p. 2 | Review and Herald, Vol. 93, No. 24. (5/11/1916)

Review and Herald

May 11, 1916

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Tacoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · May 11, 1916

The Resurrection

The real historical evidence for the resurrection is the fact that it was believed, preached, propagated, and produced its fruit and effect in the new phenomenon of the Christian church, long before any of our Gospels was written. . . . Faith in the resurrection was not only prevalent but immensely powerful before any of our New Testament books was written. Not one of them could ever have been written but for that faith. It is not this or that in the New Testament—it is not the story of the empty tomb, or of the appearing of Jesus in Jerusalem or in Galilee—which is the primary evidence for the resurrection; it is the New Testament itself,—the life that throbs in it from beginning to end, the life that always fills us again with wonder as it beats upon us from its pages, the life which the risen Saviour has quickened in Christian souls. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is the existence of the church in that extraordinary spiritual vitality which confronts us in the New Testament. . . . The existence of the Christian church, the existence of the New Testament,—these incomparable phenomena in human history are left without adequate or convincing explanation if the resurrection of Jesus be denied.—James Denney, D. D.

The Question of Dress

By Editor

THE question of proper dress for the Christian is one requiring the exercise of sanctified judgment. It is left for the most part with every individual to determine what he shall wear, and how he shall relate himself in detail to the conventionalities of society, the prevailing fashions, etc. The instruction of the Scriptures of truth regarding this subject deals for the most part with principles rather than with details. It admonishes the Christian woman to seek above outward ornamentation “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.” It exhorts her to seek to represent Christ, her Saviour, in her dress as well as in her conversation and general deportment. The same principle of course applies to the dress of both men and women. If there ever was a time in the history of the world when there was needed by every Christian woman fine discrimination and sanctified judgment in the question of dress, that time is today.

The extravagances of fashion during the last few years have met hearty condemnation from every quarter, not alone from the leaders of Christian work, but from men of the world, from newspapers as well as from religious journals. It is not enough to excuse the wearing of abbreviated lengths or the use of gossamer material, with the plea of hygiene or a return to natural methods. The fact remains, and is recognized not alone by religious people, but by men of the world, that the styles of the last two or three years have made for impurity, and are a constant menace to the morals of the community. Speaking of this, the editor of the Lutheran says:—

“They tell us that to the pure all things are pure, and that, if there is any harm coming from the present fashion of female attire, it is the fault of the man who thinks evil. This is a very specious argument; it is about as thin as some of the raiment in which some reputable matrons array themselves, when they take pains to array themselves at all. One marvels that the testimony of the looking-glass counts for so little. One wonders that Christian husbands are so blind. We touch upon this matter with reluctance. We believe that much of the very evident offense against propriety is sheer thoughtlessness, and a blind following of fashion. But we also believe that it is none the less an offense against good morals. It furnishes a model and an excuse for younger women, less safeguarded by age and the restraints of wedlock, and makes them the possibly unwitting but nevertheless real tempters of young men wrestling with the hot passions of youth. To be very blunt about it, women have no moral right to dress as a vast host of them do today, and they must submit to be told that they are responsible for many errant thoughts which work out into sins against their own sex. And all for the lack of half a yard of stuff and a little resistance to the domination of the dressmaker.”

We feel that the question of proper dress is one deserving of the careful consideration of the members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Many, we are glad to note, in our various congregations are seeking to conform their dress to the simplicity and dignity of Christian manhood and womanhood. But with others there is great laxity. The tendency which we see on the part of some of our members to ape the fashions of the world, is but a demonstration of the drift of the worldly spirit which exists in their lives. The dress is but an indication of the character. The need of this class is not a course of lectures on the question of dress. This, as a rule, would only serve to irritate them. They need to obtain a new vision of God and of his great message of truth for this day, and of their relationship to that message. With that vision in their minds, they will seek to conform their dress as they do their conversation and their entire course of life, to that standard which will truly represent the character which they profess to the world.

And we believe that what is true of the question of dress is true in other particulars. It is proper that we should set before the members of our churches the dangers in the world today. We should uncover to their gaze the snares and pitfalls of the enemy. We should warn them against the baneful influences connected with worldly sports and pleasures; but when we see in their lives worldly tendencies, we should recognize that the true way to aid them is not by censure and faultfinding for the course they are pursuing, but by helping them to obtain a new vision of life and of life's responsibilities. Their slumbering senses need to be aroused to hear anew the call of God to them, and to recognize the position God would have them occupy in connection with this closing work.

Note and Comment

A New Vision

How many there are in the world today, and some even in the work of God, who need a new vision. Their horizon has become circumscribed. They view questions from the standpoint of selfish consideration, present convenience, or sectional interest. The little things of life have become the important things in their estimation. Personal considerations have become exalted above great principles.

Labor with such individuals over the particular points of weakness in their character oftentimes avails but little. They see through a glass darkly, and therefore they are inclined to entirely misunderstand the purpose of such labor. By no amount of persuasion or reasoning can they come to view things from a different standpoint. To them their view is normal and logical and consistent.

Their only hope is in obtaining a new vision,—a vision of God and his work, of the great principles underlying his work, and of their relationship to these principles. It was this new vision which, when received by Job, changed his conception of God. He says, “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” It was this new vision of Jesus Christ which transformed Saul the persecutor into Paul the mighty apostle. This new vision took David from the sheepcotes among the hills of Judea and made him the sweet singer of Israel, the king of God’s chosen heritage. This vision caused the riches of Egypt to sink into insignificance in Moses’ estimation, and led him to cast in his lot with a race of slaves, to suffer privation and hardship, enduring “as seeing him who is invisible.”

Such a vision will transform our lives and change our hearts. It will lead us to self-abnegation, self-forgetfulness. It will lead us to suffer long and be kind. It will lead us to rise above the low, mean, petty things of life, above the spirit of sordid considerations and selfish indifference, and to think the thoughts of God after him.

The Eastern Question

By W. A. S.

Modern History in the Light of Ancient Prophecy

Not alone of the history of ancient nations does the “sure word of prophecy” bear witness. National events of our own and coming days are described.

The nations of the latter day are pictured as preparing war, gathering their forces for the great Armageddon of the day of God.

As a signal of the last great struggle, the fall, or “drying up,” of the power ruling by the River Euphrates is foretold. Rev. 16: 12. The Euphrates in all modern history has marked the dominions of the Turkish or Ottoman Empire.

And Armageddon, designated as the meeting place of armies in the last clash of nations, is in Palestine, which, through all modern times, has been in possession of the Turkish power.

The index finger of prophecy points, therefore, to this region of the eastern Mediterranean as the pivotal point in the closing history of nations; and with Turkey’s fate is wrapped up the fate of all the nations of the world.

All this adds deepest and most solemn import to the study of what is known as the Eastern Question, a question that has been to the fore in international politics much of the time throughout this generation. Wars have been fought over it, cabinets have wrestled with it—and still it holds its place in the first rank of living issues of today.

As every one knows, the Eastern Question involves the question of dominion or supremacy in this region of the Near East. This region was a pivotal point in the struggles of the nations in ancient times—the meeting place of East and West. Maspero, historian of ancient empires, says of it:—

“Some countries seem destined from their origin to become the battle fields of the contending nations. . . . The nations around are eager for the possession of a country thus situated. . . . From remote antiquity Syria was in the condition just described. By its position it formed a kind of meeting place, where most of the military nations of the ancient world were bound sooner or later to come violently into collision.”—“Struggle of the Nations,” chap. 1.

It is not strange therefore that one of the great outlines of historic prophecy should deal with events centering around this pivotal region. The prophecy of Daniel 11 does so, outlining the course of history from the ancient times to the final solution of the Eastern Question amid the scenes of the end.

Rise and Fall of Ancient Empire

The prophetic outline begins with Persia, in the third year of Cyrus, the conqueror of Babylon. See Dan. 10: 1. The angel of God appeared to Daniel, and, in the longest and most detailed single prophecy in all the Bible, told the story of events centering round this region of the Near East for the centuries to come, until the end. Putting the word of prophecy and the record of history side by side, we see how exactly history has fulfilled prophecy; and we may know certainly that the brief portion of the prophecy yet to be fulfilled will surely come to pass.

PERSIA

PROPHECY.—“Now will I show thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” Dan. 11: 2.

HISTORY.—The three kings following Cyrus were (1) Cambyses, (2) Smerdis, (3) Darius; and the fourth, Xerxes, was “far richer than they all.” He had the treasures of his father, Darius, who was called the “merchant” or “hoarder” by his own people, and Xerxes gathered stores of wealth in addition. When Xerxes was on his way to invade Grecia, a Lydian, named Pythius, entertained the whole Persian army with feasts, and offered to aid in bearing the expense of the campaign. Xerxes asked who this man of such wealth was. He was answered:—

“O king, this is the person who presented your father Darius with the golden plane tree and the vine; and he is now the richest man we know of in the world, next to yourself.”—Herodotus, book 7, par. 29.

“Richer than they all,” Xerxes, “through his riches,” was able, as the prophecy had foretold, to “stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” Forty-nine nations marched under his banners to the attack. The Greek poet, Æschylus, who himself fought against the Persians, wrote of Xerxes’ mighty host,—

“And myriad-peopled Asia’s king, a battle-eager lord, From utmost east to utmost west sped on his countless horde, In unnumbered squadrons marching, in fleets of keels untold, Knowing none dared disobey, For stern overseers were they Of the godlike king begotten of the ancient race of Gold.” —“Persæ,” Way’s translation.

Xerxes boasted that he was leading “the whole race of mankind to the destruction of Greece.” But his invasion ended in total rout of his forces by land and sea. It was an advertisement to the world that Persia’s might was broken. The prophecy treats it so, and deals no further with Persian history. Æschylus at the time celebrated the passing of Persia’s prestige in the lines,—

“With sacred awe The Persian law No more shall Asia’s realms revere; To their lord’s hand At his command, No more the exacted tribute bear. “Before the Ionian squadrons Persia flies, Or sinks engulfed beneath the main; Fallen! fallen! is her imperial power, And conquest on her banners waits no more.” —“Persæ,” Potter’s translation.

The next great world change was to be the rise of Grecia to dominion. So, although a number of kings followed Xerxes in Persia, the prophecy passes from his disastrous invasion directly to the coming of Grecia under its “mighty king,” Alexander the Great.

GRECIA

PROPHECY.—“And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity.” Dan. 11: 3, 4.

HISTORY.—Alexander the Great stood up and ruled with great dominion, over a kingdom stretching from India to Grecia, with kings yet farther west sending embassies to Babylon to make submission. But in the height of his power, as the prophecy suggests, he was suddenly cut down by death. All his posterity perished, and out of the struggles of his generals for supremacy came (301 B. C.) the division of the empire toward “the four winds,” as the prophecy had declared so long before. Rawlinson, the historian, says:—

“A quadripartite division of Alexander’s dominion was recognized: Macedonia [west], Egypt [south], Asia Minor [north], and Syria [stretching eastward beyond the Euphrates].”—“Sixth Monarchy,” chap. 3.

The Kings of the North and South

Next, a rearrangement of these powers is noted; and it is this that gives us the key to the study of the closing portion of the long prophetic outline dealing with events of our own day. The narrative continues:—

PROPHECY.—“And the king of the south shall be strong, and one of his princes . . . shall be strong above him; . . . his dominion shall be a great dominion.” Verse 5.

HISTORY.—The history testifies that the king of the south (Egypt, under Ptolemy) was strong; but one of the four princes was “strong above him.” Seleucus, of Syria and the east, pushed his dominion northward, subduing most of Asia Minor, and extending his boundary into Thrace, on the European side, beyond the Dardanelles. Henceforward, as Mahaffy says,—

“There were three great kingdoms—Macedonia, Egypt, Syria—which lasted, each under its own dynasty, till Rome swallowed them up.”—“Alexander’s Empire,” p. 89.

Thus Seleucus took the territory of the north, and the Syrian power became king of the north, its empire extending from Thrace, in Europe, through Asia Minor to Syria and the Euphrates. The seat of empire was removed from the east, and Antioch, in northern Syria, became the famous capital, “once the third city of the world.”

The prophecy next foretold in remarkable detail the contests between these two strong powers, the king of the north (Syria and Asia Minor) and the king of the south (Egypt). The conflict raged back and forth till the coming of the Romans. The Holy Land was the frequent meeting place of the contending armies. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes it:—

“Palestine was as of old the battle field for the king of the north and the king of the south. . . . The history of these times is lost in its details.”—Ninth edition, article “Macedonian Empire.”

We shall not follow the details of this contest as foretold in the prophecy, nor yet the outline of events after the coming of the Roman power ended the rivalry between Syria and Egypt. It is necessary only that we fix the events and geographic terms of this early portion of the prophecy. Then we shall have the key to the closing portion, dealing with events of the last days, when the king of the north again appears.

The Modern King of the North

In the last verses of the chapter we find the king of the north a chief actor in this same region, “at the time of the end.” Verse 40. And we are told that when this power comes to its end, it is the signal that the great day of God is at hand. See Dan. 12: 1.

It becomes a vital question, therefore, What power in these last days is the king of the north, whose end is the signal of the swift ending of the world? Inspiration gives the basis for the answer. The king of the north of the early portion of the prophecy was the power that ruled in Syria and Asia Minor, from the Euphrates to the shores of the Dardanelles. The king of the north, then, of the later portion of the prophecy, must be the power that has been ruling in this same region during the time of the end.

What power has held dominion over this territory in modern times?—The Turkish or Ottoman Empire. At this time Turkey holds almost the identical dominion of the ancient king of the north—from the Euphrates to the sea, and northward over Asia Minor and the shores of the Dardanelles.

Then today Turkey is certainly the king of the north, according to the prophecy of Daniel 11. W. A. S.

(To be concluded)

Benefits of Temperance

By L. L. C.

ONE of the most striking changes of modern times in the advance of the prohibition movement was the prohibition of the drinking of vodka in Russia. The government officials of Russia felt that the war crisis before them required that the people be sober. They reasoned that the nation would be enriched by the saving of the money spent in this useless way, and the people would have more strength and means to carry on the war. The judgment of these officials has been amply justified. Many other benefits, however, have also accrued to the country, so that it is said that all officials, from the czar down, believe that prohibition has come to stay.

A report from Petrograd appearing in the Wichita Beacon, gives an interesting estimate, of a semiofficial nature, of the benefits which have come to Russia through prohibition. They are very striking indeed:—

“Crime (all kinds) has decreased 62 per cent. “Absenteeism in factories has fallen 60 per cent. “Suicide rate has dropped enormously. “Hospitals formerly overcrowded are not filled. “Efficiency in factories increased 10 to 15 per cent. “Practically every inhabitant is at work. “Savings deposits have increased 8 per cent. “Fire damage has fallen off 38 per cent. “Wages in some districts raised 500 per cent. (This applies to peasants working as day laborers.) “People are eating better and costlier food. “Better clothing is worn by the poorer classes. “Agricultural implement sales 60 per cent larger. “Imprisonment decreased 72 per cent.”

Another benefit which we, with a special message for the world, should appreciate, is the opportunity that prohibition gives of a sober consideration by the people of the truths of this message. May it not be that it is in God's providence that the prohibition movement is sweeping over the world in order that the minds of some drink-beclouded persons may be in a condition to consider the final warning which is now being given to all, and make their decision soberly and intelligently for eternal life or eternal death? L. L. C.

Ten Arguments Against the Sabbath

By G. R. T.

In the Brethren Family Almanac for 1916, Rev. I. N. Beahm gives, what he is pleased to call, “ten arguments against the Seventh-day Sabbath for the Christian,” which he claims have been effective in demolishing the foundation on which seventh-day Sabbath keeping rests.

The statement that these so-called arguments are against the “Seventh-day Sabbath for the Christian,” implies that the Sabbath is not a Christian institution, and is not to be observed by Christians. By this statement, put forth without proof, he seeks to prejudice the conscientious Christian against observing the day the Lord made and blessed, on the grounds that Christian people are not to observe the day.

But was not the Sabbath kept by Christian people for four millenniums,—from creation till the first advent of Christ? It was observed through the patriarchal age. Were not Noah, Enoch, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob Christians? See Luke 13: 28. Moses was the Lord’s chosen leader, to deliver the people from the bondage of Egypt. Was not he through whom the Lord handed down the tables of the law, written by the Son of God himself, a Christian? Was not Joshua, who was chosen to take the leadership of Israel when Moses died, a Christian? What about David, and Samuel, and the prophets of God? What about those “who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens”? Are not such as these a respectable company of Christian Sabbath keepers? Can Reverend Beahm find in the ranks of those who keep Sunday a more consecrated, earnest company? Can he find among those who keep the first day of the week any having more faith in Christ than these heroes of faith? Was not Elijah, who went to heaven in a chariot of fire, a Christian? Were not the Hebrew worthies, who rather than transgress the law of God went into the furnace of fire, Christians? Also Daniel, who was cast

into the lions’ den? They were not of that spineless lot who, rather than change their practice and observe the day that was made holy by the acts of God himself, and placed in the bosom of his law, teach that the law in which it was placed has been abolished. Such teaching would abolish sin, and all need of a Saviour, for “sin is the transgression of the law.”

Then coming down to the time when Jesus made his advent as man’s redeemer. Jesus kept the Sabbath; so did all the apostles. Were they not Christians? And when we seek to stigmatize the Sabbath of Jehovah by stating that the Sabbath is not for Christians, do we not cast a reproach upon the noble band of Christians who kept the Sabbath in every age from creation, including the Son of God and his apostles? It is to be deplored that professed Christians, especially those who stand as watchmen, persist in teaching that which leads to such shocking conclusions.

In looking over the ten points which are given in the Almanac as a summary of the points made in a discussion on the Sabbath question, we find the usual arguments against the perpetuity of the law of God. The law having been abolished or changed, the Sabbath is therefore abolished or changed, is, in a nutshell, the argument adduced.

Reverend Beahm says the law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. Gal. 3: 24. “The law ends,” he says, “where the Christ begins.” What does Reverend Beahm mean by the law ending? Evidently that the eternal code which defines sin has been abolished. If so, then there is no sin, for “where no law is, there is no transgression,” and “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 4:15; 5:13. If the argument under review is correct, that the Sabbath is abolished because the law has been abolished, then not only is the Sabbath destroyed, but all sin is abrogated. The only knowledge we have of what is sin is by the law of God. Rom. 3:20. This law being abrogated, we have no standard of right and wrong, and sinful men, who must stand at the tribunal of God, are left to guess their way along the uncertain pathway of life, guided only by the dim candle of their own reason. It is to positions which lead to such monstrous conclusions that men are forced in their efforts to set aside the binding claims of the Sabbath.

Then if the law, which is the schoolmaster, or pedagogue, to lead us to Christ, is abolished, how are we to get to Christ? The law performs the office of the ancient pedagogue by leading us to Christ, the great Instructor. It restrains and rebukes; it shows us our danger; it points out sin. Like a mirror, which shows us we are in need of physical cleansing, it points out sin, the plague spots in our character. It convinces us of sin, and the need of pardon. It thus leads us to Christ, the Redeemer. Sinners are under the condemnation of the law. As preachers of righteousness we are to gather our congregations around the law spoken from Sinai, in order that their sins may be pointed out. But the law does not save; it condemns. Christ becomes the end, or object, of the law for righteousness. The penitent soul is led to see its need of a Saviour, and looking to Jesus, it confesses and forsakes its sin. Then as a saved, forgiven sinner, the man is no longer under the condemnation of the law, but under grace instead.

In the argument in the Almanac, Reverend Beahm makes the further blunder of confounding the law of the Sabbath with the law of ceremonies. He overlooks the fact that there are two laws brought to view in the Bible, one of which is changeless, the other temporary. The ceremonial law is typical. It was made necessary because of sin. But the Sabbath antelates sin. It was found in Eden, before sin entered. Had man never sinned, it would have been kept by sinless beings throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity. And when sin is destroyed, and Edenic beauty once more is found in the earth, it will be kept by the redeemed throughout eternity. “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. 66:22, 23.

We would commend to the prayerful consideration of those who are inclined to stigmatize the Sabbath the thought that a Sabbath that was worthy of being observed in Eden by sinless beings, and that will be kept in the new earth by the redeemed, is worthy of being honored and kept holy by God’s people at the present time.

One other point in the Almanac is all we deem it worth while to notice, as the other positions are more or less a repetition of this point, and that is the reference made to the two covenants, the idea being of course that the law of ten commandments was the old covenant, and this being superseded by the new covenant, the Sabbath commandment dropped out. How blindly men sometimes err, and present strange arguments to bolster up some human tradition. The new covenant is the covenant of grace, and was made with man in Eden after the fall. It promises forgiveness of sin, and life on condition of obedience to God’s law. This covenant was renewed to Abraham, and through it all the patriarchs received the hope of salvation. The covenant was confirmed by both the promise and the oath of God.

This covenant was ratified by the death of Christ, and is called the second or new covenant because the blood was shed after the blood of the old covenant, a compact or arrangement entered into between God and Israel at Mt. Sinai.

Instead of the law of God being abolished in the new covenant ratified by the blood of Christ, it is written by the Spirit on the heart of every child of God. Notice this scripture carefully: “For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Heb. 8:8-12.

That the Sabbath was kept by Christ and the apostles is admitted by all. Then how does Sunday become a part of the new covenant, which was ratified at the death of the Mediator? “Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man’s covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.” Gal. 3:15.

Even if we could trace Sunday keeping back to the resurrection, which we cannot, it would then be too late for it to become a part of the new covenant, which had been already ratified.

Surely the Sabbath of Jehovah is established upon an immovable foundation.

G. R. T.

Join the Church Nearest You

By L. L. C.

CHURCH membership, when it represents a vital experience of fellowship with Christ and not a mere formal connection, is one of the greatest assets making for success. There is something about membership in the local church which brings its members closer than even the ties of family relationship. One of the purposes of the formation of churches is that the believers in Christ in any locality may be so bound together as mutually to help one another in Christian experience and service. This being true, it is a decided disadvantage to continue

one's membership in a church from which he has moved away. How much better it would be if all would join, as soon as possible, the nearest church to the place where their work takes them. It may mean a little inconvenience, and the giving up of close ties of church fellowship with the home church, but it will prove an anchor to the person who has moved, and a strength to the church of which he becomes a member.

The story of a sea captain, which illustrates this, has come to our notice in one of our exchanges. A sea captain traveling on a railroad found that he had as a seat companion a young man going to the city to live. The two entered into conversation. The older man asked, “Have you letters of recommendation?” “Yes,” said the young man, as he pulled some from his coat pocket. “Well,” remarked the old sea captain, “have you a church certificate?” “O, yes,” replied the youth, “but I did not suppose you would desire to look at that.” “Yes,” said the captain, “I want to see that; as soon as you reach the city, present it to the church in that city. I am an old sailor, and as I have been up and down in the world, it is my rule as soon as I get into port to fasten my ship fore and aft to the wharf, even though it may cost a little wharfage, rather than have my ship out in the stream floating hither and thither with the tide.”

The old sea captain’s advice is certainly good. Many young persons have drifted because, when moving from home, they failed to tie up to the church in the place to which they went. Such a transfer of membership also avoids the danger that strangers claiming to be Seventh-day Adventists may obtain under this pretense the confidence of members in small churches who may take these strangers in, give them full use of the church, and sometimes even circulate their literature.

L. L. C.

Continue reading: Statement of Twenty-Cent-a-Week Fund for Three Months Ending March 31, 1916