Review and Herald, Vol. 85, No. 40. (10/1/1908)

Review and Herald

Oct 1, 1908

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Oct 1, 1908

The Power of Prayer

By James C. Wallace

THERE is an eye that never sleeps Beneath the wing of night; There is an ear that never shuts When sink the beams of light;

There is an arm that never tires When human strength gives way; There is a love that never fails When earthly loves decay.

But there's a power which man can wield When mortal aid is vain, That eye, that arm, that love to reach, That listening ear to gain.

That power is prayer, which soars on high, Through Jesus, to the throne, And moves the hand that moves the world, To bring salvation down.

— James C. Wallace.

The October Number of

LIFE AND HEALTH

The School Number

The October number of Life and Health will be especially helpful to parents and teachers. In addition to interesting and instructive articles relative to health which always appear in this journal, this number contains many helpful suggestions for maintaining the health of schoolchildren.

It considers the causes of the constantly decreasing birth-rate in civilized countries, as well as the great infant mortality, and points out the natural remedy.

It impresses the importance of the early training of children in habits of cleanliness for maintaining health.

It emphasizes the importance of proper food and clothing for children while attending school, and gives helpful suggestions for the preparation of these requisites of health.

It raises the danger-signal against infection, showing that many common practises of schoolchildren are prolific in spreading disease.

It especially points out the way that schools may become active agents in checking the ravages of that most dreaded disease, tuberculosis.

It depicts the evils of exciting reading and amusements.

It calls attention to some of the defects of present-day education, such as crowding the mind with subjects which will be of no particular benefit, while scarcely touching other subjects, a knowledge of which is essential to future health and happiness.

It holds up Jesus as the true pattern for both learner and teacher of all ages, conditions, and classes of men.

_Beautifully Illustrated, Containing Scenes of School Life in Different Lands_

Single copy, 10 cents; 2 to 25 copies, 5 cents a copy; 25 to 500 copies, 4 cents a copy; special rates on orders for 500 or more copies. The regular subscription is 75 cents. Ten or more copies one year, to one address, one order 45 cents a copy; foreign subscriptions, including Canada, $1 a year.

LIFE AND HEALTH

Takoma Park Station - - - Washington, D. C.

The Sacrifice of Form and the Sacrifice of Service

It is for the glory of God and for the good of mankind that the will of God should be the supreme rule of human conduct. The will of God is perfect (Rom. 12:2), and to do his will is to reveal a perfect character. The will of God, so far as it relates to the conduct of men, finds expression in the law of God, and to do his will is the same thing as to keep his commandments. A failure to do the will of God is the same as the transgression of his law, which is sin.

As it is the work of Jesus to save his people from their sins, it is plainly his work to make it possible for them to do the Father’s will. Conformity to the will of God is a condition of entrance into the kingdom. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven.” There is such an intimate connection between the doing of the will of God and the establishment of God’s kingdom in the earth, that the two are joined together in this petition: “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.” As the purpose of the gospel is to establish the kingdom of God in the earth, it must equally be its purpose to enable man to do the will of God. Provision for this was made in the gift of Jesus who did the will of God upon earth, and by the union of divinity and humanity in his own person made it possible that the will of God should be done in all flesh.

There is a natural tendency to substitute the outward forms of worship for genuine service. Even the divinely ordained ritual, the designated method of worship, may be perverted into an outward ceremony upon the performance of which may be based the hope of salvation. This is simply one manifestation of righteousness by works, salvation by doing.

There was no efficacy in the sacrifices and offerings of the ritual service of the Jews, but they foreshadowed the true sacrifice, and were the means of expressing faith in him who bore the sins of many and through faith in whom righteousness could be wrought. All these offerings of the Levitical law were useless in themselves, having no power to take away sin or to impart grace for right living. Something more was required in order that men might be enabled to do the will of God. All this is expressed in these words: “It is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest [or willedst] not, but a body didst thou prepare for me; in whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure: then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God. Saying above, Sacrifice and offering and whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin thou wouldest [willedst] not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I am come to do thy will. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

The offering of sacrifices was not any part of the eternal will of God, and had no place in the permanent plan of the divine government. It served a temporary purpose in setting forth in type and shadow that provision of the gospel which furnished atonement for sin and the power for doing the perfect will of God. By his life of obedience in the flesh Jesus established the doing of the will of God in the flesh, and by the sacrifice of himself on the cross he brought to an end that system of sacrifices which, although originally established by divine command as a means of revealing the gospel of the grace of God, had been perverted into barren formalism, and had thus become a means of hiding the true way of salvation. Thus Jesus took away the sacrifice of form that he might establish the sacrifice of service. By declaring that the offering of sacrifice can not be accepted as the doing of the will of God, and by giving himself to do the will of God and thus making it possible for all believers in him to do that will, “he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” Form and formalism give place to substance and service. The doing of the will of the flesh is superceded by the doing of the will of God.

In the working of the mystery of iniquity we find the counterfeit of the gospel. In the great apostasy which has put man in the place of God, we have the working out of an intelligent design to present the gospel of salvation by works. While professedly exalting Christ, this system of self-exaltation makes of no effect the work of Christ, and has substituted ceremonies of its own devising for the simplicity of the gospel. While the papal ritual is not the same as the Jewish ritual, it is in essence what the Jewish ritual had become in the days of Christ—a mere formalism which is a hindrance to true service, a system of self-righteousness. By its elaborate system of worship and its oppressive form of church government, the papacy has in effect reversed the work of Christ. What he took away, it has restored; what he established, it has taken away. In its economy the sacrifice of form has supplanted the sacrifice of service.

That preaching of “the everlasting

gospel” which constitutes it a message against the beast and his image, must counterwork this devising of the papacy, and must be the means of restoring that which the papacy has taken away. Its message must therefore be a message of righteousness by faith, the righteousness which is revealed in doing the will of God—keeping the commandments of God.

Editorial

By Editor

The gospel of Jesus Christ is a protest as well as a proclamation, a warning as well as a promise. It is a protest against every work and desire of the flesh, a warning against the consequences of doing such works and yielding to such desires. “Let no corrupt speech proceed out of your mouth;” “Let him that stole steal no more;” “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and railing, be put away from you, with all malice;” “Putting away falsehood, speak ye truth each one with his neighbor;” “Be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” Jesus’ life of sinlessness is in itself a protest against all sin, while his triumph over temptation is an assurance of the triumph of his true children. Without the protest against sin there could be no sure promise of that righteousness whose fruitage is eternal life.

The Rise and Fall of Religious Liberty in America

By C. M. S.

Church Establishment Receives Its Death Wound in Virginia

NOTWITHSTANDING the broad principles laid down in the Bill of Rights passed by the Virginia Assembly, as pointed out in our article of last week, the real separation of church and state was not accomplished for a number of years.

The first session of the Virginia Legislature, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, was besieged by petitions both for and against religious liberty. It was in the following year that the famous memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover was presented to the legislature. This memorial is probably the strongest document prepared up to that time in reference to the question of the rights of conscience, and it seems evident from the manifest differences between this memorial and the one presented three years earlier to the house of burgesses, that there was a wide divergence of opinion in the Presbyterian Church itself upon this question. This is made more manifest by the position which this same church took several years later upon the question of the establishment of a national church or a national religion, and a general assessment for its support.

The memorial of 1777 was prepared by men who understood the true doctrine of soul freedom. The document presented three years previous to this was prepared by those who had not yet learned the fundamental principles of religious liberty; and the position taken by the Presbyterian Church, as shown in the work done by that body in 1785, shows that the denomination was still far behind the principles enunciated in that memorable document. That the reader may see the position taken in 1777, the memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover is given herewith in full:—

To the Honorable the General Assembly of Virginia:

The memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover humbly represents, that your memorialists and the religious denomination with which we are connected, are most sincerely attached to the common interests of the American States, and are determined that our most fervent prayers and strenuous endeavors shall ever be united with our fellow subjects to repel the assaults of tyranny and to maintain our common rights. In our former memorial we have expressed our hearty approbation of the Declaration of Rights, which has been made and adopted as the basis of the laws and government of this State, and now we take the opportunity of testifying that nothing has inspired us with greater confidence in our legislature, than the late act of assembly declaring that equal liberty, as well religious as civil, shall be universally extended to the good people of this country; and that all the oppressive acts of Parliament respecting religion which have been formerly enacted in the mother country, shall henceforth be of no validity or force in this commonwealth; as also exempting dissenters from all levies, taxes, and impositions, whatsoever, toward supporting the Church of England as it now is or hereafter may be established. We would, therefore, have given our honorable legislature no further trouble on this subject, but we are sorry to find that there yet remains a variety of opinions touching the propriety of a general assessment, or whether every religious society shall be left to voluntary contributions for the maintenance of the ministers of the gospel who are of different persuasions. As this matter is deferred by our legislature to the discussion and final determination of a future assembly, when the opinions of the country in general shall be better known, we think it our indispensable duty again to repeat a part of the prayer of our former memorial, “that dissenters of every denomination may be exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever, further than what may be agreeable to the private choice or voluntary obligations of every individual; while the civil magistrates no otherwise interfere than to protect them all in the full and free exercise of their several modes of worship.”

We then represented as the principal reason upon which this request is founded, that the only proper objects of civil governments are the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous by wholesome laws equally extending to every individual; and that the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can only be directed by reason and conviction, and is nowhere cognizable but at the tribunal of the Universal Judge.

To illustrate and confirm these assertions, we beg leave to observe that to judge for ourselves, and to engage in the exercise of religion agreeable to the dictates of our own consciences, is an unalienable right, which upon the principles that the gospel was first propagated, and the reformation from popery carried on, can never be transferred to another. Neither does the church of Christ stand in need of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are that it would be no advantage, but an injury to the society to which we belong; and as every good Christian believes that Christ has ordained a complete system of laws for the government of his kingdom, so we are persuaded that, by his providence, he will support it to its final consummation. In the fixed belief of this principle, that the kingdom of Christ, and the concerns of religion, are beyond the limits of civil control, we should act a dishonest, inconsistent part, were we to receive any emoluments from human establishments for the support of the gospel.

These things being considered, we hope we shall be excused for remonstrating against a general assessment for any religious purpose. As the maxims have long been approved, that every servant is to obey his master, and that the hireling is accountable for his conduct to him from whom he receives his wages, in like manner, if the legislature has any rightful authority over the ministers of the gospel in the exercise of their sacred office, and it is their duty to levy a maintenance for them as such; then it will follow that they may revive the old establishment in its former extent, or ordain a new one for any sect they think proper. They are invested with a power not only to determine, but it is incumbent on them to declare, who shall preach, what they shall preach; to whom, when, or at what places they shall preach; or to impose any regulations and restrictions upon religious societies that they may judge expedient. These consequences are so plain as not to be denied; and they are so entirely subversive of religious liberty, that if they should take place in Virginia, we should be reduced to the melancholy necessity of saying, with the apostles in like cases, “Judge ye whether it is best to obey God or man,” and also of acting as they acted.

Therefore, as it is contrary to our principles and interest; and, as we think,

subversive of religious liberty, we do again most earnestly entreat that our legislature would never extend any assessment for religious purposes to us, or to the congregations under our care. And your memorialists, as in duty bound, shall ever pray for, and demean themselves as peaceable subjects of civil government.

Signed by order of the Presbytery.

RICHARD SANKEY, Moderator.

Timber Ridge, April 25, 1777.

It will be noted from the foregoing that the man or men who constructed that document believed in “equal liberty, as well religious as civil,” for all “the good people of this country.” They were opposed to the “oppressive acts of parliament respecting religion,” from which they themselves had suffered in this country. They favored also “exempting dissenters from all levies, taxes, and impositions, whatsoever, toward supporting the Church of England as it now is or hereafter may be established.” They say, further, that they “are sorry to find that there yet remains a variety of opinions touching the propriety of a general assessment.” They even quote from a previous document this expression: “That dissenters of every denomination may be exempted from all taxes for the support of any church whatsoever.”

It is well to note the position taken in that document in reference to the purpose of civil government, which they say is simply “the happiness and protection of men in the present state of existence, the security of the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, and to restrain the vicious and encourage the virtuous by wholesome laws equally extending to every individual.”

Upon the matter of the general assessment, they say, further: “Neither does the church of Christ stand in need of a general assessment for its support; and most certain we are that it would be no advantage, but an injury to the society to which we belong.” Not content even with this statement, the authors of that memorial declare it to be their fixed belief “that the kingdom of Christ, and the concerns of religion, are beyond the limits of civil control,” and that “we should act a dishonest, inconsistent part, were we to receive any emoluments from human establishments for the support of the gospel.” Having made these clear and truthful declarations, they then declare what would be the result in case the legislature should adopt the plan of a general assessment for religious purposes. That result they declare would be a revival of the old establishment in its former extent, or the creation of a new one, and thus would ensue legislative control of all things pertaining to the religious exercises of the people. The positions therein taken are true, and the consequences therein outlined would be certain to follow. Nevertheless when the question came up some years later as to whether there should be a general assessment or not, the history of the times records the fact that the denomination which authorized the issuance of that famous memorial stands with the Episcopal, or established, church in praying for a general assessment. Concerning this, Madison wrote to Monroe:—

The Episcopal people are generally for it, though I think the zeal of some of them has cooled. The laity of the other sects are generally unanimous on the other side. So are all the clergy except the Presbyterians, who seem as ready to set up an establishment which is to take them in as they were to pull down that which shut them out. I do not know a more shameful contrast than might be found in their memorials on the latter and former occasions.

These memorials to which he refers are the one above quoted entire, and the petitions which they later sent in, in favor of a general assessment for the support of religion. Again Madison says: “The Presbyterian clergy have remonstrated against any narrow principles, but indirectly favor a more comprehensive establishment.”

Had this proposed measure become a law, Christianity—“general Christianity”—would have become the established religion of the State of Virginia, as the measure was designed to compel all to support financially some form of the Christian religion. Against this proposed measure, Madison and Jefferson protested and labored earnestly and continuously. While the discussion was at its height, Madison proposed a direct appeal to the people over the matter, and drew up his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance,” arguing that on the basis of the bill of rights which had already been adopted by his State, religion could not come within the purview of government. This remonstrance was circulated widely among the people, and resulted in an overwhelming demonstration against the measure, notwithstanding the fact that such men as Patrick Henry and R. H. Lee championed it, and Washington and Marshall were said to favor its passage. Jefferson in his autobiography declares that the debates over this question in the Virginia Assembly were the severest struggles in which he had ever been engaged.

The established church, fearing that should disestablishment come, it would be impossible for the church to maintain itself by voluntary contributions, used every possible effort to secure a continuance of the establishment; but when the fall of the establishment was assured, it was then willing to compromise with the other denominations upon the matter of a general assessment, which would put a tax upon every inhabitant of the State for the support of some church, the individual himself to choose which church should receive his portion of the religious tax. Howell, in his “Early Baptists of Virginia,” page 165, says, in speaking of the times when this compromise was proposed:—

Meantime, a new theory of a state religious establishment was devised, and began, in private circles, to be warmly discussed. This theory had its origin with the Presbyterians, and was in their subsequent memorials tenaciously and elaborately advocated. It proposed, not the abrogation of the state religious establishment, the measure demanded by the Baptists, but that the state, instead of selecting one denomination, as the Episcopal, and establishing that as the religion of the state, and giving to that alone its support, should establish all the denominations—Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists, as well as Episcopalians—and make them all equally and alike the religion of the state, and to be supported by the state. . . . Of this plan of reconciling and harmonizing all parties, Patrick Henry was the ablest and most eloquent advocate.

But the time had come for a new order of things. The States had declared their independence of the mother country, and the people in the States were now declaring their independence of the tyrannical power that had lorded it over their consciences from the very beginning of Virginia’s history.

It was in the year 1777 that Thomas Jefferson proposed his bill for the establishment of religious freedom in Virginia, the same year in which the Presbyterians presented their unanswerable memorial, but it was not until 1785 that this bill became a law. Between those dates the question of whether or not there should continue to be religious establishments in Virginia was fought out. Concerning this bill Jefferson says: “I prepared the act in 1777, but it was not reported to the assembly till 1779, and not passed until 1785, and then by the efforts of Mr. Madison.” After a statement of principles in the preamble, the act proceeds:—

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever; nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Two years after the passage of this act, its provisions were extended to what was known as the Northwestern Territory, by the addition of this section:—

No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

By the terms of this complete act, religious liberty was established in Virginia upon the broadest possible basis. Religion itself was exalted to a place,

of honor which it had not before known in that State. Its compulsory support had deprived it of what is most essential to pure religion—that is, the loyal, conscientious support of the people. From being a thing of merchandise and an instrument of tyranny, it had come to be a matter of choice and an exponent of liberty.

The next article will be a brief statement of the attitude of the State constitutions toward the question of religious liberty.

C. M. S.

Good News for the Fields

By William Ambrose Spicer

It is good to hear that more students than ever before are entering our training-schools this year. There is a reason for it. More calls than ever before are coming for laborers. The work must be carried more rapidly. The whole world is to be quickly reached with the message. The providence of God is at work to supply the demand for laborers.

At the close of the Lake Union camp-meetings, I was glad to make a brief visit at the Berrien Springs Emmanuel Missionary College. The school was just opening. About seventy were already in attendance, this being a large number for the opening week in this school. And nearly every student with whom I spoke was aiming at preparation for a definite place in the work. We shall surely hear from these students in the fields when the schooldays are past. I did not wonder that Prof. O. J. Graf and all the faculty were enthusiastic over the fine body of students. A strong, sensible, and practical course of study has been outlined, and I hope yet other scores of the Lake Union young people will be flocking in to get the benefits of this school, which must be the central agency in the uplift and development of the educational and Missionary Volunteer work in this populous union conference.

The new school year in all fields heard from is opening with promise. We send the message to all the mission fields that reinforcements are coming. W. A. S.

Note and Comment

The Church and the Theater

Among other indications of a falling away from the old standards in religion is the present attitude of the churches toward the theater. For years the theater has been classed with the wine-cup, the dance, and the card-table, to be shunned by all professed Christians. In recent years, however, this hostile attitude has changed to a feeling of toleration, if not of actual favor, until the London Missionary Society, as a means of raising mission funds, presented what has been designated as “in every respect a spectacular theatrical performance.” A New York paper deals with the matter thus:—

The London Missionary Society, when it decided to present the piece [Pageant of Darkness and Light], did wisely in putting the management of it into professional hands. It was staged superbly by an experienced theatrical manager. The training of the performers was entrusted to persons who knew their business, and enough of professional actors were employed to save it from any appearance of amateurishness. The Pageant succeeded on its own merits. It would have drawn crowded audiences in any theater in any city in any part of England, quite apart from its connection with missions. . . . To multitudes not accustomed to attend the theater it was a revelation, and it was interesting to watch their faces. Unless we are much mistaken, there were hundreds and perhaps thousands of young people in the daily audiences who will go to the theater, hereafter, who had not before been much interested in it.

When the church leads its members into temptation instead of being a means of grace for resisting temptation, the perversion of its mission is complete. The present developments indicate the fulfilment of the words of the angel, “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.”

Pernicious Political Activity

By Editor

It is a significant sign of the times that the great Methodist Episcopal Church is going into politics. Through its temperance society it has issued an appeal “to Methodists and other Christian temperance voters,” which, in effect, calls upon them to elect as members of Congress only such men as will pledge themselves in advance to vote against the election of Joseph G. Cannon as Speaker of the House of Representatives. This appeal is based upon Speaker Cannon’s alleged attitude on the temperance question, and his persistent refusal to bring before the House the pending bill which provides that liquor shipped from one State to another shall, immediately upon crossing the boundary, become subject to the laws of the State into which it is consigned. The closing paragraph of the appeal runs as follows:—

At least one member of the House Judiciary Committee has been defeated for the nomination on his record on this question, and we believe the time has come when our people who want to help secure this legislation must support for Congress candidates who will not only vote for this measure if they get a chance, but will themselves support for Speaker a man who will allow it to be voted upon; and that its present passage is improbable until Christian voters recognize this situation, and cast their ballots accordingly.

We believe in temperance, and should be glad to see the proposed legislation enacted; but we believe that the Methodist Church is seeking a good end by a wrong means. When any church, as such, enters the political arena for the avowed purpose of controlling elections in favor of those candidates who will vote in harmony with its wishes, a step has been taken which may easily lead to untold evil. The establishment of religion by law and the persecution of dissenters, is the logical outcome of just such a movement as this, as the history of the union of church and state in the past testifies.

The Blessed Hope

By W. A. S.

It seems to me the chief impression one gets in meeting the believers in the annual camp-meetings is that of the general prevalence of a deep and solemn conviction that the end is at hand.

The advent people are hearing in their souls the cry, “Behold, the Bridegroom cometh; go ye out to meet him.”

There is a pressing into personal service, a business-like planning to get resources of means and possessions into use in the cause of God, before forever too late, and an earnest spirit to overcome sin, and keep it out of the life by the power of divine grace.

“Unto them that look for Him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Heb. 9:28. The believers are looking. The Lord, whose promise awakens that hope and expectancy, will never disappoint his children.

W. A. S.

One Day in Seven

By Editor

The recent quadrennial general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church adopted a declaration which serves as a sort of theological platform. This platform declares that the Methodist Church stands “for a release from employment one day in seven.” We hope that Methodists will hold to the exact wording of this statement, and not make it mean the compulsory observance of Sunday; but past experience leads us to be skeptical on this point. Many who oppose the observance of the original Sabbath of the fourth commandment, and theoretically advocate the observance of simply one-seventh part of time, practically demand that the one-seventh part of time shall be Sunday. The Lord himself has established the principle of resting “one day in seven,” and has made that a definite day—the Sabbath of the fourth commandment.

Expert Testimony

WHEN a witness testifies against himself, his testimony can usually be relied upon. The Wholesalers’ and Retailers’ Review, a liquor journal, gives the following testimony in reference to the modern saloon:—

A man who knows the saloon well can honestly say that the most of them have forfeited their right to life. The model saloon exists chiefly in mythical stories, rehearsed at saloon men’s camp-fires. Unfortunately, the average tippling-house is a place of shame and debauchery. With comparatively few exceptions our saloons are houses of drunken men and profanity and obscenity of the vilest type.

The journal quoted hopes that in some way the liquor interests will, for the sake of preserving the business, put an end to all the vicious saloons, and inaugurate “model saloons,” “respectable saloons,” to take their places; but the indictment which The Wholesalers’ and Retailers’ Review brings against the modern saloon, should stand as well against the business which produces such places of evil. There is, in the article there trafficked in, that which cultivates the vilest passions of the carnal heart, and brings to a common meeting-place the most unpromising specimens of the human race. It is impossible to conduct a liquor business that will not have that result; for in such soil alone it thrives. It is absolutely true that “the average tippling house is a place of shame and debauchery;” but the only possible way of abolishing such places is to abolish the business that makes them possible. Shame and debauchery are not respectable. The liquor business produces and feeds shame and debauchery, and therefore can not be made respectable.

Continue reading: How to Gain Spiritual Strength