A FRIEND has sent us a copy of the Herald and Presbyter, a well-known Presbyterian organ in the West, in which appears editorially a defense of the popular practise of observing the first day of the week as the Christian sabbath. The substance of the argument given is as follows:—
The change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was made in apostolic times, and is distinctively indicated in the books of the New Testament. The attempt to dissever apostolic teachings and practises from those of Christ, and to make them of less authority than his own, is an insult to Christ, instead of an honor, and is a distinct discrediting of the Holy Spirit. Here, then, is the origin of the use of the first day of the week, and there is no possibility of going back to the seventh day without turning our backs upon that which connects our faith with our risen Lord.
There is strong, safe ground to stand on in observing the first day of the week as we do. Christ is Lord of the Sabbath. He said that he was. He changed the day by directing his disciples to observe the day of his resurrection, the Lord’s day, as the Christian sabbath.
There is a great deal of assertion in this statement, but an entire absence of Scripture proof, so far as the argument for the first-day sabbath is concerned. We are cited to no text supporting the alleged change of the Sabbath in apostolic times, or showing how such a thing is “distinctively indicated” in the books of the New Testament; nor is any text mentioned which states that Christ “changed the day by directing his disciples to observe the day of his resurrection.” Would not such texts have been cited if there were any such in existence?
Aside from this cluster of mere assertions, the only argument advanced by the Herald and Presbyter in support of Sunday is a reference to Christ’s resurrection from the dead on that day, the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the statement that Sunday was the day for “nearly all the religious services mentioned in the New Testament, except those occasions when the apostles went to the Jewish services in the synagogue.” The force of the word “except” in this statement may be seen from the fact that in the whole New Testament there is mentioned only one religious service which was held on the first day of the week, that where Paul preached to the disciples at Troas, which appears to have been held on the evening following the seventh-day Sabbath, the first day of the week by Bible reckoning of the day from sunset to sunset, but not on the first day by the Roman reckoning, which is now followed. But whether this meeting was held on Sunday or not is not an essential question. One Sunday meeting, or a number of Sunday meetings, would not make Sunday the Sabbath. Neither does the resurrection of Christ on that day make it the Sabbath, nor the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost.
“Important religious duties,” says the Herald and Presbyter, “were assigned to the first day of the week, thus designating it as the day for public worship, and on this day John had his vision of the opened heavens and the glorified Saviour.” Here, as before, this organ of Presbyterianism omits any reference to Scripture proof, leaving the reader to take such proof for granted, which seems to be the best way of adducing proof in support of Sunday. The “important religious duties” no doubt refer to Paul’s instruction to the Corinthian brethren to lay by them in store on the first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16:2. It may well be doubted whether this was a task suitable to the proper observance of the Sabbath. Of the day of John’s vision on Patmos it is stated, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day,” but the evidence that this day was Sunday, rests, like the other evidence in this Sunday argument, upon mere assumption. Opposed to this, clear Bible evidence may be given that the Lord’s day is the seventh-day Sabbath. This argument in behalf of Sunday is not in itself worthy of any notice. We have noticed it, not because it has any basis of fact or logic, but because it has not. It may be well to note the utter weakness of all that can be said by a well-known organ of a leading denomination in support of Sunday as being the Christian Sabbath. The Christian Sabbath has solid support in Scripture. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” said the voice that spoke from Sinai, and all Scripture is in harmony with this declaration. The Sabbath of the Lord is the Lord’s day, the Christian Sabbath.
It was Christ who created all things, and who rested on the seventh day of creation week. John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2. It was Christ who instituted the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. It is Christ who redeems the sinner, by the exercise of creative power, of which power the Sabbath is the sign. 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15. Hence that Sabbath is indispensable to the Christian, and is properly placed in the bosom of God’s holy and immutable law. L. A. S.
Crime and Suicide Statistics
The following published statistics of crime and suicide for the year just ended, should be taken note of by people who entertain the belief that society in these times is on the up grade, advancing by a process of evolution toward a state of moral perfection:—
Unofficial statistics of the year show that the number of murders and suicides in this country has greatly increased, and that there has been a decrease in the number of legal executions, compared with the number of homicides. The homicides and deaths by violence total 9,212, as compared with 8,482 last year.
The startling feature of the record is the increase in the number of murders committed by highwaymen, being 582, against 464 during 1904. Four years ago the number was only 103.
The record of self-destruction is one of the most deplorable of the year, the number of prominent men being much larger than hitherto. The total is 9,982, an increase of 542 over the list of the preceding year. The steadiness of the increase is indicated in the following table:—
The legal executions numbered one hundred and thirty-three, of which fifty-one were in the North and eighty-two in the South. Seventy-three were negroes, fifty-nine white men, and one a Chinaman.
Showing the relative changes of murders and executions, it may be said that in 1885 1,808 murders were reported, while the number of hangings was 108, while this year 133 were hanged or electrocuted for 9,212 murders committed.
The number of lynchings was sixty-six. Of the total number lynched sixty-five were negroes.
Give Unto the Lord the Glory Due Unto His Name
By Ellen G. White
Lessons From the Life of Solomon—No. 17
“Give Unto the Lord the Glory Due Unto His Name”
MRS. E. G. WHITE
“He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth.”
From the day when Solomon was entrusted with the work of building the temple, to the time of its completion, his avowed purpose was to build “a house for the name of the Lord God of Israel.” This purpose was fully recognized before assembled Israel during the dedication of the temple. In his prayer he acknowledged that Jehovah had said, “My name shall be there.”
One of the most touching portions of Solomon’s dedicatory prayer is his plea for the strangers that would come “out of a far country for thy name’s sake; for they shall hear of thy great name, and of thy strong hand, and of thy stretched-out arm.” In behalf of every stranger that would “come and pray toward this house,” Solomon pleaded with the Lord: “Hear thou in heaven thy dwelling-place, and do according to all that the stranger calleth to thee for: that all people of the earth may know thy name, to fear thee, as do thy people Israel; and that they may know that this house, which I have builded, is called by thy name.”
At the close of the services, Solomon exhorted Israel to be faithful and true to God, in order that “all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else.”
The temple of Jehovah was a marvel of richness and glory, unequaled by any work of human art. A greater than Solomon was the designer of this building; the wisdom and glory of God stood there revealed. Those who were unacquainted with the source of Solomon’s wisdom naturally admired and praised the human agent; but the king disclaimed any honor for the conception and the erection of so magnificent a structure.
The queen of Sheba, at the close of her visit to Jerusalem, was constrained by what she had seen and learned, not to extol Solomon, but to exclaim: “Blessed be the Lord thy God, which delighted in thee, to set thee on the throne of Israel: because the Lord loved Israel forever, therefore made he thee king, to do judgment and justice.” This is the impression that God designed should be made upon all peoples. And when “all the earth sought the presence of Solomon, to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his heart,” the king continued for a time reverently to direct them to the Creator of the heavens and the earth, the Ruler of the universe, the All-Wise. The name of Jehovah was honored, and his holy temple was regarded with reverence.
Had Solomon remained humble, had he continued to turn the attention of men from himself to the One who had endowed him with wisdom and riches and honor, what a history might have been his! But the unerring pen of inspiration, while it records his virtues, also bears faithful witness to his downfall. Raised to a pinnacle of greatness, and surrounded with the gifts of fortune, Solomon became dizzy, lost his balance, and fell. Constantly extolled by men of the world for his unsurpassed wisdom, he at length was unable to withstand the flattery. The gift of heaven, the wisdom which was entrusted to him by God, and which should ever have been used to glorify the Giver, filled Solomon with pride. He forgot that man, in humility, must reveal constant reverence for God. “Like the tabernacle, the temple had been built in accordance with specifications divinely given. And it was through the Lord’s blessing that the people were enabled to give and prepare the necessary material. All the temple services were divinely instituted. And yet the honor was diverted from God, and given to Solomon. He finally allowed men to speak of him as the one most worthy of praise for the matchless splendor of the building that had been planned and erected for the honor of ‘the name of the Lord God of Israel.’”
Thus it was that the temple of Jehovah came to be known throughout the nations as “Solomon’s temple.” The human agent had taken to himself the glory that belonged to “the One higher than the highest.” Even to this day the temple of which Solomon had declared to the Lord, “This house which I have builded is called by thy name,” is oftenest spoken of, not as the temple of Jehovah, but as “Solomon’s temple.”
The course followed by Daniel, to whom God gave “knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom,” is in striking contrast with the course followed by Solomon during the latter years of his reign. In Daniel’s life, the desire to glorify God was the most powerful of all motives. He realized that when standing in the presence of men of influence, a failure to acknowledge God as the source of his wisdom would have made him an unfaithful steward. And his constant recognition of the God of heaven before kings, princes, and statesmen, detracted not one iota from his influence. King Nebuchadnezzar, before whom Daniel so often honored the name of God, was finally thoroughly converted, and learned to “praise and extol and honor the King of heaven.” And to the close of his career Daniel honored God.
In connection with every line of God’s work in the earth to-day, the Name that is above every other name is to be honored. The gospel ministry, the publishing work, the medical missionary work, the educational work,—all are of heavenly origin. Not one of these lines of service has been originated or perfected by any human being. God has given the wisdom that has made possible the rapid development of every department of his cause. Let no man take unto himself the glory that belongs to God alone. Let no line of work, no institution, bear a name that would divert honor from God to any man or any set of men. Let us remember that the beautiful temple which was erected for the honor of “the name of the Lord God of Israel,” came to be known, through the apostasy of the builder, as “Solomon’s temple.”
Said the great apostle Paul: “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God. Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” Let every worker understand that as he strives to advance the glory of God in our world, whether he stands before Christians or infidels, peasants or princes, he is to make God first, and last, and best in everything. Man can not show greater weakness than by allowing men to ascribe to him the honor for gifts that are heaven-bestowed. God must stand the highest. The worldly wisdom of the greatest men is foolishness with him. The true Christian will exalt the name of the Lord. No ambitious motive will chill his love for God; steadily, perseveringly will he cause honor to redound to his Heavenly Father.
“It is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.” When we are faithful in making God known, our impulses will be under divine supervision, and we shall make steady growth, spiritually and intellectually. It is Christ’s power alone that can give success to the human agent. God has given every man talents, that his name may be exalted; not that man may be lauded and praised, honored and glorified, while the Giver is forgotten. Let those around you see that you give God the glory. Let self be crucified; let God appear.
Jesus, our divine Master, ever exalted the name of his Heavenly Father. He9taught his disciples to pray, “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.” And they were not to forget to acknowledge, “Thine is the glory.” So careful was the great Healer to direct attention from himself to the source of his power, that the wondering multitude, “when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see,” glorified not Him; “they glorified the God of Israel.” In his wonderful prayer offered just before the crucifixion, he declared: “I have glorified thee on the earth.” “Glorify thy Son,” he pleaded, “that thy Son also may glorify thee.” “O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
“Thus saith the Lord, Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, neither let the mighty man glory in his might, let not the rich man glory in his riches: but let him that glorieth glory in this, that he understandeth and knoweth me, that I am the Lord which exercise loving-kindness, judgment, and righteousness, in the earth: for in these things I delight, saith the Lord.”
“I will praise the name of God, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.” “Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power.” “I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name forevermore.” “O magnify the Lord with me, and let us exalt his name together.”
The Glorious Coming
O WEARY laborers in the field,
Hope on and sing, nor heave a sigh;
The happy day is drawing near,
“The glorious coming draweth nigh!”
Work on and spread the precious news,
Proclaim it wide to low and high;
Be swift the Master's call to heed,
“The glorious coming draweth nigh!”
Gird on thy armor for the strife,
Go forth and on thy God rely;
Turn not, nor falter, but trust on,
“The glorious coming draweth nigh!”
Be strong, but true, go far and wide,
Till all shall Jesus magnify;
Be holy, spotless, like thy Lord,
“The glorious coming draweth nigh!”
Then hasten to the harvest-fields,
The days are passing swiftly by;
The “little while” will soon be gone,
“The glorious coming draweth nigh!”
—Selected.
Finding the Bread
By John Norton Loughborough
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH
“CAST thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days.” Eccl. 11:1.
The bread in this text is understood to mean the truth found in the Word of the Lord, which is to be scattered abroad, like the sowing of seed upon the running waters, which bear it away from sight, and apparently to the sower it is lost. But the seed lodges on the banks, takes root, and, springing up, bears fruit which may be found “after many days.”
Reading, in the REVIEW of December 14, Brother Tanner’s report of the work in Hayti, brought the Scripture already quoted forcibly to mind. Brother Tanner says that some one in Southampton, England, about twenty-four years ago, sent papers and tracts to the agent of the steamship company at Cape Haitien. It may be of interest to our readers to know by whom and how the papers happened to be sent to that port.
In the summer of 1879, when we held our first tent-meeting in England, on Shirley Road, Southampton, Brother J. N. Andrews came from America, and was with us at Southampton three months. He was accompanied by his niece, Edith Andrews, and Annie Oyer, who were going to Basel, Switzerland, to help in the mission work. Brother Andrews was in a delicate condition of health, and was therefore unable to assist in the meetings, and, in fact, was not able to complete the journey to Basel, so they tarried with us. The house we then occupied being quite small, we engaged lodgings for Edith and Sister Oyer at the home of Mr. Nippard, a near neighbor, with whom Elder Ings had formed a slight acquaintance in his tract distribution work.
Mr. Nippard’s family formed a very friendly acquaintance with these lodgers, and as Brother Ings studied the Bible with him, he readily drank in the truth, and expressed a desire to do all he could to help it along, although he did not then see his way clear to keep the Sabbath. He was what is called a “ship keeper” for the Peninsular and Oriental Steamship Company, which sailed its steamers from Southampton to some eighty seaports in the East and West Indies, Africa, and Central America.
When the steamer was made fast at the docks, the officers and crew of the vessel were released until the next sailing of the vessel, the discharging of the cargo and reloading of the vessel being placed in the hands of stevedores. The ship keeper had charge of the vessel, and lodged upon it nights. As Mr. Nippard became interested in the truth, he did much to aid Brother Ings in his ship-mission work.
Finally he said to Brother Ings, “I can help you send your papers and tracts to other ports if you will furnish them. I can do it on this wise: parcels are placed in my hands to give to the purser of the vessel, directed to the steamer agents at ports where the ship calls. You furnish a little roll of your papers and tracts directed to the agent at any of the ports you may select. Place in the roll a letter asking him to hand the papers and tracts to any who might be interested in them. In this manner you may do much to spread abroad the reading-matter.”
We heeded Mr. Nippard’s advice. At that time we were receiving one thousand copies weekly of The Signs of the Times from America. We would make a roll of a few Signs, tracts, and papers in other languages. On our papyrograph I prepared a carefully worded letter. In this the agent was not only asked to circulate the enclosed documents, but to reply, informing us whether more reading-matter was desired, and in what language.
It was among the packages thus sent that the roll of papers, tracts, and a letter went to Cape Haitien. From this venture on Hayti we received no reply, and Brother Tanner’s letter, “after many days,” is the first knowledge I have had concerning the result of that seed sowing.
In a similar manner we sent parcels to a large portion of the eighty seaports. We had responses from several of them, as Durban, Natal, East London, and Maritzburg, South Africa, and Georgetown, Demerara, British Guiana. From some of these places we had replies expressing a desire for more reading-matter, and to these we sent parcels several times.
In 1896, when I was in Southampton, England, I called upon Mr. Nippard. His companion was with the silent dead. He was settled on a pension from the steamship company. He was in feeble health, but was kindly cared for by his daughter. With tears he would speak of his association with Elder Ings. The reading that he most of all prized was the weekly visits of the Present Truth from London. In the year 1900, when I again visited Southampton, I inquired for Mr. Nippard. The dear old gentleman had passed away, probably living up to what light he had. I have given this brief rehearsal to encourage others to cast bread upon the waters.
Mountain View, Cal.
The Canon of the Bible
By George L. Robinson
The word “canon,” as at present employed, signifies a collection of religious writings of an authoritative or normative character, such as “always, everywhere, and by all” have been considered divinely inspired, hence sacred and binding. The term was first used in this sense by Amphilochius, 395 A. D.
The So-Called “Larger” and “Smaller” Canons
Between the New Testament of Catholics and that of Protestants there is absolutely no difference as to canon, or size, the number and order of the books corresponding exactly. But the case of the Old Testament is different; Catholics holding to what is sometimes spoken of as the “larger” canon of the Jews in Alexandria, while Protestants hold to the “smaller” canon of the Jews in Palestine. The actual difference between them is a matter of seven complete books and portions of two others; namely, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, together with certain additions to Esther and to Daniel. All these Protestants usually reject as apocryphal, because there is no evidence whatever that they were ever considered canonical by the Jews.
The Canon of the Jews in Alexandria
The chief witness to the existence of a possible “larger” canon in Alexandria is the Greek version of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint (which was translated probably between 250 and 150 B. C., and frequently designated “LXX”). But it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Jews in Egypt ever had a larger canon than their brethren in Palestine. There is absolutely no explicit witness to this effect. The LXX version is inconclusive. The mere existence of manuscripts of this ancient version which contain the canonical and deutero-canonical or apocryphal books, intermingled, is a long way from substantial evidence. For not only are all the extant manuscripts of Christian origin, but they differ widely as to their contents among themselves, no one of10them including exactly the same books as those considered canonical to-day by the Church of Rome. And Philo, who lived and wrote in Alexandria (B. C. 20 to A. D. 50), and who must have been acquainted with the apocryphal writings, never makes a quotation from one of them.
Coming down to the second century A. D., the adoption by the Alexandrian Jews of Aquila’s Greek Version of the Old Testament (which excludes all of the apocryphal books); and the many statements of Origen, who was a resident in Egypt, and who held to the strict canon, are convincing corroboration of our former statement, namely, that it is exceedingly doubtful whether the Jews in Egypt ever had a larger canon than their brethren in Palestine.
The Canon of the Jews in Palestine
The canon of the Jews in Palestine was by general admission the same as the strict canon of the Protestant church. Among the witnesses are Fourth Esdras, which, though fabulous, nevertheless incidentally testifies to the number of books then reckoned as canonical in Palestine; and Josephus, the great Jewish historian, writing in Rome about 100 A. D., who also gives the number of sacred books. The latter is an invaluable witness of the strict canon, inasmuch as he probably expresses not only his own view, but the traditional opinion of his people. The apocryphal books can not possibly have been reckoned by him as included in the number, for he shows no acquaintance with them; besides, the books of the Maccabees would be excluded by the chronological limit which he sets for the completion of the canon. Hence we may safely conclude that at the close of the first century A. D., the Jewish canon in Palestine was the strict or Protestant canon. Later Jewish doubts, expressed in the Talmud, as to the canonicity of Ezekiel, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther, do not vitiate the force of this statement, but rather show only how the Jews, like later Christians, departed from the original views of the church.
The Canon of Christ and His Apostles
With Bellarmin and other Catholic writers, we most heartily agree that “the canon of the Old Testament sanctioned by the Lord Jesus and his apostles must beyond all doubt or question be accepted as the true one.” But did Christ and his apostles sanction the “larger” canon of the Old Testament? This is the crux of the whole question. Here are the facts: The writers of the New Testament repeatedly quote from the Greek or Septuagint Version of Alexandria instead of from the original Hebrew. It has been estimated that six out of seven of all the quotations made from the Old Testament in the New are from this version. Does this not argue, therefore, in favor of a “larger” canon? It certainly would were it not for two considerations: (1) They never quote the apocryphal books, though they do show acquaintance with them, and
use them without in any sense approving of them. (2) On the other hand, they sometimes quote from other non-canonical sources, such as the “Book of Enoch,” which no one considers canonical except the Church of Abyssinia; hence if usage is to become our guide, the Book of Enoch ought to be received into the Catholic canon; but it is not. Nor have we any right, with Gigot, to say that “if the apostles looked upon the deutero-canonical writings as non-inspired, it was their plain duty not only to abstain from giving them full approval, but also to exclude them from the Bible used by the early Christians.” For this assumes two things: (1) That it was the duty of Christ and the apostles to settle the question of the Old Testament canon, which is gratuitous; and (2) it is assumed that at that early time the “rolls” of Scripture were already bound together in one volume, or written together on a single parchment, which is highly improbable.
There is, therefore, really no positive evidence anywhere that Christ or his apostles regarded the deutero-canonical books of the Old Testament as an integral part of God’s holy revelation. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that, being Jews and residents of Palestine, they, too, held to the strict Jewish or Protestant Canon.
The Canon of the Early Church From 200 to 400 A. D.
It was during this period that the New Testament writings became canonical. At the beginning of the second century, there were no New Testament Scriptures in the possession of the church which were deemed worthy of being placed side by side with the Old Testament. But before the second century was completed, a body of apostolic literature, identical with our New Testament writings to-day, was to be found occupying in the Christian church a place of authority and sacredness equal to those of the Old Testament. The number of such writings varied indeed in different parts, but for the purposes of this essay the decision of the church was unanimous in favor of our present New Testament canon. The tendency of the age seems to have been to receive everything which had been traditionally read in the leading Christian communities, and by no means to lose anything which might by any possibility be apostolic.
The transference of this principle to the Old Testament writings produced great confusion. Usage and theory were often in conflict. A church Father might declare that the apocryphal books were uninspired, and yet quote them as “Scripture,” and introduce them with the accepted formula, “As the Holy Ghost saith.” Theologically they held to a strict canon, homiletically they used a larger one.
But even usage was not uniform. Third and Fourth Esdras and the Book of Enoch are sometimes quoted as “Holy Writ,” yet the Church of Rome does not now receive these books as canonical.
The criterion of usage, therefore, is too broad. But the theory of the Fathers was gradually forgotten, and the prevalent use of the LXX and other versions led to the obliteration of the distinction between the undisputed books of the Hebrew canon and the most popular apocryphal books; and being often publicly read in the churches, they finally received a quasi-canonization.
The Canon of St. Jerome (389-420 A. D.)
To Jerome, the learned monk of Bethlehem, the world owes the Latin Vulgate—the best of all the ancient versions extant. He was by far the greatest scholar of the early church. By birth and education, he belonged to both the East and the West. No one can be said to have been as well acquainted with all the facts at hand in his day as he, and yet the Catholic Church utterly rejects his testimony concerning the canon. That Catholics should prize so highly the quality of his Latin translation of the Bible, and reject so absolutely his expressed opinions concerning its size, is one of their many mysteries, not to say inconsistencies. For, as the celebrated Catholic writer, Gigot, very frankly allows, “Time and again this illustrious doctor of the Latin Church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most explicit manner.”
To show in great detail how strictly Jerome held to the Jewish canon would be unnecessary in view of such a confession. The evidence is overwhelming. In his famous Prologus Galeatus, or “Helmed Preface” to the books of Samuel and Kings, written in 391; in his Epistle to Paulinus (cir. 394); in his prefaces, respectively, to Esdras (394), the Books of Solomon (398), and Jeremiah (414), but especially in a private letter written to a holy Roman matron named Leta (403), he sets forth his full views on the subject, declaring himself for the strict canon of the Jews; rejecting the authority of the deutero-canonical books in the most outspoken manner; even distinguishing carefully the apocryphal additions to Esther and to Daniel. Nor is his position at all modified by the fact that he was prevailed upon by his friends to translate hastily Tobit and Judith, or by the concession in his Prologue to the Books of Solomon, that “the apocryphal books may be read for purposes of edification;” or, even by the fact that in a letter to Pammachius he applies to Ecclesiasticus the expression, “divine scripture;” for all that can possibly be deduced from these circumstances, in face of his explicit testimony on the subject, is that he consented, under pressure, to give the apocryphal books an intermediate position. Whenever Jerome expressed himself formally upon the great subject of the canon, he never failed to draw a clear line of demarcation between the books of the Hebrew Bible and later additions to it.—Prof. George L. Robinson, Ph. D., in The Bible Record for October, 1905.
(To be continued)
Power
By L. A. S.
L. A. S.
WHAT is power? In a physical sense, we are accustomed to associate it with strength of body. But muscle is not power. A person may easily deceive himself by fancying that because he has strong muscles, he has a large supply of power in his body, that this supply of power must continue so long as his muscles hold out, and that he can continue in violation of the laws of nature until warned by waning muscular power that his vitality is on the decline. We may make a serious mistake when we try to measure our stock of health by the amount of our physical strength.
The muscles depend upon the nerves. Let the nerves cease to act, and the muscles are at once completely powerless. A muscle has no power at all in itself. It is merely the means through which power is manifested. Nor has a nerve any strength. It is a mere line of tissue running from one part of the body to another. Yet along that line power travels to the muscle, and without the connecting nerves the muscle would be as powerless as a lump of clay. A person, taking account of his state of health, needs to consider the amount of nerve force he has on hand. The supply may be running dangerously low before he becomes aware of the fact. There may be a disturbance somewhere which will suddenly interfere with the nerve supply to certain muscles or organs, and cause sudden and very serious loss of power. Disease may make its way very insidiously to some part of the nerve citadel, and while the individual is boasting of his health and strength and ability to disregard without injury the rules of healthful living which have been deduced by physiologists, cut the all-important lines of nerve communication, and stretch him suddenly upon a bed of sickness. Like Belshazzar, he may suffer the loss of his kingdom, physically, in a single night. It is never safe to disregard established laws of health.
The nerves communicate power to the muscles, but they, like the muscles, have no power in themselves. They can not cause muscular action without an impulse from the brain. The blow delivered by the arm starts with an impulse originating in the will power of the brain. Without that impulse, neither nerves nor muscles would act at all, and no blow would be struck. Does power, then, originate in the brain?
The Scripture declares that power belonged unto God (Ps. 62:11), and “there is no power but of God.” Rom. 13:1. The muscles, the nerves, the brain, do not originate power; no intelligible theory of such an origin of physical force can be devised. Power comes as a loan to us from the Creator. The human organism is provided with the means whereby this power may be exercised in divers ways, for the welfare of the individual. We are responsible to the Creator for our use or abuse of this power. We are responsible to him for the preservation of the physical agencies by which our powers of body or of mind are exercised. We are not at liberty to disregard the laws of health. “The laws of nature are the laws of God.”
To Remove Tartar
This deposit, arising from an unwholesome stomach, unless removed will certainly loosen the teeth and cause them to fall out. It is best to let a dentist remove it, but when not of long standing, it may be taken off by the use of powdered pumice stone and lemon juice. An orange wood stick, obtainable in bunches at a trifling cost from any drug store, is the best implement to use for its removal. Dip the stick into the lemon juice and then into the pumice and rub over the spots until removed. Pumice should be used but seldom upon the teeth, and never upon the children's teeth. A good liquid dentifrice to use after the teeth are clean, to keep them so, is as follows: Borax, two ounces; hot water, one quart; tincture of myrrh, one teaspoonful; spirits of camphor, one teaspoonful. Dissolve the borax in the water; when nearly cold, add the other ingredients, and bottle for use. Use a wine-glass full night and morning in a half glass of lukewarm water, to brush the teeth and rinse out the mouth. This is aromatic, cleansing and hardening the gums.—Selected.
Old Year Memories
By Susan E. Gammons
LET us forget the things that vexed and tried us,
The worrying things that caused our souls to fret;
The hopes that, cherished long, were still denied us
Let us forget.
But blessings manifold, past all deserving,
Kind words and helpful deeds, a countless throng,
The fault o'ercome, the rectitude unswerving,
Let us remember long.
The sacrifice of love, the generous giving,
When friends were few, the hand-clasp warm and strong,
The fragrance of each life of holy living,
Let us remember long.
Whatever things were good and true and gracious,
Whate'er of right has triumphed over wrong,
What love of God or man has rendered precious,
Let us remember long.
So, pondering well the lessons it has taught us,
We tenderly may bid the year “Good-by,”
Holding in memory the good it brought us,
Letting the evil die.
—Susan E. Gammons, in Christian Endeavor World.
The “Worth While” Sense
By Housekeeper
The housekeeper, especially one who does the work of her house unaided, needs a sense for discriminating between what must be done, and what she would like to do if she had time and strength. False ideals of what good housekeeping consists in are a snare to many. One can not tell the good housekeeper by her cellar, nor by burnished brasses, or shining front windows, or a well-blacked stove. She is to be known rather by her sense of the “worth while” as it applies to housework, and her ability of adapting means to ends. She needs to take the large view of the thing to be accomplished; namely, the well-being of the home.
It is never for the well-being of the home for the wife and mother to be “tired to death.” Very often the woman who breaks down with work before she is forty is she who strives for some artificial effect in her way of living. She wants the interior of her home to be as spotless as Mrs. So-and-so’s; her children must be smartly dressed because they play with Mrs. Newrich’s. She doesn’t consider that Mrs. So-and-so has a grown daughter to help, and that Mrs. Newrich keeps two maids and a laundress, but sets herself the hopeless task of competing for the hollow distinction of being up to date.
At the beginning of one’s career as a housekeeper the young woman may be able to carry on her work with clock-like regularity, and attain well-nigh artistic perfection. The perfectly kept house is a source of delight when resources are nicely balanced with expenditures, and efforts with results. But as cares multiply, and work becomes doubled and trebled, it is manifestly impossible for a single pair of hands to keep up the quality of the work. Now is the time to cultivate the housekeeper’s special sense of separating the necessary work from the less urgent and unnecessary, and slighting both the latter classes. The aim of such a one should be to have no piling up of work to be done in that “some day” that never comes.—Housekeeper.