Earlier text: Publishers' PageCongress Asked to Define Christianity
By L. A. S.
IN the Congressional Record of April 16 last, appears the account of a remarkable, and from our standpoint, very interesting, colloquy which took place on that date in the United States Senate, leading to a vote by the Senate on the question of setting up in this government a complete union of church and state. The subject came up on an amendment offered by Senator Quay (who, it may be remembered, was foremost in committing Congress to legislation closing the Chicago World’s Fair on Sunday, and recognizing Sunday as the Christian sabbath, in 1892) to the Chinese Exclusion Bill, which was then up for the Senate’s consideration. After some discussion which gave no hint that a motion for religious legislation was suddenly to be sprung on the national legislative body, Mr. Quay arose, and moved this amendment to the pending bill:— “Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exclude Chinese Christians or Chinese who assisted in the defense or relief of the foreign legations or the Pe-tang cathedral, in the city of Peking, in the year 1900. But the same may be admitted upon proper ecclesiastical and consular certificates under regulations to be prescribed by the secretary of the treasury.” This statement was amended so as to mention only “Chinese Christians.” Then Senator Hoar, of Massachusetts, who is president of the New England Sabbath Protective League, arose and suggested a further amendment, by striking out the words “ecclesiastical and,” since, he said, “it is very awkward to introduce into our legislation the recognition of ecclesiastical authority, and it gives rise to very vexatious questions as to what are ecclesiastical authorities.” This further amendment was agreed to, and then Senator Quay proceeded to answer the objections that might be raised against his proposition to legislate in favor of “Chinese Christians.” One of these objections was, as he stated it, that “the Chinese would rush to the banner of the cross, all Chinese turning Christians, and no one could answer for the number that would swarm under that provision to our shores.” He would provide for this, he said, by placing “in the power of the secretary of the treasury the authority to investigate the character of those Chinese, and lodge similar authority in our own officials of the consular service upon the other side of the water.” “It may be,” he continued, “that some of the Chinese will come as hypocrites. That cannot be avoided. . . . In that they would not differ from very many good citizens of the United States to-day, but if they join the church of a Christian denomination, they must conform to its usages, and whether in earnest or not, whether it is for the benefit of their souls or not, their temporal conduct will be provided for, and in such manner that it will not affect the well-being of society. “I regard, although I do not profess to be an apostle, the Christian religion the basic stone, the living root, of all Western civilization and government and society. The people who conform to its ideas, whether sincere or not, I recognize as fit to take part in this government, at least to live in this country. So I would admit Chinese hypocrites if they fulfill the requirements of the ecclesiastical authorities.” (Italics ours.) Senator Rawlins, of Utah, obtained the floor, and said:— “Mr. President, this, to my mind, is rather a strange proposition. It proposes to give to Chinese who possess a given religion the right to come in, which might involve an inquiry as to who are Christians, and who are not Christians, and what denomination can be properly classed within that designation. It involves the further question—” Senator Quay interrupted at this point by saying that “the common acceptance of the word ‘Christian’ is one who believes that Christ is the Son of God.” Senator Rawlins then continued:— “Mr. President, the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to make any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. According to the spirit of the Constitution, as I understand the idea of religious liberty as embodied therein, Congress has no function and has no right to discriminate in favor of a Christian or against a Christian, in favor of a Mohammedan or against a Mohammedan, in favor of the followers of Confucius or against those of other religious denominations. It is a queer idea, it seems to me, to inject into this bill a sort of inquisition to ascertain what may or may not be the religious faith of a person knocking at the doors of the republic for admission into this American household, where all people are supposed to stand upon a footing of equality, absolutely beyond the power of the government, so far as being subjected to any imposition or any disparagement or disqualification on account of religious sentiment.” Following Mr. Rawlins, Senator Spooner, of Wisconsin, said that he likewise could not vote in favor of the proposed measure, for reasons which he proceeded to give. We quote further from the Record:— “My fear about it is that the senator from Pennsylvania would suddenly become the most successful Chinese missionary in the world— “Mr. Quay: I so suggested. “Mr. Spooner: And that great numbers who wish to come to the United States might suddenly become Christians; and when asked, ‘How did you happen to become a Christian?’ they could truthfully say, ‘Senator Quay persuaded me to become a Christian’—not ‘almost,’ but absolutely. How long they would be Christians after they reached this country, how soon they would backslide from the senator’s standpoint of Christianity, and go back to the doctrines of Confucius, would be purely a mental operation7which the senator from Pennsylvania would not be able, nor would the government inspectors, to detect. “The adoption of this amendment would simply open the door to every Chinaman who professed Christianity, and that is easily professed. Many men profess it and do not possess it even in our own country; and I think it might very easily happen that many Chinamen would profess it for the purpose of getting into the United States as laborers, who do not possess it in China, or would not possess it in this country. It would open the gateway wider, I believe, to the admission of Chinese laborers disguised as Christians than any other scheme which could possibly be devised.” The reader can apply the argument and the admissions here made, to the case of congressional legislation in favor of “orthodox” Christianity in this country. Already, by act of Congress, Sunday is recognized as the Christian sabbath, and any religion which disputed this would not be orthodox. Every act of legislation in the field of religion helps to define a national “orthodox” creed. And when such legislation shall have made it pecuniarily advantageous to belong to the church, as Senator Quay would make it advantageous to the Chinese to profess Christianity; when, to quote from Senator Quay, the people who conform to the orthodox religion, and only such, are recognized “as fit to take part in this government,”—then hypocrites will flock into the orthodox church; and while some will be deluded into thinking that great conversions have been wrought by legislative act, and that the millennium has been reached, others, like this senator, will be willing to “admit . . . hypocrites if they fulfill the requirements of the ecclesiastical authorities.” Such a condition of things is yet to be realized in the nominally Christian church. And then will be fulfilled the prophecy of inspiration: “Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. . . . Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” Rev. 18: 2–4. “A DISCIPLE is necessarily a fruit for the bearer.” The Call for Re-enforcements
By William A. Spicer
WITH an aching but trustful and courageous heart, Sister A. M. Fischer, of Porto Rico, wrote, on the day of her husband's death, of the anxiety felt lest the reverse should lead to delay in pressing on the work. It was a matter of anxiety on Brother Fischer's part in his last conscious hours, lest his illness should discourage and deter others from going out. And Sister Fischer writes in her first hour of sorrow: “O, I cannot understand why he should go like this, just as he was getting started in the church work! What is to be done now? Is the embryo work to lag? I believe that God can work even this to the good of the cause; but don't let the interest drop.” I know that others of our workers falling, and those associated with them in the distant fields, have felt this same anxiety. With the providence of God swinging wide open the gateway into every land, and his voice calling us to enter in haste, we send the word to our workers abroad that the believers in this land, with one voice, will respond with workers and means so that nothing gained may be lost, and the battle may be pressed on to victory. We must stand by with prayer and consecration, and lose no time in filling the broken ranks. By Brother Fischer's death our one regular laborer in Porto Rico is taken away. The sad news comes from Europe that Brother Chas. Grin, the one laborer in Belgium, with its six millions, has fallen. Is it not evident that we must place the workers two and two in these great fields, so that the death of one may not leave millions absolutely unprovided for? God is giving us the workers, ready to go. He is surely giving the people the heart and ability to set such a stream of consecrated means flowing into the mission treasury that there may be no disheartening delay in hastening reënforcements forward. With the progress of the message in other lands, we are made to feel the truth that this work is a battle and a march. It is a campaign that costs life and treasure. The graves of our dead mark many a distant field. Now Porto Rico and Belgium are added to the list. But every new-made grave is a fresh incentive to push forward until every loyal soul in all these waiting lands is won for Christ. So men of this world lay down their lives to build up the kingdoms of this world. Thank God, we have a holy cause into which we may throw ourselves and our all, for the glory of our King and that heavenly country toward which we are hastening. It is almost within sight. NONCONFORMISTS in England are protesting strongly against a new education bill proposed by the government, which will subsidize the schools that are under the patronage of the state church. This means that nonconformists will be taxed to support the sectarian schools of another religious body. The measure now proposed by the government only takes a part of an additional step in the way of taxation, which is justified by the same principle that justifies the existence of the state church, in whose charge these schools are placed. There is no difference in principle between supporting a state church and supporting what belongs to that church. The evil against which the nonconformists should protest is the establishment itself—the principle of church-and-state union which a state church represents. The thing which embodies this evil principle may be large or small, but the essential thing is principle itself. But a small matter which embodies this principle has a tendency to grow continually larger. It is growing larger in England to-day. Religious Excitement in Continental Europe
CONTINENTAL EUROPE is at the present time full of religious excitement. In Italy much feeling has been aroused by the recent pronouncement of the Vatican against the so-called Christian democracy, which is regarded as evidence of the reactionary influence and intolerance of Cardinal Rampolla, the papal secretary of state. In Austria there is a clash between the ultramontanists and the more progressive Catholics, the latter being on the point of open revolt against the church authorities which uphold the radical ultramontane policy. In Paris a Dominican monk has created a stir by a volume he has just published, protesting against reactionary influences in the church, and condemning the attitude of the hierarchy toward reformers back to and including Luther. In Spain Premier Sagasta has felt obliged to concede something to the anti-clerical party, and has reduced the number of bishops to one for each of the provinces. In those countries which are most completely Catholic, the strongest anti-Catholic feeling is springing up. Steel Cutting by Electric Arc
STEEL cutting by means of the electric arc is a recent discovery that is now to a considerable extent occupying the attention of people whose interests such a discovery seems likely to affect. It has been known for several years that steel could be cut, or melted through, with comparative ease, by a direct application of the intense heat generated in the electric arc. Practical use has been made of this knowledge in preparing steel for use in the construction of buildings. The possibility of a less proper use of the new method of steel piercing suggested itself, however, to bankers and others interested in the preservation of valuables in steel safes and vaults. The process was one that could be made to serve the purpose of the burglar. Armed with such a device, the bank robber would have little trouble in getting into the best-constructed safe, and his liability of detection would be lessened by the absence of the noise which accompanies an explosion. It was thought at first that the use of the electric arc in cutting steel would require a current of high voltage, which, together with the fact that a brilliant light is produced at the point of contact of the carbon with the steel, it was believed would lessen the danger of its use for criminal purposes. But it has been shown that a small storage battery, or the wires of an electric light plant, or the battery of an electric automobile, will suffice for the current; and as some means could no doubt be found for confining the light to a small area, the fear that science will become a powerful ally of the lawbreaker in this matter seems to be justified. More and more it is becoming evident that the best place for the deposit of earthly treasure is the bank of heaven. The Glory of the Cross
By Ellen G. White
“Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of truth, deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not.” The apostle magnifies the grace and mercy of God, shown in his miraculous conversion and in the sacred trust committed to him as a minister of Christ. By God’s abundant mercy he and his brethren have been sustained in affliction, difficulty, and danger. He declares that they have not walked in craftiness, nor handled the word of God deceitfully. They have been unselfish, showing no avarice. They have not modeled their faith and teaching to suit the desires of their hearers, nor kept back truths profitable for them in order to make their teaching less offensive. They have not clouded the truths of God’s word, so that their meaning should not be understood. On the contrary, feeling the importance of their calling, they have presented the truth with simplicity and clearness, praying for the conviction and conversion of souls. They have endeavored to bring their conduct into harmony with the truth presented, that this truth might commend itself to every man’s conscience. Paul knew that, by many, conviction would be thrown off, that hearts would rise up against the truth, be it presented ever so wisely. The hearts of many were blinded by prejudice and lust. They could not see the beauty of the truth. But the apostle would not permit this to discourage him in his labor. If after he had plainly presented the truth, the hearts of the people were still covered by a veil, neither the truth nor the minister presenting it were at fault. Man’s Mind Blinded by Worldliness
In this age we find men and women professing godliness who refuse to walk in the light which shows that they have greater truths to accept,—truths which involve a cross,—truths which, if accepted, would separate them from the world. They refuse to recognize the sacred claims of God’s law. In an effort to justify their theories and their course, they misinterpret the plainest statements of Scripture. Filled with the love of the world, they say, “I cannot see; I cannot see.” To such are applicable the words of Paul: “If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” Men are crying, “Christ, Christ; give us Christ; but the law we will not acknowledge.” Turning from the law, they turn from the Giver of the law, and they turn also from Christ; for he declares, “I and my Father are one.” In every mind the solemn inquiry should be, “What must I do to be saved?” I must know for myself what is truth, that I may be sanctified by the truth, and thus obtain a fitness for the higher life. But Satan is untiring in his efforts to keep the transforming light of the gospel from the hearts of men. Those who do not willfully oppose, those who, like Paul, war against the truth ignorantly, may be converted. Yet it remains a stern, lamentable fact that among professed believers, as well as among unbelievers, the enemy blinds many to their ruin. They allow him to rob them of all desire to investigate the inspired word for themselves. “We preach not ourselves,” Paul continued, “but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” The object of the apostles’ ministry was not self-exaltation. They did not covet authority or pre-eminence. They preached Christ. This was their theme. They hid self in the Saviour. The great plan of salvation, and the life of Christ, the author and finisher of this plan, were exalted before their hearers. Christ, yesterday, to-day, and forever, was the burden of their teaching. If those who to-day are preaching the word of God, would cease to glory in self, and would exalt the cross of Christ, their ministry would be far more successful. If sinners can be led to give one earnest look at the cross, to obtain a full view of the crucified Saviour, all is gained. But very few ministers point sinners as they should to the Lamb of God. Few have a just estimate of the worth of souls or of the power of Christ to save. Satan’s work is to make the truth of God of none effect. Cast out of heaven because of his transgression, his aim has ever been to defeat God’s purpose for man. He seeks to make it appear that the law is imperfect, unjust, tyrannical. He declares that it is impossible for man to keep the law. And in his own power man cannot keep the law. Without a Saviour, he is without hope. Christ saw the helpless condition of the race, and he came to redeem them by living the life of obedience the law requires, and by paying in his death the penalty of disobedience. He came to bring us the message and means of deliverance, an assurance of salvation, not through the abrogation of the law, but through obedience made possible by his merits. To make it possible for human beings to be kings and priests to God, the Commander of the angels took the position of a servant. He set us a perfect example. He asks us to learn of him; for his life was an exemplification of the law. No act of sin marred his conduct. In word and deed he was without blemish. Christ’s death shows God’s great love for man. It is the pledge of our salvation. To remove the cross from the Christian would be like blotting out the sun. The cross brings us near to God, reconciling us to him. Jehovah looks upon it with the relenting compassion of a Father’s love. He looks upon the suffering his Son endured in order to save the race from eternal death, and he accepts us in the Beloved. Without the cross, man could have no connection with the Father. On it hangs every hope. In view of it the Christian may advance with the steps of a conqueror; for from it streams the light of the Saviour’s love. When the sinner reaches the cross, and looks up to the One who died to save him, he may rejoice with fullness of joy; for his sins are pardoned. Kneeling at the cross, he has reached the highest place to which man can attain. The light of the knowledge of the glory of God is revealed in the face of Jesus Christ; and the words of pardon are spoken: Live, O ye guilty sinners, live. Your repentance is accepted; for I have found a ransom. Through the cross we learn that our Heavenly Father loves us with an infinite and everlasting love, and draws us to him with more than a mother’s yearning sympathy for a wayward child. Can we wonder that Paul exclaimed, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ”? It is our privilege also to glory in the cross of Calvary, our privilege to give ourselves wholly to him who gave himself for us. Then with the light of love that shines from his face on ours, we shall go forth to reflect it to those in darkness.9 “We are building day by day
Building with the words we say;
Building, from our hearts within,
Thoughts of good or thoughts of sin;
Building, with the deeds we do,
Actions ill or pure and true.
O, how careful we must be,
Building for eternity!” Wondrous Love
By Henry De Fluiter
WHEN in the wilderness of sin
The Saviour found me dying;
With hope all gone, no peace within,
My soul to him was crying,
He came and spake sweet peace to me,
And said, “I've borne it all for thee
Upon the cross of Calvary.”
O wondrous love! ’Twas nothing good that I had done,
To merit such a Saviour,
That caused the Son of man to come,
And grant me peace and favor.
Then do you ask what can it be
That caused him thus to die for me,
And set my shackled spirit free?—
’Twas wondrous love! O wondrous love, O grace divine,
Come fill me to o’erflowing;
Let thy sweet Spirit in me shine,
Establish all my going,
That I may tell to sinners round
What a dear Saviour I have found,
And shout to earth’s remotest bound,
’Tis wondrous love! Facts and Fictions of the Theater
By W. P. Pearce
The nature of theatrical performances, the essential demands of the stage, the character of the plays, and the constitution of human nature, make it impossible that the theater should exist save under a law of degeneracy. Its trend is downward; its centuries of history tell just this one story. The actual stage of to-day—the stage as it now exists—is a moral abomination. It is defiling our youth. It is making crowds familiar with the play of criminal passions. It is exhibiting woman with such approaches to nakedness as can have no other design than to breed lust behind the on-looking eyes. It is furnishing candidates for the brothel. It is getting us used to scenes that rival the voluptuous and licentious ages of the past.—Dr. Herrick Johnson. Do I Believe in the Theater?
When Achilles Daunt, late dean of Cork, was a student at Trinity College, Dublin, he was passionately fond of the drama, and used to go often to the theater. One evening, after returning home, and taking up his Bible for his usual evening reading, his eye rested on our Lord’s words: “He that is not with me is against me.” Matt. 12:30. The passage seemed to seize him with an iron grip. He then and there settled the matter with his own heart, and did not rise from his knees till he had resolved to dedicate himself to the Lord, to take his stand boldly as the Lord’s servant, and never again to enter a theater. Why?—Because what he had seen and heard during the evening was antagonistic to what his Bible taught, and those who associated with the former were separated from the latter. I do not believe in the theater because of the— Plato said, “Plays raise the passions and pervert the use of them; and of consequence are dangerous to morality.” Ovid, writing to Augustus, the Roman emperor, advised the suppression of theatrical amusements, as a great source of corruption. Rousseau, the French infidel, said, “The theater is in all classes a school of vice;” and many others there are who declare it to be the same, or the offspring of such. We had better heed the Bible counsel, “My son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not” (Prov. 1:10); for blessed is he “that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” Ps. 1:1, 2. I do not believe in the theater because of— In general, actors and actresses are not of the best moral character. Far from it! Since the days of Aristotle to Parkhurst, moralists have not hesitated to render this verdict. To see such with gaudy robes, painted faces, and playing smiles is to be deceived; for many— “Know little of affections crushed within,
And wrongs which frenzy there.” There are more scandals and divorces among actors than among any other class. The stage groans beneath its load of sensuality. Colley Cibber, after forty years’ experience upon it, said to one who reminded him of these facts, “I grant it.” Macready, knowing such to be the case, refused to allow his children to attend the plays, or even to have any visiting connection with actors and actresses. Still many go to the theater; they like to go, and are determined to go. By their presence and favor, they countenance the theater, enjoying “company with the workers of iniquity” (Job 34:8), of whom David said, “All the workers of iniquity shall be scattered.” Ps. 92:9. I do not believe in the theater because of the— Speech of These Performers
Speech being an index of the mind, it bewrayeth those on the stage, as it did Peter at the trial of Christ. Matt. 26:73. The words “vain words” (Eph. 5:6), “idle words” (Matt. 12:36), “devouring words” (Ps. 52:4), “words of iniquities” (Ps. 65:3), words that “blaspheme that worthy name” (James 2:7), are enough to chill the blood of any one who “remembers the words of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 20:35. Dr. Buckley, of New York, after examining more than sixty plays, declared, “If language and sentiments which would not be tolerated among respectable people in private intercourse are improper, then fifty of the sixty plays referred to must be condemned.” During one of the Shakespearian plays in Chicago, a gentleman—not a strong opponent—spoke to his friend, the manager, regarding the smutty expressions of the actors, and was told, “This cannot be helped; no play will run unless it has some spice in it.” Indeed! Is “corrupt communication” (Eph. 4:29) spice? Is taking God’s name in vain, spice? If it is, then such “communications corrupt good manners” (1 Cor. 15:33), and by such expressions Jesus has declared they “shall be condemned.” Matt. 12:37. I do not believe in the theater because of much— Self-respect shows itself in the character of one’s apparel. “It has,” says Barrington, “a moral effect upon the conduct of mankind.” Not that all stage players are unbecoming in their manner of dress, but many of the fairer sex, by “preposterous fashions and fantastical draperies,” sacrifice “those mild, amiable, and modest virtues by which the female character is so pleasingly adorned;” besides creating vanity, unholy thoughts, and inciting the baser desires of the masculine auditors. The good Book says that women should “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety” (1 Tim. 2:9); but the stage, and not infrequently the “boxes,” reveal immodest, bold-faced, pleasure intoxication, and the vain vie with one another with jealous eye, and the evil “heart deviseth wicked imaginations.” Prov. 6:18. I do not believe in the theater because of so— Can it be possible for an impure fountain to send forth pure water? “Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs?” James 3:12. How can people be made better by advertising vice? Can those who live immoral lives indoctrinate others in morality? Pertinent questions, are they not? Yet the vast majority of plays are demoralizing. In Cromwell’s day this was so notable that he ordered all theaters closed. Dumas, writing to Camille, said, “You do not take your daughter to see my play. You are right.” Edwin Booth, stirred by the corrupt plays, tried to reform the stage in New York, but was compelled to suspend the attempt after a loss of money. Somehow many people seem to enjoy these bawdy performances, and if they do not, they countenance and uphold them by their presence at these places of amusement. Lewdness and crime, jealousy and infidelity, elopements and murder, make up many of the plays. Speaking of this, the Chicago Standard says, “Reform is needed, but salacious performances pay best, while human virtue sits abashed in the shade.” Plays are one, if not the one, worldly, demoralizing amusement that shows the extent of many people’s religion. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” 1 John 2:15, 16. I do not believe in the theater because of the— Auditors Who Are Delighted with Such Plays
No devout Christian is ever seen at a theater. There may be loud professing, but not the possessing, ones. Many church members go, but scores of such know nothing of intimacy with Jesus. There is a fish which resembles sea grass. It hides itself in the midst of marine vegetation. Below is the head, looking like the bulb of the plant, and above is the body and the tail, looking like the blade of sea grass. The ocean currents sway the fish and the grass alike, and thus the former escapes being devoured by its enemies. It swims along, and one can hardly perceive where the fish leaves off and the grass begins, so perfect is the disguise. Such is true with theater goers. Some are low and vile, others moral and aristocratic, and some are church members, who, by their worldly inclinations, are a travesty on Christ and his religion. They are the “sea-grass fish.” They have a name to live, but they are dead. Rev. 3:1. Professing10godliness, “but denying the power thereof: from such,” Paul said, “turn away.” 2 Tim. 3:5. I do not believe in the theater because it is — arrayed against Christianity, the necessary good. One is diametrically opposed to the other in morals, health, and destination. As to morals, Christianity teaches and endeavors to preserve the purity of them; but the theater, to use Dr. Theodore Cuyler’s words, “instead of helping Christ’s kingdom, hinders; instead of saving souls, it corrupts and destroys.” It is, to put it mildly, “a gilded nastiness” by which persons of corrupt minds resist the truth. 2 Tim. 3:8. As to health, Christianity is conducive to its welfare. It pushes back the blinds, lifts the shades, and lets sunshine into the soul. But the theater, with its sensational, exciting dramas, its foul air, its late hours, is productive of distempers, both of mind and of body. “As righteousness tendeth to life,” said Solomon, “so he that pursueth evil pursueth it to his own death.” Prov. 11:19. As to destination, Christianity leads heavenward. It creates an inspiration to be good, and imparts an aspiration to do good. But the theater leads “into the pit of destruction.” Ps. 55:23. It naturally fosters falsity, does “damage to both the intellectual and moral elements in man” by its exaggerated plays, benumbs and deadens the finer feelings, and not infrequently leads to moral and spiritual ruin. “Why did you relinquish your employment at the theater?” was asked of a musician. “Because,” said he, “I could not look to heaven for a blessing upon it.” “Madam Goldsmith, how came you to abandon the stage at the very height of your success?” asked a friend, who found her sitting on the sands of the shore with a Bible on her knee while she watched a sunset over the waters. “When every day,” she answered, “made me think of this” (laying her finger on the Bible), “and nothing at all of that” (pointing to the beautiful sunset). “Hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures,” says the Word (Isa. 47:8), “the wicked shall be turned into hell, and all . . . that forget God.” Ps. 9:17. And if there is one place where God is easily forgotten, it is the theater. I do not believe in the theater, for if it is — Not Good Enough to Die In
It is not good enough to while away one’s hours. Two professors of religion were standing at the door of a theater, when one of them proposed to go in and see the play, desiring his friend to accompany him. The other declined the invitation; and after being repeatedly solicited to enter, gave this excellent reason for his refusal: “If I should go in, and while there be stricken with death, and when I appear before God at the judgment, he should ask where I had come from, I should be ashamed to answer.” “I am so tired, so tired,” sighed Hannah May Ingham, the pretty leading lady of the Murray Hill Theater, New York. “If I could only have fifteen minutes’ rest!” she whispered. She settled down and closed her eyes. Her friends thought she was asleep. So she was, but it was the sleep of death. Her wish had been granted; but what a thought—going into eternity by the way of the theater! How true the lines,—
“Broad is the road that leads to death,
And thousands walk together there;
But wisdom shows a narrow path,
With here and there a traveler.
“The fearful soul that tires and faints,
And walks the ways of God no more,
Is but esteemed almost a saint,
And makes his own destruction sure.” “Don’t go — Because the atmosphere is essentially materialistic and sensuous, and indisposes for prayer and faith. “Don’t go — Because you will contract a habit that will lead you to slide by almost insensible degrees from the purer plays with which you begin, to the grosser ones toward which every theater tends. “Don’t go — Because the majority of theater goers are not Christians, and it cannot be expected that those finer shades of morality will be observed with which Christ familiarized us; to sit as a silent spectator is to acquiesce in the standard of morals presented on the stage. It is one thing to be obliged to meet such things in daily life; quite another to go to see them as a pastime, and to pay for their performance. “Don’t go — Because you have no right to support a system which is inimical to the virtue of the actors. Not that every actor is necessarily immoral, but that the almost universal confession of those actors and actresses who have become Christians is that life on the stage is not friendly to virtue, but strongly the reverse. You have no right to help put stumbling-blocks on other people’s paths by contributing your money to support such a system. “Don’t go — Because, even if you do not suffer moral taint, your influence and example may lead others to follow in your steps who will not be able to resist the evil influences of the average theater goer’s life, but will drift into the love of the sensational and sensuous to the ruin of the nobler qualities of the soul.”—F. B. Meyer. Self-Justification Is Heathenism
THE man who will not confess that he is a sinner is putting himself against God. God has said that all men have sinned; and it is certain that there is not a man who is not out of harmony with God. The characters of men are by nature unlike that of God. If therefore men be right, if any man on earth be not a sinner, then it must follow that11God is in the wrong. Everybody, therefore, who claims that he has not done wrong in any particular wherein God says that he is a sinner, affirms that God is not the true God, but that he himself is. He is making a god of the works of his own hands. The one who maintains that his course is right, and who is therefore willing to rest his hope on what he himself has done, is in reality just as surely a heathen as is the one who makes images of wood and stone or gold and silver, and worships them. — Selected. The Perfection of Theatrical Art
One of the severest charges against the theater, and plays in general, is unconsciously made by a prominent member of the profession in a criticism of a new play. He said of it that it was “unnecessarily realistic, and consequently vulgar.” Now nobody in the world would claim that every real thing is vulgar, and that there is no such thing as real respectability or morality. It follows, therefore, that the stage never deals with anything but the vicious side of life, and that the perfection of theatrical art is to present wickedness in a veiled form, suggesting the evil, and leaving the minds of the spectators to form the conclusions. The education of theater goers is therefore in the line of constructing, or rather filling out, combinations of evil. Let every one decide whether that can produce as healthy characters as this rule: “Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” — Present Truth. Not by proxy, but in person; for “the Lord himself shall descend from heaven.” Not in silence, but “with a shout”—a “signal shout.” 1 Thess. 4:16. Not in weakness, as at his first advent, but “with power.” Not in humiliation, but with “great glory.” Matt. 24:30; Luke 9:26; Titus 2:13. Not alone, but attended by “all his holy angels.” Matt. 25:31; 24:31. Not to be despised and forsaken, but “to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.” 2 Thess. 1:6–10. Not to be given a cross, but a throne. Not to be judged and condemned, but to judge and reign forever on earth renewed and redeemed. Not when everybody is expecting him, but “suddenly,” “as a thief in the night,” to a careless world, and when the cry of “peace and safety” is heard. Matt. 24:37–44; Mark 13:33–37; 1 Thess. 5:1–6. It is thus the Bible affirms he will come. Should he come now, how would it be with you? Are you ready? Remember the parable of the ten virgins: “And they that were ready went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.” Matt. 25:10. It will make a great and eternal difference which side of the door we are on in that day.—Light-Bearer. No man is born into the world whose work
Is not born with him: there is always work,
And tools to work withal, for those who will;
And blessed are the horny hands of toil!
The busy world shoves angrily aside
The man who stands with arms akimbo set,
Until occasion tells him what to do;
And he who waits to have his task marked out
Shall die and leave his errand unfulfilled.
— James Russell Lowell,