Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 78, No. 23.

I WILL COME AGAIN
Earlier text: THE GOLDEN RULE

Beating the Air.

The Ministerial Association of the Sioux Falls district, M. E. Church, it seems, met recently at Hartford, and passed a series of resolutions in regard to Sunday desecration by railroad excursions, which were evidently designed to be a notable expression of Sabbatical morality on their part, and a paralyzing condemnation of the course of all those who offend against the artificial defenses that have been erected around the imaginary sacredness of the Sunday institution, but which come the nearest to formulating heavy blows against nothing, and exhausting one’s self in beating the air, of anything that has lately come under our notice. In the first place, the convention deals with Sunday as the Sabbath, which it is not; secondly, clothes it with a sacredness which it does not possess; thirdly, places it under the ægis of the divine law, to which it is not entitled; and fourthly, on these grounds, calls an excursion by a railroad the desecration of the Sabbath, but does not undertake to tell how. If there was really any Sabbath there, there would be some apparent point to the charges and arguments made; but when there is absolutely no such institution in the field which it covers, what can all the tirade against desecrating the Sabbath on this ground be but wearing one’s self out in violent agitation by beating the air?
“The proper observance of the Sabbath,” it says, “is one of the strong safeguards of a nation.” Granted that this is so; but of what possible value can such a declaration be when applied to a day which is not the Sabbath at all?
“This,” we are further told, “has demonstrated its utility as such in our own national life.” How can this be, when the nation has never once kept the Sabbath? Where, in this case, is either the demonstration or the utility? Something would be gained if we could turn the current of public expression into the use of the right terms,—if men would call only that day the Sabbath which is the Sabbath, and leave Sunday where the Scriptures leave it, to be spoken of and regarded only as a secular and working day. By this men would acquire more correct views on the subject.
“We do not seek to enforce its observance,” says this M. E. ministerial association, “from the religious point of view.” What, then, may we inquire, is the point of view? When Sunday is made to pose as the Sabbath, and when we talk of its observance as such, is there any other possible point of view but the religious one? It is regarded fraudulent and dishonest to try to secure money from another under false pretenses? Is he any less guilty who seeks to establish a system of worship under pretenses equally false?
The railroads are berated for setting such an example of lawlessness before the people? Lawlessness is a violation, or infraction, of some law. But what law is violated by not devoting Sunday to religious observances? What law, but a law on the human statute book, enacted by man? And with what face or feelings can a Protestant form a law of his own, and then demand obedience to it, as if it were divine? All such work would better be left to Dr. Antichrist.
The association calls upon all sister denominations to unite in concerted action through a representative committee, to bring to bear upon all violators of the Sunday laws all the influence possible to lead them to desist from such violation; and if that fails, then to put the matter into the hands of legislators, and urge their action in “the interest of good government” to restrain this “un-American practice” of violating the Sunday. Is there not a little confusion of ideas here? Is Sunday an American institution? In the last analysis, we are referred to the law of Sinai as the foundation of Sunday obligation; or at latest to the days of the apostles. But was America at Sinai, promulgating laws, all variation from which is “un-American”? Or did America open the gospel dispensation?
All this allusion to legislation and to law in behalf of Sunday, under every imaginable pretext, such as “good government,” “orderly society,” “morality,” and “interest for the laboring man,” shows how the idea of appealing to law to enforce religious ideas, which men have not Bible to support, is being fostered in the hearts of men, and will yet be tested in a practical manner in the religious world. The battle of religious liberty is to be fought out in this land. Human nature is as much in favor as ever of appealing to dungeon, flood, and flame to carry out its bigotry and prejudices. Look at the violence and lynch law in our land. Look at the chain gangs, fines, and imprisonments by which it has been sought to force the consciences of those who have been seeking to live according to the law of God. All should fortify their hearts to meet firmly the issue, and discipline their minds to see and clearly understand the facts and principles involved in this issue. It is no time now to lie down in indifference, or to give over our efforts. The portents of the threatening clouds gathering over our pathway cannot be misunderstood; and when, in addition to this, prophecy shows that the last struggle between truth and error will assume the very form now taking shape before our faces, it does not become us to be diverted by side issues, but to keep our eyes steadfastly fixed upon the mark to rally a people to the divine standard, who will keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. “If any man worship the Beast and his Image, . . . the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.” Are we getting ready ourselves to meet the crisis now upon us, and doing what we can to help others to prepare for the same, that our skirts may be clear in the day of the Lord?

803.—SYNONYMOUS TERMS.

In 1 Kings 2:3 there are mentioned four things which we are to keep; namely, statutes, commandments, judgments, and testimonies. Statutes, commandments, and testimonies, I understand to mean the same thing; is the word “judgments” synonymous with the other three terms? For I find, from Lev. 25:18, that we are also to keep His judgments. J. B. I., Trempealeau, Wis.
Ans.—All these words mean substantially the same thing; but there are nice shades of distinction between them, which make it appropriate to use them all together. The word “judgments” is generally supposed, by those who undertake to define the terms, to mean “what God has determined to be inherently and essentially right.” What He has determined to be wrong is essentially wrong. It seems like a play upon words to say, as is so often done, that a thing is good because God has commanded it, or evil because He has forbidden it; but He has commanded it because it is good, and forbidden it because it is evil. This is merely transposing the terms, or to say that one is righteous, because he doeth righteousness, or to say, instead, that one doeth righteousness because he is righteous. It is of course correct to say that certain results will follow certain causes, and that if one has love in his heart, he will do the works of love, or if he is righteous, he will do the works of righteousness. “He that doeth righteousness,” says John, “is righteous.” 1 John 3:7. But if we keep all the things commanded in 1 Kings 2:3, we shall be accepted of the Lord.

In the Question Chair.

[Designed for the consideration of such questions as will be of interest and profit to the general reader. All correspondents should give their names and correct post-office address, that queries not replied to here may be answered by mail.]

801.—Dust the Serpent's Meat.

In Isa. 65:25 we read: “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat.” This is a description of things after redemption is complete. But was not eating dust by the serpent a part of the curse? Gen. 3:14. How, then, can the curse be perpetuated in the new earth?
G. W. R., Sioux Falls, S. D.
Answer.—Gen. 3:14 describes the condemnation and humiliation of the serpent, doomed to lie prone upon the ground,—“Upon thy belly shalt thou go,”—and, as a mark of humiliation, thrusting his nose continually into the dust: “And dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.” A man often says of his foes that have been overthrown, “My enemies were made to bite the dust.” Whereas, Isa. 66:25 speaks of the new nature the animals will have in the new conditions of life in the immortal state, where the lion “shall eat straw like the bullock,” and the dust shall be to the serpent not a badge of humility, but a means of sustenance.

802.—The Wave Sheaf and the Sabbath.

Whenever the sixteenth day of the first month, or the day when the sheaf of first fruits was waved before the Lord, fell on the seventh-day Sabbath, was the waving of the sheaf postponed till the next day? J. H. S., Easton, Pa.
Ans.— Why should it be postponed? Oftentimes other ceremonial observances came upon the Sabbath, and were celebrated just the same at their appointed times. The Sabbath rest was not designed to interfere with any of them. See Smith's Bible Dictionary on the Passover, Pentecost, etc.

SUNDAY-LAW AGITATION IN FRANCE AND SWITZERLAND.

By JEAN VUILLEUMIER

[We have received the following letter from Paris, France, containing much information concerning the present condition of the Sunday institution in France and Switzerland, in which the reader will be interested.—Ed.]
As far as I understand it, the situation in Switzerland is as follows: Freedom of conscience is recognized by the constitution. At the same time, the State supports the Catholic, the Protestant, and the Jewish clergy. The Sunday laws, so far, extend only to factories and large establishments. The Sunday leagues are quite active. They have induced the cantonal and federal governments to pass many regulations limiting work among their employees. The same results have been obtained among railroad, steamship, and other large companies. From time to time, a bill for stricter Sunday observance is presented in one or the other cantons; so far no great enthusiasm has been manifested in their favor. One was defeated at Geneva, and one at Bâle a few years ago. Just now two bills are before the Vaud and Bern (canton) legislatures respectively.
Now about France. I find matters have made great headway here for the past ten years. In 1889, on my way to Battle Creek, Mich., I stepped into the Sunday Congress in Paris. That was under government protection, and at its expense. It was first suggested by the Geneva Sunday committee, known as the International Sunday Federation, and was introduced to the government by a prominent Sunday man in Paris. The story was told in the Sentinel a few weeks ago. By calling it a “Weekly Rest Congress, from the standpoint of hygiene and social progress,” they finally secured the government’s consent. Of course it was only a farce,—I mean the hygienic part of it,—and they carried through the Sunday idea. Immediately at the close, a national Sunday league was organized, of which the Catholic and Protestant clergy are the most active part. They now have seven thousand members in France, and have succeeded in awakening a great interest in Sunday closing. The Catholic and Protestant clergymen want a law passed. Some leading laymen are opposed to it. This opposition between these two opinions was the leading feature of the 1900 Congress at the exposition. I believe that is why the report of that congress has not appeared yet. Recently the Sunday agitation among store people has become such that, in a few cities, disturbances were caused against some merchants who would not close their stores. They finally had to yield, on account of the mob. As a rule, in France Sunday is very loosely kept, or not at all by many, even on government street works.
The last law enacted for Sunday rest was in 1814. It became very unpopular, and has since been rescinded. In 1882 an effort to pass a Sunday law was choked in the senate, at which time M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire, senator, proved that the divinely appointed rest-day is not Sunday, but Saturday. Everything that smells of clericalism is very unpopular just now, and, strange to say, Sunday closing is popular. Still more strange, a foremost anti-clerical deputy, M. Zewaès, has presented a bill in its behalf. The Catholic Church is active for Sunday closing; so is the Protestant Sunday league, which held its annual meeting in Paris last Sunday [May 12.]
I have prepared a paper against the Sunday law, and presented it to M. Louis Sautter, engineer, and president of said society. I also gave him two of our American Religious Liberty pamphlets. He read all with interest, as he said, and is himself against a Sunday law, but in favor of Sunday closing, of course. He wants to have everybody free to rest or labor on Sunday, but thinks the government ought to protect the weak. In a word, he is struggling between the idea of liberty and the Sunday craze. JEAN VUILLEUMIER.
5 rue Dangeau, Paris XVIe.

DEVELOPMENT OF ORDER.—NO. 1.

By John Norton Loughborough

“That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.” Eph. 4: 14–16.
If the growth of the body of Christ—the Church—is a growth in “all things,” then in that growth will be seen a system of order, such as is essential for the harmonious development of the Church. It may be a matter of interest to note the introduction and practical working of the “order and system” which, in the opening providence of God, have aided in the successful rise of the Third Angel’s Message.
The following, from the pen of Sister White, found in “Christian Education,” published about 1874, states some interesting things relative to church order:—
“I am sure that the Lord has wrought in the organization that has been perfected, and the fact that there are discouraging features in the work should not be thought a sufficient reason for disorganization. Much light was given to us in reference to the organization of churches, and yet we had a hard battle to fight in perfecting organization; but the victory was gained at last, and now shall the church be disorganized because of indifference, formality, and pride? Shall we go back to disorder because unconsecrated members of the church have placed upon the work the mold of man, and sought to fashion the church to meet a popular standard?”—Pages 135, 136.
The word “perfect” is used as applying to the system and plan of organization, and not to perfection in the men working with those plans; for it clearly states that the mold of man had been put on the work, not because the system of order was imperfect, but because of indifference, formality, and pride,—following a form merely as a form without the vitalizing power of godliness.
In a Testimony found in the General Conference Bulletin of 1892, Sister White says: “It is nearly forty years since organization was introduced among us as a people. I was one of the number who had an experience in establishing it from the first. I know of the difficulties that had to be met, the evils it was designed to correct; and I have watched its influence in connection with the growth of the cause. At an early stage in the work, God gave us special light upon this point; and this light, together with the lessons that experience has taught us, should be carefully considered.
“As our numbers increased, it was evident that without some form of organization, there would be great confusion, and the work could not be carried forward successfully. To provide for the support of the ministry, for carrying on the work in new fields, for protecting both the church and the ministry from unworthy members, for holding church property, for the publication of the truth through the press, and for other objects, organization was indispensable.”—Bulletin of Jan. 29, 1892.
As we carefully “consider the light and experience” in the development of organization, it will lead us to note the difficulties to be met, and how the order established met the difficulties. In the Bulletin of 1893 we read still further respecting organization: “All this was missionary work of the highest order. Our work was not sustained by large gifts and legacies; for we had few wealthy men among us. What is the secret of our prosperity? We have moved under the order of the Captain of our salvation. God has blessed our united efforts. The truth has spread and flourished. Institutions have multiplied. The mustard seed has grown to a great tree. The system of organization has proved a grand success.”
“Let none entertain the thought, however, that we can dispense with organization. It has cost us much study, and many prayers for wisdom, that we know God has answered, to erect this structure. It has been built up by His direction, through much sacrifice and conflict. Let none of our brethren be so deceived as to attempt to tear it down; for you will thus bring in a condition of things that you do not dream of. In the name of the Lord, I declare to you it is to stand, strengthened, established, and settled.
“At God’s command, ‘Go forward,’ we advanced when difficulties to be surmounted made the advance seem impossible. We know how much it has cost to work out God’s plan in the past, which has made us as a people what we are. Then let every one be exceedingly careful not to unsettle minds in regard to those things God has ordained for our prosperity and success in advancing His cause.”—Bulletins of Jan. 29, 30, 1893.
From an unpublished Testimony of July, 1894, we quote these words: “Now, just now, is the time, when the perils of the last days are thickening around us, that we need wise men for counselors, not men who will feel it duty to stir up and create disorder, and who cannot possibly give wise counsel, but who can organize and arrange that every stirring up shall bring order out of confusion, and rest and peace in obeying the word of the Lord. Let every man be found in his true place, ready to do some work for the Master, according to his several ability. None should be left to drift, to make a vast amount of trouble and confusion.”
In a Testimony dated Jan. 14, 1894, we read: “O how Satan would rejoice to get in among this people, and disorganize the work at a time when thorough organization is essential, and will be the greatest power to keep out spurious uprisings, and to refute claims not indorsed by the word of God. We want to hold the lines evenly that there shall be no breaking down of the system of regulation and order. In this way license shall not be given to disorderly elements to control the work at this time. We are living in a time when order, system, and unity of action are most essential. And the truth must bind us together like strong cords, in order that no distracted efforts may be witnessed among the workers. If disorderly manifestations appear, we must have discernment to distinguish the spurious from the genuine. Let no messages be proclaimed until they have borne a careful scrutiny in every jot and tittle.”
Again we see that it is the system that is recommended. Disorganizing would of course tend to throw matters in the line they were before the system was established. We see also that the object to be gained by the system of order is that of unity and harmony in carrying forward the work. So the danger pointed out should we now disorganize was the apparent danger when organization and a system of working was brought to the attention of this people at the first.
In “Testimonies for the Church,” No. 33, these words are found: “One point will have to be guarded and that is individual independence. As soldiers in Christ’s army, there should be concert of action in the various departments of the work.”—Page 62.
On the point of individual independence we read still further in “Gospel Workers:” “The laborers should counsel together. No one is to strike out on his independent judgment, and work according to his own mind, regardless of the counsel of those connected with him. If we think ourselves sufficient to manage the work of God, and depend for success on our own wisdom to plan and execute, we may expect defeats and losses; for they will surely come.”—Page 355.
These quotations present, as it were in a nutshell, what was contemplated in the plan and system or organization. It was that of securing unity of action in the work of presenting the message to the world. It can readily be seen that a people who had been thrust out from organized bodies and placed where each had to think and act for himself, and who had become accustomed to a sort of independence in thought and action, would be in danger of confusion in labors under the Third Angel’s Message, unless some system were established for the promotion of harmony of action. This is the object that was first presented, and which has been kept in view as the different phases of the work have been developed. It is not a plan calculated to prevent people from searching for truth, from seeking divine guidance for themselves; but is an arrangement in which should appear unity among a multitude of thinkers.
The matter of private judgment and union with the body is plainly stated in “Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. III, published in the year 1875: “I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to— in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference. You firmly maintained that you had done right in following your own convictions of duty. You considered it a virtue in you to persistently maintain your position of independence. You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His Church in the voice of the General Conference. You thought that in responding to the call made to you by the General Conference, you were submitting to the judgment and mind of one man. You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.”—Page 492.
These words are not to be understood that a conference of men who were led by human wisdom and had the “mold of men” was “the highest authority of God on earth.” Nay, verily, for such assemblies have been declared not the voice of God. It is rather an assembly of representatives of the work, “gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,” with them (1 Cor. 5: 4, 5), whose decisions are ratified by the Lord.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Donations Received

NAME.                     AMOUNT. Mrs. D. Lackey........ $ 2.00 M. J. Lawrence........ 10.00 Mr. and Mrs. Jordan.... 2.00 Thomas Richardson...... 1.00 Mrs. Wm. Potter........ 1.00 Mrs. T. E. Amann....... 1.00 Ada Kirkpatrick........ 1.00 John Marshall.......... 5.00 C. L. Putnam........... 5.00 Mrs. T. H. Glaskin..... 5.00 E. Hays................ 1.00 Albert, Joseph, and Iver Christiansen.... 3.00 Mr. and Mrs. C. B. Stilson.............. 2.00 Mrs. A. Richardson..... 1.00 M. W. Rathbun and wife................. 10.00 Alice Hoaghton......... 5.00 J. S. Herring.......... 1.00 Mrs. Alice Slocum...... 2.00 Mrs. S. D. Stone....... 1.00 Mrs. Clara Blacker..... 1.25 Mrs. J. F. Feagin...... 2.00 J. H. Rhodes........... 4.00 Mrs. S. M. Comstock.... 1.00 Hannah Jensen.......... 1.00 Hannah Siebert......... 1.00 O. S. Hadley............ 5.00 F. W. Bartle............ 1.00 Chas. Dunbar............ 1.25 Mr. and Mrs. E. E. June................. 1.00 Mrs. Mary Penorden, Scandinavian fund.... 1.00 Mrs. H. W. Joscelyn.... 2.00 Eugene L. Chappell..... 5.00 Mrs. Irene Salt........ 2.50 Mrs. H. S. Sickles..... 2.50
H. S. Foster, Scandi- navian fund.......... 5.00 Mrs. Lucy S. Felton.... 5.00 S. W. Smith............ 1.00 Mary Garland and Bell Jones........... 5.00 A. J. and E. J. Brown.. 3.00 J. B. Mathewson........ 1.00 B. F. Barkalow......... 5.00 Martha Todd............ 1.00 Georgia Romine......... 4.00 Mrs. E. M. Talbot...... 1.00 John Jayltocol......... 2.00 Mary Peightol.......... 1.00 A friend............... 10.00 Mrs. H. A. Castle...... 1.00 Eli Sherman............ 5.00 Mrs. Z. A. Curtis...... 5.00 Geo. A. Chapman........ 1.00 Mrs. L. Langer......... 5.00 W. E. Whiteis.......... 5.00 Mrs. Kate Jamieson..... 5.00 Jennie Groham.......... 1.00 Emma Stickney.......... 1.00 Mrs. E. J. Hemmings.... 2.00 Mary Hauck............. 1.00 Mary Williams.......... 1.00 Wm. Holladay........... 1.00 Friend and wife........ 2.00 Mrs. Julia Grout....... .50 A. Roys................ 1.00 Jennie R. Powell....... 1.00 Jacob Cemer............ 1.00 A. B. Morrical......... 1.00 Mrs. S. A. Holmes...... 1.00 Mollie Cole............ 1.00 Mrs. Matilda Leach..... 2.00 Miss Carrie Leach...... 1.00 Miss Nellie Leach...... 1.00 Mrs. O. W. Bundy....... 1.00
G. B. Thompson and wife................. 10.00 W. H. Frink............ 1.00 Fannie Glasscock....... 1.00 Mrs. Mary Penwarden.... 1.00 Mrs. Henry Perry....... 1.00 Mrs. E. G. Wood........ 1.00 W. D. Russell.......... 1.00 C. A. Russell.......... 1.00 Mary Clark............. 5.00 Mary Clark, Scandi- navian fund.......... 5.00 Mrs. Agnes Duncan...... 5.00 Mrs. O. A. Frederick- son.................. 1.00 C. A. Hyman............ 1.00 Mrs. H. Newcomb........ 1.00 Mrs. Emily Ogden....... 2.00 Mr. and Mrs. George Wallace, $10, Scan- dinavian fund........ 25.00 Mrs. Asa Champlin...... .50 Marie L. Champlin...... 1.00 Mary Reader............ 1.00 D. C. Ryan............. 1.00 Mrs. M. K. Edwards..... 2.00 Mrs. B. Gosnell & others............... 3.50 N. V. & M. L. Field.... 3.00 S. S. Gruber........... 2.00 Caliste S. Pratt....... 1.00
W. A. Eldridge......... 1.00 C. S. Elder and father.. 2.00 L. C. Nelson............ 10.00 Franklin Hess........... 5.00 Louis Reinhard.......... 1.50 A. D. Renshaw........... 5.00 Mrs. U. E. Jones........ 1.00 D. W. Nichols........... 10.00 Mrs. H. H. Cleasby...... 5.00 Mrs. H. H. Floyd........ 5.00 Mrs. M. A. Elsworth..... 5.00 Mrs. L. P. Brown........ 1.00 B. F. Wilkinson......... 2.00 Mrs. N. H. Farley....... 2.00 Marian Smith............ 1.25 Mrs. Jane Miller........ 1.00 Mrs. Warner............. .75 Ruth Warner............. .25 R. P. Harbin............ 1.00 Alvin Hubley............ 1.00 A. D. Corkham........... 5.00 Mrs. N. A. Corkham...... 5.00 Norval A. Corkham....... 2.84 Mrs. H. S. Tours........ 10.00 Mark Stivers............ 5.00 M. L. & D. D. Brown..... 2.00 Mrs. M. C. Zoller....... 1.00 D. Warren............... 1.00 Mrs. S. Shankel......... 5.00 L. E. Wilkinson......... 5.00 J. H. Thorp............. 1.03
Mrs. H. S. Tours, Scandinavian fund.... 10.00 Mrs. N. J. Tolfree...... 2.00 W. G. Thompson........... 1.00 H. I. Booth.............. 1.00 M. J. McMiller........... 1.00 Alice M. Cook............ 5.00 Luther Woods............. 1.00 Mrs. J. M. Jenkins....... 5.00 B. J. Brush.............. 1.00 Minnie Molbey............ 1.00 A friend................ 1.00 Mrs. Warren Latham....... 1.00 J. A. Coffer............. 5.00 S. R. Hogue.............. 5.00 Mrs. E. E. Bacon......... 2.00 M. E. Hockett............ 1.00 J. M. Peterson........... 5.00 A friend................ 1.00 Hans Olson............... 40.00 Mrs. & Mrs. J. Biron..... 2.00 B. G. & N. J. Beesley.... 5.00 Esther A. McCallum....... 1.00 A friend................ 2.00 Mrs. M. W. Powell........ 10.00 Mrs. J. E. Green......... 1.00 Mrs. M. C. Saxton........ 5.00 Mrs. T. L. Saxton........ 1.00 D. A. & R. B. Bab- cock.................. 2.00 Mrs. A. C. Tinsley....... .25
Mary Simmons............ 1.00 Laura C. Hutchins....... 10.00 Francis C. Ross.......... 1.00 Mrs. John F. Jacobs...... 5.00 A friend................ 4.50 W. D. Beeby.............. 5.00 Annie Pieper............. 3.00 H. W. Barrows............ 50.00 Mrs. J. J. Mason......... 1.00 Mrs. F. Boutiliee........ 1.00 E. Guderian.............. 1.00 E. M. Guderian........... 1.00 Mrs. Mary Ketchan........ 1.00 Mrs. Shoop............... 4.00 Betsy E. Cady............ 5.00 Mrs. H. L. Owen.......... 1.00 Mrs. H. Walker........... 5.00 Mrs. M. A. Haibon........ 5.00 Mrs. E. M. Brown......... 1.00 A. G. Lewis.............. 2.00 Mary Wilcox.............. 1.00 Nancy E. Young........... 5.00 Mrs. H. P. Evans......... 2.00 John Thackin............. 3.00 J. B. & A. I. Sprin- ger................... 2.00 Mrs. J. C. Smith......... 3.00 Mrs. C. Williams......... 1.00 Mrs. G. W. Wood.......... 1.00 S. S. Butler............. 1.00 Lester B. Lane........... 1.00

HIGHER CRITICISM.

In the olden time no one questioned the fact that Moses wrote the first book of the Bible. It was left to modern times for men to learn (?) that not Moses, but several persons, wrote the book of Genesis.
Really, it matters little whether we know who wrote the several books of the Bible. But it is of infinite importance that we appreciate the fact that “all scripture is given by inspiration of God,” having come “not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
It may matter little as to the name of the man who wrote this book or that; but we do know that these books were written by holy men. Further, we know that the scriptures came not by man's will. In other words, no man said, “I will write this.” But God spoke through men, moving them by His Holy Spirit to say the things that were to be said.
But higher criticism gets above (?) this. It tells us that Genesis was once in three parts, written by three different men, at different times in different places. Later these three fragments were welded together into a consecutive narrative by a fourth party. This union is not so perfect but that the lines of union can be fairly well traced, and the three separate parts distinguished; and as was to be supposed, these three parts do not harmonize in all particulars; one contradicts the others, and there are frequent discrepancies.
If I accept such reasonings as this, how can I believe in the divine origin of the Bible? It makes the Scriptures a mass of crazy patchwork. One man writes a certain portion, later, another man writes more, and then a third adds his part; now along comes a fourth and puts the three together as well as he can, and the narrative is complete (?).
Let me give you their own words. They are the words of a Bible scholar, not an intended Bible enemy: “The Hebrew chronicles and histories are all of them composite works. Like many of the medieval chronicles and histories, they are compiled from different sources, from materials of different ages. The extracts are woven together so as to produce a consecutive narrative. But it is generally not difficult to distinguish the points at which the different sections are pieced together. The similarity of style, in certain sections of the narrative, combined with marked dissimilarity from the style in other sections, has enabled scholars to class together the portions which may be assigned to one or other literary source.”
Since higher criticism takes this position, let us at the outset understand the drift of its teachings. Its tendency is to break down the authority of the Bible by striking a blow at its divine origin.
For example, the book of Genesis is composite, written by unknown men in unknown times in unknown places. Now these gathered-up fragments are patched together by another unknown man in an unknown time and unknown place. And all this is but to show how the book of Genesis, or any other book of the Bible for that matter, could be written by men, and that without the aid of Inspiration. And when it is thus once grasped that the Book, or books, could be thus written without the aid of the Spirit of God, many a man goes further, and says that, in his opinion, God had no more to do with the making of the Bible than He has had to do with any other good book.
And so men reason from higher criticism (?) to complete doubt, skepticism, and agnosticism. This every time is the logical outcome of higher criticism. And this is one argument against the doctrine of higher criticism, so-called.
Again, these different parts of a book, though patched together into one complete whole, are yet so poorly put together that scholars can detect the lines of union, and dissect the whole into its many component parts. And what is the rule by which they discover so much?—There is but one answer: they are entirely guided by their own weak, fallible judgment. Neither do all these higher (?) critics agree in their dismembering of the word of God. Nevertheless they have found enough points in common to keep them steadily at work on their darling scheme.
By their fruits ye shall know them. Let us forever understand that corrupt fruit is unmistakable evidence of a corrupt tree. Any theory that tends to elevate the human judgment above the word of God must be forever wrong. If any man wishes to put his mind and judgment above the authority and truth of the Scriptures, let him espouse higher criticism.
However, when I make my mind and judgment superior to anything, that thing so subjugated to my mental authority and judgment becomes to me a decidedly secondary thing. How is it with you?
And this is the second argument against higher criticism, so-called.

EVERY ONE WHOSE HEART WAS STIRRED WITHIN HIM.

By Percy T. Magan

Gave willingly to build the tabernacle, and many a one is having his heart stirred within him to give willingly for the relief of the schools. Another long list of jubilee singers appears with this, and we have a thousand names or more yet to print. The debts are being cut down. Relief is being given, and soon the jubilee will be sung. P. T. MAGAN.

Appeal for Relief of the Schools

By Editor

We earnestly request all our kind friends to remember that FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS is needed to pay for the material in “Christ’s Object Lessons.” We ask for large contributions from the rich and small gifts from the poor. Money for this purpose should be sent to the treasurer of the General Conference Association, care of Review and Herald, Battle Creek, Mich.; and be sure to state that it is for THE RELIEF OF THE SCHOOLS.
Continue reading: A BLESSING IN SOUTH AFRICA