THE human race is naturally under condemnation of death; because "all have sinned," and "the wages [the unavoidable consequences] of sin is death." There is but one way out of this dilemma, namely, the way provided by the One whose law is violated—the way provided when, because of His great love, God "gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Then, the one essential way of salvation is through faith in Christ. This is the way of truth—the only way; for He Himself says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." And the testimony of the Spirit is that "there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Then, Jesus Christ is an essential to the sinner who would be saved from his naturally lost condition.
But Christ is of no benefit as a Saviour from sin, excepting through faith on the part of the sinner. It is essential that he please God; for notwithstanding the innate love of God, the acceptance of His proffered pardon on the prescribed conditions is the only thing that will bring the sinner within the pale of His pleasure. "Without faith it is impossible to please Him." Enoch was a man of faith; because of his faith he was translated without seeing death. But "before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."
But faith is not only essential to the sinner, it is also a necessity after his justification; for "it is written, The just shall live by faith." It requires faith to stand in the favor of God as well as to come within the radius of His favor. "Being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God."
Obedience is another essential in the matter of passing from death unto life. Disobedience brought in sin and death, and therefore obedience must be a factor in salvation. "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous." Then, being made righteous by the obedience of One, it is essential that "the righteousness of the law" be "fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The essential thing is not limited by mere profession; for the Master says, "Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Again, the scripture says, "To obey is better than sacrifice." Faith and obedience are coupled together in the judgment; for those who escape the "wrath of God on the children of disobedience" are designated as "they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus."
Holiness is cited as essential to salvation. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord." And this involves some very practical living. Referring to the promise of God to those who refrain from certain sins, that they shall be sons and daughters of God, the apostle Paul says: "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." Furthermore, "every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as He is pure."
The gifts of the Spirit, through the grace of Christ, are essential to the preparation of the church for final acceptance. "Wherefore He saith, When He ascended up on high, He led captivity captive [margin, "a multitude of captives"], and gave gifts unto men. . . . And He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." So perfection in Christ is an essential to salvation.
And to this end the study of the Scriptures is an essential factor; for "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The Scriptures, being the Word of God, are essential to sanctification, which is an essential of salvation. "For this is the will of God, even your sanctification." The prayer of our Lord to His Father is, "Sanctify them [His disciples] through Thy truth; Thy Word is truth." And to this we add the testimony of Paul: "We are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth."
Why should God's people in olden times be instructed to hough the horses? To-day it would seem cruel. H.
Houghing, or hocking, was the severing of the tendons and arteries of the hock, or ankle, of the hind foot of the horse. Of course this would weaken the hind legs, the horse would soon lie down, and bleed to death. This may have been one of the easiest ways of killing them. There are three reasons why horses were destroyed: (1) That God's children might learn to trust in Him, not in horses and chariots. Ps. 20:7; Isa. 31:1-3. (2) The horse seems in those days to have been especially devoted to war and sun worship, and God would not have His people educated in these things. See 2 Kings 23:11. (3) The Lord's people were an agricultural people. He designed them to so remain. The keeping of swift-traveling beasts would continually tempt them to go away from home, and to become unsteady. One of the evils which Solomon brought in was a multitude of horses from Egypt.
1631.—A Prophecy of Jesus and His Work. Luke 1:68-75.
It is impossible to give extended explanation in this department. This prophecy from the mouth of Zacharias covers in general the whole work of Jesus of whom John was the forerunner. The visiting, the redemption, the horn of salvation, were all met in the coming of the Son of God in human flesh, and it all looks forward to the ultimate glorious inheritance and kingdom when Christ shall reign forever.
1632.—Question of Tithing.
A man living on a farm, paying three hundred dollars rent, one hundred dollars for hired help, and fifty dollars for seed; and having for an income $1,500 per year; on what should he pay tithe? J. M. S
He should deduct the expenses and rent named, and pay tithe on $1,050.
Love Is Life and Health
“In a deep, true, broad, lasting sense, love is life and health and peace. The apostle had it right, ‘He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God and God in him’ for ‘God is love.’”
EUROPEAN LETTER.
By Jean Vuilleumier
FRANCE is at present waging a noble struggle against the hoary and baneful system of church and state union, which has been afflicting its history for about thirteen hundred years. This struggle comes nearly one hundred years after a first attempt in shaking off this disagreeable yoke. It may not end, this time, as it did then, in such a fearful upheaval as was the French Revolution, then to collapse into the arms of a clever dictator like Napoleon. We hope not.
Passions are not heated now as they were then, altho there is a set determination, on the part of the liberal and socialistic parties which form the bloc or anti-clerical majority, to put an effectual check on the ever-threatening, ever-increasing, and ever-encroaching power of the regular and secular clergy—the monks and the priests.
It might be interesting, in this letter, to study how the French people are relating themselves to a question which has a direct bearing on the principle of church and state union—I mean the Sunday-law question.
The first time, perhaps, within half a century or more, that this question was brought up before the French legislators was in July, 1880, when the last Sunday law, dating back to 1814, was abolished by the French Senate on account of its religious character. At that time a distinguished scholar and statesman, who was then acting as vice-president of the Senate, M. Barthélemy-Saint-Hilaire, took occasion to remark that the day of rest, according to the Bible, was not Sunday, but Saturday.
Barthelemy-Saint-Hilaire, French Senator (1805-1895).
Agitation for Sunday Laws.
In 1892, a law was enacted for the protection of females and children laboring in factories, and forbidding their being employed on Sunday.
Two years ago a Rest-Day Bill, recognizing the right of resting one day in seven, was presented by Deputy Zevaes, a socialist. It has not yet, so far as I know, received the honors of a discussion.
This is about all that the French government has done, for one hundred years, in the line of Sunday laws. There is, however, among the friends of Sunday-rest, a class of thinkers—politicians and religious men, but mostly the latter—who are zealously laboring to bring over the French public opinion in favor of Sunday laws. But on this question, the Sunday-rest men are divided, and this difference comes out plainly at every large meeting in which the forces of the movement meet together.
A "Rest-Day" Congress.
The first meeting of the kind was the Rest-Day Congress which convened in Paris in 1889, in connection with the World's Fair. This Congress was mainly promoted by the directors of the "International Federation for Keeping Sunday Holy" the seat of which is at Geneva. But the French government would consent to take this Congress under its protection and consider it as official only on the condition that the word "Sunday" should not appear in the title, thus avoiding all appearance to a clerical connection. The organizers called it, "Weekly-Rest Congress, from the social and hygienic standpoint."
The subject of "legislation" was treated as well as the social and hygienic benefits of the day of rest. The discussion was introduced, as is customary, by a paper on the subject. The writer quoted in favor of Sunday legislation the example of the United States, which has Sunday laws, while at the same time it is "the freest country in the world, and the one in which the separation between the church and the state is the most clear cut." The writer went on to make a distinction between the civil and the religious aspects of the Sunday rest, but he maintained that the right of working on Sunday was as sacred as the right of not working.
Several speakers, mostly Protestant ministers, spoke decidedly in favor of the right of the state to legislate on the question. The Catholic priests who were members of the Congress said very little or nothing on the subject. The other side was taken by an architect, M. A. Riviere, who positively denied the state the right to interfere, calling it an immense danger, and the entering wedge for future encroachment on the liberties of the people.
Another Congress.
A National Congress for Sunday rest was held in Paris in 1892 under the auspices of a non-sectarian Sunday-Rest League organized at the close of the Congress of 1889. Full reports were read about the condition of things on Sunday in all parts of France and in all classes of society. The conclusion was that, in governmental and municipal works, in the mail and railroad services, in the big and small trade, and in the industrial and agricultural life, about half of the people keep on working on Sunday while the other half is resting, some spending the day decently and religiously, but the majority in drinking and in harmful pleasures.
The question of Sunday legislation was not touched.
The Congress of 1900.
But the two parties came in conflict again in the second International Congress held in 1900 in connection with the Paris World's Fair. On the last and fifth day of the Congress, when the matter of legislation was touched, a lively discussion sprung up. In favor of Sunday laws spoke two well-known Catholic priests, Abbotts Garnier and Lemire—the latter a deputy at the Legislature—and several Protestant ministers, all of them without exception from countries outside of France. Against Sunday legislation spoke several laymen, the principal being Senator Bérenger. Strange enough, Pastor Gambini, from Geneva, president of the International Sunday-Rest Federation, took a middle ground position, but really spoke in strong terms against the principle of Sunday laws; while Pastor Deluz, secretary of the same federation for over a quarter of a century, the most indefatigable Sunday worker in Europe, spoke energetically in favor.
It may be both interesting and profitable to read some of the remarks made on both sides.
ABBOTT GARNIER.—I am here to voice the feelings of many working men and merchants who have tried very hard to get a chance to rest on Sunday, but did not succeed for the lack of a law to back them. In several cities the interested ones came to an agreement. But several who had pledged to close on Sunday withdrew their signature and thus prevented the rest from closing on Sunday. Could there not be a legislative sanction given to pledges made under such circumstances? Again; after we have secured three quarters of four fifths of the signatures of a certain trade in favor of Sunday closing, could it not be possible to compel the minority to come to terms? Otherwise, if one single individual resists, the whole movement has to stop. Can not the legislator help us to conquer the rebellious ones?
M. LAVOLLEE, ex-consul.—In the name of liberty, a general law is asked for, which would enforce Sunday-keeping upon all employees and all employers. But this principle of liberty can be invoked on both sides. Of course, liberty is violated when an employer forces his employee to work. But would it be less so if a law took away the liberty of working on Sunday from both the employer and the employee, in case they were agreed, one to furnish work, and the other to do it?
PASTOR GAMBINI, from Geneva.—I am deeply perplexed. I love liberty everywhere, and I consider that it is the greatest force in human society. Abbott Garnier has asked that a majority of three fourths might compel a minority of one fourth to close on Sunday. There is there an absolute violation of individual liberty; it is the suppression of the right of minorities. You say that Sunday work will be forbidden even to those who want to work. This idea will arouse public reprobation.
PASTOR BUCHSENSCHUTZ, of Paris.—Can it be enacted that a determined majority shall have the right to enforce upon a minority its wish not to work on Sunday? And if the opposite case occurs, can a minority be compelled to work? Let us not trample upon the rights of conscience. It would be depriving man of what God has given him—liberty. A legislator has no right to go beyond God.
ABBOTT LEMIRE, Deputy.—The question as stated by Abbott Garnier embodies a principle. I wish to state plainly that I am in favor of state interference in favor of Sunday rest. Socialists take every opportunity of demanding the protection of the laboring man, and of asking for the weekly day of rest. They are in line with French traditions. For we have a Sunday legislation, the law of Germinal, the law of 1802; and it does not rest on a theocratic principle. As a legislator, I wish to say that whenever Sunday-keeping shall be asked for as a humanitarian measure, there will be a large majority for it in the Chamber. And I wish it understood that when I ask the legislators for Sunday rest, I am not taking a religious, but a humanitarian, standpoint. As to the repulsion which some of you here feel about the interference of the state, repulsion inspired by their cult for absolute liberty, I am free to say that I do not share it. Liberty is good for the strong, while the Sunday law is made to protect the weak, which are the great majority. I beg of you to give us legislators a chance to help you.
L'Abbe Lemire, Député du Nord.
SENATOR BÉRENGER, President of the Congress.—I am sorry not to agree with the honorable Abbotts Lemire and Garnier. What they demand of the law is beyond its domain. The law has no right to enforce Sunday rest, backed with penalties. Our law of Nov. 2, 1892, came to protect women and children. But the working man is not a minor, he is a major, and well able to fight for himself by refusing to work, and by association.
Suppose a working man coming to you and saying, "You have made a law forbidding Sunday labor; but I want to work." How can you forbid him? The fact is, the man who does not work on Sunday looses one seventh of his wages; he may be poor and have a large family. Now about the employers: Suppose that some want to work on Sunday and others not; for these, under the law, there will be no more freedom at all. Law must do everything to insure liberty, nothing to lessen it.
It has been said that some friends of Sunday dared not carry out Sunday rest, because their competitors kept working on that day. If we have only such helpers, we are in a bad predicament. Once a man is convinced on a point, he must be willing to sacrifice some of his interests for his convictions. See what has been done by the Magasins on Louvre [Louvre stores] and by the glass and paper factories which have been mentioned here. They did not hesitate to do what they thought was right, not fearing the bad feelings which might arise, nor the losses which they might incur. God so led matters that their loyal efforts caused them no damage. These are the examples which we must show the public, instead of talking of those false believers who are not willing to act out their convictions.
As to the opinion of the majority, it must not necessarily become a law. The right of one individual is as respectable as the right of several individuals of the same mind. What are the laws for, if not to protect minorities? It would be immoral to make majorities rule in everything. I shall vote against the resolution calling for the interference of the law.
The Act of the Congress.
Notwithstanding these noble and eloquent words, a resolution recognizing the principle of Sunday legislation was voted by the Congress.7It may seem strange to the reader to note, from the above discussion, that the natural friends of Sunday and religion, like priests and pastors, were to be found on the side of expediency, selfishness, and compulsion, while laymen, who do not make any special religious claims, had to come forward in defense of freedom of conscience, the rights of minorities, and the Christian principle of self sacrifice.
Is not this a sufficient indication that the Sunday rest is not a legitimate object of legislation, having no civil character, being only a religious institution? Are not the embarrassed and roundabout arguments of the Sunday-law promoters taken with their clerical character and the theocratical and bloody pedigree of said laws, another strong reason for reproving them? And is it not a cause for sadness when we see Protestant ministers coming to Paris all the way from Switzerland, Germany, England, and the United States to unite with French abbots and "monseigneurs" in clamoring for the arm of civil power in the matter of keeping one of God's commandments? Is there no better way of promoting religion among the people? And have these distinguished gentlemen forgotten all about the Acts of the Apostles and the history of the Reformation?
JEAN VUILLEUMIER.
CHURCH LANDS IN THE PHILIPPINES.
By G.
THE ownership of church property was a burning question at one period in the reign of the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it has become a controversy of like moment again, this time in the Philippines. Incidentally, in the former contest the decision by the government comprised the decision that the Catholic party to the contest was the Christian Church. Under the reign of Diocletian all the property of the church had been confiscated by the government, and, after Constantine came to the throne, and had made his famous agreement with the bishops for mutual assistance—religious and political—it was declared by an edict of the Council of Milan that the property which had been confiscated should be restored to the church.
When it came to carrying out the edict, the Catholic bishops denied the right of other Christian bodies to any consideration, as they had been declared heretics. Appeal was made to the emperor, who decided in favor of the Catholics. But there was still a question as to which faction of that body should be recognized, and the emperor decided that point, also. In ruling on this technicality, he went against the party known as Donatists, or followers of Donatus. The difference between the parties, doctrinally, was so slight that the disputants themselves could not make it plain to the masses; but the emperor favored the Catholics of the stronger party, because it was deemed of greater advantage to the state.
Now in the Philippines, as most of our readers are aware, a native priest named Aglipay, desiring to cut loose from the rule, or misrule, of the Spanish priests, has organized an Independent Catholic Church, with himself as “national archbishop of the archipelago.” He has secured a large following among the native Catholics, and his congregations hold much of the church property; and a crucial test is about to be inaugurated involving the permanent possession of this property. Of course Aglipay’s rank and his independent organization are not recognized at Rome.
A new apostolic delegate, Monsignor Agius, has been appointed for the islands, and, after a visit to Washington, reported prospects to Rome. According to the New York World, he reported that “the United States Government has consented to enlarge the powers of the local courts in the islands so that all questions regarding the ownership of church property there may be finally settled by the local judges. This is considered a very important point in favor of the church, which has always contended that the church buildings and other properties at present in the possession of Aglipay’s followers are by right the property of the Catholics in the islands, altho their title was not vested, as is the case in America, in the persons of the bishops or other ecclesiastics, but was the property of the congregations at large. As there is not a single instance in the archipelago where a whole congregation has gone over to Aglipay, Mgr. Agius has been instructed to make the contention in the courts that such property must be returned to its lawful holders previous to the schism, and that the rightful representatives of such owners are, in every case, the bishops recently appointed in the islands.”
Thus it will be seen that the government, like its prototype of old, is confidently expected to shape affairs to the advantage of the Roman Catholic Church. It is thought in Rome that a decision awarding the church property to the Roman authorities will be a “crushing blow to Aglipay’s following,” and to his independent native church scheme.
In addition to this expected decision, through special favor of the government, the new apostolic delegate claims to have received assurance that the church’s claims for damages during the Philippine war will soon be settled, which are said to amount to about three million dollars.
G.
THE CORRUPTING POWER OF MONEY.
A apostle said: "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil." How the truth of that statement is manifest at the present time. To obtain money for itself or for what it will buy, men and women will sell purity, honor, reputation, life.
As the control of money becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, its corrupting power becomes greater. It enters the jury box, the court, the municipal counsels of our cities, the state legislatures, and the National Congress. Its metal-clad hand is upon the throat of the nation, and its magic touch palsies moral nerve and conscience.
The exposures of Ida Tarbell, Lincoln Steffens, and more latterly, Thomas W. Lawson, of how the great trusts and companies and rings control cities, states, and nation are known to all. Men laugh at and ridicule the statements of Lawson concerning "the system," but there are the statements; who can disprove them. Facts brought to light are presumptive evidence that Lawson is correct.
But here is a word concerning "the system" from another quarter. The Denver Times, of Jan. 23, 1905, quotes the following from the Wall Street Journal, an orthodox exponent in the capitalistic world. Things are sweeping on with such a high hand, that even this paper sees danger. The quotation is from a leading editorial:
"The power that bails the 'cadet,' that protects the law-breaking liquor seller, that paralyzes the police captain's hand as against the gambling-house keeper, that sells a franchise or protection for the law-breaking public service corporation, is one and the same power. It is a power that in every activity of its existence imperils the liberty of every citizen. It is truly an imperium in imperio nullifying the machinery of free government, and its first example is the prostitution of public trust to private profit. Infinite in number are its methods and infinite the gradations of villainy in their application, ranging from real estate speculation and 'contracts' almost innocent in character, down to the sale of human flesh and blood into unspeakable slavery. Its arterial system touches alike the miserable 'Raines law hotel' on the Bowery and the innermost parlors of the high finance. This is 'the system.' It has no party, it never sleeps, it never takes a holiday, and it is always on guard. In this respect it follows the example of the devil, its master."
In the campaign that elected Mayor Low, Mr. Jerome went before a fashionable West Side audience and shook in its face the brass checks that represented the purchase price of human bodies and souls. He aroused the public to a sense of angry shame that led to the temporary defeat of "the system" in one of its forms. Until some Mr. Jerome can go before some such audience and arouse it to angry shame with, let us say, a handful of stock brokers' contracts for the purchase and sale for account of politicians of some public service corporation stock, "the system" has little to fear. "Graft" has many forms, and as long as it is but the form of "graft" that arouses anger the principle is safe.
"The system—you can't beat it!"
Such is the boast of its exponents. It is not surprising that they feel this confidence when they have fighting for them such influences as arise from the inefficiency of many reformers, the general passivity on such matters of a busy community, and the whole-hearted support of newspapers of a certain type.
Perhaps "the system" can not be beaten just yet. It can only be, however, a question of time when people generally will realize that what "the system" is doing is equivalent to betraying the country in time of war to its natural enemies, and doing it for money, to say nothing of robbing the dead bodies on the battlefield in its leisure time.
Then it will be too late; the best government in the world will have been ruined, and all earthly hopes will be blasted. But, thank God, then Christ will come and set up His everlasting kingdom of righteousness.
THE WAR IN THE ORIENT.
In the bitter cold, through the night, as well as through the day, the soldiers of the mikado and the czar are fighting and perishing on the plains, in the forests, and on the mountains of northern Manchuria. A month ago it was not thought there would be any more fighting until spring. But now lumbering cannon and siege guns, ammunition wagons and commissary supplies, are being dragged through snow-drifts and over frozen rivers, and thousands of men are perishing day and night—all in the cause of war. So intense is the cold in which these men are fighting that when even a slight wound is received, the pain is almost unbearable. The amount of suffering being endured now by the poor wretches that are falling in Manchuria is beyond the power of pen to describe. Nevertheless, the war must go on lest national pride should suffer.
The czar is determined to continue the war until victory is achieved or honor is satisfied, and the forces of Japan must continue the struggle until Russia yields. Something over two weeks ago the opposing forces began to push at each other, minor positions were taken, and retaken. The Russian right wing made a demonstration in force, and was checked by the Japanese left, after considerable fighting. About the time this movement was ceasing, the Japanese right began to attack the Russian left, forcing it steadily backward, and seriously menacing the Russian line of communications. This movement gradually developed into an attack along the front, covering a distance of about one hundred miles. For days this battle has been raging with only occasional periods of cessation. Positions have been relentlessly attacked, and stubbornly defended. No estimates have been given of the number that have fallen; but it is known that the losses have been heavy on both sides, and the suffering intense. So far the results seem to have been in favor of the Japanese, and the Russians at home are expecting a retreat of Kuropatkin to Tie Pass, leaving Mukden in the hands of the Japanese.
Mrs. Jane Lathrop Stanford, widow of the founder of Leland Stanford Jr. University, died in Honolulu on March 2, as the result of taking a dose of poison. Who placed the fatal drug in the chloride of soda which she was in the habit of taking, is not known. Something over thirty millions left by her husband had been placed at the disposal of the university named for her only son, and for many years she had held an official position upon the managing board of that institution. In January last an attempt was made to poison Mrs. Stanford while in San Francisco. She leaves an estate valued at more than three million dollars.
Venezuela and the United States have been drifting farther and farther apart during the last few weeks, and reports indicate that a grave crisis is impending. The latest act of Venezuela to which the United States takes exception is the sequestration of the property of the American Asphalt Company in Venezuela. This is said to have caused considerable excitement in the American colony at Caracas. The State Department is pressing the matter through the United States representative there.
The people of Kansas, through their attorney-general, are making a direct attack upon the Standard Oil Company. That official claims that the company is without authority to do business in that state, because of having paid no charter fees in the state. He will ask that a receiver be appointed over the company’s interests.
The Senate, on March 1, passed the following appropriation bills: the Post-office bill, carrying $181,526,643, the pension bill, carrying $138,000,000, and the river and harbor bill, carrying $38,350,899. On the following day the sundry civil bill was passed, carrying an appropriation of $68,000,000.
The national government has accepted the Yosemite Valley Park, and made an appropriation of $25,400 to be expended this year in its improvement.
Flames swept the docks and dock warehouses of New Orleans on February 27, destroying property valued at from $5,000,000 to $6,000,000.
