Earlier text: THE WORK — AND — THE WORKERS“Blasting at the Rock of Ages”
By C. M. S.
OUR writers have been chronicling from time to time in our own various periodicals a startling tendency on the part of many of the most learned men of the day to break down all hitherto accepted standards of both religion and morality through the instruction given by them in college and university. Fragment by fragment they have been throwing away the very Word of God, while they have been giving to the hundreds of thousands of young men and women that come each year under their tutelage the strongest possible incentive to doubt everything divine, even to the existence of God himself. Some of the religious journals of this country have protested weakly against the ruinous tendency. A few of the secular journals have noted the drift of the new teaching with no small degree of wonder, and have whispered startled inquiries to the public whom they serve. The great body of students graduating each year under such instruction seems to have lost its foundation and to be unable to find a solid spot on which to rest its feet. The majority of this great company of highly educated youth, augmented by two hundred twenty-nine thousand each year, is certain of but one thing, that it has lost confidence in the Bible as the revealed Word of God, and is drifting, it knows not whither. The evils of this campaign are not restricted to the schools and the direct product of the schools. They have permeated the pulpits, and a great portion of the church-membership of the country listen from week to week to dissertations against the Bible and about God that are far more helpful to the cause of agnosticism than to the cause of foreign missions. The existence of these conditions led a magazine correspondent, Mr. Harold Bolce, two years ago, to enter into an exhaustive study of the kind of instruction given in the colleges and universities6of the United States, particularly along the lines indicated. The results of his investigations, covering the two years, are now being given in a series of articles in the Cosmopolitan magazine, beginning with the May number, under the title given at the head of this article. What the editor of that magazine has to say in introducing the series, is in itself worthy of consideration. To quote:— What Mr. Bolce sets down here is of the most astounding character. Out of the curricula of American colleges a dynamic movement is upheaving ancient foundations and promising a way for revolutionary thought and life. Those who are not in close touch with the great colleges of the country will be astonished to learn the creeds being fostered by the faculties of our great universities. In hundreds of class rooms it is being taught daily that the decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus; that the home as an institution is doomed; that there are no absolute evils; that immorality is simply an act in contravention of society’s accepted standards; that democracy is a failure, and the Declaration of Independence only spectacular rhetoric; that the change from one religion to another is like getting a new hat; that moral precepts are passing shibboleths; that conceptions of right and wrong are as unstable as styles of dress; that wide stairways are open between social levels, but that to the climber children are encumbrances; that the sole effect of prolificacy is to fill tiny graves; and that there can be and are holier alliances without the marriage relation than within it. These are some of the revolutionary and sensational teachings submitted with academic warrant to the minds of hundreds of thousands of students in the United States. It is time that the public realized what is being taught to the youth of this country. ‘The social question to-day,’ says Disraeli, ‘is only a zephyr which rustles the leaves, but will soon become a hurricane.’ It is a dull ear that can not hear the mutterings of the coming storm. Mr. Bolce gives a list of nineteen colleges and universities, extending from Massachusetts to California, some of which he entered as a special student, and some as a visitor attending the lectures, while a portion of the information upon which he bases his articles was obtained direct from presidents, deans, and professors. This material, he declares, ‘constitutes a profound surprise—a series, in fact, of increasing surprises—absorbing and sensational.’ The teaching of these instructors, like the surging sea, is determined to beat its waves against everything solid or substantial with which it comes in contact, or which it can hunt out for attack. Says Mr. Bolce: ‘There is scholarly repudiation of all solemn authority. The decalogue is no more sacred than a syllabus. Everything is subjected to searching analysis. . . . From the college standpoint there are no God-established covenants. What happens at the primaries is more to the point than what took place in Palestine. . . . Whether the subject be a god or a gas, a matter of morals or volcanic mud, a syllogism or a star, the professor approaches it impersonally, critically determined to know the truth. A government is great, but so is a gnat—either may afflict the land. There is nothing ex cathedra in the professor’s curriculum, save as he expresses it himself.’ Humanity, left to itself, demonstrated ages ago its powerlessness to resist the deteriorating tendencies of the flesh and the carnal mind; and into every possible excess of abominable idolatry it went by turning its back upon God, and following the dark lead of its own shadow. With God behind its back and forgotten, and with self alone before its eyes, there was no faculty of the mind which it did not bend to lust, and no god of lust to which it did not bow down in worship. Under such conditions there was nothing too sacred for the most evil pollution, and no form of deity which they did not associate with the most evil propensities of a fallen nature. What they did was what the school men to-day are doing, that is, repudiating ‘all solemn authority.’ They, anciently, ‘refused to have God in their knowledge;’ therefore he ‘gave them up unto a reprobate mind.’ Rom. 1:28. These, to-day, have put the most sacred communications of God upon a plane with the mythology of those same ancients, and have gone so far as to declare even that ‘the highest manifestation of God is man.’ We have every reason to believe that God will treat such individuals in exactly the same manner that he treated the ancients who turned their backs upon him; and the indications are that he is doing so. The ‘reprobate mind’ is indeed working to-day. Says Mr. Bolce: ‘They teach young men and women plainly that an immoral act is merely one contrary to the prevailing conceptions of society, and that the daring who defy the code do not offend any deity, but simply arouse the venom of the majority—the majority that has not yet grasped the idea. Out of Harvard comes the teaching that ‘there are no absolute evils,’ and that ‘the highest ethical life consists at all times in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case.’ . . . Out of Yale comes an almost cynical devotion to science that would eliminate God from the commandments.’ Only the most morally obtuse can fail to see the immoral tendency of such teaching. When you have eliminated God from the commandments and put them on a strictly human basis, and then taught young men and women that it is the ‘prevailing conceptions of society’ which determine the morality or immorality of any act, you have taught them that there is no judge but themselves for any act they may commit. Human inclination then becomes the sole arbiter of right and wrong. Now, while the older generation educated on different lines, holds the ‘balance of power,’ the destructive work of the new education is not so openly apparent. But in a few years this balance will be changed, and the ‘new idea,’ with no foundation in ‘solemn authority,’ with a hazy belief, or none at all, in anything sacred, or holy, or divine, and with the ‘prevailing conceptions of society’ alone for its monitor, will have full freedom to show its disintegrating and soul-destroying characteristics. It has been apparent for many decades that humanity was able to run with sufficient speed in the ways of wickedness without the aid of this spur to its passions. Reasoning from such a hypothesis as that contained in the teaching referred to, it is not surprising that an instructor should take the position which Prof. F. H. Giddings, of Columbia, advocates in reference to the marriage institution. ‘He has taken,’ says Mr. Bolce, ‘daring ground regarding marriage and unconventional alliances between the sexes. He indorses the beliefs of those who insist that ‘it is not right to set up a technical, legal relationship, an economic convenience, as morally superior to the spontaneous preference of a man and woman who know, and whose friends know, that they love each other.’’ Such a standard as this—if an absolute lack of standard can be called a standard—would completely destroy the home as an institution, and establish absolute anarchy in the matter of morals among the people. That it has this tendency is shown in the fact that the matter of ‘affinities’ and ‘soul mates’ is plainly and not disapprovingly set before the students by such instructors. Professor Earp, of Syracuse University, lecturing on reincarnation, took the position that on the reincarnation hypothesis ‘the ‘affinity people’ might justify their course by believing that the person one meets and finds irresistibly alluring was simply a friend or sweetheart of some ancient yesterday.’ Of the same nature is the instruction of Prof. W. G. Sumner, of Yale, who takes the ground that ‘the majority can make anything right.’ He throws the mantle of current custom over all the habits of society, whatever they may be, and makes them unquestionable morally, if they are in harmony with the prevailing opinion of the people. This is only another way of teaching that old heathen maxim that ‘the voice of the people is the voice of God;’ for it makes the people the only judge, their verdict the only criterion of right.7 The demoralizing effect of this kind of teaching is seen in what Mr. Bolce presents of the instruction given by Prof. Geo. B. L. Arner regarding marriages between persons of close blood relationship. ‘He believes that with proper restrictions prohibiting the marriage of the diseased and degenerate, consanguineous unions might be valuable to the state,’ and declares that even ‘the horror of incest is based on a myth.’ How much farther must educators go in order to demonstrate the possession of the ‘reprobate mind’ to which Jehovah released the heathen when they had turned their backs upon him? At the same time Professor Sumner, of Yale, is declaring that ‘there is no such thing as God-given and unchanging morality,’ and Professor Earp, of Syracuse, is proclaiming it ‘unscientific and absurd’ to think that God should have ‘chiseled commandments on a rock.’ This same instructor takes the position that our standards of right and wrong are ‘the products of experience;’ that ‘our conceptions of what we should do are not sent to us from heaven, but are the development of the centuries.’ In perfect harmony with this is the position taken by Prof. J. Q. Dealey, of Brown University, who holds that ‘race morality and individual morality are both exclusively human attributes, having their strict analogies in the animal world,’ and being ‘the result of brain development and the consequent dawn of intelligence.’ This would rule out heaven entirely from any connection with humanity, or from any credit for the standard of morality established in the world. The only god which such instructors know is the god of evolution, and an acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis has brought these demoralizing developments in its train. Some who advocate the principles here set forth, may still claim to hold a belief in God, but it is not the God of the Bible, not the God of revelation. The real attitude of all expounders of such philosophy is outlined in these words by Prof. William G. Sumner, of Yale: ‘The notion that there is anything fundamentally correct implies the existence of a standard outside and above usage, and no such standard exists.’ Is it too severe to hold that here is practically a conspiracy to overthrow everything that is substantial, solid, or of proved worth, and to see to it that there shall be nothing permitted to take its place that could form a foundation of true morals for the generation now shouldering the world’s responsibilities? What is it but a mighty stroke of the great deceiver to obliterate God from the knowledge of men, and scatter his law and the morals of the people to the four winds? From such a setting forth as Mr. Bolce thus presents of the instruction given in the greatest institutions of learning in the country, it is not difficult for the child of God to see where they would lead us. The goal is infidelity and heathenism. The plan is older than man, and did not originate in the human brain. The deceiver of angels and of men is exerting his utmost efforts to destroy in this last generation all faith in God and his work. It is a master-stroke; but it will not fully succeed. ‘Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.’ Divine Warnings Against Disorganization
By W. A. S.
Divine Warnings Against Disorganization
The divine establishment of gospel order gave authority to appointments to oversight and direction in the work. The spirit in the church was one of counsel, and of deference to church order and government. The gift of “governments,” which is the gift of administration and organization, is one of the spiritual gifts. The apostle, writing from Italy to the Hebrew churches in Judea and everywhere, gave the exhortation: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account.” Heb. 13:17. Again he wrote: “We beseech you, brethren, to know them which labor among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish you; and esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. And be at peace among yourselves.” 1 Thess. 5:12, 13. Christ’s instruction regarding dealing with the erring shows that the visible church is a definitely organized body, not only having authority to maintain its unity and purity, but in duty bound to do so. Matt. 18:15-20; John 20:23. The spirit of prophecy says:— Christ here gives no liberty for any man to pass judgment upon others. In the sermon on the mount he forbade this. It is the prerogative of God. But on the church in its organized capacity he places a responsibility for the individual members. Toward those who fall into sin, the church has a duty, to warn, to instruct, and if possible to restore. . . . Declare what God has said. . . . If they persist in sin, the judgment you have declared from God’s Word is pronounced upon them in heaven. In choosing to sin, they disown Christ; the church must show that she does not sanction their deeds, or she herself dishonors her Lord. She must say about sin what God says about it. She must deal with it as God directs, and her action is ratified in heaven. He who despises the authority of the church, despises the authority of Christ himself.—“Desire of Ages, pages 805, 806. Before all the first apostles had passed away, the attack on the purity of the faith and the organization of the work had begun. The opposition of men who turned openly from the truth was not so deceptive and dangerous as that of those working from within. Hence Paul’s warning to the elders of Ephesus to take heed to themselves and to the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers; for men were to arise from within, teaching perverse things, and seeking to draw away the people after themselves. Acts 20:28-30. Later, as apostasy further developed, Peter warned against those who in the name of greater liberty, would lead to the bondage of error. 2 Peter 2:19. They were opposed to the order and organization which hindered their efforts to tear down. They “despise government,” he says. “Presumptuous are they, self-willed.” Verse 10. Jude wrote of them also as despisers of dominion, or government. “These be they who separate themselves,” he said. Verse 19. As they could not dominate the organization, they drew apart and sought to separate churches and individuals from the movement. The apostle John, who wrote latest of all, in all three of his epistles, warned against these influences. Of one experience, in which the pastor or officer of a church asserted its independence of apostolic oversight, refusing to receive the laborers sent to minister to it, he says:— “I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the pre-eminence among them, receiveth us not.” 3 John 9. No doubt this advocate of the independence of the churches from the general oversight established, was loud in his denunciation of the effort of the organized body to preserve the unity of the work. He prated against the apostle “with malicious words,” and had the word been coined then, he would surely have called the apostles’ effort popery. Inspiration says that his real difficulty was that he loved to have the pre-eminence among them. This was the spirit of self-exalting independence and disregard of gospel order and organization which led straight on to the papacy. In this brief review of New Testament order we see the church established on the platform of truth, the whole body bound together in unity, possessed of the divine spirit of organization, with spiritual gifts and local and general officers set in it for the administration and government of its affairs in harmony and fellowship. Christ was the leader and commander, guiding by the voice of the spirit of prophecy, and by the spiritual gifts promised to the church as it seeks his counsel.8 Isaiah describes how the farmer plans with system and order his work of tilling the soil; “for his God doth instruct him to discretion, and doth teach him.” Isa. 28:26. The church is “God’s husbandry,” or “tillage.” 1 Cor. 3:9, margin. He who gives wisdom to the tiller of the soil to plan his work, is Counselor to the gospel church, to enable its work to be done with the system and order befitting its sacred character. “This also cometh forth from the Lord of hosts, which is wonderful in counsel, and excellent in working.” Isa. 28:29. As was shown John in The Revelation, Christ himself walks among the seven candlesticks, the churches, and holds the seven stars, the messengers of the churches, in his own right hand. His presence and guidance are promised “even unto the end of the world.” He has been the leader in this advent movement, and by the counsels of his Word and through the spirit of prophecy the divine principles of order and organization have been applied to present-day needs and conditions. Every principle in the organization of our work to-day is found in the Word of God. As one united people, let us devote all our powers to the finishing of the work. Turkey Nearing Her Downfall
By F. M. W.
The history of Turkey furnishes a striking proof of the truthfulness of prophetic utterance. Thousands of years ago the prophets of God looked down through the coming years of human history, and predicted with unerring accuracy the events which are taking place before our own eyes to-day. In heavenly vision John saw the origin of Mohammedanism, as it issued like the pestilential scourge that it is, from the barren, desert regions of Arabia, appropriately denominated the bottomless pit. He saw the organization of these wandering tribes of the desert into a government under the reign of Othman, and their later efforts to propagate the rule of Islam and the religion of Mohammed, through the agencies of robbery, murder, and rapine. At first it had power only to torment men, but finally restrictions were removed, and it was loosed “for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.” Rev. 9:15. This period of three hundred ninety-one years and fifteen days, beginning July 27, 1449, by the recognition of Ottoman supremacy on the part of the Greeks, extended to Aug. 11, 1840, when by the action of the great nations of Europe, Turkish autonomy came to an end, since which time the power of the Sublime Porte has been permitted and upheld by the sufferance and influence of his powerful European neighbors. The prophet Daniel traces down to a later date the history of this desolating power. Beginning with the age in which the prophet was living, the prophetic kaleidoscope presents in rapid succession the history of Medo-Persia, Grecia, and Rome, the breaking up of the Roman empire, the national apostasy of France, and finally the destruction of Turkey, as brought to view in chapter 11:40-45, just before the time of trouble and the end of the world. That a power so foreign to the spirit of the West in religion, social customs, and civilization, and so wholly anti-christian in all its relationships to those outside the pale of Islamism, as indicated not alone by the teachings of the Koran, but so forcibly by the long series of massacres of the Christian Armenians, should be tolerated, and even upheld, by the so-called Christian powers of Europe, is one of the wonders of history. Why has Turkey been thus shielded from just judgment and well-earned retribution? The answer is found in her unique geographical situation and in the greed of present-day national commercialism. It has long been recognized that Constantinople, in consequence of its peculiar and advantageous geographical location, is the great doorway to the rich commercial avenues of the Orient, and that the nation which occupies that strategic point is placed on vantage-ground above its fellows in the control of the world's commerce. The states of Europe have watched with covetous, envious eyes for occasion and opportunity to seize this prize. Each has been unwilling that the advantage should fall to another, and in consequence Turkey has been maintained as a sort of buffer, or wall of partition, in order to preserve the peace and equilibrium of Europe. Repeatedly Turkey, by her atrocious course of bloodshed and butchery, has forfeited her claims to consideration. Repeatedly has she seemed on the very verge of dissolution through internal strife or the encroachment of some opposing power, but always some friendly neighbor has come to her aid, and averted the threatened blow. But in thus rescuing her, heavy indemnity has ofttimes been exacted. In consequence Turkey has emerged from every national crisis since 1840 weakened, and less able to cope with the future. In the zenith of her national glory the Ottoman empire embraced a vast area both in Europe and in Asia, and was a power feared by all the Western nations. But the tide of her prosperity has been receding. Her effete, semi-barbarous civilization and despotic government have been unable to unify her heterogeneous population, and to meet the issues forced upon her constantly by her more advanced sister nations. During the last few decades, Turkey has lost Bulgaria, Rumelia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus, Egypt, Servia, and part of Armenia, which have either established independent governments, or fallen under the control of some European power in payment for help and protection afforded Turkey in some national crisis. For more than seventy years advent believers have applied to the Turkish power the prophecies cited above. They have believed that the fall of this power would be the signal for the world's last great war, the destruction of earthly governments, and the closing up of human history. There was a time when they stood practically alone in this view of the Turkish political situation. But the trend of events in that unfortunate government has been so unmistakable of late that many writers and political students now predict the early expulsion of the Turk from European territory, and in consequence important political changes in the map of the European world. Indeed no better commentary could be found on the fulfilment of prophetic utterance than the statements of some of these men, who speak, not as students of prophecy, but wholly as students of the political situation which now confronts the world. Says the Providence Journal, of recent date:— Should the present conditions continue much longer, it is difficult not to believe that both revolution and conquest would end a domination of five centuries. Nor is this the least danger; for if the Turk should be driven from Constantinople, the Eastern question would reach its most critical phase. Regarding the significance of the situation, the Baltimore News adds the following striking commentary:— At each recurring outbreak of this character the old question of the future of Turkey arises to demand an answer. The puzzle seems to be as unsolvable as ever. Its solution awaits the day, perhaps, when Europe shall witness the universal war for which it seems to be so feverishly preparing, when Turkey and possibly other stronger and more civilized nations will sink before the power of the sword. This seems to be the most likely answer to the problem. And it is impossible to calculate how speedily the Eastern question might reach its culmination. In the recent massacres in Armenia is seen occasion for the interference of other nations. How long outraged justice will permit this terrible butchery of innocent men, women, and children to be repeated, only he who rules on high can answer. With reference to this the Washington Post, of April 24, says:— So far as the fate of Turkey is concerned, here is offered to outside nations an excellent opportunity to step in and wind up her affairs. On the just plea of acting in defense of her subjects9any great power could bring the Turkish situation to a head in six weeks. The only thing to prevent it is the suspicion and jealousy of the so-called Christian nations. In the same issue, under the caption, “The World's Unrest,” the Post gives this outline of the general European situation:— With the Herzegovina and Servia matter still unsettled, the uneasiness prevailing in France, revolts in Persia, revolution in Turkey, and plots and counterplots in China, the Old World is in a state of unrest that may eventuate in such a war as has never been recorded in the annals of history. France is rapidly drifting to a point where another coup d'état may be looked for at almost any moment and the republic go down with a crash. . . . The great Chinese empire seems to be tottering to its fall, and Germany, France, and Great Britain are each willing to give it a push. It really looks as if peaceful competition and friendly rivalry between the nations of the earth were soon to give way to war; and it may be one of the sardonic jokes of history that The Hague will be the scene of a “peace conference” to settle the accounts of the biggest war the world has ever seen. Nor does the revolt against the autocratic régime of Abdul Hamid give promise of a brighter future for the country. There is but little hope for Turkey without full and complete regeneration, and an abandonment of the politico-religious system which has been responsible for her past course of bloodshed and strife. To change the governmental policy would be to destroy the religious faith of her subjects, and to destroy by political revolutions the strangely combined fanatical faith and national patriotism of the Turk, and make of him a new man, in sympathy with the civilization of the nations dominated by the influences of Christianity, would be to perform a miracle never yet duplicated in the history of the ages. Such a change could be effected only by the power of the gospel in the individual life. Speaking of what may be hoped for in the way of permanent betterment by the revolution, the Washington Post says:— Richelieu characterized the condition of France at the time he seized power, by saying he found “the rich men despots and the poor banditti.” Such is Turkey to-day, and such, apparently, Turkey will remain until the Mussulman power is broken. A change of sultans will be of little avail. The root of the trouble will not be extirpated when Abdul Hamid is removed or assassinated. He has been a great power for evil, but he is not the whole system of Turkish rapacity and corruption. The end of Turkey may be delayed for a season. God keeps an account with nations as he does with individuals, and the time of the closing of Turkey's history he only knows. He still holds the winds of war and commotion that his work may be accomplished in the earth before the warring elements are let loose to do their destructive work. But the end is not far off. The unerring pen of inspiration has traced the fateful doom of the Ottoman empire: “He shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him. And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.” May we be wise in discerning the signs of the times, and be prepared for the things soon to take place on the earth, and to meet the Son of man in peace.
F. M. W. The triumph of Christ in the earth is not a matter of numbers; neither is it a matter of the triumph of all the great organizations that bear his name. The editor of the Northwestern Christian Advocate, in writing of the triumphs of the gospel in all lands, asks these questions:— But what of the future? Will Christ be able to keep his pledge? Will the cross retain its magnetism? Will the church meet successfully the strategic struggle of to-morrow? He answers, “No doubt of it.” There is no doubt that Christ will be able to keep his pledge; but the Advocate expects him to do something that he has never given a pledge to do. He has never promised, for instance, that all men would yield to his drawing and become his willing subjects. Nowhere has he pledged that, as a result of the proclamation of the gospel in all the earth, men and nations would be transformed so that all would be following the ways of righteousness. “Will the cross retain its magnetism?” It has never lost it; but preachers to-day are not exalting the cross and the great sacrifice made thereon as once they did. They have sunk in the scales of theology as the New Thought, the Higher Criticism, Evolution, Theosophy, the philosophies of heathenism, and the doubtings of pulpit infidelity have risen to dazzle and attract. Nevertheless, “when the Son of man cometh,” he will find a few, “his jewels”—they are not plentiful, or they would not be called jewels—who have proved loyal. “Will the church meet successfully the strategic struggle of to-morrow?” As to the “little flock,” the faithful “remnant,” calling itself “the church,” the answer is, Yes; but as to the great organization calling itself “the church,” the answer is, No; and the reason is that its leaders and members are turning from the Word to the traditions of men, putting doubt in the place of faith, evolution in the place of creation, and are seeking to establish the kingdom of Christ by political methods, while they belittle the doctrine of his imminent and personal return. The Jews were looking for a political Messiah, and did not know the Saviour of the world when he stood among them. The majority of the last generation of men will be looking for a king of the world, crowned as such by human endeavors. But when the King of kings and Lord of lords appears in the clouds of heaven to redeem his people and shatter the nations, they will not be ready to greet him, or to share in his triumphs. THE Bible has much to say of pride and of those who are proud, but in no instance does it speak approvingly of that attribute. Some persons pride themselves in having pride; others pride themselves in the profession of humility. Both classes are on dangerous ground. Says the psalmist: “The proud he knoweth afar off.” We have this further striking statement: “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to Jehovah.” Prov. 16: 5. If we have accepted the call of God to labor in his vineyard, and are still harboring pride, we may know for a certainty that our work will not be fruitful for God. We are foredoomed to failure as ministers of the Most High so long as pride is one of the constituencies of our make-up. The Sunday School Times has an excellent comment upon this idea:— To be proud is the surest way of getting the universe down on us. No one likes the proud man, and no one proposes to humor him,—not even God. The Bible is quite explicit on this. “Yea, all of you gird yourselves with humility, to serve one another: for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” Modesty wins co-operation on every side, from God and from men. If we have been priding ourselves on our pride, it is time to stop. Perhaps a frank recognition of this will explain why it has not always been easy for us to win the co-operation of others. Nebuchadnezzar learned the lesson that “those that walk in pride He is able to abase” (Dan. 4:37); and the wise man writes: “A man’s pride shall bring him low; but he that is of a lowly spirit shall obtain honor.” Prov. 29: 23. Let every soul who aspires to be a successful laborer for God take to heart this earnest admonition of the Word: “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Micah 6: 8.