Review and Herald, Vol. 53, No. 2. (1/9/1879)

Review and Herald

Jan 9, 1879

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 9, 1879

THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

Belief of Some of the Nations of Asia and Oceania Concerning It.

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

BELIEF OF THE CHINESE.

The Chinese, a very numerous people, do not believe the doctrine of the soul’s immortality. They are materialists in the broadest sense. Confucius was their great teacher and lawgiver. For thousands of years his doctrines have been implicitly received by at least one-fourth of the race. He taught nothing about the future state. He did not claim to know anything beyond this life.

Says Horne, “Religion as a system of divine worship, as piety toward God, and as holding forth future rewards and punishments, can hardly be said to exist among the Chinese.” Dr. Morrison says that the learned sect among the Chinese are “entirely silent respecting the immortality of the soul.”

Says John Leland, “It is observed by the celebrated Mons. de Montesquieu ‘that the religion of Confucius denies the immortality of the soul;’ ” and he indorses the statement. He cites several eminent men who had spent a long time in China, and who declare that the Chinese have no idea of the immortality of the soul. He says that “Confucius being asked by one of his disciples what angels or spirits are, answered that they are air. And this is the notion that the Chinese have of the soul. They look upon it to be a material thing, though highly rarified, and that then the soul separated from the body, both of them lose the individual being they had before, and nothing remains but the substance of heaven and earth, which had before concurred to the composition of man.”

Says another writer, “Confucianism appeals to ‘practical’ men. It lauds the present world; rather doubts than otherwise the existence of a future one.” “The philosophers,” wrote Morrison to his wife, from China, “are atheists; as for the common people, O ye rationalists, mark here the fruit of your ‘reason.’”

“The Hakkas, an interesting tribe, as described by Eitel, also exhibit this germinant rationalism. They repel metempsychosis and the Buddhist hells, and assert the annihilation of the wicked instead of their endless punishment.”

The religion of the Japanese is the same as that of the Chinese. Of them Mr. Seward says, “The Japanese, under the influence of Confucius, have become a nation of doubters.”

The New American Cyclopedia says of China: “Its population may be estimated approximately at 500,000,000. . . . Indifference to religious matters is a prominent national trait of character. They have not even a general term corresponding to the term religion. Kiao, the word that comes nearest to it, means only doctrine or creed. The belief in the immortality of the soul has never taken firm root among them.”

Again: “Considering the vast numbers of those by whom the doctrines of Confucius have been and are implicitly taken as the highest authority, and the influence they have exerted on the entire social and political edifice of a nation comprising fully one-fourth of mankind, there is no founder of any religion who boasts of success greater than that of Confucius. He was not, however, the originator of the religious creed.” Speaking of the doctrines of Confucius, under the same head, the author says, “The books containing them, partly written by Confucius himself, partly by his disciples, bear almost the same relation to the Chinese as the Bible to the Christian world.”

Here, then, is a whole great nation, comprising one-fourth of the entire human race, who have not the slightest idea of the immortality of the soul, nor did they ever have. Our readers must begin to see how groundless have been the assertions of our orthodox opponents upon this subject.

OTHER ASIATIC NATIONS.

Of these the following may be mentioned as holding no ideas of the immortality of the soul:—

The Santals. A learned author says, “Of a future life of blessedness the Santal has no idea.” After death all is a blank.

The Karens “have ideas of a future life, vague and contradictory.”

The Todas “believe transmigration, but whether of soul or body, few have formed very distinct ideas.” They hold “the idea that the soul is a living solid, a real duplicate Toda, requiring food; but the whole scheme of their observations is so illogical that it is impossible to deduce therefrom any clear definition of a creed.”

The Kukis “have no actual idea of the soul, but believe that the departed assume their old forms again, and inhabit a world of shades.”

The Mishmis. “These people do not appear to have any very distinct conception of a future state.”

“The Siamese hold annihilation to be the greatest reward of virtue.”

POLYNESIAN RACES.

Mr. Ellis, who spent several years among the Polynesians, and particularly inquired into their doctrine of the soul, says of them:—

“We afterward endeavored to learn from them something respecting their opinion of a state of existence after death; but all they said upon the subject was so contradictory and mixed with fiction that it could not be discovered whether they had any definite idea of the nature or even the existence of such a state. Some said that all the souls of the departed went to the Po, place of night, and were annihilated or eaten by the gods there.”

“The Fijian gods eat the souls of those who are destroyed by men. The gods roast the souls. Some souls are killed by men.” “Especially bachelors are liable to be seized and killed by smashing against a stone by one of the gods. The spirit is liable to be thus smashed, annihilated.” “The belief in a future state is universal in Fiji; but their superstitious notions often border upon transmigration, and sometimes teach an eventual annihilation.” Poor believers in the immortality of the soul are these!

The Tahitians have “vague ideas of death. * Some spirits are eaten by the gods, others deified; no belief in future punishments.”

Of the Dyaks of the Sandwich Islands, a late author says their “notions of the immortality of the soul are very vague.”

“The Land Dyaks have not any decided notions of the immortality of the soul.”

Of the Tasmanians our author says, “The more western portion of the aborigines had no idea of a future existence. They were like the Kangaroo.”

The Fuegians. A traveler among them says, “I never witnessed or heard of an act of a decidedly religious nature, neither could I satisfy myself of their having any idea of the immortality of the soul.”

The Andamans. “The Andaman Islanders ‘manifest no notions of a Supreme Being or of a future existence.’”

“The Veddas have no idea of a future state of rewards and punishments.”

The Tahitians. “Their ideas of a future state were vague and indefinite. On leaving the body, they imagined it (the spirit) was seized by other spirits, conducted to the Po, or state of night, where it was eaten by the gods.”

The Tongans. “The Tonga Islanders think that the lower classes of men have no souls.”

“Though contrary to the common opinion, some of the lower orders in Tonga think they have immortal souls as well as the chiefs.”

The Sumatrans. These people are about like the others. Mr. Marsden says, “They have also a vague and confused idea of the immortality of the human soul, and of a future state of happiness or misery.” That is to say, they have some idea of a future, and that is about all.

Malagasy. The same is true of this people. A traveler among them says, “In almost the same breath the Malagasy will express his belief that when he dies he ceases altogether to exist, . . . and yet confess the fact that he is in the habit of praying to his ancestors.”

This is about the way with the most of these barbarous nations. They are often claimed as full believers in the immortality of the soul, while the real fact is they have only the most confused ideas even of a future life of any kind.

The Order to Be Pursued in the Administration of the Ordinances.

By W. H. Littlejohn

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

As some difference of opinion seems to exist among those who accept the ordinance of feet-washing as one which rests on Scripture authority, respecting the question of precedence in administration between it and the Lord’s supper, I have thought that it might not be unprofitable to discuss the matter in a brief article.

The record from which it will be necessary to draw our data is exceedingly meagre, and in order to attain to the desired end it will be required that we proceed with care, comparing at every step the statements bearing upon the subject, which are made by the different evangelists.

It is not a little remarkable that those who mention the Lord’s supper make no allusion to the ordinance of feet-washing, while the one who makes mention of feet-washing does not refer in any way to the administration of the eucharist.

This latter fact is accounted for on the hypothesis that John’s Gospel was supplementary in its nature, and designed principally to supply facts which the other evangelists had omitted in their productions; and, therefore, as they neglected to mention the ordinance of the Lord’s humiliation, he supplied the omission without repeating the account of the Lord’s supper, the details of which they had given so fully. Should it be objected to this supposition that John also speaks of a “supper,” we reply: The one to which he adverts was that of the passover which preceded the partaking of the emblems of the Lord’s death, and must not be confounded therewith. The term “Lord’s supper” is applied to the eucharist but once in the New Testament. This use of the term is found in 1 Cor. 11:20, and did not occur until A. D. 59; i. e., about twenty-seven years after the death of Christ.

The expression usually employed when referring to the matter seems to have been that of “breaking of bread.”

That the supper to which John alludes is that of the passover is manifest both from the accounts given by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and from the fact that there was on the table a dish into which the Lord dipped the sop which he gave to Judas. Had it been merely the “Lord’s supper” no such dish would have been necessary, since the bread and wine required nothing of the kind when used as a sacrament.

Having premised thus much, we come now to the real work in hand, i. e., that of deciding which of the two ordinances was first participated in.

For the purpose of reaching our conclusion with ease and certainty, we will make the account as given in the thirteenth chapter of John of the events which transpired on the evening of the passover, the basis upon which to construct a table which, we think, will enable any person to reach a

safe conclusion in the matter under consideration.

If the reader will now turn to the narrative by the beloved apostle in the thirteenth chapter of his Gospel, he will find that the events transpired on that evening as given below:—

1. Passover supper (John 13:1, 2); 2. Jesus arose from the table and washed the disciples’ feet (John 13:3–11); 3. Sat down again to the table and conversed (John 13:12–17); 4. Designated the one who should betray him (John 13:18–26); 5. Said to Judas, “That thou doest, do quickly” (John 13:27–29); 6. Judas went out to betray him (John 13:30); 7. Jesus discoursed to the disciples (John 13:31 to 14:31); 8. He goes out to the Mount of Olives (John 14:31).

As remarked above, the table is based on the account of John, because it is more full than that of any other evangelist.

The reader will observe that he mentions eight transactions in consecutive order, and that we have given to each one of them its proper number. He will please turn in his Bible and carefully read all the verses which we have quoted in order to verify the citations which we have made. Having done this, he will be ready to enter with us upon an examination of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke have recorded in their gospels as having transpired on the same evening to which John makes reference. When this shall be accomplished, he will readily perceive that as each one of them understood in his own mind the order of events as they occurred, and gave them without confusion of statement, it will be possible for us to harmonize their accounts when we get the proper clue.

That is, when Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of the breaking of bread, they all have reference to the same event, and that event must have stood related in their minds to the other transactions of the evening in the same way that it did in the mind of John; since all were present on the occasion of which they write.

In other words, if in tracing their accounts we shall find that both they and John speak of what Christ said about the betrayal of himself by Judas; they on the one hand locating the breaking of bread in immediate connection with such saying of Christ, and John, on the other hand, speaking of “feet-washing” as having been attended to before the saying of Christ to Judas, then we must understand that the “washing of feet” did precede the breaking of bread, although the three evangelists fail to mention the same, and although John neglected to allude to the Lord’s supper at all.

The first evangelist whose account will be examined is Luke. As it is brief, we shall give it nearly in full, as follows: “And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him. And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves; for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined; but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed.” Luke 22:14–22.

A glance will reveal the fact that Luke’s testimony is of the highest importance in our investigation. He, unlike John, makes mention of the breaking of bread. This transaction he connects with our Lord’s designation of Judas as the betrayer. His words are: “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.”

By this declaration two points are settled. The first is, as stated above, that the breaking of bread and passing of the cup took place in immediate connection with what Christ said to Judas about his betrayal of him; and the second is, that they preceded that event; transpiring in immediate connection therewith.

Do you ask how this will assist us in deciding which preceded in the order of events, feet-washing or the Lord’s supper?

I answer, that, as Luke has linked these two things together, we ascertain that the feet-washing could not have transpired between them, and therefore, it must either have preceded both of them, or followed both of them, and, consequently, that we have found a clue which will lead us to a settlement of the whole question; since John, though he does not speak of the breaking of bread, does—as seen in the above table of the order of events, Nos. 2 and 3—locate the conversation between Christ and Judas after the washing of feet. But as we have seen that Luke connects the breaking of bread and the designation of Judas as the betrayer, as having taken place at the same moment, and as John places the feet-washing before the time that Christ pointed out Judas as the betrayer, he also proves that the feet-washing must have preceded the breaking of bread.

To restate the proposition that all may understand it: John’s account shows that Christ washed the feet of the disciples, then sat down to the table again and told Judas that he would betray him; while Luke’s account shows that Christ made this declaration about Judas while passing the emblems of his broken body and spilled blood, and, therefore, after the washing of feet; else it could not have taken place in connection with what Christ said to Judas; since John shows that the declaration of Christ to Judas was made after the washing of feet.

Should it be objected that Luke’s account is not necessarily consecutive in the order of its presentation, we should reply that it must be, so far as it relates to the Lord’s supper and the pointing out of Judas as the traitor; since Luke gives, not his own words, but those of Christ, just as the Lord spoke them. That is, he represents Christ as saying, “This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table.” Now the use of the conjunction “but” as thrown in by Christ between what he said about the cup and about Judas, would not be admissible in such a connection, unless it was found in a connected conversation. This, however, would not be true of the conversation under consideration if the view which we are combating be correct; since as John shows beyond all controversy that Judas was not identified by Christ as the betrayer until after the washing of feet, then (the position of our opponents being true) Luke must have taken words which Christ spoke about the bread and wine before the washing of feet and the long discussion which accompanied it, and related them, in the use of the conjunction “but,” as though they were in the same discourse; whereas, at least, half an hour intervened between the two declarations. But such a supposition would be absurd in the extreme, and consequently, cannot be entertained for a moment so long as the other view offers no difficulties whatever, and is consistent both with the laws of language and the probability that Luke’s representation of what Christ said is just what it appears to be,—a connected conversation.

(Concluded next week.)

THE WIDOW OF NAIN.

“The only son of his mother, and she was a widow.” Luke 7:12.

The dust on their sandals lay heavy and white, Their garments were damp with the dews of the night, Their hot feet weary, and throbbing with pain, As they entered the gates of the city of Nain.

But lo! on the pathway a sorrowing throng Pressed, mournfully chanting a funeral song, And, like a sad monotone, ceaseless and slow, The voice of a woman came laden with woe.

What need, stricken mothers, to tell how she wept? Ye read by the vigils that sorrow hath kept, Ye know, by the travail of anguish and pain, The desolate grief of the widow of Nain.

As he who was first of the wayfaring men Advanced, the mute burden was lowered, and then As he touched the white grave-clothes that covered the bier. The bearers shrank back, and the mother drew near.

Her snow-sprinkled tresses had loosened their strands, Great tears fell unchecked on the tightly clasped hands; But hushed the wild sobbing and stilled her cries As Jesus of Nazareth lifted his eyes,—

Eyes wet with compassion as slowly they fell, Eyes potent to soften grief's tremulous swell,— As, sweetly and tenderly, “Weep not,” he said, And turned to the passionless face of the dead.

White, white gleamed his forehead, loose rippled the hair, Bronze-tinted, o'er temples transparently fair; And a glory stole up from the earth to the skies, As he called to the voiceless one, “Young man, arise!”

The hard, rigid outlines grew fervid with breath, The dull eyes unclosed from the midnight of death; Weep, weep, happy mother, and fall at his feet; Life's pale, blighted promise grown hopeful and sweet.

The morning had passed, and the midday heats burned; Once more to the pathway the wayfarers turned, The conqueror of kings had been conquered again; There was joy in the house of the widow of Nain. —Selected.

WOULDN'T BE DISBANDED.

A Michigan correspondent of the Presbyterian tells this good story of a spirited Christian woman, whose indomitable faith saved the church at Quincy, Illinois, in the Presbytery of Monroe. Some years ago—not very many—this church had so run down that it was considered dead, and Presbytery sent a committee to disband it. The committee arrived at Quincy, and inquired for the church—there was none; for the elders—there were none; for the deacons—there were none; for the male members—there were none; for the female members—there was but one. They searched her out, and told her their business. She fired up, positively refused to be disbanded, and gave them a piece of her mind, somewhat as follows: “This is a pretty piece of business for Presbytery. I am ashamed of it. You go back and tell Presbytery I will not be disbanded, and that what it should do is to send a man here to preach, and build up the church.” They reasoned and expostulated with her, but she was firm, and returned but one answer,—“I will not be disbanded.”

They returned to Presbytery and reported, and Presbytery had the wisdom to see the hand of the Lord in it, and sent a man to preach. The results were a blessed revival of religion and the reorganization of the church. It is now a self-supporting church, with a settled pastor, and reports one hundred and thirty-three members. Louis XIV., the Grand Monarque of France, used to say, “I am the State.” This heroic woman could have said more truly, “I am the church.” Many a church that has been disbanded might have been saved by one such brave soul, trusting in Christ and seizing providential opportunities.—Selected.

“IT IS ACCEPTED.”

By E. R. Jones

EVERY person who gives of his means to the cause of Christ is anxious to have his offering accepted of the Lord. In his word God has fully instructed us on what conditions any offering made to his cause will be received by him. We have precepts and many examples; but above all these appear two very prominent conditions which, perhaps, are a summary of them all. The first is the motive, or feeling of heart, with which we give. Said the great apostle Paul, “For if there be first a willing mind.” 2 Cor. 8: 12. A willing mind is the first absolutely necessary condition of an acceptable offering to God.

Let us read further upon this point. Anciently, when God desired his people to build him a sanctuary, which required offerings that would cost a sacrifice on their part, he said, “Of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.” Ex. 25: 2. When the first temple was built, it is said that “the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the Lord.” 1 Chron. 29: 9. A king of Israel whom the apostle Peter calls a patriarch and prophet spoke thus of the offerings for this temple: “But who am I, and what is my people, that we should be able to offer so willingly after this sort; for all things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee. O Lord our God, all this store that we have prepared to build thee an house for thine holy name cometh of thine hand, and all is thine own. I know also, my God, that thou triest the heart, and hast pleasure in uprightness. As for me, in the uprightness of mine heart I have willingly offered all these things; and now have I seen with joy thy people, which are present here, to offer willingly unto thee. O Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel, our fathers, keep this forever in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of thy people, and prepare their heart unto thee.” 1 Chron. 29: 14, 16–18.

The above quotations are worthy of the careful consideration of every one who professes to love God. God wants all his people to have their hearts in this work of giving to his cause, and to do it willingly and with uprightness of soul. He wants us all to know and feel that he has given to us all that we have, and that it is his own. “The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, saith the Lord of hosts.”

The child of God who really loves his Saviour rejoices to give of the worldly goods which God has bestowed upon him, to advance the cause of Him who has given himself for us. He will do it willingly and with gladness of heart. David prayed that God would ever keep this in the imagination of the thoughts of the heart of his people; and said that God would try their hearts. The Lord will surely see it if the willing mind and heart is not in our offerings, for he looks at the heart; and this willingness in giving is what makes the gift precious in the sight of God. The poor widow’s trivial offering, because it was given in pure love for the cause of the Lord, was more to him than the much which the others gave to get praise from their fellow-men. “God loveth a cheerful giver.”

The second condition of acceptance is, that we give in proportion to that which we have. “That there may be equality” (2 Cor. 8: 14) is the plan laid down in the word of God. None need be in ignorance as to what proportion of our means we are to give. If there be no definite rule by which to be governed in our giving, then the Bible plan of equality is subverted and destroyed altogether. We are not left to our own discretion as to the amount. “For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not.” 2 Cor. 8: 12. Though we profess to have a willing mind, yet will not give according to that which we have, it will not be accepted; if we give in proportion, but have not the willing mind, it will be rejected of the Lord. Cain offered to God as well as Abel, but was rejected. And why? Because his offering was not in harmony with God’s plan. Said the Lord to him: “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door.” Gen. 4: 7.

Cain’s case is an admonition to us, and a warning. “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning.” If we present our offerings in harmony with the requirements of the Lord, we shall be accepted; but otherwise our offerings will be rejected of him. First we must have a willing mind, second we must give in proportion to that which we have; and then we certainly shall be blessed of the Lord.

E. R. JONES.

AMEN

By C.

“Let all the people say, Amen,” is a divine command applicable in all ages and to every congregation of worshipers. Certainly no good reason exists why it is not as appropriate for God’s people now as at any time in the past. The response carries with it a power that unites the sympathies and binds the hearts of brethren closer together; and in the social meeting who has not felt a thrill of encouragement at the hearty amen of some good brother as expressions of fidelity have dropped from the lips of one bearing testimony?

The minister, too, knows what a source of encouragement such responses are to him, as he kneels to pray in the congregation, or in the desk treats on themes of the deepest interest to himself. It certainly shows, to say the least, that some one is paying attention to what is being said. More than this, it is evident that the subject is appreciated, and

without appreciation it becomes an idle tale, soon forgotten and consequently lost.

The history of the church in the past has invariably shown that as it declined in spirituality this custom has dropped out, and a cold formality has stepped in to dictate forms of worship more in accordance with its own apathetic nature. There is certainly reason to fear that, as a people, we are not exempt from this downward tendency, since it is a noticeable fact—however painful it may be—that some have nearly or quite dropped the custom from their midst.

Brethren, this is not as it should be. Let us reform on this point, and return to the old time-honored custom of kneeling in time of prayer; and no matter who is present, let all heartily unite in the petitions offered, and may the fervent responses from each witness that our hearts are engaged in true devotion before Him who has said, “Let all the people say, Amen!” C.

“A HAPPY NEW YEAR!”

By Frances Ridley Havergal

New mercies, new blessings, new light on thy way; New courage, new hope, and new strength for each day; New notes of thanksgiving, new chords of delight; New songs in the morning, new songs in the night;

New wine in thy chalice, new altars to raise; New fruit for thy Master, new garments of praise; New gifts from his treasures, new smiles from his face;

New streams from the fountain of infinite grace;

New stars for thy crown, and new tokens of love; New gleams of the glory that waits thee above; New light of his countenance, radiant and clear,— All this be the joy of thy happy New Year!

—Frances Ridley Havergal, in Christian Weekly.

SUNDAY IN INDIANA.

Eighty members in attendance upon the Presbyterian synod of the Crawfordsville, Ft. Wayne, Logansport, and Muncie Presbyteries (Indiana) took the following action upon the Sunday question. Our readers will be interested to mark the progress of the agitation upon this subject. The report says:—

An item of special general interest was passed, and ordered to be inserted in all the papers willing to publish it, as follows:—

“The committee on Sabbath desecration report that they have had under consideration a circular from the ‘International Sabbath Association,’ in response to which, and also as expressing our sentiments in regard to the extensive and growing Sabbath desecration in this country, and especially in Northern Indiana, we recommend for adoption the following preamble and resolutions, which were recently adopted by an Illinois Annual Conference of the M. E. church:—

“ ‘WHEREAS, God has said, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” and we believe that we ought to obey God, therefore

“ ‘Resolved, 1. That as ministers we will oppose, by tongue and pen, and by personal influence and example, the desecration of the Sabbath, such as Sunday excursion trains, whether to camp-meetings or not; the sale of anything on Sunday at camp-meetings; the keeping open on Sunday of baker shops, tobacco or cigar shops, clothing stores, drug stores (except for the sale of needed medicines) and business houses of all kinds.

“ ‘Resolved, 2. That we will discourage the burial on Sunday of any person who could as well be buried on Saturday or Monday, thereby preventing interference with the various regular Sabbath services.

“ ‘Resolved, 3. That as American citizens we will insist on an American Sabbath, and if our foreign element like the foreign Sabbath best, let them go where they can enjoy it without disturbing the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country.

“ ‘Resolved, 4. That as newspaper men and newsboys ought to have a Sabbath as well as other people, we will discourage Sunday newspapers, and will teach our people that it is as sinful to buy newspapers on Sunday as it would be to buy groceries or any kind of merchandise.

“ ‘Resolved, 5. That we mean what we say, and that we will defend the fourth commandment, even if it renders us unpopular.’”

Continue reading: NOTES OF NEWS