Review and Herald, Vol. 82, No. 32. (8/10/1905)

Review and Herald

Aug 10, 1905

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Washington, D. C. · Aug 10, 1905

God of the Open Air

By Henry Van Dyke

Thou who hast made Thy dwelling fair With flowers beneath, above with starry lights, And set Thine altars everywhere— On mountain heights,

In woodlands dim with many a dream, In valleys bright with springs, And on the curving capes of every stream;

Thou who hast taken to Thyself the wings of morning, to abide Upon the secret places of the sea, and on far islands, where the tide Visits the beauty of untrodden shores, Waiting for worshipers to come to Thee in Thy great out-of-doors!

To Thee I turn, to Thee I make my prayer, God of the open air! Seeking for Thee, the heart of man lonely and longing ran, In that first solitary hour, when the mysterious power To know and love the wonder of the morn Was breathed within him, and his soul was born:

And Thou didst meet Thy child, Not in some hidden shrine, But in the freedom of the garden wild, And take his hand in Thine—

There all day long in paradise he walked, And in the cool of evening with Thee talked.

Lost long ago that garden bright and pure, Lost that calm day too perfect to endure, And lost, the childlike love that worshiped and was sure!

For men have dulled their eyes with sin, And dimmed the light of heaven with doubt, And built their temple walls to shut Thee in, And framed their iron creeds to shut Thee out.

But not for Thee the closing of the door, O Spirit unconfined! Thy ways are free as is the wandering wind, And Thou hast wooed Thy children, to restore Their fellowship with Thee, In peace of soul and simpleness of mind.

—Henry Van Dyke, D. D., in The Century.

The Publishers’ Forum

Conducted by the Department of Circulation of the Review & Herald Publishing Association

“TALKS WITH MY STUDENTS,” by Prof. Frederick Griggs, is a book every young person ought to read. It contains the practical points of Professor Griggs’s heart-to-heart chapel talks to his students upon such practical subjects as Adaptability, Being Enthusiastic, Learning to Wait, The Value of Minutes, Our Conversation, Economy, Promptness, Manners, Young Associations, Love of the Beautiful, etc.

These talks were given to meet circumstances in the actual experience of the students, and proved to be of much value to them in character building and the preparation for successful life. They will prove the same to any young person who will read them, for this series of talks reveals in a practical manner the qualifications necessary for happiness and true success in all walks of life.

Paper covers, 25 cents; cloth covers, 40 cents. Sold by all State tract societies.

VOLUMES I and III of the old “Sabbath Readings” series contain 752 pages of the very best stories for young people. Some of the topics they contain, and from which helpful lessons are drawn, are, A Quarrelsome Neighbor, Only This Once, Put Yourself in My Place, The Blighted Life, The Serpent in the Home, The Graduating Dress, A Story of School Life, Nothing Finished, The Young Musician, The Belle of the Ballroom, etc.

These volumes are bound in cloth, and will be sent, post-paid, for 40 cents each.

OUR REVIEW readers will doubtless be pleased to know that Life and Health continues to interest the public, even through the hot season. It was expected there would be a decline in the demand for the journal during the months of June, July, and August; but the calls for it during these months have been greater than during any other three months of the present year. As early as July 6 that month’s edition was entirely out; and on the first day of August there were only fifteen hundred copies of an extra large edition of that month’s number remaining in stock. The September edition will be still larger, and will be ready for delivery early in the present month.

As an illustration of how some of our Life and Health agents are succeeding in their work, we quote the following from a letter just received:—

“The cook-book, ‘A Friend in the Kitchen,’ continues to work well with Life and Health. Out of fourteen calls, I took thirteen orders for the book and thirteen subscriptions for the journal, from as many delighted patrons. With one or two exceptions all the wealthiest and cultured people of this community have subscribed for the journal and taken the cook-book; and I have not finished yet.

“WELLINGTON FROST.”

If you do not have a reading-rack, and desire a good one at a small price, we would suggest that you order one of the folding style manufactured by the Review and Herald. This rack will be sent, post-paid, for 20 cents.

It is with a desire that parents shall become the teachers of their own children with reference to the most important functions of the body that we call attention to the notices on this page of the books entitled “Almost a Man,” “Almost a Woman,” and “Teaching Truth.”

“ALMOST A MAN” is a book containing a doctor’s talk to boys, revealing the grandeurs of the development of life in plants, in animals, and in the human body, also the beauties and possibilities of the home of parents and of children. This volume teaches the boy to know himself.

Every boy will sooner or later be “almost a man.” Shall he become a man with all the loving traits and noble characteristics with which the Creator intended that he should be endowed? or shall he be of that class whose thoughts have been poisoned by the darts of the enemy, and whose intellect can not appreciate the beauties of nature and of the true manhood which God desires to be cultivated in every soul? All parents ought to provide “Almost a Man” for their boys.

Price, post-paid, 50 cents.

“ALMOST A WOMAN” deals with the sacred duties of a mother to her daughter. With greater interest does the parent look upon the daughter who has become almost a woman, than upon a son. As the beauties of her childhood burst into full bloom, the results of her education during those early years become apparent. As the training and education have been, so will be her life.

Dr. Mary Wood-Allen is a woman of extended experience, and knows how to talk to mothers relative to their daughters; and we recommend her book, “Almost a Woman,” to every mother.

Price, post-paid, 50 cents.

“TEACHING TRUTH” is the title of a little book by Dr. Mary Wood-Allen, composed of talks and advice to mothers with reference to unfolding to their children the truths with reference to their bodies and of the origin of life. The queries which arise in the minds of the young must be answered. If not instructed by the parents, answers to their queries will be given to them from other sources, often with undesirable results. How and when to teach this and other kindred important subjects is the object of this book. It can not fail to be of practical help to all parents.

Price, post-paid, 50 cents.

Editorial

Lost

“My people have been lost sheep: their shepherds have caused them to go astray; they have turned them away on the mountains; . . . they have forgotten their resting-place.” “I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” “For the Son of man came to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Found

“What man of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and his neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost.” “The father said to his servants, Bring forth quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and make merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.” “Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ, and be found in him.”

An Extraordinary Bargain

“Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price. Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not bread? and your labor for that which satisfieth not? harken diligently unto me, and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in fatness.” “For thus saith Jehovah, Ye were sold for naught; and ye shall be redeemed without money.” “Now when Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Spirit was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Spirit. But Peter said unto him, Thy silver perish with thee, because thou hast thought to obtain the gift of God with money.” “Ye were redeemed, not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, from your vain manner of life handed down from your fathers; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.” “Thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift.”

Simple Truths

THE simple truths of the gospel presented in a simple way are most helpful to the people. No human philosophy and no ponderous eloquence can satisfy the need of a soul held captive by sin and seeking deliverance. Old and young, rich and poor, alike need to be taught that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;” that “he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures;” that “he ascended up on high;” that he “is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man;” that “he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them;” that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand;” and that “this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” The preacher of such truths can say to his hearers when leaving them, as Paul did, “I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, . . . testifying . . . repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” The simple truths of the gospel, put into the setting provided for them in the prophetic scriptures, constitute the message of the third angel,— yea, God’s final word to the people of this generation,—and these great truths should be taught in their simplicity. The example of Jesus is the most weighty argument in favor of teaching the simple truths of the gospel in a straight-forward manner, and “the common people heard him gladly.”

That False Argument Again

A READER of the REVIEW has sent us a copy of The Free Methodist (Chicago) of June 20, 1905, calling our attention to an article with the title “First-Day Sabbath,” and asking, “Will you please give an explanation of this through the REVIEW AND HERALD?”

This article is simply a reiteration of the claim that a correct translation of Matt. 28: 1 and similar passages where we find the expression “the first day of the week” would indicate that the Sabbath was changed at that time, and that the inspired writings prove this when we appeal to the original text. With some show of an understanding of the Greek language the writer of the article quotes the original of Matt. 28: 1, and after saying that “this is the most difficult passage on the resurrection to translate into English,” he gives what he declares to be “the nearest word-for-word translation,” with the remark that “there are two sabbatons in this passage in the Greek text, . . . written just alike . . . pronounced alike, and are the same Greek characters.” The conclusion which he draws from this exhibition of profound scholarship runs thus:—

“The first one is the Hebrew seventh-day Sabbath, the other is the day Christ arose from the sepulcher, on the first day of the Hebrew week. And in the Greek it is written first sabbath to distinguish it from the seventh-day Sabbath of the Israelite, or Hebrew Sabbath, and because it was the first day of the Hebrew week, and the first sabbath of the Christian era, it was the first sabbath of the gospel dispensation, A. D. 1.

After giving similar translations of other texts in which the expression “the first day of the week” is now found, this learned writer makes the following assertions:—

In all these passages of the New Testament in the Greek, as quoted, it is first sabbath. Nowhere is the “first day of the week” found. In every passage, without exception, it is written (Mion Sabbaton), “First day of thesabbaths.” This is positive proof that many the apostles had been taught, either by Christ himself or by the Holy Ghost, that the day of Christ’s resurrection was the Christian sabbath, and it was such when the Gospels were written in the Greek tongue, and should have been so translated into English to be in harmony with the Greek text. When the translators made our New Testament, they forced the expression “the first day of the week” into the translation, thereby making an error in the translation from the Greek text. This is proved by the Greek New Testament, for all Greek New Testaments are alike.

We are asked to “give an explanation” of this article. The only “explanation” which we can possibly give without charging the writer with downright dishonesty is to say that he has acquired only a smattering of Greek, and that he is utterly unprepared to criticize and to amend the authorized and revised translations of the New Testament. The frankness and simplicity with which he betrays his ignorance of the proper construction of the Greek text would be amusing if the matter were not so serious a one, and if so many persons were not misled by just such displays of pretended familiarity with the original text. It is quite true that “all Greek New Testaments are alike,” but this does not preserve us from the pretentious ignorance of those who pervert the meaning of the original by their so-called literal translations of the text.

The simple fact is that there is no basis whatever for the assertions which this writer makes concerning the proper translation of these passages, and any one who really understands Greek would not make any such claims. Of course there are “two sabbatons” in Matt. 28: 1 which “are written just alike with the same letters and pronounced alike,” but this is far from proving that they should both be translated “sabbath,” and that the first day of the week is therefore the sabbath. The Greek construction is entirely different in these two cases, and it is this construction which determines the meaning of the word sabbaton. In the one construction the word sabbaton should be translated “sabbath,” and in the other construction it should be translated “week.” Any one who attempts to establish a disputed doctrine upon his correction of an alleged error in translation made by the best scholars of Europe and America ought certainly to have a better knowledge of Greek than is required in order to recognize that two words are spelled alike in the same passage, before he enters upon his critical work.

In the issues of the REVIEW for April 27 and July 6 we dealt quite fully with this matter, quoting at length the testimony of scholars who are themselves observers of the first day of the week, showing the impossibility of translating Matt. 28: 1 in any other way than it is given in our standard English translations. It hardly seems to be necessary to print these testimonies again at this time, and we therefore refer our correspondent to them for an authoritative statement upon this subject.

In spite of the fact that this perversion of the text of Matt. 28: 1 has been exposed over and over again, we suppose that the defenders of the false sabbath will continue to assert that it proves a change of the sabbath at the resurrection, and those who desire to have it so will give credence to their assertions. If those who are laboring for a return to the observance of the true Sabbath could produce no better evidence than is brought forward in the article under consideration, they would richly deserve to meet with confusion and failure. But a “Thus saith the Lord” is a better foundation than the assertions of men who do not understand what they are talking about.

The Cost of a Fortune

In the July and August issues of McClure’s Magazine Miss Ida M. Tarbell, well known through her history of the Standard Oil Trust, has contributed a study of the character of Mr. John D. Rockefeller, the head of the Standard Oil Company, which is a remarkable example of minute analysis and merciless condemnation.

After studying the business methods of this richest private individual in the world from his first boyish transactions through his operations in building up his great monopoly, Miss Tarbell sums up the case against his influence in the world in a masterly manner. It is a notable utterance. We quote the following:—

Rich indeed should be the returns to the public for what it has cost to build up a fortune like Mr. Rockefeller’s. But what has Mr. Rockefeller given the public in return for the code of business principles he has taught it, in return for the havoc their enforcement has cost, in return for the hypocrisy and cynicism he has fostered?

He has built hospitals and colleges and endowed schools. True, and those helped have become his open apologists, by taking what they call the “large view,” or the “charitable view,” or by deliberately shunning a consideration of the subject, quietly not seeing in it a topic for discussion. Does it pay to have those who are entrusted with the very sources of our intellectual and moral life blinded or silenced to the ethical quality of the practises of our daily life? Will it pay our colleges to put over their doors the teaching of one of our present-day moralists, “Never discuss politics or religion if you would succeed”?

He has led a life devoted to charity and the church. True, and the principles of the religion he professes are so antagonistic to the principles of the business he practises that the very world which emulates him has been turned into hypocrites and cynics under his tutelage; while, in the world which looks on, charity itself has become hateful to many a man—a cloak to cover a multitude of sins. Others actually withdraw their bequests from institutions which accept his funds. (It has been stated on the best authority that three wills making bequests to one of our leading universities have been changed because this institution has accepted money from Mr. Rockefeller.) Not only has charity been tainted by the hypocrisy of his life, the church itself has been polluted, and many a man has turned away from its doors because of the servile support it gives to the men of whom Mr. Rockefeller is the most eminent type. Does all this pay?

There is no shirking the answer. It does not pay. Our national life is on every side distinctly poorer, uglier, meaner, for the kind of influence he exercises. From him we have received no impulse to public duty, only lessons in evading it for private greed; no stimulus to nobler ideals, only a lesson in the further deification of gold; no example of enlarged and noble living, only one of concealment and evasion; no impulse to free thinking, only a lesson in obscuring vital ethical issues by dressing them in the garbs of piety and generosity. None of those higher things which the public has a right to demand from the man to whom it permits great power are returned to it by Mr. Rockefeller. For Mr. Rockefeller has none of these things to give. He has nothing but money, and never was there a more striking example of the impotency of money! He has neither taste nor cultivation, ideals nor potent personality. He is not a great man, not a human man. He is a machine—a money machine—stripped by his overwhelming passion of greed of every quality which makes a man worthy of citizenship. He has not made good. He can not make good. It is not in him. He has nothing the aspiring world needs. On the contrary, that for which he does stand is a menace to our free development, not only or chiefly our free development in commerce, but, vastly more important, our free development in citizenship and in morals.

And Mr. Rockefeller is not the only one of his kind. He is simply the type pre-eminent in the public mind of the militant business man of the day. From bankers down to street venders we have in operation the code which he has worked out so perfectly, and to which he has given the sanction of piety. And this code, so repugnant to the sense of fair play and so demoralizing to intellectual honesty, has worked its way into every activity of life, until with a growing element of the country success is the justification of any practise, until no price is too great to pay for winning. In commerce “the interest of the business” justifies breaking the law, bribing legislators, defrauding a competitor of his rights. In politics, winning the election justifies supporting an Addicks, breaking international laws, enduring slanders, bribing voters. In athletics you

may break an opponent’s collar-bone if it will win the game for your team. In church and college you may close your mouth to national demoralization if it will bring you endowments. On every side of us the Rockefeller practise of separating morals strictly from the business in hand is winning adherents and defenders.

Those who have read the undisputed facts of the history of the oil business in this country, and the sworn testimony of witnesses in the various legislative and congressional investigations of Mr. Rockefeller’s methods, will be almost forced to assent to Miss Tarbell’s view of the case. What a price to pay for world riches! But the worst is not yet. The seed which has been sown is already springing up. A new code of morals for the business world has been practically substituted for the old one. A determination to get rich at all hazards seems to have taken possession of many, and there is too little moral power to resist the terrible temptations to betray trusts of the most sacred character. The present shocking revelations in life insurance circles serve to emphasize these facts.

One becomes sick at heart as he contemplates the picture which is presented in strong outline day after day, and he is compelled to believe that this order of things can not last much longer. “The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it, and it shall fall, and not rise again.”

The Disregard of Law

By L. A. S.

THE United Presbyterian, in an exhortation on “Obedience to Law,” says:—

We are under law. We are constituted to be in harmony with law. He who gave us our being gave us our place in his kingdom of law, in obedience to which there is the completeness of life and the fulness of enjoyment.

The Presbyterian has particularly in mind, however, not the law of God, but the law of man, and especially the Sunday-observance statute; for after some general observations on the subject, it says:—

We are led to these remarks by the return of the season when a popular sentiment permits an almost wholesale disregard of some of the best laws of God [not specified], and especially the law of his day of rest. Our crowded trains, our thronged parks, our military parades, our numberless places of resort especially patronized on the Sabbath, are indications of a lowered standard of law, and of a tendency to throw off the moral restraint by which virtue, truth, and right are maintained, and manhood brought to its maturity. The disregard of the Sabbath which finds so much encouragement at the present time is an indication of moral degeneration. It tends to the disregard of all law, and so to the destruction of the foundations of society, as well as of personal character.

As to disregard of the law of God, the truth is that that is due to the prevalence of the carnal nature in men,—the sinful, unregenerated heart. “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness.” Mark 7:21, 22. All this is in violation of the law of God, and the general disregard of the law of God in this age of the world is made appallingly manifest in that men are “lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” All these evils, these violations of the law of God, are alarmingly prevalent and on the increase, as the columns of the daily papers show. But it is not this that the Presbyterian has in mind. It is not this state of things over which it is troubled, nor the formal, powerless representation of godliness in the church. What it is concerned over is the fact that “crowded trains,” “thronged parks,” “military parades,” etc., are to be observed at this season of the year on a day set apart in the statutes of men to be observed as a day of rest; namely, the first day of the week. It refers to no law of God which is being violated by these things; for there is no law of God which enjoins the observance of that day.

Would it not be vastly better if this religious journal would devote itself to the work of exhorting men to obedience to the law of God, through repentance and faith in the divine Sacrifice, instead of holding up another and human standard of righteousness? The Christian’s business in this world is to exalt the law of God.

Has it never occurred to those who so deplore the desecration of Sunday, that the lack of any divine authority in support of its claims must be one great cause of the disregard of, and indifference toward, it on the part of the general public? This is not an imaginary influence; for however well the clergy and some enthusiastic adherents of the day may persuade themselves that there is good Biblical ground for Sunday observance, the general public know by this time that Bible authority supports the seventh day as the Sabbath, and not the first. Here is the fatal, inherent weakness of the Sunday cause. The people, now that they have heard the claims of the seventh day as being the Sabbath of the Lord, resting upon a commandment which is part of a universal, eternal, and unchangeable law, know that the first-day sabbath rests upon tradition, custom, and human authority rather than upon the Word of God; and no amount of argument can blind their eyes to the fact. “Every plant, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up,” is a divine statement which foreshadows the failure of the Sunday cause. L. A. S.

How Providence Intervened

By W. A. S.

We have lately seen the truth making progress amid tumult and confusion in certain lands. In fact, we have seen God’s providence overruling strife and political disturbance, to give greater liberty in the work of the gospel.

We may find a helpful lesson for the stormy times before us in the story of early Reformation days. Again and again it seemed as if the young reform movement was about to be crushed out; and again and again the aims of opposing elements were frustrated, and God’s work protected. It often came according to the psalmist’s word: “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” Ps. 76: 10.

The Lord overruled wars and political rivalries to divert those who meant to oppress his children. The following plain instances of such interposition in critical years of the Reformation are gathered from Johnson’s “Europe in the Sixteenth Century:”—

The year 1521.—The Diet of Worms had condemned Luther, and Charles expected to enforce the decree. But—at this moment the attention of Charles was directed to the war against Francis [king of France]. The humiliation of his rival, and the conquest of Italy, were the first essentials; till these were attained, the affair of Luther might wait.

In the meantime Luther wrote and published, and the leaven of reform was scattered far and wide.

1524.—The emperor now fiercely denounced Luther, and the congress of Ratisbon forbade the reading of his books. If only the pope and the emperor had acted in concert, says the historian, something might now have been done. The record continues:—

But this was prevented by the political issues which once more drove them apart and so monopolized Charles’s attention that, as he said, “this was no time to speak of Luther.”

1525.—This year brought the complete victory of Charles over Francis at Pavia. It also witnessed the collapse of the peasants’ revolt in Germany, under the fanatical Munzer, which brought great reproach upon the cause of the

Reformation. Convinced that “heresy and rebellion were synonymous,” says the record, Charles now “determined to crush out heresy, and the victory of Pavia seemed to offer him a brilliant opportunity.” But now immediately intervened the trouble with Italy that led to the sack of Rome itself, while the Moslem invasion of Hungary and Austria, under Solyman, threatened the empire on the east. As the history states:—

In the midst of the troubles of the Italian campaign, and in the face of the hostility of the pope, any decisive action against the Reformers had been out of the question. It was at least necessary to procrastinate.

1530–32.—Steadily the reform movement was all the time growing into organized Protestantism. In 1529 came the protest of the princes at Spires. Next year, at the Diet of Augsburg, Charles determined to have done with this Lutheran trouble. “Italy was at his feet; Francis had accepted his terms.” The Protestants were given till the next April, 1531, to return to the Catholic Church, and after that time “measures were to be taken for the extirpation of their sect.” The Protestant princes answered this by forming the defensive League of Schmalkalde. But by the following year this was the situation that again defeated the aims of the persecutors:—

Had Charles’s hands been now free, doubtless he would have appealed to the arbitrament of the sword. But here again his political necessities stood in his way. The peace with France was by no means secure; nay, Francis was even intriguing with the League of Schmalkalde. Solyman was again threatening to invade his dominions. . . . As head of the Holy Roman Empire, it was his duty to defend the unity of the church, to put down heresy, and to support the papal authority. Yet his position as king of Germany forced him to postpone the suppression of heresy to the imperative necessity of gaining the support of the Protestants against the Turk.

Thus designs against the Protestants were still frustrated, and their numbers and strength increased.

1539.—By the close of 1539 most of the German princes had embraced the Protestant cause, several in that very year. “The crisis demanded instant action. But this was impossible, unless the neutrality of France could be secured.” In the fresh haggling over this, Francis “determined to appeal to arms once more. With the prospect of war before him, the emperor recognized the impossibility of using force against the Protestants.” Again the peril was warded off.

1544.—In this year the treaty of Crespi made peace between Charles and Francis. “On the signature of the Peace of Crespi,” says the history, “the hands of the emperor were at last free to deal with the Protestants in Germany.” All these years the emperor had been getting to it, but never found a time to take the sword to really crush the reform movement. And now he had waited so long that the sword could scarcely touch the cause of reform. Whole countries had grown into Protestantism. Things had gone too far now for the blaze to be violently smothered.

In 1546 Luther died. He had labored to keep the Protestant princes from taking up arms in defense of the church. But when, just after his death, Charles invaded Germany to bring the German princes to his own terms, there was war. The princes contended for the political integrity of their states in the empire. At first it seemed that the emperor’s arms would bring all Germany to his feet, and give reaction the power to oppress and harry the Protestants. But his unwieldy plan of empire broke down in the midst of his campaigns. Enemies sprang up in various quarters. He was forced to abandon the idea of a revival of the Roman Empire of the West. That empire had been divided, according to the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, never again to be welded into one.

In this last effort to bring Germany into line, we see the same interposition of Providence using the wrath of men to thwart designs against truth and human liberty. The history says of Charles at this period:—

Had he been less ambitious, and confined his attention to Germany, he might possibly have succeeded in crushing out Lutheranism. But the very magnificence of his aims prevented their realization. Again and again, when he was about to strike, some exigency of politics intervened to thwart him. . . . Henceforth [after the Peace of Augsburg, 1555] Germany abandoned all hope of reconciling the two religions by means of a general, or even a national, council in Germany. The Lutheran Church obtained a legal recognition, and the Protestant states claimed to pursue their course without the intervention of any external ecclesiastical authority.

Those who had the heart, and apparently the power, to crush the truth to earth, were continually prevented from carrying out their plans. The Reformers could say with the psalmist, “If it had not been for Jehovah who was on our side, when men rose up against us; then they had swallowed us up alive.” But God was on the side of truth, and not all the power of earth could hold it down when the time of reformation had come.

In our own days, in this last reformation, we shall surely see God’s deliverances similarly multiplied. Many a time, as the truth meets trial in various lands, it will no doubt seem as if we shall be swallowed up; but there will always be found a way out; for Jehovah is still on the side of his own word and work. Nothing can stop the progress of this message. W. A. S.

Then and Now

By L. A. S.

“In 1905 a Methodist minister,” says the New York Evening Post, “can achieve notoriety by threatening discipline for dancing and card playing; in 1850, on the contrary, he could achieve it by neglecting to enforce its strict rules.” From the standpoint of present-day conceptions of the nature of the relation arising from church-membership, the idea of Christian brotherhood, as held and practised in the Methodist and other churches a half century ago, becomes almost a curiosity of the past. The Post says:—

The Methodists—to mention one example—actually used the term “Brother” or “Sister” as the common term of address for a fellow member; and they seriously set out to treat each other as “dearly beloved brothers in Christ.” They promised, as members of one family, to settle their disputes out of court, and thus avoid lawsuits, and to restrict their business and social intercourse, as far as might be practicable, to those who were of the “same household of faith.” Inevitably these Christians who have taken to heart their mutual relationships have looked keenly to the morals of each individual of the flock.

In the great change from this former condition of things to that of the present day, the Post sees evidence of a declining sense, within the church, of brotherhood and mutual responsibility. “That sharp line,” it says, “which used to divide the children of light from the children of darkness, is rapidly becoming obliterated;” and the Post believes that if the much-looked-for religious revival in the church ever comes, “it will surely be accompanied by a revival of the ancient and obsolescent doctrine of Christian brotherhood.”

It was about fifty years ago that the Methodist and other churches rejected a message from heaven proclaiming the hour of God’s judgment, and the natural result of that wrong attitude of the church toward the work of God would be a spiritual declension on her part; and this is what is observed to have taken place. The loss of the idea of Christian brotherhood is the loss of the vital principle of Christianity; for Christian brotherhood in the church grows out of the relation of the church-members to Christ. “For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren.” Heb. 2:11. If church-members be not brethren, then have they no fellowship with Christ.

It is for Seventh-day Adventists to show the world that the idea of Christian brotherhood still survives in the Christian church. L. A. S.

Continue reading: Wait