The Review and Herald, Review and Herald, Vol. 47, No. 15.
CAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS JOIN THE GRANGERS?Page 1
CAN SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS JOIN THE GRANGERS?
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Of course they can, but what I mean to ask is, Can they do it consistently with their profession as Seventh-day Adventists? To this we unhesitatingly say, No; and propose to give a few reasons why we say so. 1. Because Seventh-day Adventists, as a body, are utterly opposed to all secret societies. This doctrine our people have always held. It has been taught by all our preachers, in our publications, through our Conferences, &c. All our people understand that this is our position, and the world understand us to take that position. Whoever, then, among us departs from this by joining some secret society takes one back step toward leaving our people, bringing in division, and throwing discredit upon the teachings of the whole body. He has no right to make division, and Paul says that such should be marked and avoided. Rom. 16:17. Those who have been members of secret societies before they embraced the truth of course are not so censurable, though equally unfortunate. 2. Those who join the Grangers have to fellowship ungodly and wicked men. Infidels, spiritualists, blasphemers, gamblers, horse-racers, and many such like characters, can, and do, join the Grangers. It is claimed that openly immoral men, such as adulterers, thieves, drunkards and the like are excluded. This may be so to a certain extent, yet there are characters as above mentioned who are not excluded, as a man’s religion is not inquired into.
All who join the Grange are called brothers and sisters, and they have to and do call each other so. Here, then, is a Seventh-day Adventist in fellowship with Sabbath-breakers, with blasphemers, with infidels, with spiritualists, with worldlings, with tobacco-users, with the covetous, and other unholy spirits. They call him brother, and he calls them so. Now read what Paul says, “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.” 1 Cor. 5:11. “Be not unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 2 Cor. 6:14–18.
My brother, I earnestly commend to you a careful consideration of these Scriptures. 3. Ungodly men are put forward to offer prayer to God in the Grange. Some form of religion is professed to be practiced even in the Grange. A Granger told me that he had to stay at one time and hear a drunkard offer a prayer to God, and that he was half drunk while doing it. To this our brother had to say, Amen. What a solemn mockery for a child of God, a believer in the present truth, to be partner in such blasphemy. 4. Call no man master. Jesus says, Call no man master, neither be ye called master. But both these precepts of Christ are disregarded in the Grange, because one man among them is called master, and all the members have to call him so. Brethren, when you are bowing your necks to that yoke, remember this precept of your divine Lord. 5. You have to assent to, and indorse doctrines which you believe to be false. The immortality of the soul, going to Heaven at death, &c., is believed and taught in all the Granges. When a member dies, certain ceremonies are gone through with at his grave, teaching that this brother is not dead, but has simply passed to a better world. An evergreen bough is cast into the grave by the members to indicate this. Among these is a Seventh-day Adventist who believes that this is all a lie of the devil, and yet, by his association with them, he gives his consent and approbation to it, without any protest. Furthermore, the dead man may have been a non-professor, an ungodly man, or even an infidel, and yet our brother stands by and says that he believes that he has now gone to Heaven. Shame on you, my brother. And what is the glorious object for which you will thus sacrifice your faith and conscience? It is the mean consideration of being able to save a few dollars in money by joining this society; because this is the object proposed by the Grange, and the very inducement for every one to join. 6. Festivals, dances, gambling, &c., are indulged in by the Grangers. One prominent feature of the Grange is that they frequently have festivals; and in connection with them there is generally a dance. Both of these things Seventh-day Adventists are utterly opposed to, and yet all who join the Grange, to say the very least, have to fellowship these things. They join a Grange; they pay in their money; they give their influence to it, and then that Grange with this influence and this money either builds, buys, or hires a hall, fits it up, buys the provision, hires the musicians, and has a grand festival, concluding with a dance.
Suppose our brother does not attend, yet his money and his influence has been lent to get this up. He simply absents himself and tries to save his conscience in that way, but it is of no use. It is only a dodge. A man is always held responsible for the actions of any society, company, firm, or association to which he belongs unless he protests against their actions and withdraws from them. No principle in the world is better established than this. Society so regards it, the law so regards it, and so God regards it.
Take the case of Achan in the Old Testament. Josh. 7. When he committed a sin by stealing, God held his whole regiment accountable for it, and punished them till they ferreted it out and punished the transgressor. To the Corinthians Paul said, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” 1 Cor. 5. So if a man is a Granger he is responsible for what his Grange does.
A short time ago I heard a sister tell how she was led away from the truth and the Lord by going to a Grange festival. Little by little she was led on till at last she found herself taking part in the dance on the floor.
Passing through a village in the northern part of Michigan a short time ago, I observed that the whole conversation and excitement was about a certain quilt to be drawn as a prize that evening at a Grange festival. The quilt was made, costing some $13. Then two hundred tickets, fifteen cents each, were issued, one of which was to draw the quilt. Every body was urged to buy. What was the inducement? To obtain $13 for fifteen cents. This is unvarnished gambling. Brethren, how do you quiet your consciences on such matters as these? 7. The Grange is a business company. Indeed, this is the main feature of the Grange. The one sole object proposed is to make and save money to the members. It is a regularly organized company, having officers, records, clerks, agents, places of business, capital, &c. A man who joins this joins the company, shares in its profits and loss, the same as a member of any company. But this company does its business upon the Sabbath. It buys and sells upon the Sabbath; indeed, its chief meetings, so far as I have been acquainted, have been held upon the Sabbath. It is a Sabbath-breaking company. Who is responsible for this? Public opinion answers, the law answers, God answers, Every member of the company.
Suppose a company is formed to carry on blacksmithing, lumbering, the mercantile business, or any other business, could one of our brethren conscientiously join that company, and simply absent himself from business on the Sabbath? No, indeed. We say that by doing so he would break the Sabbath just as truly as though he worked himself. So we say that all our brethren who join the Grange are guilty in the same manner and for the same reason. 8. We must regard our brother’s conscience. How plainly Paul lays down the principle that we must not offend our brother’s conscience, even if the act itself is not wrong. See Rom. 14. “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.” Verse 21. “Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.” 1 Cor. 8:13.
Now it is a cause of offense among our brethren generally for a brother or sister to join the Grangers. Any brother or sister who does it, knows beforehand that he will offend not only his own church, but the whole body of our brethren. He knows that it will grieve them and probably bring trial into the church. How any brother can take such a course is more than I can comprehend. It is very evident to my mind that either he has not been properly informed as to what he is doing, or else the love of the church and the brethren has become very small in the heart. 9. The advantage gained by joining the Grangers is exceedingly small. The one leading object proposed by the Grange is to put money into the pockets of the producing class,—farmers, mechanics, &c. It holds out the inducement that they can buy what they need much cheaper, and sell what they market at much better prices. But I have inquired into this in many places, and find that largely it is a delusion. The gain, if any at all, is very small. Several members of the Grange have told me that they have paid out much more for membership, &c., during the year than they had saved on what they bought and sold. Taking what a person has to pay for initiation fees, and other expenses during the year, for time wasted in running to their Grange meetings, &c., and what little an ordinary farmer would make through them, even if it is anything, is exceedingly small, and yet, I am sorry to say, the uncertain hope of making $5 or $10 a year is enough to induce some of our brethren to risk all the considerations above pointed out. He professes to believe that the Lord is immediately coming, and that all earthly things are soon to perish, and yet he will run all this tremendous risk to gain a little filthy lucre. Many other good reasons might be added to the above why Seventh-day Adventists should not join the Grange. To all our brethren and sisters we say, Beware. We all believe that the following scripture has a special application to this time; I think it is good counsel and we had better heed it:— “Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces; and give ear, all ye of far countries: gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces; gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. Take counsel together, and it shall come to naught; speak the word, and it shall not stand; for God is with us. For the Lord spake thus to me with a strong hand, and instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying, Say ye not, A confederacy, to all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy; neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid. Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. And I will wait upon the Lord, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of hosts, which dwelleth in Mount Zion. And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter, should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isa. 8:9–20. D. M. Canright. WHEREFORE THEN SERVETH THE LAW?
By John O. Corliss
This is a question which often arises upon the presentation of the full claims of the law of God, and is answered in different ways—two at least. One answer that satisfies some is this: The law was abolished by the death of Christ, and therefore we are no longer under it. But there are those who are not turned away with such an evasive answer, and they press the pertinent inquiry, “If God’s law of ten commandments, which we have ever been taught was holy, just, and good, was made void by the death of Christ, then why was it given?” The answer is usually returned: “The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith; but after faith is come we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Do the Scriptures bring to view any other way for us to be adopted into the family of God but by faith in Christ? No. Since our first parents through transgression lost their title to God’s favor their offspring could only regain it through faith in Christ; and every one of them, however remote they may be, if saved finally, will be saved through the only name given under114Heaven whereby we must be saved. Acts 4:12. Hence it was by faith that Abel’s offering was accepted, and God gave him the witness that he was righteous. Heb. 11:4. Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith in the promised Messiah. He did, however, receive circumcision as a token, or sign, of his faith in the promise of God. Rom. 4:2, 11, 13. Yet we are informed that the reason why God adopted Abraham was because he kept his commandments. Gen. 26:5. Paul says that this promise to Abraham extended to his seed, which is Christ, Gal. 3:16, and that God confirmed it to him by an oath. Heb. 6:13, 14. Yet it was necessary for Abraham to express his faith in the promise by some outward act, and therefore he submitted to the rite of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of that faith. Now Paul says, that the law, given four hundred and thirty years after the confirmation of that covenant, could not disannul the promise that God had sworn to perform, though it was added because of transgressions. Gal. 3:19. If God had no law prior to his speaking one on Sinai, then there could be no transgression. Rom. 4:15. But because God’s holy law did exist, and sin was imputed to them in consequence of its transgression (See Rom. 5:13, and Gen. 4:4–8), it was necessary to give a law which would foreshadow Christ, and by which, in its performance, their faith in him could be kept alive until he should come and take away those sins. Therefore this law to prescribe and regulate the ceremonies and offerings was added to the former ceremony of like nature—circumcision. But why add these ceremonies, if circumcision was only necessary before? says one. We understand that sacrifices were necessary before, and were offered, but without regularity and precision. Therefore they were not added, but only the law to regulate them, so as to have a regular system of faith and worship. This is a matter of necessity. For while in Egypt, in association with that idolatrous nation, the children of Israel had to a great extent, through their transgressions, lost sight of the promise of God, and, if left to themselves and the influence of the nations around them, they would soon become gross idolaters. Hence to keep them together, and teach them faith in the atonement, it was necessary to give a law that would regulate their worship, and be a schoolmaster that would each day point them to, and bring them unto, Christ. And it (the law) was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. To ordain means to establish or appoint. Though it is true that the law of ceremonies came by the approval of God, yet he says that he did not give that law. He does, however, acknowledge that he commanded them to obey his voice (Jer. 7:21–23), which Moses says was the law of ten commandments. Deut. 4:12, 13. Again he says in verse 21: “Is the law then against the promise of God? God forbid; for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” He also says, in writing to the Romans, that the law which slew him (the ten commandments), “was ordained to life,” and was therefore a different law from the one under consideration in Gal. 3:21, which could not give life, but could only point to Jesus Christ as the only source of life for sinners. There can be no difficulty in understanding the frequently occurring expression, “the law,” as used by the apostle in his writings, and determining its application if taken in its several connections. But some, in order to evade the force of the fourth commandment, which enjoins the observance of the seventh day as the Sabbath, class the moral and ceremonial precepts together, and with one sweeping assertion abolish them all, leaving the world to infer from their teachings that no law exists by which to regulate our lives. This ever seems inconsistent to Bible readers, and causes them to lose confidence in its teachings. For, say they: Paul, in writing to the Romans, states that faith in Christ does not abolish the law, while he writes to the Galatians that it was only a schoolmaster, and to continue only till Christ. What shall we conclude from this? We conclude there are two distinct codes brought to view by the apostle: One, which he claims is spiritual; Rom. 7:14; another, which he calls “the law of a carnal commandment.” Heb. 7:16. The first is not made void through faith. Rom. 3:31. The second is abolished in Christ. Eph. 2:15. To those who earnestly desire to know and do the will of God, I would say, Before you decide to renounce God’s holy law, in order to be released from the observance of his day, weigh well the evidence of the Bible upon the point, and then remember that it holds up his law as the rule in the Judgment, Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12–16; James 2:12, and act with reference to that event. LIGHT IN DARKNESS.
By Marion Bernstein
OH, the sweetness of affliction!
None who have not felt can know
What mysterious peace may soothe us
When our tears most sadly flow.
In proportion to the trouble
That our shrinking hearts must bear,
The Great Comforter revealeth
His celestial presence there. Oft when earthly cares press deepest,
When our gloom grows most profound,
And no ray of sunshine glimmers
Through the darkness all around,
Then within the heart a glory
Riseth, so supremely bright,
We forget the utter darkness
Looking inward to that light. 5 Dunrobin Place, Paisley Road, Glasgow. TESTIMONY ON THE SABBATH.
By W. Pottenger
I was highly pleased with the article entitled, “Pres. Asa Mahan on the Sabbath.” He, and all others of our learned men, can, and generally do, give strong proof of the origin, nature, and object of the Sabbath when they are untrammeled by the traditions of men; and yet it oftentimes so happens that even from those who have certain “creeds” or “articles of faith” to support you can glean certain facts that will go far to show what their real sentiments are, and to establish you more firmly in the truth. To make the truth stand out more clearly, I will introduce the testimony of Dehon, D. D., in one or two of his sermons. The title of the book from which I quote is, “Sermons on the Public Means of Grace,” published in 1821. “That God is to be worshiped, is a sentiment of nature, a dictate of reason, and a declaration of the written law. This point being established, there follows a necessity that there should be established times for discharging the duties of devotion. “As regularity in transacting business of any kind is ultimately beneficial, so, in this particular, unless there be stated periods for paying our devotions to the Most High, inattention will produce indifference; indifference will form a habit of forgetfulness or neglect; and thus in the noblest employment of a rational being, the mind would but seldom and accidentally engage. When we further consider that there are favors which we unitedly need, and, consequently, for which we ought unitedly to petition; that there are sins, which we join in committing, and consequently, ought to join in imploring remission of the same; that there are blessings which we enjoy in common, and, consequently, for which we ought to return a common tribute of praise; in a word, when we consider that, social in everything else, man ought to be social in the worship of his God, we cannot but be convinced of the necessity that some definite part of time should be appropriated to the service of religion. “Now if it were left for men to determine among themselves how much time, and what particular part of time, should be thus consecrated, it would be rare indeed if, differing in sentiment upon every other subject, they should be united upon this. The supposition is inadmissible. We can conjecture ten thousand circumstances which would inevitably operate against this unanimity. But, blessed be God, in this respect, he has not left mankind a prey to uncertainty and discord. He, himself, has determined what portion of their existence his intelligent creatures shall dedicate to him. ‘Remember,’ says he, when promulgating his sacred laws, ‘remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.’ Permit me, beloved, to bespeak your attention, while I endeavor to state to you, in the first place, the nature of this day, and the reasons for remembering it; and, secondly, the suitable and reasonable methods of keeping it holy. “We learn from the history of the creation that Deity employed himself six days in forming the heavens and the earth and all the host of them. It could not have been necessary that he should be occupied for this or any other particular space of time, in effecting the purposes of his will. He, whose simple fiat could call light into existence, could, with equal ease have said, ‘Let creation be,’ and instantly the universe would have appeared. But for some certainly wise and good end, perhaps for our instruction, he chose to employ himself six days in creating our world. ‘The seventh day,’ says the sacred historian, ‘God blessed and sanctified, because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created.’ Not that he was fatigued by the exertions which he had made, or exhausted by the greatness of the work which he had accomplished. Far otherwise. ‘The Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth fainteth not, neither is weary.’ When it is said, ‘God rested on the seventh day,’ the expression means that he then ceased from that particular employment in which he had been engaged. And when he sanctified this day, he determined that every periodical return of it should be duly observed by his intelligent creatures for commemorating the nativity of creation, when ‘the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy,’ and for impressing upon their minds a remembrance that He to whom they dedicated the day was the author, and is the preserver and governor of the universe; of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things. “Such was the origin of the Sabbath day; and there is a probability that the observance of it commenced and continued from the time when the reason first existed for which it was blessed and sanctified. It is true that we have no account of the actual observance of the day before the time of Moses. Many have inferred from this that the notice of the day is to be dated from the solemn appointment of it by Moses. But if the Sabbath had been kept from the creation as a matter of course, it is a circumstance which we should not expect to find mentioned in a history so concise, when the author himself must have viewed the thing as common as the resting at night, after the labors of the day. Now, we have no account from which we can possibly infer the neglect of the day. And it is observable that the first observance of it noticed by the historian was previous to the promulgation of the law from Sinai. “When the children of Israel were miraculously fed with manna, they had not arrived at the holy mount, but were in the desert of Sin. This was their eighth encampment; that was their twelfth. In order to refrain from labor on the seventh day, they then gathered on the sixth two omers of manna, which was twice the quantity of one day’s consumption. When Moses assigns the reason for this, he mentions the Sabbath, not as anything new, but as something to which they had been accustomed. ‘To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.’ It may further be remarked that, notwithstanding the commandment in the text, and other arrangements in the Jewish law for the service of the day, there is no particular mention of the observance of it for several years after Moses. “But it is argued, if men had remembered the Sabbath day from the creation, why was it so formally ordained at the promulgation from Sinai? Now, would it not be equally as rational to argue that it was not esteemed unlawful to dishonor parents, to commit adultery, to murder, to steal, to bear false witness, etc., previous to the decalogue, because that, in that communication of the divine will, these crimes were formally forbidden? The truth of the matter undoubtedly is, that when Deity had sanctified the Sabbath, he informed man thereof; and from Adam to Moses those were not wanting who paid attention and reverence to the holy day. As man became more and more corrupt, the obligation to this, as well as to all other moral precepts, was held less and less sacred. To revive their ideas of duty, and preserve among mankind a knowledge of his will, Deity, in his own time benignantly vouchsafed to his people a written law. In this law the religious and constant observance of the Sabbath was solemnly enjoined, and two additional motives thereto urged upon the Jews: ‘Remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence,’ therefore he ‘commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day,’ and likewise ‘that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thine handmaid, and the stranger may be refreshed.’ Thus was the Sabbath established, and continued a day of rest, from the first pair of our race, to Jesus, the Immanuel. “There is something of an awful holiness, of a solemn dignity, surrounding the Sabbath, when we consider the consecration of it, as coeval with the existence of our race. How venerable its antiquity! How sublime the ends for which it was instituted! With what horror does the sensible mind recoil at the recollection of those who would demolish with worse than Vandal arms this first and most gracious institution of God. From the account which has been given of its nature and history you may gather reasons, sufficiently engaging, to fill you with a resolution that you and your house shall reverence the Sabbath of the Lord your God.” That this may be the determination of all who may read the above is my prayer.
W. POTTENGER. GAVAZZI ON ROMANISM.
By WM. PENNIMAN
In the Herald of Life, of Dec. 8, 1875, we notice the following, contained in Gavazzi’s concluding lecture on Romanism in concluding his condemnation of the worship of relics. “But if the worship of relics is so stupid and revolting, what will you say about the worship of images? The papists say, in the face of the second commandment, that it is right to worship images; and it is also true that in order to worship images they must entirely violate the second commandment of the decalogue, and you cannot find in all their edition of the Bible the second commandment at all. Still they pretend to have the ten commandments the same as the Protestants. Yes, ten commandments! But though the Bible system is a connected system, the priests of Rome took the last commandment of the decalogue, and, like good upholsterers, cut in pieces the last commandment in order to eke out the ten commandments. The second commandment, which forbids the worship of images, is cut off entirely, and the last commandment is divided, so that the ninth commandment says, ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife;’ and the tenth, ‘Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ox, nor his ass,’” &c. As Gavazzi has described so truly and forcibly what the papists have done to the second and last commandment, it is to be regretted that he did not see what they have done to the fourth. They not only “say in the face of the second commandment that it is right to worship images;” but they also say in the face of the fourth that the church has power to change the law of God; thus setting up a counterfeit Sabbath in place of the Sabbath of the Lord, in fulfillment of Dan. 7:25, which says this power should think to change times and laws. Truly the “Bible system is a connected one,” and the papists have attempted to sever the very connecting link in the center of the moral law, which links the system together. May Protestants see that in keeping Sunday they are observing a day which has been instituted and sanctioned by the papacy and not by the word of God. There is something unlovely and repulsive in old age when not beautified and adorned with the graces of the divine Spirit. A life misspent makes old age a deformity from which we instinctively turn with pity and disgust; while, on the other hand, a life spent in doing good makes age often more beautiful and attractive than youth. The longer people live in sin and rebellion against God the more hardened and depraved they become, and the more insensible they are to divine influences and impressions; hence their moral degradation is such as to stamp itself on their persons as well as characters. There is no sadder picture than that of the aged who are without God in the world and without hope in the future. Their earthly and groveling minds grow weaker as their years increase, until their imbecility and depravity are such as to render their society unpleasant to all about them. Not so with the faithful servants of the living God. With their advancing years their experience of divine truth grows riper and richer, and their lives purer and holier. From their minds the darkness and gloom incident to old age is dispelled by the sunshine of God's love, and, as a general rule, preserved from decay and dotage to the latest period of their lives. Talents rightly improved do not corrode and decay and become useless, leaving the mind a blank, and its possessor a cipher in existence. Hence those who live the life of the righteous seldom outlive their usefulness. In view of these facts, with others of equal force, the incentives to an obedient and upright life so far outweigh all other considerations and interests that a thought or a wish in regard to them appears of little consequence. An old black man expressed to a wild young Virginian the half unconscious creed of many a white sinner. “Massa Richard,” said this hoary evil-doer, solemnly lifting up his hand to emphasize the admonition, “if there is a hereafter, don’t carry on—but,” and here he suddenly broke into enthusiasm and a broad grin, “if there ain’t no hereafter, carry on powerful!” RUSKIN ON CONSCIENCE.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
“It has been a prevalent notion in the minds of well disposed persons that if they acted according to their own conscience, they must, therefore, be doing right; but they assume, in feeling or asserting this, either that there is no law of God, or that it cannot be known, but only felt or conjectured. ‘I must do what I think right.’ How often is this sentence uttered and acted on—bravely—nobly—innocently, but always—because of its egotism—erringly. You must not do what you think right, but, whether you or any body think or don't think it, what is right. ‘I must act according to the dictates of my conscience.’ By no means, my conscientious friend, unless you are quite sure yours is not the conscience of an ass. ‘I am doing my best—what can man do more?’ You might be doing much less, and yet much better; perhaps you are doing your best in producing or doing an eternally bad thing.” “All these three sayings, and the convictions they express are wise only in the mouths and minds of wise men; they are deadly, and all the deadlier because bearing an image and superscription of virtue in the mouths and minds of fools. ‘But there is every gradation, surely, between wisdom and folly.’ No. The fool, whatever his wit, is the man who does n't know his master—who has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’—no law. The wise man knows his master. Less or more wise, he perceives lower or higher masters; but always some creature larger than himself—some law holier than his own; a law to be sought, learned, loved, obeyed; but, in order to its discovery, the obedience must be begun first to the best one knows. Obey something, and you have a chance some day of finding out what is best to obey. But if you begin by obeying nothing, you will end by obeying Beelzebub and all his seven invited friends.” It does seem good in this age of sickly sentimentalism, when the unholy feelings of men's own hearts are exalted above the law of the great Creator, to hear, now and then, some good sound talk which has the ring of the Bible in it. Such is the above. I commend it to those who have deified their own consciences, and thereby set aside the law of God.
D. M. CANRIGHT. In a letter sent from Canton, mention was made of the cathedral going up there, which is to cost three millions of dollars. We learn that another, quite as magnificent and costly, is being erected at Pekin; also, that in nearly every important city of the empire churches are being erected. The Jesuits are in China in great force. Here comes one of their priests, a Frenchman, wearing Chinese clothing, with a pigtail hanging down his back. He has become a Chinaman, following to the letter the apostolic example and precept—becoming all things to all men, to accomplish the end in view. The Jesuits throughout the empire have adopted the dress, the habits and customs of the Chinese—eating as they eat, sleeping as they sleep, shaving the forehead and not the crown, just as the Chinese shave theirs. Your readers will remember that two hundred years ago, the Jesuits were numerous throughout the empire, but upon the accession of a new dynasty they were driven from the kingdom, and their property confiscated. But through all these long years Rome has had her eyes open. When the French brought forward the treaty lately signed between France and China, one article stipulated that all the property confiscated two hundred years ago should be restored to the Jesuits. “It is impossible,” said the emperor’s ministers. “It must be done,” was the reply of the French commission. “Who can tell where it was situated? How can it be identified? There have been great commotions—a great many changes since then. We cannot find it,” said the ministers. “Of course there may be some difficulty; but if the fathers of the church can identify the property, your Highnesses will restore it,” said the bland commissioners. “Oh, yes; if they can show that it was once owned by the church,” was the reply, and the article went into the treaty. A few months later the fathers appeared at Pekin with a great bundle of title-deeds and documents, yellowed by time and moldy from their long repose in the archives of the Propaganda at Rome. The emperor’s ministers were confounded, but there was no help for it; and so the church to-day is in possession of immense estates in nearly every city of the empire. The other day, while walking through the streets of the old city of Shanghai, Rev. Mr. Yates pointed out long ranges of buildings which had been restored to the Jesuits under that article of the treaty. The income from these estates is enormous. No estimate can be made of the amount, which is known only to the fathers, who keep their own counsel. The Jesuits are having great success in this empire. The forms and ceremonies of the Buddhist religion are so much like those of the Roman Catholic that one can hardly tell the difference. A Chinaman entering a Protestant church sees no gods, images, nor pictures, and he comes to the conclusion that the Protestants are altogether godless; but he enters a Jesuit church, and sees a better class of images than he is accustomed to worship, pictures more pleasing than those upon the walls of his own temples. He sees the priests of the altar in gorgeous robes, inhales sweeter incense than that ascending from the joss-sticks. The music of the choir, the deep-toned organ, is more than the rub-a-dub of the drums. Is it any wonder that the churches are thronged at morning mass, or at the hour for vespers? Rome takes long looks ahead. She is educating for the future. Foundlings are picked up by the hundreds and thousands; poor parents sell their children for a trifle, parting with them that they may be educated by the priest. A few years hence these foundlings will be traversing the hills and valleys, stopping at all the villages, setting up schools, and carrying on the work of the church. A gentleman of Shanghai, one who has been long in the country, who can speak the language, who has traveled through several of the provinces dressed as a Chinaman, in search of coal and iron and other materials, has had excellent opportunities for observation, and his opinion is worthy of consideration. He says:— “Of the missionary effort put forth in China, at least ninety per cent. is by the Catholics.” The restoration of the confiscated property has given the church of Rome great vantage ground. The priests have been pressing the Imperial Government in another direction. The French minister has obtained an imperial decree permitting the priests to decide all questions of law between Chinese Catholics and those who still adhere to the Chinese religion. Secretly, persistently, and constantly, they are laboring to obtain possession of China. So high a personage as Sir John Bowring, who was here for a long while, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting last August at the meeting of the British Association, expresses the opinion that Romanism stands a fair chance of obtaining possession of this vast empire. Certainly Rome is working with a zeal, energy, singleness of purpose, and far-sightedness which may challenge admiration.—Cor. Boston Journal.