p. 5 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 33, No. 27. (7/3/1907)

Signs of the Times

Jul 3, 1907

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Jul 3, 1907

With Our Inquirers

By Editor

"If ye will inquire, inquire ye."

[All questions to this department will be answered which to the editors will seem to minister to the good of the readers and to the mission of the paper. The same question can not be answered repeatedly in the same volume. The name and address must accompany question, not for publication, but as an evidence of good faith, and that answer may be made by letter if deemed advisable. It is well always to enclose a stamp for reply.]

2141.—Forbidding to Marry, Abstaining from Meats. 1 Tim. 4: 1-4.

By Editor

Please explain 1 Tim. 4:1-4, especially verses 3 and 4. E. G. T.

Please explain 1 Tim. 4:4, 5. The Seventh-day Adventists preach that their converts ought not to marry outside of the faith, and also abstain from swine's flesh. If this scripture does not have reference to them, please explain what it does mean. T. L. B.

1 Tim. 4:4 says that all creatures are good. How can you people say that it is wrong to eat pork? R. T. S.

1. Let us not make the mistake that we must make some application of every scripture we find in God's word. Sometimes the application of these scriptures are very clear; sometimes their applications have been in the past and their predictions already fulfilled; sometimes they are yet to be fulfilled in the future. Sometimes one or two specifications of a scripture may seem to apply to a certain class, and yet the scripture as a whole may not apply whatever. For instance, both sheep and swine have four legs, two ears, two eyes, one mouth, cloven feet, but this does not by any means prove their identity.

2. The scripture is not necessarily a last-day scripture. The Revised Version renders "in later times," that is, times later than the days of the apostle, when some should fall away from the faith.

3. In falling away from the faith they would give heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, led away by hypocrisy of men that speak lies. One of the most prominent doctrines of demons is that the dead are conscious and communicate in some way with men; out of this has grown a horrible array of pestilential doctrines which have perverted the truth of God and turned men from light to darkness.

4. The class in 1 Tim. 4:1-4 mentioned does not simply teach that one should not marry without the faith, but they forbid marriage. This certainly is not true of any Christian body that we know, save the Roman Church which has enjoined celibacy in its priesthood and its orders, and also among Spiritualists the same teaching has cropped out in the doctrine of free love. It has been the teaching of the Bible in both dispensations and in every branch of the Christian church that Christians should marry within the fold of Christ. Even worldlings will admit the force of that teaching.

5. "Commanding to abstain from meats." The word "meats" comes from a Greek word meaning simply food of any kind, either vegetable or animal. In other words, fasting is not taught or advised, but enjoined. God has given His people the privilege of eating and drinking that which is good, and the food here mentioned is that which God has given to be received with thanksgiving, which is "sanctified [set apart] thru the word of God and prayer." God's word has clearly told us that there are some kinds of food for His children to eat. The prohibitions of the Old Testament found in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 were certainly based on sound principles or God would never have given them. The animals prohibited as unclean have not changed their habits or nature since, and even animals that are clean have become so diseased that it is not safe to partake of them. On the other hand, science and practise are continually demonstrating that a non-flesh diet is the very best of diets.

So much for the teaching of the word and common sense. We know of no Christian church that absolutely forbids such things, unless it is some of the fasts that are commanded as above noted. The wrong of pork is that it is always unwholesome. It does not best fit the person for service, nor transmit pure blood to his posterity.

2142.—Province of Governments.

By Editor

If the government saw fit to legislate a settled weekly cycle to commence on Monday instead of on Sunday as it now does, thereby causing Sunday to be the seventh or closing day of the week, would you then keep Saturday, the sixth day, or would you step over and worship on Sunday, the seventh day? If you say Saturday, you keep the sixth day; if you change over to Sunday, the seventh day, you admit by that that a government set it apart, and that it is simply a matter of legislation; and if so, then one day is as good as another, just so it has the seventh ring.

Our correspondent has answered his own question. If you will read the articles in this and succeeding papers you will have a clearer understanding of the province of governments. The week is not a matter of human legislation in its origin. It came to us from Eden, divinely appointed of God and marked exclusively on account of the Sabbath; in fact, it is the Sabbath itself which makes the week, and in the Lord's naming of the days, followed even now in Oriental lands, the first day is "the first day to the Sabbath," "the second day to the Sabbath," "the third day to the Sabbath," "the fourth day to the Sabbath," and so on throuout the week, until we come to the crowning day, the Sabbath. Whatever legislation men may make affects in no way God's week.

2139.—"No Man Hath Ascended into Heaven."

By Editor

Thru the medium of your valuable paper please enlighten me in regard to the declaration of Jesus to Nicodemus (John 3:13), "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven." S. E. B.

Read the context. The question is not the mere ascension or descent from heaven, but a matter of teaching. Jesus said, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?" The thought is that no man has ascended up to heaven and obtained these things and who came down and taught them to earth but Jesus Christ Himself. Others have ascended; the Lord has not sent them back to be our teachers. Jesus Christ came down from heaven bringing life and truth to the world, and He is the only One who has so done. He brought with Him the very atmosphere of heaven, and His work while here upon earth was to live and bestow the heavenly life.

2140.—Glory to Be Done Away.

By Editor

Please explain 2 Cor. 3:7-13. It seems that the glory spoken of refers to the Ten Commandments, which glory was to be done away.

By reading carefully the chapter you will see, especially in verses 8 and 9, that it is not the glory of the law, but the glory of the condemnation which the law brought. The contrast is between a ministration which merely condemns and a ministration which saves. A ministration which condemns is where the law is not received into the heart, where we simply hear it spoken to us or read it. God gave it to Israel on tables of stone and spoke it in their hearing. That condemned them. That was the glory which condemned them, but the greater glory is that which brings the law within man and writes it upon his heart, and that is the ministration which is more glorious than the ministration which simply condemns the sin. When one is condemned and sees the law in all its beauty and glory, if he will accept of the Lord Jesus Christ he will receive forgiveness, and not only forgiveness, but the Spirit of God will write the law upon his heart. Taking away the sin does away with the glory of condemnation, abolishes the sin, and makes the sinner a child of God. See the SIGNS of June 19, Question 2122.

2143.—A Stumbling-Block.

By Editor

Is not the Sabbath question as now agitated throuout the country a stumbling-block to men? It has so proved to me. I know many in the same spiritual condition; no fruitage on account of the controversy. I wish you could keep the same day, as long as it might be regulated by the legislature for the good of all. There is not, nor can there be, life in such disturbance. If a matter of legislature, then it is not the mark of the beast.

The Sabbath may be a stumbling-block, that is, people may make it so. So they did Christ Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. So the prophets declared He would be, seven hundred years before He came, "And He shall be . . . for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense." Compare Isa. 8:14 and 28:16 with 1 Peter 2:6-8. Note also that those who make Him a stone of stumbling are those who are disobedient, for they "stumble at the word, being disobedient." And yet in God's plan He never should be a stumbling-block, nor should any precept of His law. There is one way by which the Sabbath need not be a stumbling-block to this troubled soul, and the Lord makes that way very plain. He declares (Ps. 119:165), "Great peace have they that love Thy law, and they have no occasion of stumbling." Do you say that you do not love His law?—Then let the Holy Spirit into your heart, for by that the love of God is shed abroad. Rom. 5:5. "For this is the love of God that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. Do you say that you do not have His Spirit?—Then "ask and it shall be given you," for He is more willing to give His Holy Spirit to them that ask Him, than earthly parents are to give good gifts unto their children. See Luke 11:9-13. How true it is and how all of the sad and triumphant history of human experience demonstrates, that the "ways of Jehovah are right, and the just shall walk in them, but transgressors shall fall therein." God's law is spiritual; if by the Spirit it is written in our hearts there is life in it. Others may differ, may not have the Spirit, and make the law a mere matter of controversy. There is no life in controversy. Neither is there life in following a multitude to do evil, for the Lord expressly tells us that we shall not do this, "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Life is found only in connection with Jesus Christ, and if we walk in His way we must walk in the way of righteousness. Prov. 12:28; Matt. 19:17. If the Sabbath is a matter of human legislation, it certainly is in that very respect a mark of the beast, for a beast is ever used to represent civil government; but civil government has no right to legislate in religious matters.

2144.—When Will It Be?

By Editor

Referring to the article in the SIGNS of May 20, on the second coming of Christ, will the ungodly be burned up and the earth melt with fervent heat when Christ comes, or will that be after the Millennium when these take place?

Many of the wicked will be swept off by the pestilences and wars of the last days before Christ comes. Many will perish under the severer pestilences and calamities of the plagues; and those which are left will not be able to endure the glory of Christ's presence when He shall appear, and will die. See Jeremiah 25; Revelation 16; and 19:21. During the thousand years the earth will lie desolate. Isaiah 24. At the end of that thousand years the earth will be visited. Men will come out of their graves, and then the mighty presence and power of God will appear and set on fire the very foundations of the earth. Before that glory the wicked will be consumed and "the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also." Out of those purifying fires there will come a new heaven and new earth. Revelation 20, 21. See tracts "The Great Day of the Lord," and "Tormented Forever and Ever." The price of these two tracts is five cents, at this office.

Keep the Church and State Forever Separate

By Professor George W. Rine

THOUGH the Church and the State are both divinely ordained, they are wholly distinct in function. Territorially their spheres of activity may, and often do, partly coincide. In respect to function, however, no one has ever so sharply differentiated them as did our Lord.

A Divine Principle.

The reader will remember that when Christ lived and walked with men, His enemies were constantly plotting His overthrow. Nothing was left untried in their relentless efforts to disconcert Him in His utterances. They sought to draw from Him some unguarded word that might be wrested to their fiendish purpose of trumping up a charge of political or ecclesiastical conspiracy against Him. To this end, they addressed to Him this cunningly conceived question: "What thinkest Thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"

Jesus instantly read their motives, and asked, "Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Show Me the tribute money." Bringing to Him a penny, He asked them, "Whose is this image and superscription?" "Caesar's," was the prompt reply. In keeping with their answer, Jesus enunciated, for the benefit and guidance of all ages, this momentously important dictum: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." Abashed and completely discomfited, these plotters "left Him, and went their way."

Here our Lord has tersely, lucidly, yet conclusively, enunciated the relations that should ever obtain between the Church and the State. Their respective missions are absolutely distinct, forever separate. There are sharply defined duties that each citizen owes to the State—these he must faithfully render to the State. There are equally well-defined duties that each one owes to God or to His church—these should be faithfully rendered to God. In this world Church and State must coexist, but, according to the teachings of our divine Lord, they must not be wedded. Each has its individual work to perform. Purely secular interests are guarded and promoted by the State; the spiritual or religious interests by the Church.

A Curse to Nations.

It can not be rationally denied that the unholy alliance between Church and State, which has so generally marked the history of the world, has always been the arch-disturber of the peace of nations. Such a union is unnatural, even monstrous, and has never failed to become a curse to both. As often as the Christian Church has sought and obtained the favor of civil rulers, it became worldly in spirit, ambitious of power, proud, and despotic. As often as civil magistrates have courted the favor and support of the Church, they became the puppets and slaves of ecclesiasticism, than which no worse bondage has ever been known to man.

In the Republic of the West.

The founders of our Republic were wise enough to foresee that no greater peril menaced the peace and perpetuity of the young political giant of the West than an alliance between it and religion. In formulating the Constitution proper, they failed to insert anything that would forever make such an alliance impossible. Hence they hastened to amend the Constitution as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Revelation and reason both teach us that all genuine religion is voluntary, and can not therefore exist without individual freedom of conscience. Genuine religious liberty is essentially impossible where Church and State are united. All history attests the truth of the oft-repeated fact that an alliance between political and religious institutions unfailingly results in oppression and persecution.

The House in Salem, Mass., where Roger Williams, the 'Apostle of American Liberty, lived.

An Example in France.

Never was there a closer union between the Church and the State than existed in France during the long reign of Louis XIV. Catholicism was of course the State religion. Both Protestant and Catholic historians testify that the most thrifty, industrious, skilful, and conscientious of Louis' subjects were the Huguenots, the name by which French Protestants were then known. In civic affairs they represented all that was best in France of intellectual culture, moral vigor, and domestic virtue. By their industrial skill and thru their virtues they made France the first nation of the world in productive energy, wealth, and power.

But the king was "a devout son of the Church," and he thought it his duty to compel all his subjects to bring their belief and practise into conformity to the National Church. Laws were enacted commanding all Protestant churches to be closed; Protestants were dismissed from the public service; their property was confiscated; and their children were forcibly taken from them and placed under tutelage of the priests of Rome. These forms of tyranny were quickly followed by massacres and executions.

Edict of Nantes.

In 1598, thru the influence of the enlightened king, Henry IV, the famous Edict of Nantes was promulgated, guaranteeing religious liberty to the people of France. For many years under this Edict the Huguenots enjoyed a large measure of peace, and France thru them a prosperity greater than that of any other nation. The climax to the revolting persecutions inflicted upon the Huguenots by Louis XIV, was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in 1685. Macaulay gives the following graphic picture of the immediate results:

"The Edict of Nantes was revoked, and a crowd of decrees against the sectaries appeared in rapid succession. Boys and girls were torn from their parents and sent to be educated

in convents. Old Calvinistic ministers were commanded either to abjure their religion or to quit their country within a fortnight. The other professors of the reformed faith were forbidden to leave the kingdom; and in order to prevent them from making their escape, the outposts and frontiers were strictly guarded. It was thought that the flocks, thus separated from the evil shepherds, would soon return to the 'true fold.' But in spite of all the vigilance of the military police, there was a vast emigration. It was calculated that, in a few months, fifty thousand families quitted France forever."

What Is Religious Liberty?

By A. J. S. Bourdeau

"Proclaim LIBERTY thruout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof."—Jehovah.

RELIGIOUS Liberty is the birthright of mankind. It is the opposite of religious intolerance and of the tyranny of a State religion. It is the ripe fruit of the teachings of the word of God concerning individualism and the rights of conscience. It is the tardy response of civilization to the stifled cries of the martyrs of all ages.

Briefly expressed, Religious Liberty is "freedom of religious opinion and worship as one's conscience may dictate" (Standard Dictionary). Or, it may be defined as "the right of every individual to worship according to the dictates of his own conscience; or not to worship at all, if he so chooses."

Religious freedom, according to another authority, "consists in the right guaranteed by the laws of a country to each one of its citizens to maintain and propagate any religious opinion, and to celebrate any form of worship he may think proper."

A Natural, Fundamental Right.

Religious liberty involves that which can not be settled by majorities. It is a gift of God, a natural, fundamental, and inalienable right of every man. In the words of the immortal American Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Speaking of these natural rights of man, a committee of the United States Senate said, in 1829: "They are not exercised in virtue of governmental indulgence, but as rights, of which government can not deprive any portion of citizens, however small. Despotic power may invade those rights, but justice still confirms them."

God granted to man that liberty of choice which is essential to true worship and moral responsibility. In the words of Jefferson, "the God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time." Our Creator is the Author of Liberty in religious affairs, as is witnessed by the very existence of sin itself, the result of man's original choice not to serve Him. The following pertinent sentiments of Jefferson give added emphasis to this great truth:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercion on either, as was in His almighty power to do."

Religious Liberty the Separation of Church and State.

The testimony of history is that all religious persecution is the result of a union of the spiritual and the temporal power, of the Church and the State. Religious freedom, therefore, is the direct result of the separation of these two powers. In fact, it may be said that Religious Liberty is the separation of Church and State—a doctrine founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Divine Definition.

The first formulated protest against the union of Church and State was made by Jesus Christ, the head of the Christian Church. He thus defined religious liberty: "RENDER TO CAESAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CAESAR'S, AND TO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GOD'S" (Mark 12:17). His theory also provided liberty for those who did not see fit to believe the doctrines of His Church; for He said: "If any man hear My words, and believe not, I judge him not (John 12:47).

Limitations of Religious Liberty.

The religious rights of every person are limited only by the civil rights of others. The following from the report of the United States Senate Committee (1829) further defines these limitations of the exercise of religious liberty:

"Whatever may be the religious sentiments of citizens, and however variant, they are alike entitled to protection from the government, SO LONG AS THEY DO NOT INVADE THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS."

For its own protection, civil government may thus forbid and punish overt acts of a so-called religion which would undermine the foundations of society, such as licentious rites, bloody human sacrifices, polygamy, and other uncivil or criminal acts. This is in harmony with the legal maxim: "Sic utere tuum, ut alienum non laedas" (So use your own that you may not injure another's).

The Offspring of Protestantism.

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century was based upon the teachings of the word of God as against the teachings of men. This word taught religious freedom and the rights of the individual. The famous Protest of the German Princes at the Diet of Spires (April 19, 1529) was, among other things, a protest against the union of Church and State. It vigorously opposed two abuses of man in matters of religion: (1) the intrusion of the civil magistrate, or the State, and (2) the arbitrary authority of the Catholic Church. In short, it "rejected the civil power in divine things." This Protest, and the wave of Reformation that followed, were thus the genesis of religious toleration in Europe and religious liberty in America.

Toleration Not Religious Liberty.

Toleration is the stepping-stone from religious persecution to religious liberty. It now exists in all the nations of Europe, thanks to the influence of the Reformation and the powerful example of the United States.

The perfect union of Church and State produced Persecution; their imperfect, or relaxed union, Toleration, and their total separation, Religious Liberty.

To tolerate is "to suffer to remain, exist, or take place without active opposition or prohibition; treat with forbearance; passively permit or put up with." An act of toleration is "a grant of the civil government, which authorizes religious societies dissenting from the State religion to worship according to the dictates of conscience without liability to persecution."

Toleration presupposes a religion supported by the State, and the control of public worship by the State. Religious Liberty states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (United States Constitution). Toleration is a concession, Religious Liberty an inherent right. Toleration is a mere matter of expediency; religious freedom, a matter of principle. The one is a temporary gift of man, the other the eternal gift of God.

Under Toleration the believers of one religion are taxed for the support of another; under Religious Liberty no one is obliged to support any church. Under Toleration only those supporting the State religion may aspire to offices of public trust; under Religious Liberty the Constitution provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The transition from religious intolerance to liberty is fully, yet briefly, described in these few words: "Toleration is first sought and granted as a favor, then demanded and conceded as a right, and at last spurned as an insult." Free men want no toleration. The waves of freedom sweep away state-churchism, tolerated sects, churchmen, and dissenters, placing all religious beliefs on a common footing, in harmony with the immortal sentiment of U. S. Grant: "Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contribution. Keep the State and the Church forever separate."

Instinct of Liberty.

Is there a brilliant fondling of the cage, The sure of plaudits on his costly stage, The fed with dainties from the snow-white hand Of a kind mistress, fairest of the land, But gladly would escape; and, if need were, Scatter the colors from the plumes that bear The emancipated captive thru blithe air Into strange woods, where he at large may live On best or worst which they and nature give? The beetle loves his unpretending track, The snail the house he carries on his back; The far-fetched worm with pleasure would disown The bed we give him, tho of softest down; A noble instinct; in all kinds the same, All rank! What sovereign, worthy of the name, If doomed to breathe against his lawful will An element that flatters him—to kill, But would rejoice to barter outward show For the least boon that freedom can bestow?

The American Idea of Religious Liberty

By Asa Oscar Tait

By Asa Oscar Tait

As set forth in an article by A. J. S. Bourdeau elsewhere in this paper, religious liberty is an inherent right belonging to every individual. God has given the right of choice, and consequently the right of religious freedom to each one. No man, or combination of men, can of right take this freedom from another, neither can they of right grant him religious toleration. For what a man possesses inherently should not be conceded to him thru toleration by his fellow men, but of right.

In most of the nations, both heathen and the so-called Christian, in all past time the idea has prevailed that it was necessary for the good of mankind to have some form of religion that was recognized, supported, and enforced by the State. Some of the bloodiest wars and also the cruellest and most torturing persecutions have been carried on in consequence of this idea of the necessity of the State connection with religion.

The Gospel invitation reads,

"Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light." Matt. 11: 28-30.

And in perfect accord with the foregoing verses is the following invitation by the Author of the same Gospel:

"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And he that heareth, let him say, Come. And he that is athirst, let him come; he that will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev. 22: 17.

The tenor of the Gospel of Christ is in harmony with the foregoing texts. Christ's Gospel is not a gospel of force or of arbitrary compulsion, but a gospel of entreaty, of persuasion, of invitation.

It is easy to see how the heathen world would be intolerant and seek to compel men to adopt some set form of religion, even at the point of the bayonet. But how it could be possible for men to hold the profession of Christianity, and claim to be guided by the precepts of Him who said, "Come unto Me" and "He that will, let him take the water of life freely," and still undertake to enforce religion by the sword, is a great mystery. No man can be a Christian indeed and seek to compel one of his fellow men to observe any point of religious faith. If he can not persuade him, he will not think of such an evil thing as trying to compel him.

The true principles of religious freedom as set forth in the invitation of the Gospel have been held by all true Christians in all the ages. It has been when men have apostatized into darkness that they have sought to compel men to believe. The great battle for religious freedom has been fought all thru the ages. Some telling blows were struck by the mighty Reformation of the sixteenth century. The seeds of true freedom were planted in Germany, in England, and in Holland especially, and to a greater or less extent in all parts of Europe. The conflict was waged, and in no place was the controversy fiercer than in England, and nowhere was it crowned with greater success. England fought for her religious freedom and also for her political freedom at the same time. And from this sturdy stock of reformers there came to the New World a band of men to establish

A Government on Right Principles.

And so we hear the founders of this government saying at the outset:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."—From the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

Note that this government is founded on the basis of recognized "rights." And, furthermore, the great principle is stated that these "rights" are "unalienable," for with these rights men "are endowed by their Creator." The plan of government previous to this time had been almost wholly based upon the rights of rulers, and that these rulers would "grant" or "tolerate" certain things for the people.

And with the persecutions of the Old World still vividly in mind, and to forever set at rest the idea of a State religion in this New Country, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States—the country that was built upon that immortal Declaration of Independence, reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Thus in the new nation in the New World was the great principle of religious freedom that the Gospel teaches laid firmly in the fundamental law of its government. Religious freedom as a natural, unalienable right is a chief corner-stone in the newborn Republic.

Builded upon such a foundation as this, behold how she has grown! She has stood as a mighty and towering monument to all the world, showing the races and tribes of mankind what can be accomplished by a people that are a unit in holding that they have the "right" to be free. And while the material growth and development of the nation has been the marvel of the world, yet the growth of contented happiness among this free people has also been the world's admiration.

To the shores of this new Republic have flocked the oppressed and unfortunate of every race and of every clime. Here they have found a haven of rest and a harbor of peace. Here they have found a freedom that can only exist where it is an acknowledged principle that men have "rights" that can not be alienated; and that these rights come from God, and not from earthly rulers; that these rights allow a man to worship or not to worship according as his conscience or his desires may lead him.

When this country was founded upon such principles that were so revolutionary in the world at that time, it was looked upon by all the inhabitants of civilization as a vast experiment. They expected to see the nation soon crumble and come to naught. But, instead, they have seen it grow with incredible speed into one of the

mightiest world powers. There is no corner of the globe in which the benign influences of the new Republic are not felt. Never was there a happier or a more prosperous or more progressive people on the face of the earth in any time of all its history.

The principles on which the government was founded have been the source of its happiness, its greatness, and its power. It is well to see to it that these principles are kept ever before the people, and all is preserved in purity in the hearts of the children of the Republic. For to allow our foundation principles to become impaired would mean to crumble thru decay into ruin.

Continue reading: The Moral Warfare