court Decision on Divorce

A RELIGIOUS belief appears to have played a controlling part in a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court regarding divorce. By a division of five to four, the Supreme Court has decided that divorces are legal only where both parties to it are present and under the jurisdiction of the State granting the decree. The three Roman Catholic members of the Supreme Court were among the five constituting a majority affirming this view.

The important point about this decision is that it is retroactive. It nullifies past divorces obtained contrary to the requirements it specifies for valid divorce, as well as cuts off such divorces in the future. Many children suddenly find themselves legally classed as illegitimate, besides being deprived of property rights. By some journals the decision is considered as “little less than appalling,” since its natural effect is to “place a blight upon society all over the country, and involve family relations in almost inextricable confusion.” Other papers view with satisfaction the end which the decision will put to the “divorce mills” that have flourished in certain States. The Catholic Church, as is well known, is intolerant of divorce.

Continue reading: The New Life in Christ