Signs of the Times, Vol. 26, No. 42.
AS IT WAS, EVEN THUS SHALL IT BEPage 1
Earlier text: AS IT WAS, EVEN THUS SHALL IT BEWHERE TO LEAVE CARES OVERNIGHT.
By Robert J. Burdette
I SLEEP. That is "good medicine." I used to be foolish enough to go to bed to think of my sins and my mistakes and my foolishness and my misfortunes, and all the things that happened to me and were going to happen to me. When I put out the light, the room would become luminous with cares and lurid with regrets. But it dawned upon me that a bed wasn't made for that sort of thing. It was made to sleep in; and I proposed to use it for that purpose. It was no easy task to overcome the evil habit which long indulgence in the luxury of bedtime worry had fastened upon me. But I did it. And now when I want to go to sleep, I can. I don't care what the trouble and fret, the irritation and the trial, the blunders and the disappointments of the day have been; I leave them at the door; they are on the outside. They may lie in wait for me as I come out next morning, but they have to abide out in the cold and gloomy hall all night. They do not come to bed with me. And the next morning I am all ready for them, after a long, sound sleep. But most of them die overnight from exposure and loneliness. Nothing requires more tender and constant nursing to keep it alive than worry. You don't worry because you have to; you worry because you like it; you enjoy it. I used to myself; used to like to get away from people; used to be glad when bedtime came so that I could worry over my troubles comfortably, without being interrupted. By and by I had some real troubles; then I learned to do better.—Robert J. Burdette, in Ram's Horn. THE BETTER WAY.
By Joan Somerset
GRUMBLE?—No; what's the good?
If it availed, I would;
But it doesn't a bit—
Not it. Laugh?—Yes; why not?
'Tis better than crying, a lot;
We were made to be glad,
Not sad. Sing?—Why, yes, to be sure;
We shall better endure
If the heart's full of song
All day long. Love?—Yes; unceasingly,
Ever increasingly;
Friends' burdens bearing,
Their sorrows sharing,
Their happiness making;
For pattern taking
The One above,
Who is Love.
—Joan Somerset. THE SABBATH.
By H. C. Balsbaugh
THE institution, or beginning, of the Sabbath is recorded in Gen. 2:2, 3. Here it is stated that the seventh day was sanctified and set apart as a day of rest. The word "Sabbath" means rest. Reason alone makes it evident that there can not be a day of rest before there has been a day or days of work. Hence the first day of the week, or Sunday, can not in truth be called a day of rest. Sunday, therefore, is without this central idea of the Sabbath, namely, rest. The Sabbath of the Lord, mentioned in Gen. 2:2, 3, is perpetual. From time to time the Jews for a long period neglected to keep the Sabbath day holy, and for this neglect God punished them, and in mercy kept on entreating them to keep it. Of this we have distinct record, embracing the latter as well as the early time of their history. See Eze. 46:1; Neh. 13:15-22, B.C. 574 and 445. In the New Testament Christ very clearly makes known the continuance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. See Matt. 24:20. The event alluded to there is the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred, as is commonly known, seventy years after Christ. The apostles and disciples taught the seventh day as the Sabbath by precept and example. James, the most directly practical of the New Testament writers, speaks in no uncertain way of it. In chapter 2:8-11 he refers to a royal law. Royal means kingly, in this instance the kingly law of God, our great King. And that we may know for a certainty what particular law James refers to, he quotes from the law of Ten Commandments, the fourth precept of which enjoins the keeping of the Sabbath day holy. This same Ten-Commandment law is spoken of by Christ in Matt. 22:36-40. Christ here makes two divisions of the Ten Commandments, the first division including the first four commandments, which teach the duty to love God with all the heart, and the second division comprising the last six, which teach the duty of loving our neighbor as ourselves, or love to man. Of the two commandments that Christ gives here as embracing all the others, He calls the first the greater, and in this division is the Sabbath commandment. These references indicate the perpetuity of the law of Ten Commandments. It is a fundamental law, abiding forever. This law is as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, not to be experimented with, but it is to be implicitly obeyed. It is true and tried, and its abiding character is clearly seen from the fact that it was written by the finger of God on tables of stone, the enduring quality of stone signifying permanency. LIFE AND IMMORTALITY. No. 2.
Some Thoughts upon God's Character.
THE "Fountain of Life" is with God. Ps. 36:9. All life comes from Him, flowing out into all parts of His living universe. "In Him we live, and move, and have our being." Acts 17:28. "He is the living God, and an everlasting King." Jer. 10:10. "He is thy life." Deut. 30:20. 2. God is "righteous in all His ways, and holy in all His works." Ps. 145:17. He, therefore, does nothing that is unrighteous. He can command no unrighteous law; He can do no unrighteous deed; He can countenance no unrighteous thing. He is righteous and only righteous, holy and only holy. And this is true not only in the sense of exact justice, but God's righteousness is the righteousness of love, of power, of wisdom; for "God is love." 1 John 4:8. "Great is our Lord, and of great power; His understanding is infinite." Ps. 147:5. "There is no searching of His understanding." Isa. 40:28. "Abba, Father," said Jesus, "all things are possible unto Thee." Mark 14:36. Said the prophet, "There is nothing too hard for Thee." Jer. 32:17. God is therefore wisely righteous, powerfully righteous, lovingly righteous. Such must be His plan concerning man and the bestowal of His life. 3. God's law must therefore be righteous; and so Inspiration declares, "The righteousness of Thy testimonies is everlasting." Ps. 119:144, 172. "Harken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is My law." Isa. 51:7. God's law is His righteousness, and the written law must be the written expression of that righteousness. 4. Being a "righteous," "holy," and "perfect" Being, God must be unchangeable in character. And thus His Word declares: "I am the Lord, I change not." Mal. 3:6. "With whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." James 1:17. 5. He could therefore give only an unchangeable law as the rule of character. "All His commandments are sure. They stand fast forever and ever." Ps. 111:7, 8. He declares by His prophet, "My righteousness shall not be abolished." Isa. 51:6. Jesus declares, "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." Luke 16:17. He could give no other law of character, no other rule for man's conduct, save that which was the expression of His own character. The righteousness of His law is everlasting, because it is His righteousness, and He is the everlasting God. 6. This will still further appear when we learn that God's requirement of man, for which He gave His law, is that man shall be like his Creator in character. "Ye shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy." Lev. 19:2. "But like as He which called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy; for I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15, 16, R.V. "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." Matt. 5:48. 7. God's holy, unchangeable law is therefore the law of His life; and as with Him "is the Fountain of Life," His life must flow out to that being whose character is to be like His own, in harmony with that law. Or, to state it in another form, that law is simply the formal expression of the working of God's love. 8. The nature of God's law is the nature of Himself, righteousness and life. On its positive side the whole law is embodied in two great principles,—love to God and love to man. "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked Him a question, tempting Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto Him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Matt. 22:35-40. This was not the expression of a new sentiment, the enunciation of a new principle. Jesus quoted both from the very instruction He had before given through Moses (see Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18); and this great truth was recognized by the Jewish scribe (see Mark 12:32, 33). The negative side of that law is expressed in ten precepts forbidding and revealing its transgression. Ex. 20:2-17; Rom. 7:7; 1 John 3:4. 9. In the light of the above scriptures, he who ever lived in perfect harmony with God's everlasting law would be in the eternal possession of God's everlasting life. For "the commandment . . . was ordained to life." Rom. 7:10. "In the way of righteousness is life; and in the pathway thereof there is no death." Prov. 12:28. "The Spirit is life because of righteousness." Rom. 8:10. 10. As God is the source of all righteousness and life, so is He the source of all power. "Power belongeth unto God." Ps. 62:11. "There is no power but of God." Rom. 13:1. "Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto Him." Rev. 5:13. God, the righteous, the holy, the perfect, the all-powerful, the unchangeable One, is the Source of all life, and bestows this life in harmony with His holy, unchangeable law. The reverse side of this will be seen in our next. A MOMENTOUS QUESTION.
By Editor
THE people of California are now face to face with one of those innocent-looking measures that involve much mischief. It is no less a proposition than the exemption of church property from taxation. It is a proposed constitutional amendment, providing as follows:— All buildings, and so much of the real property on which they are situated as may be required for the convenient use and occupation of said buildings, when the same are used solely and exclusively for religious worship, shall be free from taxation; provided that no building so used which may be rented for religious purposes, and rent received by the owner thereof, shall be exempt from taxation. One of the arguments used in favor of the amendment is the small amount of money involved—only $240,000—which the people at large would have to contribute in the interest of church support. But it should be remembered that principles are not measured by dollars and cents. The principle here involved is that of adding to the taxes of the people a certain amount for the support of religious worship. That principle is all the same whether it be ten dollars or ten million dollars. Every person who owns property, whether he be religious or not, must pay his portion for the benefit of the Catholic Churches, the various Protestant churches, the Chinese joss-houses, or the places owned and set apart for worship by the votaries of any other religion. Another argument, put forth by a prominent minister, which we find in a daily paper of this city, is that the churches "are devoted solely and exclusively to the interests of the public." That is not true, for the reason that the public have no control of them. They are all owned and controlled by corporations. The public have no access to them whatever, excepting at the stated times designated by the owners. The owners, and not the public, have the benefit of the collections taken from the audiences, for without these contributions they would have to go into their pockets to that extent. To the extent of the contributions raised apart from the owners, they are pecuniarily benefited. The same writer says the churches are "as completely devoted to the interests of the public as a sidewalk, a public highway, park, or public fountain." Now it is a pertinent question, How many of the public are interested in the private income of the pastor, the chorister, the soprano, the soloist, the organist, and other salaried persons connected with the church? or, How much salary would either of them get without the church property? It is safe to say that few corporations or congregations would pay them as much for performing in their various roles on the sidewalk or public highway, or in the public square, or before the public fountain. It requires a great stretch of imagination to conclude that property devoted to religious worship is used solely in the interest of the public. This ministerial advocate of church support by the public indiscriminately further says that "exempting churches from taxation makes them the guests of the State, whereas taxing them carries with it the right of representation in the department of government." The first part of that proposition is a strong argument against the amendment. It is an admission (unwitting, of course) of all the wickedness involved in the principle. Guests are always sustained by their hosts; that condition is what makes them guests. There could hardly be a more expressive presentation of the evil lurk7ing in the proposed amendment. It certainly annuls a previous statement that "taxing churches is not a step in the direction of the union of Church and State in the sense in which such phrases are commonly used." But we call attention to the latter clause of the sentence quoted at the beginning of the preceding paragraph, namely, "taxing them [the churches] carries with it the right of representation in the department of government." To this is added the further fallacy that "if a corporation is taxed and treated upon a taxable basis, the right to influence and shape the policies of the civil government can not well be denied it." Such doctrine is not merely fallacious, it is monstrous; and, coming from a professed minister of the Gospel, it is astounding. That corporations gain rights in government control over and above what the incorporators as individuals enjoy without such corporation is one of the great evils against which the people of the United States are struggling to-day. While the corporations are vastly strengthening their influence in the government, by a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, every political party has at least formally declared against the policy. So well known is it that the principle is wrong that even those who are giving it the greatest encouragement find it good policy to publicly profess opposition to it. One of the leading powers in enforcing corporation influence upon the policy of the government has but recently deemed it necessary to publicly deny that any such principle exists. Yet we have here a Protestant clergyman who openly avows that the tax-paying corporation’s right to shape the policies of the civil government "can not well be denied." To such a point is he driven in quest of an argument for saddling a portion of the expenses of religious worship upon the people at large. The proposed amendment is practically a tax rate for the support of religion of every kind whose votaries are strong enough financially to own a place of worship. True, the rate is small, but the principle is there, and is prominent enough to serve as an opening wedge. With equal propriety might the members of a poor congregation who are obliged to rent a place of worship ask for a tax levy to help them pay their rent. Their work is as much for the benefit of the public as is that of the more wealthy worshipers, and their rent is a heavier burden upon them than is the tax bill of a property-owning church upon the corporation. But under the proposed amendment these poorer renters have not only to pay their own rent, but, in addition, help to pay the taxes of the wealthier church owners. We are glad to notice in the same journal a timely article on the other side of the question, by a prominent member of the First Baptist Church of this city. He takes the stand of true Christian manhood on this question, as shown by the following extract from his article:— From my standpoint I can not see why Christian men should vote for the people of the State to pay taxes on their houses of worship. Churches are not charitable institutions, to ask aid of the State, such as insane asylums and orphan asylums. But one says the State doesn’t pay it; the people do. Who are the people if they don’t represent the State, the same as our general government, of the people, by the people, and for the people. Above all things, Christian men should not endeavor to shift their responsibilities upon others. We are too apt to set aside principle when mercenary ends are to be obtained. When the First Baptist Church of Oakland becomes too poor to pay its just taxes to the State, I will be one of twenty to pay the taxes in the same manner as we are doing at the present time. . . . I never will vote in favor of any law that will compel non-church people to assist in paying taxes on the house I worship in. Another paragraph from the same article is worthy of note:— Those whom I have talked with who favor the adoption of the amendment say that other States have adopted a similar amendment and that we ought not to be so far behind our sister States. I can not see any argument in this, for is it not possible that many of the States would rid themselves of this law if they could? I know such is the fact in some of the States. But, one says, if the law is obnoxious why not repeal it?—For the simple reason that they can not. Why?—Because it required the Catholic votes to carry the measure, and you can never secure the Catholic vote to repeal it. Don’t you see? Now no one will criticise a Catholic for voting for the amendment, for State support of the church is fundamental Catholic doctrine. But Protestants profess otherwise, and they can not afford, for the comparatively small sum of church taxes, to deliberately step over onto Catholic ground. A surrender of one principle to Catholicism logically demands more. No true Protestant ever will ask the civil government to tax the people at large for the support of his worship. G. "WHAT does God say?" should be the question asked by every Bible believer. Experience is good if it is read in the light of the Word. Early teaching is good if it is the teaching of the Word of God. But whatever it may be which leads us to diminish or disparage the Word of God, is evil and only evil. Conscience is not the Christian's guide; it is but a monitor designed to bring him to the Word. Feeling is not a guide; it is but an uncertain condition or result. "Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path." Ps. 119:105. "The commandment is a lamp; and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life." Prov. 6:23. Jesus says, "Why call ye Me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Luke 6:46. ONE of the most grievous things manifest in these days of preparation for Christ’s coming is the apathy, the lack of feeling, the want of moral sensibility, which exists among professed Christians, even among those who profess to believe that Christ’s coming is near. Evidences of the nearness of that great event are neither few nor uncertain. More than twelve different lines of prophecy are about to culminate in the forthshining of Christ’s literal presence. A score of last-day, specific signs, foretold from 3,000 to 1,800 years ago, reveal to all who will to see that Christ’s second coming is near, "even at the doors." There are multitudes of possible immortals who profess to believe these things, yet who are passing on, utterly oblivious to spiritual things and moral regeneration. The spirit of the world possesses them. Greed is a destroyer of grace. Pleasure in the indulgence of natural lust perverts purity of heart. Indifference breeds indifference and cuts off all inspiration. The heart is laid open to the world, and becomes hardened in contact therewith. The spiritual eyes become blinded, so that the glories of God can not be seen. The spiritual hearing becomes so dulled by the din and tumult of earth that the still small voice of the Spirit can not be heard. It is a sad, sad condition of things which the Christian worker faces. We are passing over "the enchanted ground." Everything in this world of sin tends to indifference. Satan has planned and perverted to this very end. God permits the awful catastrophes which are taking place that men may be aroused to see the insecurity of all earthly things and the uncertainty of human life. But these things startle the world for a day, and the mad rush goes on, with conscience more benumbed and heart harder than ever. Like Ephraim and Judah of old, the very goodness exercised is like the morning cloud and early dew, it soon passes away. The heart of the earnest worker for Christ longs to do something to save men from their stupor. He can only do this by the power of God. Human devices will not move men rightly. Human wisdom and discernment can not fathom the depth of Satanic guile and deception upon the world. Human power can not save. It must all be wrought through the preaching of Jesus Christ, "the power of God and the wisdom of God." Let the earnest servant of God labor on, pray on, and proclaim faithfully the Word of God. "The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath My Word, let him speak My Word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not My Word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?" A CHURCH that is in politics is a church that has left her lawful Spouse. His church must be as separate from things political as He Himself was when He walked upon the earth. THAT ALLEGED CHANGE.
By G.
WE are told by modern teachers that the Lord changed the Sabbath. We say modern teachers for the reason that ancient teachers of that doctrine gave “the church” as the authority for the nominal change. But God Himself says, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His secret unto His servants the prophets.” Amos 3:7. It is worthy of serious thought that no prophet has intimated that there would be such a change, and neither prophet nor apostle has said that there has been such a change. A change would imply a destruction of at least part of the law; but Christ Himself, the Giver of the law, positively says: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Matt. 5:17, 18. Again we are told that Christ fulfilled the law, and that put an end to it. But the apostle Paul tells us (and he received the Gospel by revelation from Christ) that God sent “His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, . . . that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom. 8:3, 4. So those who “walk after the Spirit” are “led by the Spirit,” as Christ was, and will fulfil the law, as He did. Therefore they will keep the Sabbath, as He did. There was no controversy between Christ and the Jews as to the day of the Sabbath. They never accused either Him or His disciples of keeping the wrong day. They found fault with Him because He would not recognize their traditions concerning the manner of Sabbath observance. There is no divine authority for the alleged change of the Sabbath. God sanctified the seventh day in the beginning, and there is no divine record that He ever withdrew that sanctity, or ever placed it upon any other day. He alone can sanctify anything. No man can keep any day “holy” until God has made it holy. There has been no change of the Sabbath day. G. WHAT HAS A CIVIL GOVERNMENT TO DO WITH IT?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE is held in connection with the Paris Exposition, October 9 to 12, the "International Sunday Rest Congress," originated and fostered by believers in the religious Sunday, for the purpose of obtaining a world-wide Sunday law. Some of the European governments have sent delegates to this Congress in the past, we believe, but it has never been held as an official government matter so broadly as this year. It is held under the auspices of the French Ministers of Commerce, Industry, Post-office, and Telegraphs. Among the topics for discussion are "The Sunday Rest in France," and "Sunday Rest throughout the World." The senior secretary of the New York sabbath [Sunday] committee, Dr. W. W. Attebury, who is now in Paris, has been appointed by United States Commissioner-General Peck as an official delegate of the United States to this congress. Many of our readers well know that Dr. Attebury is a most ardent advocate of Sunday laws. It is said that this congress is not for religious discussions, but to consider "the rest day as essential to the well-being of society on physical, moral, and humanitarian grounds." But it is a fact that it is the religious Sunday that is so pressed, and no other day will do. In fact, a gathering is held in Paris at this very time to discuss the obstacles to Sunday's religious observance. And Dr. Attebury and other religious workers will present papers here. "The Rev. E. G. Thurber, D.D.," the Examiner (Baptist) tells us, "of the American chapel in Paris, has also been appointed by Commissioner Peck as an official delegate to this congress, and has been authorized to act for the New York sabbath committee, if occasion arises." But what has the United States Government to do with this question of religious days, or Sunday laws? -She has none of right. All this is but another step in the fearful path of a union of Church and State, the first of which was taken in the closing of the World's Fair at Chicago on Sunday. The beast and his image and the mark of the beast will receive world-wide recognition, and this congress marks an advance step in the proceedings. Would that men could see that in all this many-times-well-meant work they are opposing God! He has given but one day as a Sabbath, namely, the seventh day, and He designed that its observance should be voluntary between the loyal soul and Himself. EXPRESSED SENTIMENTS AND REAL FACTS.
MANY of the sentiments that are so strongly expressed at the present time by a large number of individuals, lack the foundation of fact. We are told of the great progress of the world, and of the bright outlook that is before us. Our attention is frequently called to the claim that the nineteenth century has led the world higher and higher, and that a millennium of peace is just before us. But any one who is an observer of the present conditions knows that all of this talk is mere sentimentalism. Politics never were so corrupt. Each State and county has its political boss and political machine. The nation has political bosses and political machines, and the result is corruption. Political corruption has become so general that it is a byword everywhere. The world is filled with violence and crime, and is in a turmoil of strife and rioting. These facts suggest to the mind the intense absurdity of saying that the world is becoming better, and that the outlook, from a human standpoint, is reassuring and bright. The Lord has told us in His Word that His coming shall be immediately preceded by "signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth; for the powers of heaven shall be shaken." Luke 21:25, 26. We are standing in the immediate presence of the great events that are fulfilling this prophecy, and, regardless of all of the talk to the contrary, we see men's hearts beginning to fail them for fear as they look upon the situation in the world to-day. And what we have seen up to the present time is as nothing compared with that which is coming. But there is a gloriously bright side to all of this. That which looks so dark from the human standpoint, that which is filling the minds of so many with perplexity and fear, is simply a part of the evidence that the coming of the Lord is right at hand. And He comes not merely as King of kings and Lord of lords, but as the Prince of Peace. He comes as the tender Shepherd and loving Saviour, to receive every one who is ready to receive Him. He is a destroyer to those only who refuse to be separated from their sin. The necessity of destroying sin makes it necessary for Him to destroy the unrepentant sinner. But He is seeking through every entreaty that love can make, and by the persuasion of His tender mercy, to draw every one of us away from our sins. We should not delay to be separated from our sins; for the time is right at hand when sin, and, consequently, every unrepentant sinner, must be destroyed. The glad morning of the resurrection, and the beginning of the realization of all the delights of eternity, are soon to be given to all the redeemed children of God. These facts are solemn in their import, yet they are gloriously and joyously grand to every one who has learned to know the Lord Jesus Christ. THE FILIPINO AND THE FRIAR.
By Editor
FOR several weeks the Philippine commission, sitting at Manila, has been giving hearings to the Filipino Catholics on the one side, and the Catholic archbishops and friars on the other, on the vexed question of the title to the property held by the friars in the islands. As indicative of the political methods used by the church officials in accomplishing their ends in this matter, we quote the following from the New York Evening Post, being an extract from the letter of a Manila correspondent:— “Archbishop Chapelle is taking an active hand in affairs, and now claims that he secured the recall of Otis. He has warmly championed the side of the friars, but church matters have not progressed except for several decrees from Otis depriving the priests of immunities and privileges they had enjoyed under Spanish laws. He and Chapelle had an animated correspondence, Chapelle reminding Otis that it was most important to President McKinley that matters be adjusted satisfactorily to the Catholics before election, and Otis replying: ‘You are a priest and I am a soldier. I did not know that it was the business of either to concern himself about elections.’” With the matter of General Otis' recall we have nothing to say; but it is certain that had the archbishop been as well acquainted with the requirements of true Gospel work as General Otis with the requirements of his position, no such well-aimed rebuke would have been necessary. It is quite impossible to imagine Jesus holding over the head of Pilate or Herod such a political threat as is implied in the archbishop's reminder to the general. That reminder implies an influence at the White House which might work to the general's disadvantage. General Otis saw the challenge and accepted it. He is now in the United States. Something of the real feeling of the Filipinos in regard to the friars is shown in the correspondence of Mr. Harold Martin, the representative of the Associated Press in Manila. Mr. Martin has been residing and touring in the islands for twelve months, and declares that he has not met a single native but what desires that the friars be expelled. He says they do not ask for the curtailment of the friars' power, nor for their regulation, but always emphatically for their expulsion; and that, tho as loyal Catholics as ever, they look upon Archbishop Chapelle simply as “one friar more,” so ardent is he in advocating the friars' claims. This is an anomaly that could be found only in a State-fostered religion; for in none other could the demands of the church officials be forced upon the people; and no religion but a State-fostered one could hold sway over the people while its demands were so obnoxious to them. The principle of force, compulsion, which is here exemplified, is diametrically opposed to the principles of the Christian religion. The one is the whipping-in principle; the other, the lifting, drawing principle. The one scourges; the other pleads. The one drives its adherents into the bearing of heavy burdens; the other says, “Come unto Me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The Filipinos are crying for rest from the heavy burdens they have been compelled to bear through the exactions of the friars and other Catholic orders. Were that church the “body of Christ,” then it would voluntarily strip off the yoke, and undo the heavy burden. The Filipino is not asking the friars to give him their coat or cloak, but to return his. But with all the power of the church against him, coupled with the power of the present civil rulers, it is safe to say he will never get it. The need of the world for the true Gospel of Christ, both in preaching and practise, was never greater than it is to-day. C. M. S. PROTESTANTISM IN ROME.
By C. M. S.
THAT Protestant denominations have been making some gains in Rome may be inferred from the recent letter of the pope to the cardinal-vicar of Rome concerning the proselytism of the Waldenses and the American Baptists and Methodists. The letter says:— "From the very outset of our pontificate we have had occasion to point out, as one of the most deplorable evils brought by the new order of things [the loss of his temporal power] to this capital of the Christian world, the active proselytism displayed on the part of heresy, and the peril to which the faith of our people was in consequence exposed. And addressing our cardinal-vicar on this subject we repeatedly imparted to the faithful, exhortations, counsels, and warnings, putting them on their guard against the many efforts which sects of all kinds, introduced from abroad, were here making under the shelter of the public law. . . . "It is now clear to every one that the design harbored by these heretical sects is to fix the standard of religious discord and rebellion in the peninsula. . . . The sects, not being able to rely upon the strength of the truth, avail themselves of the unprotected tenderness of years, of insufficient education, of the privations of indigence, and of the simplicity of many who are exposed to flattery, attractions, and seduction, for the extinguishing or weakening of the Catholic faith. "In the face of these facts, we feel, first of all, the need of publicly declaring, as we have done on other9occasions, how painful is the condition of the head of the Catholic Church, who is constrained to behold the free and progressive advance of heresy in this holy city. As tho the torrent of unwholesome teaching and depravity which daily and with impunity comes from books, professors' chairs, theaters, and journals were not enough, there has been added the insidious activity of heretical men." It is thus apparent that if there were restored to Rome the power which the pontiff demands, there would be at once an end of the "activity of heretical men;" there would be no longer any "books, professors' chairs, or journals" save those which were completely subservient to the Roman Church. That education which the pope declares "unwholesome teaching and depravity" would be banished from the realm. In short, the church would rule again as she did in the days when Christians went down by the millions for studying and believing the Word of God and acting upon its teachings. The letter is another evidence, if another were needed, that Rome never changes. When reading between the lines of this letter the things that the pope would do if his temporal power were restored, it might be well to consider what he thinks of the present American rule in Cuba and the Philippines. He is much dissatisfied with the administration of Italy. Let us see how he feels toward the course which America is pursuing now. While in London, on October 1, Archbishop Ireland, then on his way from Rome to America, gave out the following statement:— "In one of the audiences which he granted me, the pope said: 'We are well pleased with the relations of the American Government to the church in Cuba and the Philippines. The American Government gives proof of good will and exhibits a spirit of justice and respect for the liberty and rights of the church. You will thank in my name the President of the republic for what is being done.'" "When I repeated to Cardinal Rampolla [the papal secretary of State] my interview with the pope, the cardinal declared such statements were what he personally believed and knew to be true, and that I was at liberty to repeat them to the American people." The pope does not usually express satisfaction with things that do not suit him, as witness his letter to his cardinal-vicar; and it is certain that nothing would suit him that was not done in accordance with his direction. It is therefore easy to see what is "the power behind the throne," in the administration of the island governments. The prohibition of Protestant colporter work in the Philippines was one of the instances in which the American Government showed its "respect for the liberty and rights of the church." In how many other ways the freedom of missionary work in the islands is restricted by orders from "the church" it is impossible to tell, for all that happens there is not made public; but these things are sufficient to show the mastering influence which Rome is achieving in the official councils of this nation. A BUDDHIST PARALLEL.
By C. M. S.
THE Indian Witness, of recent issue, has the following, which it quotes from a Buddhist announcement in connection with an attempted revival: "The 2488th anniversary celebration of the establishment of the kingdom of righteousness on earth will be held at the Albert Hall to-morrow, Sunday, July 30, from 3 P.M. to 5 P.M. A collection of Buddhist relics from Ceylon, Gandahar, Siam, Japan, Burma, Tibet, and China will be exhibited on this occasion. All those who wish to attend the celebration should abstain on that day from destroying any life, stealing, sensual indulgence, lying, and taking intoxicating liquor. They may bring fresh, sweet-scented flowers, taking care not to inhale their fragrance. All are invited. Peace and blessing to all." The Witness remarks: "The incidental resemblance between Romanist and Buddhist ritual finds illustration here. The exhibition of relics and the prescription of certain days to be regarded as of special sanctity are common to both systems. But are we to understand that our Buddhist friends tolerate stealing, sensual indulgence, lying, intemperance, etc., on all other days save the 2488th anniversary of the establishment of the kingdom of righteousness on earth?" The question is a pertinent one. If the things mentioned are wrong on that day, they are wrong on every day. To specify that they should not be indulged in on that day signifies that they may be indulged in on other days. And right here let the advocate of the Sunday-closing of saloons while they are open all the rest of the week, recognize the similarity between his demand in that matter and the requirement which the Buddhist must observe. The parallel is a striking one. It is the sanctity of a day, and not the wrongfulness of the thing forbidden, that is the chief consideration in such a demand.